MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

SYLLABUS: SCHOOL YEAR 2021-2022 (1st Sem)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I

A. CIVIL PROCEDURE
(As amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, effective May l, 2020)
B. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (RULES 57-61)
C. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION (RULES 62-71)

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

Course Description:
A general review of the laws on jurisdiction of courts in civil actions and the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (Rules 1-71). The course includes the study of applicable jurisprudence, analysis of the
relevant rules, and related laws governing procedure in civil cases, provisional remedies and special civil
actions. Upon completion of the course, students are expected to have a strong fundamental knowledge
and understanding of the Rules of Court that will enable them to successfully hurdle the Bar Exams and
eventually be capable law practitioners.

Class Schedule: 3 hours a week; 3 units

Wednesday 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

PRIMARY SOURCES/REFERENCES

1987 Constitution of the Philippines

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC ―2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Supreme Court Decisions
Textbook - Riano

COURSE REQUIREMENTS
- 60% - Weekly Exams (30% Midterms, 30% Finals)
- 40% -Weekly Performance (30% class participation/ recitation, 10% homework
submissions)

ATTENDANCE

- Student who will incur absences of more than twenty (20%) percent of the
prescribed number of class hours shall be given a failing mark or grade.

- Perfect attendance will be given additional points to the final grade.

Flow
a) Submission of case assignment/homework three (3) days before
the scheduled class
b) Weekly exam– topics discussed in the previous meeting
c) Recitation – topics and assigned cases

Methodology
- substantive provisions and jurisprudential pronouncements as against
specific facts of cases
- topical instead of sequential treatment of the coverage of Civil
Procedure
- All assigned materials shall be discussed in the approximate order
indicated in the outline.
- Some changes in the outline and readings assignments may be made to
accommodate the available schedule.
- the recitation shall follow both Socratic method and Case method
(emphasis on the rationale of the ruling)
- Recitation may be assigned (panel of expert) or voluntary (if the
randomly called students failed to correctly answer the questions posed,
the others may volunteer for bonus points).
- students shall not be allowed to read books and other printed materials
during graded recitation.
- Every student is expected to read all assigned provisions in the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure (vis-à-vis A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC―2019
Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure‖), related
laws, and administrative orders in relation to the related cases listed
below them.
- doctrinal highlights/key concepts related to the assigned cases have
been identified to guide the students.
- All covered provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and their
related cases shall be discussed vis-a -vis the provisions of A.M. NO.
19-10-20-SC ―2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1997
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

II. COURSE OUTLINE and COURSE MATERIALS

A. PRELIMINARIES: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

 A. Concept of Remedial or Procedural Law
1. Alfonso Singson Cortal vs Inaki Larrazabal, G.R. No. 199107. August 30,
2017,
2. Vivencio, Eugenio, Joji and Myrna, All Surnamed Mateo vs. Department of
Agrarian
Reform, Land Bank of the Philippines and Mariano T. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No.
186339,
February 15, 2017
3. Priscilla Alma Jose v. Ramon C. Javellana, et al., G.R. No. 158239, January
25, 2012

A1. Remedial Law distinguished from Substantive Law.

1. Rodante Guyamin, et.al. v. Jacinto Flores, et.al., G.R. No. 202189, April 25,
2017
2. Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2086, March 8, 1949
A2. Procedural laws applicable to actions pending at the time of promulgation
1. Panay Railways Inc. v. Heva Management and Development Corporation, et
al., G.R. No. 154061, January 25, 2012

A3. Force and Prospective Effect of the Rules of Court.

1. Bermejo v. Barrios, G.R. No. L-23614 February 27, 1970

A4. Applicability to pending actions; retroactivity.

1. In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon Datumanong, G.R. No.
150274 August 4, 2006
2. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Go Ko, G.R. NO. 148641. March 31, 2005
3. Go vs. Subanon, 642 SCRA 367, G.R. NO. 148641. March 31, 2005
4. First Aqua Traders, Inc. vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 514 SCRA 223, 226-227
G.R. NO. 154034 : February 5, 2007

A5. When procedural rules do not apply to pending action.

