Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Page 1
SUPREMA LEGIS REVIEWS
AND SEMINARS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
__________________________________________________________
- University of the Philippines Law Center (UPLC), Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU), New Era
University (NEU), University of Manila (UM), Jose Rizal University (JRU), University of Santo Tomas Review
Center, Adamson University BAR Review, University of Cebu BAR Review, University of San Carlos BAR
Review, UM Bar Review Program, MLQU BAR Review, National Bar Review Center (NBRC), Lex Reviews and
Seminars, Inc. (LEX), Philippine Social Justice Foundation (PHILJUST), Magnificus Juris BAR Review Center,
Powerhaus Law Review Center, Inc., Center for Professional Reviews and Seminars (CPRS), Suprema Legis
Reviews and Seminars, I-Secure On-line BAR Review, Chan Robles BAR Review, Great Minds BAR Review,
Primus BAR Review, Sed Lex MCLE Provider, Inc., ACLEX MCLE Provider, Inc., Center for Global Best Practices
(CGBP), etc.
Page 2
3. DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY: NO COURT CAN INTERFERE BY
INJUNCTION WITH THE JUDGMENTS OR ORDERS OF ANOTHER COURT OF
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION HAVING THE POWER TO GRANT THE RELIEF
SOUGHT BY THE INJUNCTION. (ATTY. TOMAS ONG CABILI VS. JUDGE RASAD G.
BALINDONG, A.M. NO. RTJ-10-2225, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011, PER CURIAM)
JURISDICTION
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND ITS
SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE DEFENSES SET
FORTH IN AN ANSWER OR A MOTION TO DISMISS. THE SAME RATIONALE
APPLIES TO AN ANSWER WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS (MONTAÑER VS. SHARI’A
DISTRICT COURT, G.R. NO. 174975, JANUARY 20, 2009, FIRST DIVISION, PUNO, C.J.).
Page 3
2.2. LACHES SHOULD BE CLEARLY PRESENT FOR THE SIBONGHANOY
DOCTRINE TO APPLY BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED IN TIJAM VS.
SIBONGHANOY IS MERELY AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. (CELIA
VDA. DE HERRERA VS. EMELITA AND CRISANTO BERNARDO, G.R. NO. 170251, JUNE
1, 2011, PERALTA, J.).
Page 4
3.5. GENERAL RULE: FILING PLEADINGS SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF CONSTITUTES VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE, AND THE CONSEQUENT
SUBMISSION OF ONE’S PERSON TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
EXCEPTIONS: This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the
avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance.
These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for
dismissal are included; (2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash
a warrant of arrest. The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them
would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The
third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court process forcing
the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to
quash a warrant of arrest. (JOSE C. MIRANDA VS. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO, G.R. NO.
158763, MARCH 31, 2006, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.)
Page 5
NOT PAID. THE TRIAL COURT NONETHELESS DOES NOT LOSE THE
JURISDICTION IT HAD ACQUIRED OVER THE CASE WITH THE FILING OF THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. (DO-ALL METAL INDUSTRIES, INC. V. SECURITY BANK
CORP., JANUARY 10, 2011, ABAD., J.)
Page 6
1.1. THE FAILURE OF ONE PARTY TO SUBMIT HIS POSITION PAPER
DOES NOT BAR AT ALL THE MTC FROM ISSUING A JUDGMENT ON THE
EJECTMENT COMPLAINT. (TERAÑA VS. DESAGUN, G.R. NO. 152131, APRIL 29,
2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.).
CIVIL PROCEDURE
ACTIONS
1. PERSONAL ACTION AND REAL ACTIONS: In a personal action, the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages. Real actions, on the other hand, are those affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA VS. COURT
OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 154096, AUGUST 22, 2008, 2ND DIVISION, VELASCO, JR., J.).
Page 7
2.1.1. ACTION IN PERSONAM: THE ACTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
FOREIGN JUDGMENT IS AN ACTION IN PERSONAM BECAUSE PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS ARE SUING TO ENFORCE THEIR PERSONAL RIGHTS UNDER
SAID JUDGMENT. (SPOUSES DOMINGO M. BELEN, ET. AL., VS. HON. PABLO R.
