2016

 Civil  Procedure  Case  Doctrines:  Dean  Jara   • Although   the   value   of   the   property   is   estimated   in  
  monetary   terms,   for   the   court   must   determine   the  
Hello,   this   contains   the   doctrines   of   the   assigned   cases   for   just  compensation  for  it,  this  is  merely  incidental  to  
Civil   Procedure   under   Dean   Jara   (2016   –   2017).   I   would   the  expropriation  suit.  
recommend  reading  the  cases  to  gain  a  better  understanding    
of  the  context  of  the  doctrines.  Feel  free  to  make  corrections,   Gonzales  vs  GJH  Land;  Nov.  2015  
add  more  information,  etc.      
  • A   court’s   acquisition   of   jurisdiction   over   a   case’s  
JURISDICTION   subject   matter   is   conferred   by   law,   while   a   court’s  
  exercise   of   jurisdiction,   unless   by   provided   by   the  
Sante  vs  Claravall;  February  2010   law   itself,   is   governed   by   the   Rules   of   Court,   or   by  
  orders  of  the  Court.  
• The   exclusion   of   the   term   damages   of   whatever   kind    
in   determining   the   jurisdictional   amount   under   Sec.   • VERY   IMPORTANT:   In   this   case,   the   Supreme   Court  
19   (8)   and   Sec.   33   (1)   of   BP   129   applies   to   cases   issued   guidelines   to   be   observed   by   the   courts.   We  
where   the   damages   are   merely   incidental   to   or   a   spent   a   significant   amount   of   time   discussing   this  
consequence  of  the  main  cause  of  action.   during  class,  and  lumabas  ‘to  sa  midterms:  
• However,   where   the   claim   for   damages   is   the   main    
cause   of   action,   or   one   of   the   causes   of   action,   the   • “If  a  commercial  case  filed  before  the  proper  RTC  is  
amount   of   such   claim   shall   be   considered   in   wrongly   raffled   to   its   regular   branch,   the   proper  
determining  the  jurisdiction.     courses  of  action  are  as  follows:  
  1.1  If   the   RTC   has   only   one   branch  
Sebastian  vs  Ng;  April  2015   designated   as   a   Special   Commercial   Court,  
  then   the   case   shall   be   referred   to   the  
• The   MTCs   have   jurisdiction   to   enforce   any   Executive   Judge   for   re-­‐docketing   as   a  
settlement  or  arbitration  award  issued  by  the  lupon   commercial   case,   and   thereafter,   assigned  
of  the  barangay.   to   the   sole   special   branch;  
• The   MTCs   also   have   jurisdiction   to   enforce   the    
Kasunduan   between   the   parties,   regardless   of   the   1.2  If   the   RTC   has   multiple   branches  
amount   involved.   Sec.  417  of  the  Local  Government   designated   as   Special   Commercial   Courts,  
Code   made   no   distinction   with   respect   to   the   then   the   case   shall   be   referred   to   the  
amount   involved   or   nature   of   the   issue   involved.   Executive   Judge   for   re-­‐docketing   as   a  
Thus,   there   can   be   no   question   that   it   was   the   commercial  case,  and  thereafter,  raffled  off  
intention   of   the   law   to   grant   jurisdiction   over   the   among   those   special   branches;   and  
enforcement  of  settlement/arbitration  awards  to  the    
city/municipal  courts,  regardless  of  the  amount.   1.3  If   the   RTC   has   no   internal   branch  
  designated   as   a   Special   Commercial   Court,  
Nonato  vs  Barrido;  Oct.  2014   then   the   case   shall   be   referred   to   the  
  nearest   RTC   with   a   designated   Special  
• The  MTCC  has  jurisdiction  to  take  cognizance  of  real   Commercial  Court  branch  within  the  judicial  
actions   affecting   title   to   real   property,   or   for   the   region.  Upon  referral,  the  RTC  to  which  the  
recovery   of   possession,   or   for   the   partition   or   case   was   referred   to   should   re-­‐   docket   the  
condemnation   of,   or   foreclosure   of   a   mortgage   of   case   as   a   commercial   case,   and   then:   (a)   if  
real  property.   the   said   RTC   has   only   one   branch  
  designated   as   a   Special   Commercial   Court,  
  assign   the   case   to   the   sole   special   branch;  
  or  (b)  if  the  said  RTC  has  multiple  branches  
Brgy.  San  Roque  vs  Pastor;  June  2000   designated   as   Special   Commercial   Courts,  
  raffle   off   the   case   among   those   special  
• The   subject   of   an   expropriation   suit   is   the   branches.  
government’s  exercise  of  eminent  domain,  a  matter    
that  is  incapable  of  pecuniary  estimation.   • If  an  ordinary  civil  case  filed  before  the  proper  RTC  
• The   primary   consideration   in   expropriation   suits   is   is   wrongly   raffled   to   its   branch   designated   as   a  
whether   or   not   the   government   or   any   of   its   Special   Commercial   Court,   then   the   case   shall   be  
instrumentalities   has   complied   with   the   requisites   referred   to   the   Executive   Judge   for   re-­‐docketing   as  
for  taking  the  subject  property.   an   ordinary   civil   case.   Thereafter,   it   shall   be   raffled  
off   to   all   courts   of   the   same   RTC   (including   its  

