CIVIL PROCEDURE

Course Outline
(Provisional; under reconstruction)

1. Introduction

1.1. Batas Pambansa 129 as amended

1.2. Courts and their jurisdiction

La Naval Drug Corp v CA 236 S 78
Atwel v Concepcion Progressive Asso Inc GR 169370 April 14, 2008
Figueroa v People GR 147406 July 14, 2008

1.3. How jurisdiction is obtained and exercised:

 over persons
 over subject matter
 over res

1.4. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

Guy and Cheu vs Ignacio GR 167824 July 2, 2010
Fabia vs Court of Appeals GR 132684 September 11, 2002
Province of Aklan vs Jody King Construction GR 197592, 202603 Nov 27, 2013
Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc v Seludo Jr 671 S 78

2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions

2.1. Must be based on a cause of action

 What is cause of action
Belle Corporation v De Leon-Banks 681 S 351
 No splitting of cause of action
City of Bacolod v San Miguel, 29 S 819
City of Taguig vs City of Makati GR 208393 June 15, 2016
Perez and Ragua vs Hon Court of Appeals GR 157616 July 22, 2005
 Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
 Test of single cause of action
Arguson v Miclat GR 61049 April 15, 1985
 2.2. Parties to civil actions
 Who are parties in interest?
Ang vs Severino Paculdo et al and Pedrito Azarcon, represented by their
attorney-in-fact Galileo Torralba GR No. 208928, July 8, 2015
 Competency of parties
 Indispensable and necessary parties
PNB v Heirs of Estanislao Militar etal 467 S 377
Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc 665 S 367
 Joinder and misjoinder of parties
 Death of party
 consequence of death of party
Sarsaba vs Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410
Gonzales vs Pagcor 429 SCRA 533, 540
 what counsel should do on death of party

2.3. Venue of actions

 Real and personal actions
United Overseas Bank Phils. V Rosemoore Mining & Development Corp.
518 S 123 (2007)
 Actions against non-residents
 Agreement on venue

2.4. Commencement of actions

 How and when deemed commenced
Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso Jr versus CA, GR No. 116121, July 18, 2011
 When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case?
 Effect of underpayment of docket fees
 Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within
reglementary period
…but in several cases, both CA and SC have caused the dismissal of cases
for non-payment of docket fees.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts

3.1. Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts

3.2. Pleadings in general

 Kinds of pleadings

2
 Formal requirements of pleadings
 Parts of a pleading
 Verification when required
 Manner of verification (Rule 7, Section 4)
 Formal, not jurisdictional
Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)
 Verification by Counsel
In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Schwani Inc. 575 S 535 (2008)
 Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory pleadings
 Definition of Forum Shopping
Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Compnay Inc. et.al v
Valdez GR No. 150107 28Jan2008
Negros Slashers v Teng 666 S 629
 Counsel cannot sign certification; exception
Digital Microwave Corp. v CA GR 128550 16Mar2000
Guy v Court of Appeals GR 163707, September 15, 2006
Sy Chin v Court of Appeals GR 136233, November 23, 2000
 Co-owner or Co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or co-
parties
Cavile v Heirs of Clarita Cavile 400 S 255 (2003)
 Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification
against non-forum shopping requirement
Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. v Piglas Kamao 561 S 569
(2008)
Altres et al v Empleo et al GR 180986 Dec 10, 2008
Median Container Corp. v Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.
561 S 622 (2008)
 Substantial requirements of pleadings
 Sufficiency of allegations
 Ultimate facts only
Remitere v Yulo 16 S 251
Philippine Stock Exchange v Manila Banking Corp. 559 S
352 (2008)
 Tests of sufficiency of complaint:
 Can judgment be rendered if admitted?
 Always reckon against grounds for dismissal
 Is bill of particulars applicable?
Philippine Bank of Communications v Trazo 500 S 242
(2006)
 Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading

3
  Not susceptible to summary judgment
 Does not amount to confession of judgment
 MUST tender an issue
 Must specifically deny “material allegations” lest they
be deemed admitted
Gaza et al vs Lim GR 126863 Jan 16, 2003
 Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either in
motion to dismiss or answer, else waived
 Alternative causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even if
inconsistent with each other
 Purpose of rule is to allow for complete adjudication of
any controversy

 Counterclaims
 Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims
 Test to determine nature of counterclaim
Namarco v Federation of United Namarco Distributors Inc., 49
S 238
Bungcayao Sr v Fort Ilocandia 618 S 381
Peoples Aircargo v Phillipine Airlines etal GR 226168, January
30, 2019
Calibre Traders Inc v Bayer Philippines 633 S 34
Korea Exchange Bank v Gonzales GR 142286-87 April 15, 2005