CHAVEZ, ET AL. G.R. NO. 175334, MARCH 26, 2008, SECOND DIVISION, TINGA, J.).
CAUSE OF ACTION
1. CAUSE OF ACTION: A cause of action is the act or omission by which a
party violates a right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it contains
three essential elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
whatever law it arises; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect such
right; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff. If
any of these elements is absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion
to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action (DEVELOPMENT
BANK OF THE PHILS. VS. HON. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO & CRISTINA TRINIDAD ZARATE
ROMERO, G.R. NO. 163827, AUGUST 17, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
Page 8
4. SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION is the act of dividing a single or
indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more
actions upon them. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split
up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or more different actions
(CATALINA CHU ET AL. VS. SPS. FERNANDO CUNANAN & TRINIDAD CUNANAN, G.R.
NO. 156185, SEPTEMBER 12, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.).
PARTIES
Page 9
capacity to sue; whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss
based on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of
action. (NEMENCIO C. EVANGELISTA VS. CARMELINO M. SANTIAGO, G.R. NO. 157447,
APRIL 29, 2005, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.)
Page 10
6. AN UNLICENSED FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT DOING BUSINESS IN
THE PHILIPPINES CAN SUE BEFORE PHILIPPINE COURTS. AN EXPORTER IS
NOT DEEMED TO BE DOING BUSINESS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY BY THE SIMPLE
FACT OF EXPORTING PRODUCTS TO SUCH FOREIGN COUNTRY. (B. VAN ZUIDEN
BROS., LTD., V. GTVL MFG. INDUSTRIES, INC., G.R. NO. 147905, 28 MAY 2007).
VENUE
Page 11
1. VENUE: WHERE THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO EITHER FILE A
MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF IMPROPER VENUE OR INCLUDE THE
SAME AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, HE IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS
RIGHT TO OBJECT TO IMPROPER VENUE (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, ET AL. VS.
COURT OF APPEALS ET AL. G.R. NO. 154096, AUGUST 22, 2008, SECOND DIVISION,
VELASCO, JR., J.).
Page 12
3.3. STIPULATION ON VENUE: THE EXCLUSIVE VENUE OF MAKATI
CITY, AS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES AND SANCTIONED BY SECTION 4, RULE
4 OF THE RULES OF COURT, CANNOT BE MADE TO APPLY TO THE PETITION
FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE FILED BY RESPONDENT BANK BECAUSE
THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 4 PERTAIN TO VENUE OF ACTIONS, WHICH AN
EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE IS NOT. (SPOUSES HERMES P. OCHOA AND
ARACELI D. OCHOA CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 192877, MARCH 23,
2011, NACHURA, J.).
PLEADINGS
1. THE REQUIREMENTS OF VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING ARE NOT JURISDICTIONAL. (SPOUSES EUGENE L.
LIM VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 192615, JANUARY 30, 2013, BRION,
J.)
Page 13
2.2. THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ALL THE PETITIONERS OR
PLAINTIFFS IN A CASE SHOULD SIGN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING. However, the signature of any of the principal petitioners or principal
parties,, would constitute a substantial compliance with the rule on verification and
certification of non-forum shopping should there exist a commonality of interest
among the parties, or where the parties filed the case as a collective, raising only one
common cause of action or presenting a common defense, then the signature of one of
the petitioners or complainants, acting as representative, is sufficient compliance.
(IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, ET AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL. G.R. NO. 154096,
AUGUST 22, 2008, SECOND DIVISION, VELASCO, JR., J.).
Page 14
ATTACHED. (PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. VS. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), G.R. NO. 143088, JANUARY 24, 2006,
AZCUNA, J.)
Page 15
5. THE RULE IN PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIMS IS THAT FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION, THE COUNTERCLAIMANT IS BOUND
TO PAY THE PRESCRIBED DOCKET FEES.. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM (GSIS) VS. HEIRS OF FERNANDO F. CABALLERO, G.R. NOS. 158090, OCT. 4,
2010, PERALTA, J.).