  1  
 designated   special   branches   which,   by   statute,   are   • BASICALLY:   Unless   the   plaintiff   has   a   valid   and  
equally   capable   of   exercising   general   jurisdiction   subsisting   cause   of   action   at   the   time   the   action   is  
same   as   regular   branches),   as   provided   for   under   commenced,   the   defect   cannot   be   cured   or  
existing  rules.   remedied  by  the  acquisition  or  accrual  of  one  while  
  the  action  is  pending,  and  a  supplemental  complaint  
• All  transfer/raffle  of  cases  is  subject  to  the  payment   or   an   amendment   setting   up   such   after-­‐accrued  
of   the   appropriate   docket   fees   in   case   of   any   cause  of  action  is  not  permissible.  
difference.   On   the   other   hand,   all   docket   fees      
already   paid   shall   be   duly   credited,   and   any   excess,   • ELEMENTS  OF  A  CAUSE  OF  ACTION:  
refunded.   o A   right   in   favor   of   plaintiff   by   whatever  
  means   and   under   whatever   law   it   arises   or  
• Finally,   to   avert   any   future   confusion,   the   Court   is  created;  
requires   that   all   initiatory   pleadings   state   the   o An   obligation   on   the   part   of   the   defendant  
action's   nature   both   in   its   caption   and   body.   to  respect  or  not  violate  such  right;  and  
Otherwise,   the   initiatory   pleading   may,   upon   o Act   or   omission   on   the   part   of   the  
motion   or   by   order   of   the   court   motu   proprio,   be   defendant   in   violation   of   the   right   of   the  
dismissed  without  prejudice   to   its   re-­‐filing   after   due   plaintiff   or   constituting   a   breach   of  
rectification.   This   last   procedural   rule   is   prospective   obligation  of  the  defendant  to  the  plaintiff,  
in   application.   for  which  the  latter  may  maintain  an  action  
  for   recovery   of   damages   or   other  
5.   All   existing   rules   inconsistent   with   the   foregoing   appropriate  relief.  
are  deemed  superseded.”    
  Ada  vs  Baylon;  Aug.  2012  
RULE  2    
  • Parties   to   an   action   may   assert   in   one   pleading,   in  
Larena  vs  Villanueva;  Nov.  1928   the   laternative   or   otherwise,   as   many   causes   of  
  action  as  they  may  have  against  the  opposing  party,  
• When   a   lease   provides   for   the   payment   of   rent   in   subject   to   the   condition   that   such   joinder   shall   not  
separate   installments,   each   installment   is   an   include   special   civil   actions   governed   by   special  
independent   cause   of   action.   However,   in   an   action   rules.  
upon   such   lease   for   the   recovery   of   rent,   the   • However,   if   there   is   no   objection   to   the   improper  
installments  due  at  the  time  the  action  was  brought   joinder   or   the   court   did   not   motu   propio   direct   a  
must  be  included  in  the  complaint  and  that  failure  to   severance,   then   there   exists   no   bar   in   the  
do  so  will  constitute  a  bar  to  a  subsequent  action  for   simultaneous   adjudication   of   all   the   erroneously  
payment  of  that  rent.   joined  causes  of  action.  
  • It  should  be  emphasized  that  the  foregoing  rule  only  
Blossom   and   Company,   Inc.   vs   Manila   Gas   Corporation;   Nov.   applies   if   the   court   trying   the   case   has   jurisdiction  
1930   over   all   of   the   causes   of   action   therein  
  notwithstanding   the   misjoinder   of   the   same.   If   the  
• Where   there   is   a   complete   and   total   breach   of   a   court   trying   the   case   has   no   jurisdiction   over   a  
continuous  contract  for  a  term  of  years,  the  recovery   misjoined  cause  of  action,  then  such  misjoined  cause  
of  a  judgment  for  damages  by  reason  of  the  breach   of   action   has   to   be   severed   from   the   other   causes   of  
is   a   bar   to   another   action   on   the   same   contract   for   action,   and   if   not   so   severed,   any   adjudication  
and  on  account  of  the  continuous  breach.   rendered   by   the   court   with   respect   to   the   same  
  would  be  a  nullity.  
Swagman  vs  CA;  April  2005    
  Marilag  vs  Martinez;  June  2015  
• A   complaint   whose   cause   of   action   has   not   accrued    
cannot   be   cured   or   remedied   by   an   amendment   or   • A   creditor   mortgagee   has   a   single   cause   of   action  
supplemental   pleading   alleging   the   existence   or   against   the   debtor-­‐mortgagor,   i.e.   to   recover   the  
accrual   of   a   cause   of   action   while   the   case   is   debt,   through   the   filing   of   a   personal   action   for  
pending.   collection   of   sum   of   money,   or   the   institution   of   a  
• The  curing  effect  of  Sec.  5,  Rule  10  is  applicable  only   real   action   to   foreclose   on   the   mortgage   security.  
if   a   cause   of   action   in   fact   exists   at   the   time   the   The  two  remedies  are  alternative,   not   cumulative   or  
complaint  is  filed,  but  the  complaint  is  defective  for   successive,  and  each  remedy  is  complete  in  itself.  
failure  to  allege  the  essential  facts.    
  • ELEMENTS  OF  RES  JUDICATA:  