3.3. Effect of failure to plead

 Order of default
 by motion only, court cannot motu proprio declare party in default
 Consequences of order of default
 judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for
 need for presentation of evidence
 Rationale for order of default

3.4. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings

 Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed
 No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of action set
out in original pleading
 Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion for summary
judgment or even motion for judgment on the pleadings which are not
considered “responsive pleading”

4
  Rule when some but not all defendants filed responsive pleading

 When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to therule

that the cause of action is not substantially changed or the theory altered
Planters Development Bank v LZK Holdings & Development Co. 456 S 366
Young v Sy 503 S 151 (2006)
PPA v WG&A GR 158401 January 28, 2008
 Amendment improper where cause of action not existing at filing of complaint
Central Bank Board of Liquidators v Banco Filipino GR 173399, Feb 21, 2017
 Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented during trial is
allowed:
 when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the consent of the
parties
 when, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will befall the
objecting party
 Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right
Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989)
Quirao v Quirao GR 148120, October 24, 2003
 Effect of amended pleadings
 supersedes original pleading
 as a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need to be
offered in evidence.
Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94
Dionisio v Linsangan GR 178159 March 2, 2011

3.5. Responsive pleadings

 What is responsive pleading
 Answer – Judicial admissions binding on party
Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007)
 Answer – Judicial admissions NOT binding on party
Gardner v CA 131 S 585
 Bill of particulars, motion to dismiss interrupt period to file responsive pleading
 Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be set up in responsive pleading.
However, it may be set up anytime thereafter (but before judgment) if omitted
through oversight, inadvertence or excusable negligence
 Remedies of party declared in default
Otero v Tan 678 S 583
Affirmative defenses to be pleaded, otherwise waived

3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers

5
  Service on counsel is mandatory unless otherwise ordered by court
 Improper service is ineffectual and does not bind party
Cabili v Badelles, 6 S 190
 Service of pleadings and court papers (other than judgments, final orders and
resolutions) may be done by substituted service if personal service and service by
mail not successful
 Service of judgments, final orders and resolutions must be personal or by
registered mail only (or by publication where summons is served by publication)
 Service must be on counsel as service on party not permitted
 Where final order or judgment not served on party or lawyer, said
judgment cannot become final or executory.

3.7. Summons
 Rules on service is strictly construed, hence:
 For actions in personam
 against residents, service must be personal first then substituted if
unsuccessful or publication if whereabouts unknown or
temporarily outside the country
 against non-residents, only personal service within the state can
confer jurisdiction over the defendant
 For actions in rem or quasi in rem
 against residents, same as above
 against non-residents, personal service outside the country, with
leave of court, or publication with leave of court
 For actions against domestic juridical persons, service only on those
enumerated in the statute is allowed
 For actions against foreign juridical entity, service must be on resident
agent, government regulator, or any of officers, agents within the country

Carson realty and management Corporation v Red Robin Security

Agency and Monina Santos, GR 225035, February 8, 2017.
Valmonte v CA 252 S 92
Asiavest v CA 296 S 539
Philam Gen vs Breva 442 S 217
BPI v Santiago 519 S 389
San Pedro v Willy Ong and Normita Caballes GR 177598 October 17,
2008
Santos v PNOC Exploration GR 170943 September 23, 2008
Kawasaki Port Services vs Amores GR 58340 July 16, 1991
Sansio Phils v Mogol GR 177007, July 14, 2009
Guiguinto Credit v Torres GR 170926, September 15, 2006

6
 Potenciano v Barnes GR 159421, August 20, 2008

3.8. Motions
Litigious motions to be set for hearing
Non-litigious motions no need to set for hearing; must be resolved by court within
5 days
Omnibus motion rule
Prohibited motions
Motion to dismiss except grounded on:
No jurisdiction over subject matter
Litis pendentia
Cause of action is barred by prior judgment or statue of limitations
Motion to hear affirmative defenses
Motion for reconsideration on resolution of affirmative defenses

3.9. Affirmative Defenses as Basis for Dismissal of Action

 Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter
Republic v Bantigue Point Development Corp 668 S 158
 pendentia litis
Andersons Group v CA. 266 S 423
Ramos v Peralta, 203 S 412
Yap v Chua 672 S 411
 res judicata
Vda de Cruzo v Cariaga, 174 S 330
Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Chavez 618 S 559
 lack of jurisdiction over person
Amigo v CA, 253 S 382
 No legal capacity to sue
NEA v Maguindanao Electric Company GR 192595-96 April 11,
2018
Acosta vs Ochoa GR 211559 October 15, 2019
 Improper venue
BPI Family vs Sps Yujuico GR 175798 July 22, 2015
Nestle Phils vs NLRC GR 98363 June 15, 1992
Ley Construction vs Sedano GR 222711 August 23, 2017
 Failure to comply with condition precedent
Tribiana vs Tribiana GR 137359 September 13, 2004
Lansangan vs Caisip GR 212987 August 6, 2018
 Failure to state cause of action