A6. May parties change the rules of procedure?
A7. Matters of procedure which
-may be agreed upon by the parties
-are waivable
-fall within the discretion of the court
A8. Distinguish Civil Action, Criminal Action and Special Proceedings.
A9. Liberal construction of procedural rules; purposes. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court)
1. Felix Martos, et al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650,
October 24, 2012
2. Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v. Sps. Marilyn Lim, et al., G.R. No.
191837, September 19, 2012
3. F.A.T. Key Computer System v. Online Networks International, Inc.
G.R. No. 171238; February 2, 2011
4. City of Dumaguete v. Phil Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, Aug. 24,
2011.
5. Alcantara v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, G.R. No.
151349 : October 20, 2010
 A9a.1.Extent and Scope of the Rule on Liberal Construction.
1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao Corporation,
G.R. No. 159593, October 12, 2006
2. Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan, 502 SCRA 614.
622, G.R. NO. 169420 : September 22, 2006

A9b.General Rule on Liberal Constructions; exception.

1 Pilapil v. Heirs of Briones, 514 SCRA 197, 211 G.R. No. 150175
February 5, 2007
2. Barangay Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Corner School, G.R. No.
169942, Jan. 24, 2011.

A10. In what cases Rules of Court is not applicable. (Sec. 4, Rule 1, Rules of Court)
1. Atienza v. Board of Medicine, 642 SCRA 523, G.R. No. 177407 February 9,
2011)
2. Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phil., Inc. G. R. No. 153660 - June 10, 2003)
3. Panuncillo v. CAP, Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 161305 February 9, 2007.
4. Ong Chia v. Republic, G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000

B. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

a. Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5), Constitution
b. Art. VI, Sec. 30
c. Power to amend the rules.
d. Power to suspend the Rules; power to reverse itself.
e. Limitation on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court.
1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao Corporation,
G.R. No. 159593, October 12, 2006
2. Salvador Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679,
August 15, 2017
3. SM Land, Inc., et al. v. City of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 197151, October
22, 2012
4. Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June 30, 2006
5. In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in
Favor of Lilibeth Ladaga v. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, et al., G.R.
No. 189689/G.R. No. 189691, November 13, 2012

B1. Nature of Philippine Courts

1. BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc., Petitioner vs.Total
Distribution & Logistic Systems, Inc., Respondents, G.R. No. 214406, February
6, 2017
a. Meaning of a court
b. Distinguish: court and judge
c. Classification of Philippine courts
d. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction
e. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
f. Constitutional and statutory courts
Regular Courts (MTC, RTC, CA, SC) Art. VIII, Constitution
 BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)
RA 7691 (expanding the jurisdiction of MetroTC, MTC, MCTC, amending BP
129) RA 7902 (expanding the jurisdiction of the CA, amending BP 129)
Family Courts - RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997)
Special Courts
Sandiganbayan
PD 1616, as am. by RA 7975 and RA 8249 Court of Tax Appeals
RA 9242
Quasi judicial bodies
SEC ( Sec. 5.2, RA 8799, Securities Regulation Code)
CSC ( Magpale vs. CSC, 215 SCRA 398 (1992)) G.R. No. 97381 November
5, 1992
HLURB (Delos Santos vs. Sps. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 154877, March 27,
2007

g. Courts of law and equity

h. Principle of judicial hierarchy
1. Senator Leila de Lima vs Hon. Juanita Guerrero, et al, G.R. No. 229781, October
10, 2017
2. Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007
3. Delos Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006
4. COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002
5. United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification Administration,
G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012
6. Emmanuel De Castro v. Emerson Carlos, G.R. No. 194994, April 16, 2013

i. Exceptions to Observance of Hierarchy of Courts

1. Henry R. Giron vs. Hon. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,et al.
G.R.No. 218463, March 1, 2017

j. Transcendental importance
1. United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification
Administration, G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012

k. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability

1. Sinter Corporation and Phividec Industrial Authority v. Cagayan
Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002

C. JURISDICTION

Laws:
1. Article 8 (Sec. 1 and 5) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution – re power of
the SC to promulgate the Rules of Court
2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691
3. 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure Sec. 1(a)
4. Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Sec. 2 and Sec. 4
5. Katarungang Pambarangay Law: P.D. 1508; RA 7160 Sec. 399-Sec. 422,
Book 3, Title 1, Chapter 7
6. SC Circular No. 09-94, effective 14 June 1994

C1. Classification of jurisdiction

1. Distinguish: original and appellate
2. Distinguish: general and special
3. Distinguish: exclusive and concurrent
C2. Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction
1. Omictin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007
2. Republic v. Lacap, 517 SCRA 255 G.R. No. 158253 March 2, 2007