SUMMONS
1. AS A RULE, IF DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT BEEN VALIDLY
SUMMONED, THE COURT ACQUIRES NO JURISDICTION OVER THEIR PERSON,
AND A JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST THEM IS NULL AND VOID. (SAGANA VS.
FRANCISCO, G.R. NO. 161952, OCTOBER, 2, 2009, 2ND DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.).
Page 16
DEFENDANT’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. (SAGANA VS. FRANCISCO, G.R. NO.
161952, OCTOBER, 2, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.).
Page 17
5. SUMMONS UPON PUBLIC CORPORATIONS: WHERE THE
DEFENDANT IS THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, SERVICE OF SUMMONS
MUST BE MADE ON THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. VS.
ALFREDO DOMINGO, G.R. NO. 175299. SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, LEONARDO – DE
CASTRO, J.).
Page 18
be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction
but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. Thus, where the defendant is a
non-resident who is not found in the Philippines and (1) the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff; (2) the action relates to, or the subject matter of which
is property in the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest;
(3) the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any interest in the property
located in the Philippines; or (4) the property of the defendant has been attached in
the Philippines service of summons may be effected by (a) personal service out of the
country, with leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other
manner the court may deem sufficient (SPOUSES DOMINGO M. BELEN, ET. AL., VS.
HON. PABLO R. CHAVEZ, ET AL. G.R. NO. 175334, MARCH 26, 2008, SECOND
DIVISION, TINGA, J.).
Page 19
IS IN REM OR QUASI IN REM, BUT NOT IF AN ACTION IS IN PERSONAM. (PERKIN
ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. VS. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 172242,
AUGUST 14, 2007, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).
DEFAULT
1. EFFECT OF DECLARATION OF DEFAULT: THE MERE FACT THAT A
DEFENDANT IS DECLARED IN DEFAULT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN
THE GRANT OF THE PRAYERS OF THE PLAINTIFF. (ERLINDA GAJUDO VS.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK, G.R. NO. 151098, MARCH 21, 2006, PANGANIBAN, CJ.)
Page 20
IS NO SHOWING THAT DEFENDANT INTENDS TO DELAY THE CASE, THE
ANSWER SHOULD BE ADMITTED (SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES VS. HEIRS
OF MANUEL HUMADA ENAÑO, G.R. NO. 190754, NOVEMBER 17, 2010, CARPIO
MORALES, J.).
ALLEGATIONS AND DENIALS IN THE PLEADINGS
1. THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF DENYING ALLEGED FACTS: ONE IS BY
GENERAL DENIAL, AND THE OTHER, BY SPECIFIC DENIAL. In this jurisdiction,
only a specific denial shall be sufficient to place into contention an alleged fact.
Under Section 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, a specific denial of an allegation of the
complaint may be made in any of three ways, namely: (a) a defendant specifies each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever
practicable, sets forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support
his denial; (b) a defendant who desires to deny only a part of an averment specifies so
much of it as is true and material and denies only the remainder; and (c) a defendant
who is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a
material averment made in the complaint states so, which has the effect of a denial. x
x x (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 166859, APRIL
12, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.).
Page 21
IN THE COMPLAINT. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) VS.
DINNAH VILLAVIZA ET. AL., G.R. NO. 180291, JULY 27, 2010, MENDOZA, J.).
AMENDMENTS
1. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS IS FAVORED AND SHOULD BE
LIBERALLY ALLOWED IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE EVERY CASE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ON ITS MERITS WITHOUT
REGARD TO TECHNICALITIES. (CHARLES LIMBAUAN VS. FAUSTINO ACOSTA, G.R.
NO. 148606, JUNE 30, 2008, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.)
Page 22
2. MODES OF SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, NOTICES, ORDERS,
JUDGMENTS, AND OTHER PAPERS: The modes of service of pleadings, motions,
notices, orders, judgments, and other papers, are: (1) personal service; (2) service by
mail; and (3) substituted service, in case service cannot be effected either personally
or by mail. (ROGELIO ABERCA ET AL. VS. MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER ET AL. G.R. NO.
166216, MARCH 14, 2012, MENDOZA, J.).
