Executive Summary

Aug. 27, 2020

5. Heirs of Eutiquio Elliot Petitioners vs. Danilo Corcuera Respondent

Q. A case was filed by respondent against petitioners before the RTC praying that petitioners
vacate the subject lot covered by OCT No. P-7061. The RTC dismissed the case. Meanwhile in a
separate parallel proceeding, while respondent’s action for recovery of possession and
damages was being heard, petitioners filed a complaint for nullification of Free Patent and its
derivative title OCT No. P-7061. This complaint eventually reached the SC and was granted by
said court. Going back to the original complaint, the CA reversed the RTC ruling that OCT No. P-
7061 is still presumed to have been regularly issued in respondent’s name. Is the decision in the
separate complaint for the nullification of free patent conclusive in this case?

A. Yes. There are two concepts of res judicata: res judicata by bar by prior judgment and res
judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. The elements of res judicata by conclusiveness of
judgment are:
1) the judgment sought to bar 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 case must be a judgment on the merits; and
4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, but not identity of
causes of action.
These elements are present here.
1) the resolution in the separate case long attained finality;
2) the said resolution was rendered by the SC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction;
3) the resolution dismissed with finality Danilo Corcuera’s challenge against the CA decision
upholding petitioner’s ownership over the same disputed portion; and
4) the parties in both cases are the same.

Aug. 27, 2020

11. Remedios M. Mascarinas Petitioner vs BPIFB Respondent

Q. The RTC issued in favor of BPIFB a writ of possession over a parcel of land covered by TCT
No. 26637. When the sheriff went to the supposed lot to serve the notice to vacate, Mascarinas
claimed that the writ of possession was being erroneously implemented on a lot owned by her,
not BPIFB. She filed a motion to clarify the order and for the same to specifically state that the
writ of possession cannot be enforced on her property. this was denied. She filed with the CA a
motion for an extension of 15 days to file her petition for certiorari citing pressure of work as
ground. This was denied. Petitioner then filed a motion to admit petition alleging that even
before she received the denial of her motion for extension, she had already filed said petition.
Should the motion for one-time extension of 15 days to file the petition for certiorari with the
CA and her subsequent motion to admit petition be granted?
A. Yes. Precluding petitioner from pursuing her appellate remedy based on a technicality will
cause her to lose her property as a result of what she calls an erroneous implementation of the
writ of possession on her property. Therefore, the petition for one-time extension of 15 days
and admit the petition for certiorari she had filed should be granted.

Aug. 24, 2020

16. Antonio G. Ngo Petitioner vs Gabelo et al., Respondent

Q. Ngo filed a complaint before the RTC against Gabelo et al., without complying with the
barangay conciliation proceeding under the Local Government Code. The RTC merely
suspended the proceedings. The CA however dismissed the case. Was the dismissal by the CA
proper?

A. Yes. The local government provides that the barangay conciliation proceedings is a pre-
condition to filing a complaint in court between persons actually residing in the same barangay
to explore amicable settlement. Subject to certain exemptions, a party’s failure to comply with
this requirement would render his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply
with a condition precedent. This condition precedent is not jurisdictional.

Nov. 16, 2020

29. Department of Trade and Industry and its bureau of Product and Standards, Petitioner vs.
Steelasia Manufacturing Corporation, Respondent

Q. DTI issued Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 5; IRR of DAO No. 5; and DTI DAO
Nos. 15-01. Respondent then filed a petition for declaratory relief seeking to declare as
unconstitutional these issuances for being contrary to R.A. No. 4109 and for violation of the
equal protection clause under the Constitution. Is the petition for declaratory relief the proper
remedy?

A. No. The party assailing the validity of an administrative issuance may only do so via
declaratory relief when there has been no breach of his rights involved. Otherwise, the party
should invoke the expanded certiorari jurisdiction under Sec. 1 of Art. VIII of the 1987
Constitution to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Here,
declaratory relief is unavailing since Steelasia claims that its constitutional right to equal
protection had already been infringed when the DTI Regulations became effective. Steelasia
should invoke instead the certiorari powers of the courts to nullify the alleged ultra vires acts.