PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

(Rules 57-61)

Case Laws

Preliminary Attachment (Rule 57) page 241-262

Nature
1. Davao Light and Power, Inc. vs. CA, 204 SCRA 343;
2. Villareal vs. CA, 295 SCRA 511;
3. Insular Bank of Asia and America vs. CA, 190 SCRA 629)
4. Northern Islands Co., Inc., vs. Sps. Dennis and Cherylin Garcia, GR No. 203240,
03/18/2015;
5. Security Bank Corp. vs. Great Wall Commercial Press Co., Inc., GR No. 219345,
01/30/2017;
6. Carlos vs. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266) (Carlos vs. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266;
7. Ong v. Tating, 149 SCRA 265) (Ong v. Tating, 149 SCRA 265)
8. Communication Information Corporation v. Mark Sensing Australia;
9. PTY. Ltd., GR No. 192159, 01/25/2017;
10. Ching vs. CA, 423 SCRA 356.
11. Javellana v. D.O. Plaza Enterprises, Inc., 32 SCRA 281;
12. Savings and Loan Assn. v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 480).
13. Golez vs. Leonidas, 107 SCRA 187 [1981])).
14. Onate v. Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659 [1985])
15. Wenceslao& Associates, Inc. vs. Readycon Trading & Construction 16. Corp., GR
No. 154106, 06/29/2004);
17. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, GR No. 195295, 10/05/2016);
18. Uy v. CA, 191 SCRA 275); orUy v. CA, 191 SCRA 275);
19. Far East Bank & Trust Co. vs. Shemberg
20. BuycoVs. Baraquia, 2009;
21. Watercraft vs Wolfe G.R. No. 181721;
22. PCIB Vs. Alejandro, 533 SCRA 738.

Attachment in Special Proceedings

1. Tan vs. Adre 450 SCRA 145
Other Provisional Remedies
1. Temporary Custody of Minors
2. Order Allowing Visitation Rights of Parents;
Garcia Vs.Hon. Ray T. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
 Writ of Amparo
1. In the Matter of Writ of Amparo& Habeas Data, Noriel Rodriguez Vs. Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, et. Al. G.R. No.191805 November 15, 2011ss
2. Yano vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 186640, February 11, 2010;

- Temporary Protection Order

- Witness Protection Order
- Inspection Order
- Production Order.

Action in Rem and Action in personam:

1. Lucas vs. Lucas, GR No. 190710, 06/06/2011

2. Banco Espanolvs. Palanca 37 Phil 921;
3. ValdemiesoVs. Damalerio 451 SCRA 638, Feb. 18, 205.

Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)

1. Cortez-Estrada vs. Heirs of Domingo, 451 SCRA 275 [2005]. ;

2. Bacolod City Water District vs. Labayen, 446 SCRA 110;
3. James College of Paraň aque vs. EPCIB, GR No. 179441, 08/09/2010;
4. Bro. Bernard Oca vs. Custodio, GR No. 174996, 12/03/2014;
5. First Global Realty and Development Corp. vs. San Agustin, 427 Phil. 593 [2002];
6. DPWH vs. City Advertising Ventures Corp., GR No. 182944, 11/09/2016;
7. Madarang v. Santamaria, 37 Phil. 304 [1917];
8. Barbajo vs. Hidden View Homeowners, Inc., 450 SCRA 315;
9. Sps. Nisce vs. Equitable PCI Bank, 02/19/2007;
10. Rivera vs. Florendo, 144 SCRA 643;
11. SangguniangPanlunsod ng Baguio City v. Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation, GR
160025, 04/23/2014.
12. Philippine National Bank v. RJ Ventures Realty and Development Corporation, et al.
(534 Phil. 769 [2006];
13. Cahambing vs. Espinosa, GR No. 215807, 01/25/2017
14. Bank of Philippine Islands v. Hontanosas, GR 157163, 06/25/2014;
15. Novecio vs. Hon. R. Lim, GR No. 193809, 03/23/2015;
16. Sps. Espiritu vs. Sps. Sazon, GR No. 204965, 03/02/20016;
17. Borlongan vs. Banco De Oro, GR Nos. 217617 & 218540, 04/05/2017;
18. Malayan Integrated Industries vs. CA, GR 101469, 09/04/1992;
19. PPA vs. vs. Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, 475 SCRA 426;
20. Paras v. Roura, 163 SCRA 1 [1988].
Receivership (Rule 59)
 1. Caboverde-Tantano v. caboverde, GR No. 203585, 07/29/2013);
2. Samson vs. Araneta, 64 Phil. 549;
3. Duque vs. CFI, Manila, 13 SCRA 420
Replevin (Rule 60)