Page 23
not authorized by the counsel of record was held ineffective. Likewise, the service of
the decision made at the ground floor instead of at the 9th floor of a building in the
address on record of petitioners counsel, was held invalid in PLDT v. NLRC, No. L-
60050, 213 Phil. 362 (1984). (SPOUSES DOMINGO M. BELEN, ET. AL., VS. HON. PABLO
R. CHAVEZ, ET AL. G.R. NO. 175334, MARCH 26, 2008, SECOND DIVISION, TINGA, J.).
MOTIONS
1. THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTIONS 4, 5, AND 6, RULE 15 OF THE
RULES OF COURT THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE DIRECTED TO
THE PARTIES CONCERNED, AND SHALL STATE THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE
HEARING OF THE MOTION, ARE MANDATORY. IF NOT RELIGIOUSLY COMPLIED
WITH, THEY RENDER THE MOTION PRO FORMA. AS SUCH, THE MOTION IS A
USELESS PIECE OF PAPER THAT WILL NOT TOLL THE RUNNING OF THE
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD. (CITY OF DUMAGUETE VS. PHIL. PORTS AUTHORITY, G.R.
NO. 168973, AUGUST 24, 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.).
Page 24
4. MOTION OF EXTENSION: A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE A PLEADING MUST BE FILED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD
SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED. (REYNALDO POSIQUIT VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 193943,
JAN. 16, 2012, REYES, J.).
DISMISSALS
1. NOTICE OF DISMISSAL: THE TRIAL COURT HAS NO DISCRETION OR
OPTION TO DENY A NOTICE OF DISMISSAL SINCE DISMISSAL BY THE
PLAINTIFF UNDER SECTION 1, RULE 17 IS A MATTER OF RIGHT. (O.B. JOVENIR
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MACAMIR REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 135803, MARCH 28, 2006, TINGA, J.)
Page 25
COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE APPELLATE
COURT WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. INSTEAD OF FILING A PETITION
UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT, THE PROPER RECOURSE WAS AN
ORDINARY APPEAL WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER RULE 41. (LULLETE S.
KO VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, G.R. NOS. 169131-32, JANUARY 20, 2006,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.)
Page 26
FORMER AN ISSUE WHICH MUST BE PREEMPTIVELY RESOLVED BEFORE THE
CRIMINAL ACTION MAY PROCEED.
INTERVENTION
1. INTERVENTION IS A PROCEDURE BY WHICH THIRD PERSONS, NOT
ORIGINALLY PARTIES TO THE SUIT BUT CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN THE
SUBJECT MATTER, COME INTO THE CASE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR
RIGHT OR INTERPOSE THEIR CLAIM. Its main purpose is to settle in one action
and by a single judgment all conflicting claims of, or the whole controversy among, the
persons involved. To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two
requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation;
and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly
decided in a separate proceeding. The interest,' which entitles one to intervene, must
involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the
intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the
judgment. Such interest must be actual, direct and material, and not simply
contingent and expectant. (BUKLOD NA NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPANG RAMOS, INC.
VS. E.M. RAMOS & SONS INC., G.R. NO. 131481, MARCH 16, 2011, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.).
PRE-TRIAL
1. PRE-TRIAL IS A PROCEDURAL DEVICE INTENDED TO CLARIFY AND
LIMIT THE BASIC ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND TO TAKE THE TRIAL
OF CASES OUT OF THE REALM OF SURPRISE AND MANEUVERING. IT IS AN
ANSWER TO THE CLARION CALL FOR THE SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES.
(ANSON TRADE CENTER, INC. VS. PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 179999,
MARCH 17, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).
Page 27
served and filed, to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. On
August 16, 2004, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Re: Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be
Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and
Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) took effect, which provides that: Within five (5)
days from date of filing of the reply, the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the
case be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the
given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial. (ELOISA
MERCHANDISING, INC. AND TREBEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., VS. BANCO DE ORO
UNIVERSAL BANK AND ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, G.R. NO. 192716, JUNE 13, 2012,
VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
COMPUTATION OF TIME
1. ANY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REQUIRED PLEADING
SHOULD BE COUNTED FROM THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD REGARDLESS
Page 28
OF THE FACT THAT SAID DUE DATE IS A SATURDAY, SUNDAY OR LEGAL
HOLIDAY. (DANTE D. DELA CRUZ VS. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING, INC., G.R. NO.
