-foreclosed
-1st sarmiento: never received loan proceeds. Pet for
 INTERLINK VS CA
-interlink filed a complaint for SUM OF MONEY AND
DAMAGES against expressions for unpaid rentals and
breach of contract of lease before RTC
-1st service-liwanan-defective
-2nd service-ochotorina who represented herself as
one of secretaries of bo huan
-RTC: in favour of interlink
-CA: service is still defective
*NO VALID SERVICE-domestic private entity. Sec 11
rule 14 list exclusive
*NO VA-filed omnibus motion on special appearance
 FRIAS VS ALCAYDE
-Frias (lessor) and Alcayde (lessee) CONTRACT OF
LEASE
-Frias UNLAWFUL DETAINER against alcayde METC
muntilupa
-server to caretaker of alcayde
-MTEC: in favour of frias
-alcayde: petition for annulment of judgment of
metc—non-referral to brgy.
-petition for annulment sent to Gonzales, secretary
of frias’ counsel
-RTC enjoined MeTCs order for execution of
judgement
-Pet: LOJ over her person
-RTC: voluntary participation
*PET FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDG=IN PERSONAM
=sep and distinct and independent from
orig action
=regardless of nature of in personam, the
resp needs to be informed
*INVALID SERVICE-no diligent effort was exerted; no
details that sheriff inquired into the identity of
Gonzales
*NO VA-mere appearance of atty. Frias during
summary hearing is not sufficient; appearance must
constitute as a positive act
*PET FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDG IMPROPER-
immutability of judg of METC
 FIRST SARMIENTO vs PHIL BANK OF COMMUNICATION
-1st sarmiento obtained loan from PBCom secured by
REM
-1st sarmiento: pet for annulment of REM-denied by clerk
for absence of tax dec
annulment of REM is IPE and not to recover ownership
*IPE-careful reading of pet’s complaint never prayed for
reconveyance nor asserted ownership=not real action. It
only asserted validity of loan contract with REM because
it did not receive loan proceeds
*cert of sale (auction) was only issued after complaint
was filed-even if foreclosed, ownership and possesdion
remain with 1st sarmiento. Without cert, prop cannot be
transferred to new owner
*even if real action-should not be dismissed, only
additional DF made liean on judg award.
*TRO cannot be extended indefinitely
 FORONDA-CRYSTAL VS SON
-Son instituted action for RECONVEYANCE AND
DAMAGES against foronda alleging that she has been in
possession and occupation of land for 12 and ½ yrs and
religiously paying tax dec
-tax dec value is 2,080
-RTC rendered juris in favour of resp
-ca:affirmed
*two-tiered rule in determination of juris
(1) allegation in complaint
(2) docs attached
*BP 129 on jurisdiction and RULE 141 on paymeny of
docket fees
*assesed value= attached in annex B 2,826=MTC
 AGARRADO VS AGARRADO
-cristita and ana lous filed a pet for partition before RTC
of Bacolod but none of other heirs were named in any
pleading
-RTC ordered partition
-CA affirmed
-CA: no LOJ because action is IPE citing russel (action for
annulment of oral partition) = *misplaced—in russel,
action for annulment kaya IPE, in present case-
partition=alleged value must be assessed
*action for partition is IPE bec two-phased subj matter in
partition: (1) declaration of co-ownership and (2)
segregation and conveyance of determinate portions
- still, determination of juris must still conform with BP
129
*dismissed for failure to allege assessed value—none of
docs annexed or attached indicate amount
 ROLDAN VS BARRIOS
 -roldan filed an action for FORECLOSURE OF REM against
BARRIOS before RTC aklan
-loan to be paid within 1 yr. defendants failed=foreclosed
-RTC: dismissed AV=13,380=1st level courts
-pet: foreclosure is IPE kaya dapat RTC
*FORECLOSURE SUIT IS REAL ACTION-because it is
against property
*rtc is correct in dismissing
-necessary consequence of non-payment of
mortgage indebtedness
 MACASAET VS FRANCISCO JR
-francisco(police officer) sued Abante Tonite and staff for
libellous article published before RTC
-summons serve to editorial assistant of def, wife of def
and secretary of president
-RTC: valid
-CA:affirmed
-summons 2 purpose (1) vest juris
(2) give def opportunity to be heard
*SUMMONS PROPERLY SERVED PLUS VA-filed answers,
compulsory counterclaim and pretrial brief
*abante-corp by estoppel
 YU VS YU
-RTC pasig-legal separation
-rtc batangas-nullity of marriage
-extrinsic fraud-invalid service of summons
 AVON INSURANCE VS CA
 RADIOWEALTH VS PINEDA
 DE PEDRO VS. ROMASAN
-romasan-nullification of free patents and orig cert of
title against de pedro
-personal service unserved because according to
messenger of post office, no such person in said
address
-RTC granted motion to serve summons by
publication-peoples balita
-RTC decalred nuliity of titles and free patents
-de pedro: no juris, invalid service of summons-
motion for NT for lack of juris which was denied by
both RTC and CA
-ceriorari and annulment of judgment of RTC
-CA denied
**IMPROPER SERVICE: no showing of effort to serve
personally and locate whereabouts and relied only
on PO messenger.