  2  
 o The  judgment  sought  to  bar  the  new  action   conclusion  that  the  trade  name  as  a  property  is  hers  
must  be  final;   alone,   particularly   when   she   is   married.   By   law,   all  
o The   decision   must   be   rendered   by   a   court   property   acquired   during   the   marriage   is   presumed  
having   jurisdiction   over   the   subject   matter   to  be  conjugal  unless  the  contrary  is  proven.  
and  parties;   • In  suits  to  recover  properties,  all  co-­‐owners  are  real  
o The   disposition   of   the   ase   must   be   a   parties  in  interest;  anyone  of  them  may  bring  action.  
judgment  on  the  merits;   Therefore,   only   one   of   the   co-­‐owners,   namely   the  
o Identity   of   parties,   subject   matter,   and   co-­‐owner   who   filed   the   suit   for   the   recovery   of   the  
causes  of  action   co-­‐owned   property,   is   an   indispensible   party  
  thereto.  
• REQUISITES  OF  LITIS  PENDENCIA:   o Other   co-­‐owners   are   not   necessary   parties  
o Identity   of   parties,   or   at   least   such   parties   either  since  complete  relief  can  be  accorded  
as   representing   the   same   interests   in   both   in  the  suit  even  without  their  participation,  
actions;   since   the   suit   is   presumed   to   have   been  
o Identity  of  rights  asserted  and  relief  prayed   filed  for  the  benefit  of  all  co-­‐owners.  
for,   the   relief   being   founded   on   the   same    
facts;    
o Identity   of   the   two   preceding   particulars   in   Bacalso  vs  Padigos;  March  2008  
such   that   any   judgment   rendered   in   the    
pending   case,   regardless   of   which   party   is   • Sec.   7,   Rule   3:   Parties-­‐in-­‐interest   without   whom  
successful   would   amount   to   res   judicata   in   there  can  be  no  final  determination  of  an  action.  As  
the  other.   such,   they   must   be   joined   either   as   plaintiffs   or   as  
  defendants.  The   general   rule   with   reference   to   the  
RULE  3   making  of  parties  in  a  civil  action  requires  the  joinder  
  of   all   necessary   parties   where   possible,   and   the  
Banda  vs  Ermita;  April  2010   joinder  of  all  indispensable  parties  under  any  and  all  
  conditions.    
• The  complaint  or  pleading  initiating  the  class  action   • It   is   precisely   when   an   indispensable   party   is   not  
should  allege  the  existence  of  necessary  facts:   before   the   court   (that)   the   action   should   be  
o Subject  matter  of  common  interest   dismissed.  The  absence   of   an   indispensable   party  
o Existence   of   a   class   and   the   number   of   renders   all   subsequent   actions   of   the   court   null   and  
persons   in   alleged   class   (Bakit?   Para   saan   void  for  want  of  authority  to  act,  not  only  as  to  the  
ba  yang  number  of  persons  na  yan?  For  the   absent  parties  but  even  as  to  those  present.  
court   to   determine   whether   the   members    
of   the   class   are   so   numerous   as   to   make   it   Tallorin  vs  Tarona;  Nov.  2009  
impracticable   to   bring   them   all   before   the    
court;   also,   to   determine   whether   the   • The   non-­‐joinder   of   indispensable   parties   is   not   a  
claimant  adequately  represents  the  class)   ground  for  dismissal;  it  allows  the  amendment  of  the  
  complaint  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings,  through  a  
• Principle  of  Adequacy  of  Representation:  The  Court   motion   or   order   of   the   court   on   its   own   initiative.  
must  consider:   Only   if   the   plaintiff   refuses   to   implead   an  
o Whether  the  interest  of  the  named  party  is   indispensable   party,   despite   the   order   of   the   court,  
co-­‐extensive  with  the  other  members  of  the   may  it  dismiss  the  action.  
class;    
o The   proportion   of   those   named   as   a   party   Crisologo  vs  JEWM  Agro;  March  2014  
to  the  total  membership  of  the  class;    
o Any   other   factor   bearing   on   the   ability   of   • In   an   action   for   cancellation   of   memorandum  
the  named  party  to  speak  for  the  rest  of  the   annotated   at   the   back   of   a   certificate   of   title,   the  
class.   persons   considered   as   indispensable   include   those  
  whose  liens  appear  as  annotations.  The  cancellation  
Navarro  vs  Escobido;  Nov.  2009   of   the   annotation   of   an   encumbrance   cannot   be  
  ordered   without   giving   notice   to   the   parties  
• As  the  registered  owner  of  Kargo  Enterprises,  Karen   annotated  in  the  certificate  of  title  itself.  
Go   is   the   party   who   will   directly   benefit   from   or   be    
injured  by  a  judgment  in  the  case.   Macawadib  vs  PNP;  July  2013  
• The  registration  of  a  trade  name  in  the  name  of  one    
person  –  a  woman  –  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  the  