172038, APRIL 14, 2008, CORONA, J.)
MODES OF DISCOVERY
1. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES: TRIAL COURTS ARE DIRECTED TO
ISSUE ORDERS REQUIRING PARTIES TO AVAIL OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES.
(A.M. No. 03-1-09-Sc, Pars. I.A. 1.2; 2(E)) (HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP.
VS. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., G.R. NO. 147143, MARCH 10,
2006, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.)
TRIAL
Page 29
1. THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS, ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE
REVIEWED ON APPEAL. The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5)
when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record
(FILIPINAS FIBER SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs. WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET AL.,
G.R. No. 152033, MARCH 16, 2011, PERALTA, J.)
Page 30
5. DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE: WHEN THE DUE EXECUTION AND
GENUINENESS OF AN INSTRUMENT ARE DEEMED ADMITTED BECAUSE OF THE
ADVERSE PARTY’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC VERIFIED DENIAL THEREOF,
THE INSTRUMENT NEED NOT BE PRESENTED AND MUST BE CONSIDERED BY
THE COURT IN RESOLVING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. (CASENT REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. PHILBANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 150731,
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007, VELASCO, JR., J.)
JUDGMENT
Page 31
2.2. THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, AS AN INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL UNTIL A FINAL JUDGMENT
OR ORDER IS RENDERED IN THE MAIN CASE. (SPOUSES EUGENE L. LIM VS.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 192615, JANUARY 30, 2013, BRION, J.)
Page 32
6.2. BOTH THE RULES ON JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS HAVE NO PLACE IN CASES OF DECLARATION OF
ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE, LEGAL SEPARATION AND EVEN IN
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE. (JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS vs. FELICIDAD SANDOVAL,
also known as FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE CARLOS or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL CARLOS or
FELICIDAD SANDOVAL VDA. DE CARLOS, and TEOFILO CARLOS II, G.R. No. 179922,
December 16, 2008, REYES, R.T., J.)
Page 33
(PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK VS. FELIPE CHUA, G.R. NO. 178899, NOVEMBER
15, 2010, BRION, J.).
Page 34
BARS THE RE-LITIGATION IN A SECOND CASE OF A FACT OR QUESTION
ALREADY SETTLED IN A PREVIOUS CASE. (CITY OF CEBU VS. APOLONIO M.
DEDAMO, JR., G.R. NO. 172852, JAN. 30, 2013, REYES, J.).
POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES
1. PRO FORMA MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: THE MERE
REITERATION OF ISSUES ALREADY PASSED UPON BY THE COURT DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY MAKE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PRO FORMA. WHAT
IS ESSENTIAL IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUISITES OF THE RULES. Indeed,
in the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma, the motion
was so held because (1) it was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did not
comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions
alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to
substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question
was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof (FERNANDO
V. GONZALES VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 192856, MARCH 8, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
Page 35
CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) ET AL, VS. COMELEC ET AL., G.R. NO. G.R. NO.
176951, FEB. 15, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.).
2. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL: New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper
the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. The effect of an order
granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication so that the case may be
tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking
into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial. Consequently,
a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment
or issuance of a final order. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is
sought against a judgment and the judgment is not yet final. (NEMIA CASTRO VS.
ROSALYN GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, G.R. NO. 192737, APRIL 25, 2012,
MENDOZA, J.).
Page 36
VS. ANTONIO C. MILAN, ET AL. G.R. NO. 151215, APRIL 5, 2010, FIRST DIVISION,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.).
Page 37
3.5.1. IT IS TRUE THAT QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION MAY BE RAISED
AT ANY STAGE. IT IS ALSO TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE INTEREST OF
FAIRNESS, QUESTIONS CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS WILL
NOT BE TOLERATED IF THE PARTY QUESTIONING SUCH JURISDICTION
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATES IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND ALLOWS THE
COURT TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THE CASE, AND THEN QUESTIONS THE
PROPRIETY OF SAID JUDGMENT AFTER GETTING AN UNFAVORABLE DECISION.