7
 San Lorenzo v CA, 288 S 115
Viewmaster vs Allen Roxas et al GR 133576 July 13, 2000

If affirmative defense asserted is:

Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter
Pendentia litis
Res judicata
court will conduct summary hearing within 15 days from filing of answer and
resolve within 30 days from termination of summary hearing.

If affirmative defense is:

No jurisdiction over person of the defendant
Improper venue
No legal capacity to sue
Failure to state a cause of action
Failure to comply with condition precedent
court will motu propio resolve the affirmative defense

3.10. Dismissal of Action

Pinga v Heirs of Santiago GR 170354 June 30, 2006
Filinvest v CA GR 142439 December 6, 2006
Heirs of Gaudiane v CA GR 119879 March 11, 2004
Cruz v CA GR 164797 February 13, 2006
Dael v Sps Beltran GR 156470 April 30, 2008
Mendoza v Paule GR 175885 February 31, 2009
Benedicto v Lacson GR 142508 May 5, 2010

3.11. Pre-trial
 Definition
Anson Trade Center v Pacific Banking, GR No. 179999 17 Mar 2009
Interlining Corp. v Philippine Trust Co. 428 S 583 (2002)
 Setting for Pre-Trial to be done by clerk of court
 Failure to have Pre-trial
Madrid v Spouses Mapoy, GR. 150887 14 Aug 2009
 Failure of party and counsel to appear will result in waiver of any objection to the
faithfulness of reproductions marked, or their genuineness and due execution.
 Failure of plaintiff to appear shall cause the dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice. Dismissal shall be with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by court
 Failure of defendant and counsel to appear will be cause to allow plaintiff to
present his case ex parte

8
  Failure of party and/or counsel to bring evidence shall be deemed a waiver or the
presentation of such evidence.
 Summary judgment or judgment on pleadings possible if facts are discovered in
pre-trial to warrant such action
 Effect of Pre-trial Order
Heirs of Reyes v CA, 519 S 250 (2007)

3.12. Intervention (Rule 19)

Nordic Asia v CA 403 S 390
Salandanan v Sps Mendoza GR 160280 (2009)
Mactan Cebu Intl Airpot v Heirs of Minoza GR 186045 February 2, 2011
GSIS v Nocom GR 175989 February 4, 2008
Ombudsman v Maximo Sison GR 185954 February 16, 2010

3.13. Discovery
 Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders, to
disgorge private information to adverse party
 Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the
knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties; obtain admissions from
adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents, objects and property.
 What are discoverable?
 Limitations on discoverability
 Modes of discovery
 Deposition
People v Sergio and Lacanilao GR 240053 October 9, 2019
Ingrid Sala Santamaria and Astrid Sala Boza v Thomas Cleary, GR
197122, June 15, 2016.
Pajarilla v CA 570 S 347 (2008)
 Interrogatories to parties
Spouses Vicente Afulugencia v Metropolitan Bank and Ortega, GR
185145, February 5, 2014.
 effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
 Requests for admission
Sime Darby Employees Association v NLRC 510 S 204
Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp v Ms Toledo in her capacity as
City Treasurer of Manila, GR 190818, June 5, 2013.
 Production and inspection of things
Eagleridge Development Corporation v Cameron Granville, GR
204700, November 24, 2014.

 Examination of persons

9
 Republic v Sandiganbayan, 204 S 212
Dasmarinas Garments v Reyes 225 S 622
Ayala Land vs Tagle 466 S 521
Hyatt Industrial v Ley Construction GR 147143 Mar 10, 2006
Sime Darby v CA 510 S 204
Security Bank v CA 323 S 330
Solidbank v Gateway GR 164805 April 30, 2008
Rosete v Lim GR 136051 June 8, 2006
Jowel Sales v Sabin GR 133154 December 9, 2005

 Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)

3.14. Trial
 Order of trial
 Reverse trial when complaint is admitted
Yu v Magpayo 44 S 163
 Reverse trial also in criminal cases
 When trial dispensed with; Absence of Party
Republic v Vda de Neri GR 139588 March 4, 2008
Sps Calo v Sps Tan GR 151266 November 29, 2005