  3  
 • The  purpose  of  the  rules  on  joinder  of  indispensible   RULE  7  
parties  is  a  complete  determination  of  all  issues  not    
only   between   the   parties   themselves,   but   also   as   Traveno  vs  Banana  Growers;  Sept.  2009  
regards   others   who   may   be   affected   by   the    
judgment.   • All  the  plaintiffs  or  petitioners  in  a  case  must  sign  the  
• The   burden   of   procuring   the   presence   of   all   certification   of   non-­‐forum   shopping;   otherwise,  
indispensible  parties  is  on  the  plaintiff.   those  who  did  not  sign  will  be  dropped  as  parties.  
  • Under   reasonable   and   justifiable   circumstances,  
Republic  vs  Uy;  Aug.  2013   however,  when  all  the  plaintiffs  or  petitioners  share  
  a   common   interest   and   invoke   a   common   cause   of  
• When  a  petition  for  cancellation  or  correction  of  an   action  or  defense,  the  signature  of  only  one  of  them  
entry   in   the   civil   register   includes   substantial   and   in   the   certification   substantially   complies   with   the  
controversial   alterations,   including   those   on   Rules.  
citizenship,   legitimacy   of   paternity   or   filiation,   or    
legitimacy   of   marriage,   a   strict   compliance   with   the   RULE  10  
requirements  of  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  is  mandated.    
  PPA  vs  Gothong;  Jan  2008  
Resident  Marine  Mammals  vs  Reyes;  April  2015    
  • Sec.   3,   Rule   10   amended   the   former   rule   such   that  
• To   further   encourage   the   protection   of   the   the  phrase  “or  that  the  cause  of  action  or  defense  is  
environment,   the   Rules   of   Procedure   for   substantially   altered”   was   stricken   off.   The   clear  
Environmental   Cases   enable   litigants   enforcing   import   of   the   amendment   is   that   under   the   new  
environmental   rights   to   file   their   cases   as   citizen   rules,   the   amendment   may   now   substantially   alter  
suits.   This   collapses   the   traditional   rule   on   personal   the  cause  of  action  or  defense.  
and   direct   interest,   on   the   principle   that   humans   are    
the  stewards  of  nature.   Swagman  vs  CA;  April  2005  
   
RULE  5   • A   complaint   whose   cause   of   action   has   not   accrued  
  cannot   be   cured   or   remedied   by   an   amendment   or  
Miguel  vs  Montanez;  Jan.  2012   supplemental   pleading   alleging   the   existence   or  
  accrual   of   a   cause   of   action   while   the   case   is  
• An   amicable   settlement   reached   at   barangay   pending.  
conciliation   proceedings   is   binding   between   the   • The  curing  effect  of  Sec.  5,  Rule  10  is  applicable  only  
parties   and   upon   its   perfection,   is   immediately   if   a   cause   of   action   in   fact   exists   at   the   time   the  
executor   insofar   as   it   is   not   contrary   to   law,   good   complaint  is  filed,  but  the  complaint  is  defective  for  
morals,   good   customs,   public   order   and   public   failure  to  allege  the  essential  facts.  
policy.    
• Such   amicable   settlement   may   be   enforced   by   RULE  14  
execution   by   the   barangay   lupon   within   6   months    
from  the  date  of  settlement,  or  by  filing  an  action  to   Villarosa  &  Partners  vs  Hon.  Benito;  Aug.  1999  
enforce   such   settlement   in   the   appropriate   city   or    
municipal  court.   • The   designation   of   persons   or   officers   who   are  
(Please   refer   to   the   Local   Government   Code   for   the   authorized   to   accept   summons   for   a   domestic  
rules   on   enforcement   of   an   amicable   settlement   in   corporation  or  partnership  is  limited  to  Rule  14,  Sec.  
the  barangay.  Medyo  mahaba  kasi…)   11;  the  rule  must  be  strictly  observed.  
Saray  vs  People;  Oct.  2014   • The  purpose  is  to  ascertain  that  the  corporation  will  
  receive   prompt   and   proper   notice   in   an   action  
• The   office   of   the   barangay   captain   cannot   be   against   it;   or   o   insure   summons   is   served   upon  
precluded   from   issuing   a   certification   to   file   an   someone   so   integrated   with   the   corporation   that  
action  where  no  actual  settlement  was  reached.   said   person   will   know   what   to   do   with   the   legal  
• The   conciliation   procedure   required   under   PD   1508   papers.  
is   not   a   jurisdictional   requirement;   non-­‐compliance   • Service   upon   the   general   manager   of   the   firm’s  
with   which   would   not   deprive   a   court   of   its   branch   is   improper.   Summons   should   be   served   at  
jurisdiction   either   over   the   subject   matter   or   over   the  principal  office.  
the   person   of   the   defendant.   If   at   all,   it   merely   • Principle   of   Special   Appearance:   The   inclusion   in   a  
affected  the  parties’  cause  of  action.   motion   to   dismiss   of   other   grounds   aside   from   lack  
 