(MAXICARE PCIB CIGNA HEALTHCARE VS. MARIAN BRIGITTE A. CONTRERAS, G.R.
NO. 194352, JANUARY 30, 2013, MENDOZA, J.)
4.1. THE NEYPES RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO JUDGMENTS WHICH HAVE
ALREADY BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY. (NATIONAL POWER CORP. V. SPOUES
LAOHOO, 23 JULY 2009).
Page 38
4.4. AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER
THAT COMPLETELY DISPOSES OF THE CASE, OR OF A PARTICULAR MATTER
THEREIN WHEN DECLARED BY THESE RULES TO BE APPEALABLE. No appeal
may be taken from: (a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;(b)
An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from
judgment;(c) An interlocutory order;(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an
appeal;(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating
consent;(f) An order of execution;(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or
more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, crossclaims and third-
party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal
therefrom; and(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice. In all the above
instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may
file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. (Section 1 of Rule 41) (MARMO
VS. ANACAY, G.R. NO. 182585, NOV. 27, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.).
(a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided
by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal
shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate
appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal
shall be filed and served in like manner.
Page 39
(b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be
by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are
raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with Rule 45” (emphasis supplied).
The first mode of appeal, the ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
and resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of
appeal, the petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the
CA from the RTC, acting in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and resolves
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal, the
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the Supreme
Court and resolves only questions of law (HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. CABIGAS VS.
MELBA L. LIMBACO ET AL., G.R. NO. 175291, JULY 27, 2011, BRION, J.).
8.1. GIVEN THAT DARAB DECISIONS ARE APPEALABLE TO THE CA, THE
INEVITABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE DARAB IS A CO-EQUAL BODY WITH
THE RTC AND ITS DECISIONS ARE BEYOND THE RTC’S CONTROL.
(SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, INC. VS. HONORABLE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL BRANCH 40, G.R.
NO. 142628, FEBRUARY 6, 2007, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.)
Page 40
SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT (SAC) IN CASES INVOLVING THE DETERMINATION
OF JUST COMPENSATION: (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LUZ L.
RODRIGUEZ, G.R. NO. 148892, MAY 6, 2010, MENDOZA, J.)
9.2. PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 42: SINCE THE UNLAWFUL
DETAINER CASE WAS FILED WITH THE MTC AND AFFIRMED BY THE RTC,
PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE
COURT OF APPEALS UNDER RULE 42 OF THE RULES OF COURT, AND NOT
A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE RTC. HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT
CONSIDERED THIS TO HAVE BEEN REMEDIED BY THE TIMELY FILING OF
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE FOLLOWING DAY. (ROSS RICA
SALES CENTER, INC. VS. SPOUSES GERRY AND ELIZABETH ONG, G.R. NO. 132197,
AUGUST 16, 2005, TINGA, J.)
9.3. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO TRY CASES AND
CONDUCT HEARINGS, RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS
NECESSARY TO RESOLVE FACTUAL ISSUES RAISED IN CASES FALLING WITHIN
ITS ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO
GRANT AND CONDUCT NEW TRIALS OR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. (LOLITA R.
ALAMAYRI VS. ROMMEL, ELMER, ERWIN, ROILER AND AMANDA, ALL SURNAMED
PABALE, G.R. NO. 151243, APRIL 30, 2008, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.)
10. PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 43: RULE 43 GOVERNS THE
PROCEDURE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS, ORDERS, OR RESOLUTIONS OF
THE DAR SECRETARY. (AGAPITO ROM ET AL. VS. ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., G.R. NO.
169331 SEPTEMBER 5, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.).
Page 41
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (NELSON B. GAN VS. GALDERMA
PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. NO. 177167, JANUARY 17, 2013, PERALTA, J.)
Page 42
12.1.1. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: THE 60-DAY PERIOD IS RECKONED
FROM THE TIME THE PARTY ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER,
JUDGMENT OR PROCEEDINGS AND NOT FROM THE DATE HE ACTUALLY READ
THE SAME. (CORAZON L. ESCUETA VS. RUFINA LIM, G.R. NO. 137162, JANUARY 24,
2007, AZCUNA, J.)