C3. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction/continuing jurisdiction

1. Abad, et al. v. RTC of Manila, et al., G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987
C4. 8. Requisites for the valid exercise of jurisdiction

C5. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts

1.Supapo v. Sps. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015

A. Supreme Court
B. Court of Appeals
1. Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 168065/G.R.
No. 168070. September 6, 2017

C. Court of Tax Appeals

D. Sandiganbayan
E. Regional Trial Courts
1. Philippine Bank of Communications, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of
Appeals, Hon. Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr., In his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 56, Traveller
Kids Inc., Cely L. Gabaldon-Co and Jeannie L. Lugmoc, Respondents,
G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017
2. Mercedita C. Coombs v.Victoria C. Castaneda, Virgilio Veloso
Santos, Sps. Pancho & Edith Leviste, BPI Family Savings Bank and the
Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City, G.R. No. 192353 March 15, 2017

F. Family Courts
G. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
H. Shari’a Court
 1. The Municipality Of Tangkal, Province Of Lanao Del Norte,
Petitioner, Vs. Hon. Rasad B. Balindong, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge, Shari’a District Court, 4th Judicial District, Marawi City, and
Heirs Of The Late Macalabo Alompo, represented by Sultan Dimnang B.
Alompo, Respondents, G.R. No. 193340, January 11, 2017

C6. Aspects of jurisdiction

a) Generally
i. parties
ii. subject matter
iii. res or property
iv. issues

i. Jurisdiction over the parties

a. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
b. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
1. Optima Realty Corporation v. Hertz Phil., Exclusive, Inc.,
G.R. No. 183035, January 9, 2013
2. Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379, December 1,
2010

ii. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

a. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter

b. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

1. Lasmis v. Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20,
2010

iiii. Jurisdiction Over the res or property in litigation

1. Ferdinand Marcos, Jr, v. Republic, G.R. No. 189505, March 12,
2014

iv. Jurisdiction over the issues

1. TGN Realty Corporation v. Villa Teresa Homeowners Association
(VTHA), G.R. No. 164795, April 19, 2017
2. De Joya v. Marquez, et al., G.R. No. 163416, January 31, 2006

b) Jurisdiction over small claims, cases covered by the rules on Summary Procedure and
Barangay Conciliation

1. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar, et al., G.R. No. 200804, January
22, 2014
2. Fiorello R. Jose v. Roberto Alfuerto, et al., G.R. No. 69380, November 26,
2012
3. Republic of the Philippines v. Valentina Espinosa, Registrar of Deeds of
Negros Occidental et.al., G.R. No. 186603, April 5, 2017
4. Jose Audie Abagatnan et al vs.Spouses Jonathan Clarito And Elsa Clarito,
G.R. No. 211966. August 7, 2017
5. Gegare v. CA, G.R. No. 83907, September 13, 1989
6. Sanchez v. Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690, February 29, 1988
7. Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-63277, November 29, 1983
8. Peregrina v. Panis, 133 SCRA 75 G.R. No. L-56011 October 31, 1984
 9. Librada M. Aquino v. Ernest Aure, G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008
10. Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel v. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January
25, 2012

c.) Totality rule

1. Flores v. Mallare-Phillips, 144 SCRA 377 G.R. No. L-66620 September 24,
1986

d.) How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

1.. Joseph Regalado vs Emma de la Rama vda. de la Pena, Jesusa de la Pena,
Johnny de la Pena, Johanna de la Pena, Jose de la Pena, Jessica de la Pena, and
Jaime Antonio de la Pena, G.R. No. 202448, December 13, 2017
2. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Regional Agrarian Reform
Officer, G.R. No. 200369, March 1, 2017
3. Jonathan Y. Dee v. Harvest All Investment Limited, et al., v. Alliance Select
Foods International, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 224834 G.R. No. 224871March 15,
2017
4. Fe V. Rapsing, et al. v. Hon. Judge Maximino R.Ables, et al., G.R. No.
171855, October 15, 2012
5. Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G.R. No. 165676, November 22, 2010
6. Remedios Antonino v. The Register of Deeds of Makati City, et al., G.R. No.
185663, June 20, 2012
7. Loloy Unduran, et.al. v. Ramon Aberarturi, et.al., G.R. No. 181284, April 18,
2017