  4  
 of  jurisdiction  over  the  person  of  the  defendant  shall   applies  to  any  action,  whether  in  personam,  in  rem,  
not  be  deemed  voluntary  appearance.   or  quasi-­‐in-­‐rem.  
  • Sec.   20:   The   defendant’s   voluntary   appearance   in  
Sps.  Galura  vs  Math  Agro-­‐Corp.;  Aug.  2009   the   action   shall   be   equivalent   to   service   of  
  summons.   The   inclusion   in   a   motion   to   dismiss   of  
• Whenever   practicable,   the   summons   must   be   served   other  grounds  aside  from  lack  of  jurisdiction  over  the  
on  the  defendant  in  person.  Impossibility  of  prompt   person   of   the   defendant   shall   not   be   deemed   a  
service  must  appear  in  the  return  service,  the  efforts   voluntary  appearance.  
to   find   the   defendant,   and   the   fact   that   such   effort   • The   duty   to   make   the   complementary   service   by  
failed.   registered   mail   is   imposed   upon   the   party   who  
  resorts  to  service  by  publication,  not  upon  the  clerk  
• Requisites  of  a  Valid  Substituted  Service:   of  court.  
o Service   within   a   reasonable   time   is    
impossible   Rapid  City  Realty  vs  Sps.  Villa;  Feb.  2010  
o Person  serving  exerted  efforts  to  locate  the    
defendant   • If  there  is  no  valid  service  of  summons,  the  court  can  
o Person   served   is   of   sufficient   age   and   still   acquire   jurisdiction   over   the   person   of   the  
discretion   defendant  by  the  latter’s  voluntary  appearance.  
o Person   served   resides   in   the   defendant’s   • General   Rule:   One   who   seeks   affirmative   relief   is  
place  of  residence   deemed  to  have  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  
o Pertinent  facts  showing  the  enumerated  are   court.  The  filing  of:  
stated  in  the  return  service   o Motion  to  Admit  Answer  
  o Additional  Time  to  Submit  Answer  
• A  petition  for  annulment  of  judgment  or  final  order   o Reconsideration  of  a  Default  Judgment  
under   Rule   47   is   grounded   on   lack   of   jurisdiction   o Motion   to   Lift   Order   of   Default   with   Motion  
over   the   person   of   the   defendant;   the   petitioner   for  Reconsideration  
does   not   need   to   allege   that   the   ordinary   remedies    
of   new   trial,   appeal,   or   petition   for   relief   are   no   is  considered  voluntary  submission.  
longer  available  through  no  fault  of  his  or  her  own.      
  • Exception:   Conditional   Appearance   –   when   such  
Citizen’s  Surety  vs  Herrera;  March  1971   party  appears  to  challenge,  among  others,  the  courts  
  jurisdiction  over  his  person.  
• In   an   action   that   is   strictly   in   personam,   personal    
service  of  summons  is  essential  to  the  acquisition  of   • So  ano  ang  rules?  
jurisdiction  over  the  person  of  the  defendant.     o Special   appearance   =   exception   to   the  
• The   proper   recourse   for   a   creditor   is   to   locate   general  rule  
properties,  real  or  personal,  of  the  defendant  debtor   o Objections   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the   court  
with   unknown   address   and   cause   them   to   be   over   the   person   of   the   defendant   must   be  
attached   under   Rule   57.   The   attachment   converts   EXPRESSLY  made  
the   action   into   a   proceeding   in   rem   or   quasi-­‐in-­‐rem   o Failure  to  do  the  above-­‐mentioned  is  equal  
and   the   summons   by   publication   may   then   be   to   voluntary   submission;   especially   when   a  
deemed  valid  and  effective.   pleading  asserting  affirmative  relief  is  filed.  
• If   there   are   no   properties   found,   dismissal   shall   be    
set   aside   and   the   case   be   held   pending   in   the   court’s   Palma  vs  Galvez;  March  2010  
archives   until   petitioner   finds   the   whereabouts   of    
the   defendants   or   his   properties.   Prescription   will   • When   the   defendant   is   a   Filipino   resident   who   is  
not  run.   temporarily  out  of  the  country  at  the  time  of  service  
  of   summons,   other   modes   of   summons   under   the  
Santos  vs  PNOC  Exploration;  Sept.  2008   Rules  may  be  availed  of:  
  o Substituted  service  under  Rule  7;  
• The  old  rule,  which  provides  that  substituted  service   o Personal   service   outside   the   country   (with  
may  be  availed  of  only  in  an  action  in  rem,  has  been   leave  of  court)  
change.   The   present   rule   (Sec.   14)   expressly   states   o Service  by  publication  (with  leave  of  court)  
that   “in   any   action”   where   the   defendant   is   o Any   other   manner   which   the   court   may  
designated   as   an   unknown   owner,   etc.,   or   his   deem  sufficient  
whereabouts   are   unknown   and   cannot   be   • The   filing   of   motions   seeking   affirmative   relief   is,  
ascertained   by   diligent   inquiry.   The   new   rule   now   such   as,   a   Motion   to   Admit   Answer,   Motion   for  