13.4. UNDER B.P. BLG. 129, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENTS OF THE RTC. (ESTATE OF THE LATE JESUS YUJUICO V. REPUBLIC,
G.R. NO. 168861, OCTOBER 26, 2007, VELASCO, JR.).
Page 43
ASIDE UNDER RULE 47 OF THE RULES OF COURT AND CANNOT BECOME FINAL
AND EXECUTORY AS THE ORDER IS VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
(VICTORIANO VILLANUEVA V. FRANCISCO VILORIA, G.R. NO. 155804, MARCH 14,
2008, AZCUNA, J.).
15. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65: OVER AND ABOVE
OUR STATUTES IS THE CONSTITUTION WHOSE SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII
EMPOWERS THE COURTS OF JUSTICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE HAS BEEN A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF ANY BRANCH OR
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS AN OVERRIDING
AUTHORITY THAT CUTS ACROSS ALL BRANCHES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
GOVERNMENT AND IS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI THAT RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT PROVIDES. (REYES, JR.,
VS. BELISARIO G.R. NO. 154652 AUGUST 14, 2009 BRION, J.)
Page 44
15.2. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65: A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IS THE PROPER REMEDY WHEN ANY TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR
OFFICER EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS HAS ACTED
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND THERE
IS NO APPEAL, NOR ANY PLAIN SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.
(HENRY CHING TIU, ET AL., VS.PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, G.R. NO.
151932, AUGUST 19, 2009, PERALTA, J.)
Page 45
an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of
the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and
there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7)
where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8)
where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
(BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG VS. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. NO. 162575,
DECEMBER 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).
Page 46
15.11. NOTICE OF APPEAL IS THE PROPER MODE OF APPEAL FROM
A DECISION OF THE RTC IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65. (BF
CITILAND CORPORATION VS. MARILYN B. OTAKE, G.R. NO. 173351, JULY 29, 2010,
CARPIO, J.).
16. DIRECT AND COLLTERAL ATACK ON THE TITLE: The attack is direct
when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement.
On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a
different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof
(ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA VS. FERNANDO
SORIANO JR., ET AL., G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST 17, 2011,VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
Page 47
INS. VS. HON. ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS, ET AL. G.R. NO. 163785, DECEMBER 27,
2007, SECOND DIVISION, QUISUMBING).
Page 48
4. EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MONEY JUDGMENTS BY THE
SHERIFF: MONEY JUDGMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE ONLY AGAINST PROPERTY
UNQUESTIONABLY BELONGING TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR. (CRISPIN
SARMIENTO VS. ABAD AND LUISITO P. MENDIOLA, A.M. NO. P-07-2383, 15
DECEMBER 2010, CARPIO, J.).
Page 49
AGENT WHO CLAIMS A PROPERTY LEVIED ON. HENCE, NOT BEING A THIRD
PARTY TO THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS, THE REMEDY OF TERCERIA IS NOT
AVAILABLE. (PENTA CAPITAL FINANCE CORP. VS. HON. TEODORO BAY ET AL., G.R.
NO. 162100, JANUARY 18, 2012, SERENO, J.).
8. RES JUDICATA: For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the
following requisites must be present: (1) the judgment or order sought to bar the new
action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the first case
must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second
action, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. As to the fourth
element, it is important to note that the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects:
first, “bar by prior judgment” which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules
of Court and second, “conclusiveness of judgment” which is provided in Section 47 (c)
of the same Rule. There is “bar by prior judgment” when, as between the first case
where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred,
there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is
identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of
causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and
directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.
On the other hand, under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and
issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any
future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different
claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is not required but merely
identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. SIA, G.R. NO. 165836, FEBRUARY
18, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, QUISUMBING, J.).
Page 50
11. DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT: WELL-SETTLED IS
THE RULE THAT A DECISION THAT HAS ATTAINED FINALITY CAN NO LONGER
BE MODIFIED EVEN IF THE MODIFICATION IS MEANT TO CORRECT
ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW. (DOMINIC GRIFFITH VS. ANGELITO
ESTUR, JUAN OFALSA, AND ROLANDO EREVE, G.R. NO. 161777, MAY 7, 2008,
CARPIO, J.).
Page 51