e) Jurisdiction at time of filing of action

1. People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267 G.R. No. 117970 July 28, 1998

f) Test of Jurisdiction
g) Duty of Court to determine its Jurisdiction
h) Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction
i.) Distinguish: jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction
j.) Distinguish: doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction and
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
k) Effect of estoppel on objection to jurisdiction
1. De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 166 [G.R. No. 96107 June 19, 1995
2. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968
3. Atty. Cudiamat, et al. v. Batangas Savings & Loan Bank, et al., G.R. No.
182403, March 9, 2010
4. Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 G.R. No. 140954. April
12, 2005

l) Distinguish: Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment

1. First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
No. 171989, July 4, 2007
 B. CIVIL PROCEDURE - GENERAL PROVISIONS
I. BEFORE FILING 0F THE ACTION

A. Cause of Action (Rule 1 – General Provisions – Sec. 1 to 6, Rule 2– Cause of Action –

Sec. 1 to 6)

A1. Meaning of cause of action

1. Manuel C. Ubas, Sr. vs.Wilson Chan, G.R. No. 215910, February 6, 2017
2. Goodland Company, Inc. v. Asia United Bank, et al., G.R. No. 195561, March 14,
2012
3. Heirs of Tomas Dolleton vs. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., G.R. No, 170750,
April 7, 2009

A2. Elements of cause of action

1. Relucio v. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578
2. Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc. et al. v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc. G.R. No.
152272, March 5, 2012
3. Manzanal v. Ilusorio, 636 SCRA 563, 570, G.R. No. 189311 December 6, 2010.

A3. When cause of action is required.

1. Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, 636 SCRA 13, G.R. No. 157479 November
24, 2010

A4. Test of sufficiency of a cause of action

1. Jose Diaz, Jr. and Adelina McMullen vs Salvador Valenciano, Jr.
G.R. 209376, December 6, 2017
2. Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc. et al. v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc. G.R. No.
152272, March 5, 2012

A5. Jurisdiction - Cause of action (Secs. 1-2)

1. Heirs of Tomas Dolleton vs. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., G.R. No, 170750, April 7,
2009

A.6. Actions in general

a. Cause of action
b. Right of action

Distinguished right of action versus cause of action

1. Virra Mall Tenants Association, Inc. v. Virra Mall Greenhills Association, Inc.,
G.R. No. 182902, October 5, 2011.

A.7 Kinds of action

a. Ordinary civil actions
b. Special civil actions
c. Criminal actions

1. Tamano v. Ortiz, 291 SCRA 584, 588 G.R. No. 169766

 March 30, 2011
2. National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 522, 529-
530 G.R. No. 123215 February 2, 1999

3. Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. v. Court of Appeal, 353 SCRA

89, 91 G.R. No. 129184. February 28, 2001
a.2. Distinguish Civil actions vs. special proceedings
1. Ramon Ching and Po Wing Corp. v. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 192828,
November 28, 2011

A.8. Different Kinds of Action;

a. As to cause or foundation
i. Personal
ii. Real
*Distinction between a personal and real action important in determining venue
1. Paglaum Management & Development Corp. and Health Marketing
Technologies, Inc. v. - Union Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 179018, June 18,
2012
2. United Alloy Philippines Corporation, Spouses David C. Chua and
Luten Chua vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 175949, January 30,
2017

b. As to object
a. in rem
b. in personam
c. quasi in rem
*distinction important in service of summons
1. Belen v. Chavez, 549 SCRA 479 G.R. No. 175334 March 26, 2008
2. Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal, G. R. No. 195619, September
5, 2012
3. Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, 515 SCRA 106 G.R. No. 161417
February 8, 2007
4. Yu v. Pacleb, etc., G.R. No. 172172, February 24, 2009

A.9. Failure to state a cause of action

1. Asia Brewery Inc. and Charles Go v. Equitable PCI Bank (now BDO), G.R.
No. 190432,
April 25, 2017
2. Butuan Development Corporation(BDC) v. Court of Appeals (Mindanao
Station),
et.al., G.R. No. 197358, April 5, 2017
3. Miguel "Lucky" Guillermo and AV Manila Creative Production Co. v.
Philippine
Information Agency and Department of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No.
223751 March 15, 2017

A.10 Splitting a cause of action (Secs. 3-4)

1. Joseph vs. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540 (1989)
 2. Del Rosario vs Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 150134, October
31, 2007
3. Progressive Development Corp. vs. CA, 301 SCRA 367 G.R. No. 123555.
January 22, 1999
4. CGR Corporation vs. Treyes, Jr., G.R. No. 170916, April 27, 2007
5. Enriquez vs. Ramos, 7 SCRA 265 G.R. No. L-16797 February 27, 1963
6. Sps Yap vs. First E-Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 169889, September 29, 2009

A.10.a Prohibition against splitting a single cause of action.