  5  
 Additional   Time   to   Answer,   Motion   for   • Laches:   Failure   or   neglect   for   an   unreasonable   and  
Reconsideration  of  a  Default  Judgment,  and  Motion   unexplained   length   of   time   to   do   that   which,   by  
to   Lift   Order   of   Default,   etc.,   are   considered   exercising   due   diligence,   could   or   should   have   been  
voluntary  submission  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.   done  earlier.  
   
Chu  vs  Mach  Asia  Trading;  April  2013   Soliven  vs  Fastforms  Phil,  Inc.;  Oct.  2004  
   
• In  the  case  of  substituted  service,  there  should  be  a   • While   jurisdiction   may   be   assailed   at   any   stage,   a  
report   indicating   that   the   person   who   received   the   litigant’s  participation  in  all  stages  of  the  case  before  
summons   in   the   defendant’s   behalf   was   one   with   the  trial  court,  including  invocation  of  its  authority  in  
whom   the   defendant   had   a   relation   of   confidence,   asking   for   affirmative   relief,   bars   the   party   from  
ensuring   that   the   latter   would   actually   receive   the   challenging  the  court’s  jurisdiction.  
summons.   • A   party   cannot   invoke   the   jurisdiction   of   the   court   to  
• Impossibility   of   prompt   personal   service   must   be   secure   affirmative   relief   against   his   opponent   and  
shown  by  stating  that  efforts  have  been  made  to  find   after   obtaining   or   failing   to   obtain   such   relief,  
the  defendant  personally  and  that  such  efforts  have   repudiate  or  question  that  same  jurisdiction.  
failed.    
  HSBC  vs  Aldecoa;  March  1915  
Reicon  Realty  vs  Diamond;  Feb.  2015    
  • A   plea   of   the   pendency   of   a   prior   action   is   not  
• The   court   shall   acquire   jurisdiction   over   the   person   available  unless  the  prior  action  is  of  such  character  
of  the  respondent  by  the  service  on  him  of  its  order   that   had   a   judgment   been   rendered   therein   on   the  
or   resolution   indicating   its   initial   action   on   the   merits,   such   a   judgment   would   be   conclusive  
petition   or   by   his   voluntary   submission   to   such   between  the  parties  and  could  be  pleaded  in  bar  of  a  
jurisdiction.   second  action.  
• The   requirement   under   Rule   13,   Sec.   2,   which   • It  is  applicable  only,  between  the  same  parties,  when  
provides   that   if   any   party   has   appeared   by   counsel,   the   judgment   to   be   rendered   in   the   action   first  
service   upon   him   shall   be   made   upon   his   counsel,   constituted   will   be   such   that,   regardless   of   which  
should  not  apply  to  certiorari  proceedings.   party   is   successful,   it   will   amount   to   res   judicata  
  against  the  second  action.  
Manotoc  vs  CA;  Aug.  2006    
  Tijam  vs  Sibonghanoy;  April  1968  
• The   party   relying   on   the   substituted   service   or   the    
sheriff   must   show   that   the   defendant   cannot   be   • A   party   cannot   invoke   the   jurisdiction   of   a   court   to  
served   promptly   or   there   is   impossibility   of   prompt   secure   affirmative   relief   against   his   opponent   and,  
service   after   obtaining   or   failing   to   obtain   such   relief,  
• Reasonable   Time:   one   month   from   the   issuance   of   repudiate  or  question  the  same  jurisdiction.  
summons   • It   is   not   right   for   a   party   who   has   affirmed   and  
• Several  Attempts:  At  least  three  tries,  preferably  on   invoked   the   jurisdiction   of   a   court   in   a   particular  
at  least  two  different  dates.   matter   to   secure   affirmative   relief,   to   afterwards  
  deny  the  same  jurisdiction  to  escape  penalty.    
RULE  16   • NOTE:   This   case   has   already   been   overturned   by  
  Cervantes  vs  People  
Cervantes  y  Figueroa  vs  People;  July  2008    
  Zuniga-­‐Santos  vs  Santos-­‐Gram;  Oct.  2014  
• The  ruling  in  Tijam  vs  Sibonghanoy  is  the  exception,    
not  the  general  rule.     • Failure  to  state  a  cause  of  action:  refers  to  the  
• The   issue   of   jurisdiction   may   be   raised   at   any   stage   insufficiency  of  the  allegations  in  the  pleading  
of   the   proceedings,   even   on   appeal,   and   is   not   lost   • Lack  of  cause  of  action:  refers  to  the  insufficiency  of  
by  waiver  or  by  estoppel.   the  factual  basis  for  the  action.    
• Estoppel   by   laches,   to   bar   a   litigant   from   asserting   • Dismissal  for  failure  to  state  a  cause  of  action  may  
the   courts   absence   or   lack   of   jurisdiction,   only   be  raised  at  the  earliest  stages  of  the  proceedings  
supervenes   in   exceptional   cases   similar   to   the   facts   through  a  motion  to  dismiss  under  Rule  16  of  the  
of  Sibonghanoy.   Rules  of  Court  
• Estoppel  is  not  favored  by  law;  being  in  the  nature  of   • Dismissal  for  lack  of  cause  of  action  may  be  raised  
forfeiture.   It   must   be   applied   only   from   necessity,   any  time  after  the  questions  of  fact  have  been  
and  only  in  extraordinary  circumstances.  
  6  
 resolved  on  the  basis  of  stipulations,  admissions  or   dismissal  rests  on  the  prerogative  of  the  trial  court,  
evidence  presented  by  the  plaintiff.   it  must  soundly  be  exercised  and  not  be  abused,  as  
  there   must   be   sufficient   reason   to   justify   its  
RULE  17  &  RULE  36   extinctive  effect  on  the  plaintiff’s  cause  of  action.  
   