3.15. Consolidation
 Test is common questions of fact or of law
Active v CA, 181 S 774
Superlines v Victor, 124 S 939
Steel Corporation of the Philippines v Equitable PCI Bank 635 S 403
Deutsche Bank AG vs Court of Appeals 667 S 82
Producers Bank of the Philippines v Excelsa Industries 669 S 470
Teston v DBP GR 144374 November 11, 2005
Gregorio Espinoza v UOB GR 175380 March 22, 2010
 consolidation of civil and criminal cases
 consolidation of cases on appeal

3.16. Demurrer to Evidence

 Concept of demurrer
 Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence
Casent Realty vs Philbanking GR 150731 September 14, 2007

10
 Nepomuceno v Comelec, 126 S 472
Radiowealth v Sps Del Rosario GR 138739 July 6, 2000
Casent Realty v Phil Banking GR 150731 September 14, 2007

3.17. Judgment on the pleadings

 Generally applicable when there is no tender of issue
 Denial in answer may not amount to tender of issue
Manufacturers v Diversified, 173 S 357
Pacific Rehouse Corporation v EIB Securities 633 S 214
Reilo v San Jose GR 166393 June 18, 2009
Sps Song v Roban Lending GR 172592 July 9, 2008
Doris Sunbanum v Aurora Go GR 163280 February 2, 2010

3.18. Summary Judgments

 Distinguished from judgment on the pleadings
Vergara v Suelto 156 S 753
Diman v Alumbres, 299 S 459
Nocom v Camerino GR 182984 February 10, 2009
Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410
Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627
 How motion for summary judgment is considered
 Hearing on motion is only for determining whether issues are genuine or
not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings
 motion is proven through affidavits, depositions and admissions submitted
by movant
 Propriety of summary judgment
Natalia v Vallez, 173 S 536
Grand Farms v CA, 193 S 748
Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627
Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410
 Movant may be either party

3.19. Judgments
 Requirements
 written and signed by judge
 must contain findings of facts and law applied
 must contain a dispositive portion

11
  filed with the clerk of court
 rendition reckoned from filing with clerk
 must be served on parties
 may be amended before finality upon motion or motu proprio
 entry upon finality
 entry determines prescriptive periods
 final judgment not subject to amendment
 separability of judgments

Velarde v SJS GR 159357 April 28, 2004

Miranda v CA 71 S 295
Republic v Nolasco 457 S 400
Briones-Vasquez v CA GR 144882 february 4, 2005
Navarro v Metropolitan Bank GR 165697/166484 August 4, 2009

3.20. Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)

 New Trial or Reconsideration
 FAMEN
 Fraud as a ground must be extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is intrinsic
when done by a party during trial (use of forged documents etc),
extrinsic when employed outside the court (concealing a witness or
colluding with a party)
 accident and mistake as ground must be based on well-engendered
belief ordinary prudence could not guard against
 excusable negligence as ground will depend on circumstance
 Newly discovered evidence
 must be material and not discoverable during trial
Banco Filipino v Campos 63 S 180
Bernaldez v Francia 398 S 488
Capuz v CA 233 S 471
Libudan v Gil 45 S 17
Delos Santos v Elizalde GR 141810, 141812, February 2, 2007
 Motion for reconsideration
 NT distinguished from reconsideration
 grounds
 results when granted
 remedy when denied (appeal from the judgment)
 Relief from judgment
 not available for lost remedy

12
 Tuazon v CA, 256 S 158
Sps Que v CA GR 1507397 August 18, 2005
Monzon v Sps Relova GR 171827 September 17, 2008
 available only versus final judgment
 distinguished from NT or reconsideration
 grounds
 when/how invoked
 result when granted
 remedy when denied (no more appeal)

 Annulment of Judgment (not same court, not same case)

Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v Court of Appeals 681 S 580
Sps Arenas v Quezon City Development Bank GR 166819 June 16,
2010

3.21. Execution of judgments

 Only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution
 Final judgment versus final and executory judgment
Investment v CA 147 S 334
 Test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court to do with
respect to the merits of the case?
 Execution a matter of right when judgment final and executory, but only upon
motion
 judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e., when no appeal has been
taken within the period provided by law
 enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it
becomes final, subject to certain exceptions
 execution before finality of judgment, only upon good reasons
BF Corp v Edsa Shangrila, 294 S 109
 discretionary executions, when stayed
City of Manila v CA, 72 S 98
Valencia v CA, 184 S 561
 execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the nature
of the judgment, i.e. recovery of property v money judgments

Session Delights Ice Cream v CA GR 172149, February 8, 2010

Cayana v CA GR 125607, March 18, 2004
Stronghold v Felix GR 148090, November 28, 2006
Yau v Silverio GR 158848, February 4, 2008