-LACK OF JD NOT GROUND FOR MOTION FOR NT
-barred for annulment of judg
-not litis pendencia
 PAJARES VS REMARKABLE LAUNDRY
-remarkable BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DAMAGES
against pajares
-200 kilso per week
- RTC dismissed for LOJ total amount of 280,000 as
damages
-CA remanded to RTC because action is for specific
performance or rescission of contracts thus IPE
 **BOC can be the cause of action in a complaint for
SP and rescission or complaint for damages  AMOGUIS VS BALLADO
-pet’s responsibility under the penal clause in the -Ballado sps entered into agreement with St. Joseph
contract is one for liquidated damages to buy on instalment parcels of land
-1170 of the CC-fraud, negligence, delay or -st joseph rescinded their contract. Concepcion
contravention of tenor= liable damages asked for recon and enclosed a check. After 6
months, st joseph returned the check
 SARAZA VS FRANCISCO -prop sold to amoguis bros
-ballado sps filed a complaint for DAMAGES,
-francisco civil case for SP, SUM OF MONEY AND INJUNCTION, CANCELLATION OF TITLES before RTC
DAMAGES with RTC imus -amoguis: RTC has no juris
against saraza -RTC:in favour of sps balledo
- Fernando saraza sold his land to Francisco and land -ca:affirmed
was still registered in the name of Serafico. *pets failed to raise issue of LOJ. They are already
-3.2 million- 1.2 paid upon execution of agreement estopped bec pd 1344=appealable only within 30
-balance to be paid to PNB for loan of saraza with days
bank. Resp paid but the title was not transferred to *TIJAM CASE APPLIES—exc to the general rule
him. Under agreement=land will be encumbered and
used as collateral for loan of Francisco from PNB if (1) there was a statutory right in favor of the claimant;
failure to execute deed of sale
(2) the statutory right was not invoked;
-interest reache 226,582. Saraza issued amended
authorit that title shall be returned to mortgagor (3) an unreasonable length of time lapsed before the
upon full payment and caused eviction of Francisco claimant raised the issue of jurisdiction;
from property (4) the claimant actively participated in the case and sought
-RTC-in favour of resp-notarized doc + full payment affirmative relief from the court without jurisdiction;
-CA-affirmed RTC (5) the claimant knew or had constructive knowledge of
**RTC AND CA correct in ruling that Fernando is which forum possesses subject matter jurisdiction;
equally bound to execute deed of sale
(6) irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who
-venue proper- although end result is transfer of
relied on the forum and the claimant's implicit waiver.
prop, still action was specific performance to execute
-law already in effect a decade before complaint
deed, a personal action, filing in imus (residence of
was filed
resp) is proper even though prop is located in
- Petitioners sought affirmative relief from the
Makati.
Regional Trial Court and actively participated in all
stages of the proceedings.
 TRAYVILLA VS SEJAS
-sps trayvilla filed complaint for SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE AND DAMAGES against sejas before
RTC
-sejas sold land by virtue of private handwritten
document to trayvilla…sejas later reasserted his
ownership
-sold to paglinawan
-RTC: not a real action but action was for SP hence
IPE
-CA:not merely SP because they ask lower court to
cancel title named to Paglinawan=ownership=real
action=docket fees based on FMV which resps failed
to allege
*CA CORRECT. Amended complaint = additional
prayer for reconveyance=real action
*no allegation of FMV=no basis for jurisdiction