Shimizu  vs  Magsalin;  June  2012   RULE  34  
   
• Dismissal  of  actions  under  Rule  17,  Sec.  3,  which  do   Asian  Construction  vs  Sannaedle;  June  2014  
not  expressly  state  whether  they  are  or  without  are    
held   to   be   with   prejudice.   This   amounts   to   an   • Rule  34  is  proper  when  an  answer  fails  to  tender  an  
adjudication   on   the   merits.   Thus,   it   must   comply   issue,  or  otherwise  admits  the  material  allegations  of  
with  Rule  36,  Sec.  1:  Judgment/Final  Order  shall:   the  adverse  party’s  pleading.  
o Be  in  writing;   • An   answer   fails   to   tender   an   issue   if   it   does   not   deny  
o Be   personally   and   directly   prepared   by   the   the   allegations   in   the   complaint   or   admits   said  
judge;   material  allegations  of  the  adverse  party’s  pleadings  
o Be  signed  by  the  judge;   by   confessing   the   truthfulness   thereof   and/or  
o State   clearly   and   distinctly   the   facts   or   law   omitting  to  deal  with  them  all.  
on  which  it  is  based;    
o Be  filed  with  the  clerk  of  court    
• Grounds  for  Failure  to  Prosecute:    
o Failure   of   the   plaintiff,   without   justifiable    
reason,   to   appear   on   the   date   of   the   RULE  37  
presentation  of  evidence  in  chief;    
o Failure   of   the   plaintiff   to   prosecute   his   Neypes  vs  Ca;  Sept.  2005  
action  for  an  unreasonable  length  of  time;    
o Failure   of   the   plaintiff   to   comply   with   the   • Fresh  Period  Rule:  To  standardize  the  appeal  periods  
Rules  of  Court;   provided   in   the   Rules   and   to   afford   litigants   fair  
o Failure   of   the   plaintiff   to   obey   an   order   of   opportunity  to  appeal  their  cases,  the  Court  deems  it  
the  Court   practical   to   allow   a   fresh   period   of   15   days   within  
  which   to   file   the   notice   of   appeal   in   the   Regional  
• The   fundamental   test   for   non-­‐prosequitur   is   Trial   Court,   counted   from   receipt   of   the   order  
whether,   under   the   circumstances,   the   plaintiff   is   dismissing   a   motion   for   a   new   trial   or   motion   for  
chargeable   with   want   of   due   diligence   in   failing   to   reconsideration.  
proceed   with   reasonable   promptitude;   there   must   • This  rule  applies  to:  
be   unwillingness   on   the   part   of   the   plaintiff   to   o Rule  40:  Appeal  from  MTCs  to  RTCs  
prosecute.   o Rule  42:  Petition  for  Review  to  the  CA  
  o Rule  43:  Appeals  from  Quasi-­‐Judicial  Bodies  
RULE  18   o Rule  45:  Appeals  by  Certiorari  to  the  SC  
   