13
 Jerome Solco v Provido GR 138978, February 11, 2008
Hi Yield Realty v CA GR 138978, February 12, 2002
Honrado v CA GR 166333, November 25, 2005
Repubic v Antonio GR 166866, March 27, 2008
Corpuz v Sto tomas and OSG GR 186571, August 11, 2010
Republic v Gingoyon GR 166429, February 1, 2006

4. APPEALS

4.1. Nature of appeal as a remedy

 guard against judgments of unskilled and unfair judges
 prevention as much as correction of mistakes
 not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost
Dacuital v LM Engineering Corporation 629 S 702

4.2. Who may appeal

4.3. What are appealable

 what are final judgments
 when does a judgment or order become final
 final judgments vs judgments that are final and executory
 what are not appealable and why are they not?
 test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case
 Exception Sec 1, Rule 41 (a-g) in which cases remedy is by Rule 65
D.M. Ferrer & Associates v UST GR 189496 February 1, 2012

4.4. Modes of appeal

 ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment)
 MTC to RTC
 RTC to CA
 no extension of period to file notice of appeal
 interrupted by motion for NT or recon
 if NT or recon denied, fresh period to appeal
Neypes vs CA GR 141524 Sept 14, 2005
 payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal
 petition for review (by filing petition with CA under rule 42)
 second level of review

14
  review of judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
 RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA
 not a matter of right; discretionary on part of CA
Ong v Tating. 149 SCRA 265
 appeal by certiorari (filing petition with SC)
 appeal to the SC
 from RTC on questions of law only (Rule 41)
UMC v Velasco 98 S 545
 may be remanded to CA if involving questionof fact
(rule 56, sec 6), not dismissed
 from final order or resolution of CA or SB (rule 45) but only on
questions of law
 appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, sec 6)
Cheesman v IAC, 193 S 93
Sumbingco v CA, 155 S 24
 What is a question of law?
 See Macawiwili and Land Bank cases below
 petition for review on certiorari vs petition for certiorari
New York Marine v CA, 249 S 416
Ybanez v CA, 253 S 540
Rule on appeals summarized
Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt Co v CA 297 S 602
Land Bank of the Philippines v Ramos 685 S 540

4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal
 May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by court?
 duty of court when notice of appeal filed
 dilatory appeals

4.6. Improper appeals

 to CA from RTC on questions of law
 to SC via notice of appeal
 to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in appellate jurisdiction
 the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be
allowed
(Exception is when appeal to SC on questions of law and fact in which case, the
case will be remanded to CA)

15
5. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

5.1. Preliminary Attachment

 Kinds of attachment
 preliminary
 garnishment
 levy on execution
 At what stage is preliminary attachment granted?
 grounds for attachment exclusive
 may be granted ex parte
Onate v Abrogar, 241 S 659
Davao Light & Water v CA, 204 S 343
Sievert v CA, 168 S 692
Carlos v Sandoval 471 S 266
Spouses Yu v Ngo Yee Te GR 155868

5.2. Preliminary Injunction

 preceded by a 72-hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA)
 within TRO, hearing must be conducted
 may be granted at any stage of the proceeding
 requirements for issuance
 coordinate body may not be enjoined
 may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself

Bacolod City Water District v Labayen 446 S 110

China Banking Corp v Co GR 174569
Estares v CA GR 144755
Buyco v Baraquia GR 177486 (December 21, 2009)
Heirs of the late JBL Reyes v CA 338 S 282
Brocka v Enrile 192 S 182
Medina v Greenfield Development GR 140228

5.3. Receivership
 When is receiver appointed?
 object is preservation of property subject matter of litigation
 powers of a receiver

National Investment and Development Corp v Judge Aquino 163 S 153

Traders Royal Bank v IAC 273 S 521

16
5.4. Replevin
 nature of a replevin suit
 question involved is one of possession but ownership may be resolved if raised
 plaintiff (claim) and defendant (counterclaim) can petition for replevin

Yang v Valdez 177 S 141

Adoma v Gatcheco 448 S 299
Paat v CA 266 S 167
Citibank v CA 304 S 679
Smart Communications v Regina Astorga GR 148132 January 28, 2008

5.5. Support pendete lite

 concept of support is that the applicant is entitled to it by reason of some
relationship (say, marital or filial) with the adverse party
 judgment of support is never final, it can be amended at any time as long as the
obligation to support subsists
 Arts 194, 195, 201, 202 of Family Code
Reyes v Ines-Luciano GR 48219
Lam v Chua GR 131286

17