1. Yang vs. Valdez, 177 SCRA 141;

2. Malayan Insurance vs. Alibudbud, GR No. 209011, 04/20/2016);
3. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Judge Carpio, GR No. 195450, 02/01/2017).
4. Enriquez Vs. Mercantile Insurance G.R. No. 210950, August 15, 2018.
An action in rem is one instituted and enforced against the whole world. (2) An action in personam is
one filed against a definite defendant. It is intended to subject the interest of defendant on a property
to an obligation or lien. Jurisdiction over the person (defendant) is required. It is a proceeding to enforce
personal rights and obligations brought against the person, and is based on the jurisdiction of the
person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to
compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose is to
impose through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the
defendant. No other than the defendant is liable, not the whole world, as in an action for a sum of
money or an action for damages. (3) An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one
brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims
assailed. An individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. It deals with status, ownership or
liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between
the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all
possible claimants. Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition, action for accounting,
attachment, foreclosure of mortgage. (4) An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor
is a real action necessarily an action in rem. An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of
actions according to foundation. For instance, an action to recover title to or possession of real property
is a real action, but it is an action in personam, not brought against the whole world but against the
person upon whom the claim is made. (5) The distinction is important to determine whether or not
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required and consequently to determine the type of
summons to be employed. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide a case against said defendant where the action is one in personam but not where
the action is in rem or quasi in rem. (6) The Supreme Court sums up the basic rules in Biaco vs. Philippine
Countryside Rural Bank, GR 161417, 02/08/2007: The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction
depends on the nature of the action – whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The
rules on service of summons under Rule 14 likewise apply according to the nature of the action. An
action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. An action in rem is
an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to
the obligation or lien burdening the property. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case, as well as to determine what
summons to serve. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by
the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective. Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of
vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. (7) An action
in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against
the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its
object is to subject that person’s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition
directed against the “thing” itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for
adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem
(Lucas vs. Lucas, GR No. 190710, 06/06/2011). (8) An action for injunction is in personam since it can be
enforced only against the defendant therein (Dial Corp. vs. Soriano, GR No. 82330, 05/31/1988). (9) An
action for the declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or reconveyance,
is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it
concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly
impleaded (Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. vs. Enriquez cited in Muñoz vs. Atty. Yabut, GR No. 142676,
06/06/2011). An action in rem is one instituted and enforced against the whole world. (2) An action in
personam is one filed against a definite defendant. It is intended to subject the interest of defendant on
a property to an obligation or lien. Jurisdiction over the person (defendant) is required. It is a proceeding
to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person, and is based on the jurisdiction of
the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or
seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose
is to impose through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of
the defendant. No other than the defendant is liable, not the whole world, as in an action for a sum of
money or an action for damages. (3) An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one
brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims
assailed. An individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. It deals with status, ownership or
liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between
the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all
possible claimants. Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition, action for accounting,
attachment, foreclosure of mortgage. (4) An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor
is a real action necessarily an action in rem. An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of
actions according to foundation. For instance, an action to recover title to or possession of real property
is a real action, but it is an action in personam, not brought against the whole world but against the
person upon whom the claim is made. (5) The distinction is important to determine whether or not
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required and consequently to determine the type of
summons to be employed. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide a case against said defendant where the action is one in personam but not where
the action is in rem or quasi in rem. (6) The Supreme Court sums up the basic rules in Biaco vs. Philippine
Countryside Rural Bank, GR 161417, 02/08/2007: The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction
depends on the nature of the action – whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The
rules on service of summons under Rule 14 likewise apply according to the nature of the action. An
action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. An action in rem is
an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to
the obligation or lien burdening the property. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case, as well as to determine what
summons to serve. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by
the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective. Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of
vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. (7) An action
in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against
the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its
object is to subject that person’s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition
directed against the “thing” itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for
adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem
(Lucas vs. Lucas, GR No. 190710, 06/06/2011). (8) An action for injunction is in personam since it can be
enforced only against the defendant therein (Dial Corp. vs. Soriano, GR No. 82330, 05/31/1988). (9) An
action for the declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or reconveyance,
is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it
concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly
impleaded (Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. vs. Enriquez cited in Muñoz vs. Atty. Yabut, GR No. 142676,
06/06/2011).