Soliman  vs  Fernandez;  June  2014   Dinglasan  vs  CA;  Sept.  2006  
   
• Within   5   days   from   the   date   of   filing   of   reply,   the   • To   rule   that   finality   of   judgment   shall   be   reckoned  
plaintiff  must  promptly  move  ex  parte  that  the  case   from   the   receipt   of   the   resolution   or   order   denying  
be  set  for  pre-­‐trial  conference.  If  the  plaintiff  fails  to   the   second   motion   for   reconsideration   would   result  
file   said   motion   within   the   given   period,   the   Branch   to  an  absurd  situation  whereby  courts  will  be  obliged  
Clerk   of   Court   shall   issue   a   notice   of   pre-­‐trial   to   issue   orders   or   resolutions   denying   what   is   a  
(Guidelines  to  be  Observed  by  Trial  Court  Judges  and   prohibited  motion  in  the  first  place,  in  order  that  the  
Clerks  of  Court  in  the  Conduct  of  Pre-­‐trial  and  Use  of   period   for   the   finality   of   judgments   shall   run,  
Deposition-­‐Discovery  Measures)   thereby,   prolonging   the   disposition   of   cases.  
  Moreover,   such   a   ruling   would   allow   a   party   to  
• The  power  of  the  trial  court  to  dismiss  an  action  for   forestall   the   running   of   the   period   of   finality   of  
non   -­‐   prosequitur   is   not   without   its   limits.   If   a   judgments   by   virtue   of   filing   a   prohibited   pleading;  
pattern   or   scheme   to   delay   the   disposition   of   the   such  a  situation  is  not  only  illogical  but  also  unjust  to  
case  or  a  wanton  failure  to  observe  the  mandatory   the  winning  party.  
requirement  of  the  rules  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff    
is   not   present,   as   in   this   case,   courts   should   not   SLR  Builders  vs  Bayang;  April  2015  
wield   their   authority   to   dismiss.   Indeed,   while   the    

  7  
 • The   "fresh   period   rule"   in  Neypes  applies   only   to   or  the  value  of  the  property  to  be  attached  as  stated  
judicial  appeals  and  not  to  administrative  appeals.   by  the  applicant,  exclusive  of  costs."  
• In   this   case,   the   subject   appeal,  i.e.,   appeal   from   a   • From  the  foregoing,  it  is  evidently  clear  that  once  the  
decision   of   the   HLURB   Board   of   Commissioners   to   writ  of  attachment  has  been  issued,  the  only  remedy  
the   OP,   is   not   judicial   but   administrative   in   nature;   of   the   petitioners   in   lifting   the   same   is   through   a  
thus,   the   "fresh   period   rule"   in  Neypes  does   not   cash  deposit  or  the  filing  of  the  counter-­‐bond.  Thus,  
apply.   the   Court   holds   that   petitioner’s   argument   that   it  
  has   the   option   to   deposit   real   property   instead   of  
RULE  47   depositing   cash   or   filing   a   counter-­‐bond   to   discharge  
  the   attachment   or   stay   the   implementation   thereof  
Islamic  Dawah  vs  CA;  Sept.  1989   is  unmeritorious.  
   
• Annulment   of   judgment   is   a   remedy   Lim  vs  Lazaro;  July  2013  
independent   of   the   case   where   the   judgment    
sought  to  be  annulled  was  rendered.     • While   the   provisions   of   Rule   57   are   silent   on   the  
• Jurisdiction   over   such   has   been   clarified   by   length  of  time  within  which  an  attachment  lien  shall  
BP129.   The   CA   has   exclusive   jurisdiction   over   continue   to   subsist   after   the   rendition   of   a   final  
actions  for  annulment  of  judgments  of  RTCs.   judgment,   jurisprudence   dictates   that   the   said  
• A   person   need   not   be   a   party   to   the   judgment   lien  continues   until   the   debt   is   paid,   or   the   sale   is  
sought   to   be   annulled.   What   is   essential   is   that   had   under   execution   issued   on   the   judgment   or   until  
he   can   prove   his   allegation   that   the   judgment   the   judgment   is   satisfied,   or   the   attachment  
was   obtained   by   the   use   of   fraud   and   collusion   discharged  or  vacated  in  the  same  manner  provided  
and  he  would  be  adversely  affected  thereby.   by  law.  
• The   remedy   may   be   availed   of   even   if   the    
judgment   has   already   been   fully   executed   and    
implemented.    
 
Strategic  Alliance  vs  Radstock;  Dec.  2009    
• Hindi  ko  ‘to  mahanap  L  
 
Fraginal  vs  Martinez;  Feb.  2007  
 
• Final   judgments   or   orders   of   quasi-­‐judicial   tribunals  
and   administrative   bodies   such   as   the   NLRC,   the  
Ombudsman,   the   CSC,   the   OP,   and   in   the   present  
case,   the   PARAD,   are   not   susceptible   to   Rule   47.  
PARAD  rules  do  not  allow  for  petition  for  annulment  
of  judgment.  
 
RULES  57  –  61  
 
Luzon  Dev.  Bank  vs  Krishman;  April  2015  
 
• Section   2,   Rule   57   of   the   Rules   of   Court   explicitly  
states   that   "an   order   of   attachment   may   be   issued  
either   ex   parte   or   upon   motion   with   notice   and  
hearing  by  the  court  in  which  the  action  is  pending,  
or   by   the   Court   of   Appeals   or   the   Supreme   Court,  
and  must  require  the  sheriff  of  the  court  to  attach  so  
much  of  the  property  in  the  Philippines  of  the  party  
against   whom   it   is   issued,   not   exempt   from  
execution,   as   may   be   sufficient   to   satisfy   the  
applicant’s  demand,  unless  such  party  makes  deposit  
or  gives  a  bond  as  hereinafter  provided  in  an  amount  
equal   to   that   fixed   in   the   order,   which   may   be   the  
amount   sufficient   to   satisfy   the   applicant’s   demand  

  8