1. Mariscal v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 51 G.R. No. 123926 July 22,
1999
2. Progressive Development Corporation Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 301
SCRA 637, 652-653. (same case above)

A.10.b Remedy against splitting a single cause of action

a. motion to dismiss – Rule 16, Sec. 1 (e) or Sec. 1 (f)
b. answer alleging affirmative defense – Rule 16, Sec.6

A.11. Joinder of causes of action (Secs. 5-6); See Rule 3, Section 6

1. Sps. Perez vs. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417, July 8, 2005
2. Sps Decena vs. Sps Piquero, G.R. No. 155736. March 31,
2005
3. Flores vs. Mallare-Phillipps, 144 SCRA
277 GR No. 66620, (1986)
A.11.a Joinder of Claims in Small Claim Cases.
A.11.b Remedy in Case of Misjoinder of Actions.

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence

1. Selga v. Brar, 21 September 2011 G.R. No. 175151
2. Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen, 31 July 2013
3. Riviera Gold Club v. CCA Holdings B.V., G.R. No. 173783, June 17, 2015
4. Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015
5. Salvador v. Patricia Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 09, 2016

B. Parties
1. Rule 3 – Parties to Civil Actions – Sec. 1 to Sec. 11
2. Art. 44 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
3. Rule 3 – Parties to Civil Actions – Sec. 12 to Sec. 22

a. Parties in general; Who may be parties (Sec. 1)

b. Kinds of parties
i. Natural persons
ii. Juridical persons
iii. Entities authorized by law (even if they lack juridical personality)

c. Requirements
i. legal capacity
 ii. real party in interest
iii. standing to sue
1. Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065| April 15, 2005

d. Representative parties (Sec. 3)

1. Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

Indispensable parties (Sec. 7)

2. In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late
Hermogenes Rodriguez, Pascual vs. Robles, G.R. No. 182645,
December 15, 2010 (Resolution)
3. Limos vs. Spouses Odones, G.R. No. 186979, August 11, 2010

See Rule 17, Sec. 3

4. Domingo vs. Scheer, 421 SCRA 468 G.R. No. 154745
January 29, 2004
5. Uy vs. CA, 494 SCRA 535 G.R. No. 157065 July 11, 2006
6. Sustiguer v. Tamayo, 176 SCRA 579, 590 G.R. No. 29341 August
21, 1989
7. Uy v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 69, 78. G.R. No. 120465.
September 9, 1999

e. Lack of personality to sue

1. Evangelista vs. Santiago, 475 SCRA 744 G.R. No. 157447. April 29,
2005
2. Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. vs. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc.,
G.R. No. 175048, February 10, 2009

f. Indispensable parties (Sec. 7)

1. Spouses Garcia v. Garcia, G.R. No. 169157, November 14, 2011.
2. Supulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez, 450 SCRA 302 G.R. No. 152195
January 31, 2005
3. MWSS v. Court of Appeals. 297 SCRA 287.
4. In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late
Hermogenes Rodriguez, Pascual vs. Robles, G.R. No.
182645, December 15, 2010 (Resolution)
5. Limos vs. Spouses Odones, G.R. No. 186979, August 11,
2010

f.1. Distinguished from Necessary parties.

g. Necessary party or proper party (Secs. 8-9)

1. Laperal Devt. Corp. vs. CA, 223 SCRA 261 G.R. No. 96354 June 8,
1993

h. Spouses as parties. (Sec. 4)

Art. 111, Family Code
Art. 1207, Art. 1216, Civil Code of the Philippines.
i. Minor or incompetent as parties (Sec. 5)
j. Unwilling co-plaintiff. (Sec. 10)
k. Effects of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (Sec. 11)
l. Alternative defendant (Sec. 13)
1. Rizal Surety & Insurance Company v. Manila Railroad Corporation, 70
SCRA 187 G.R. No. L-24043 April 25, 1968
m. Unknown defendant (Rule 14, Sec. 14)
n. Entity without juridical personality as defendant (Sec. 15;
o. Death of party; duty of counsel (Secs. 16, 20)
1. If plaintiff dies during pendency of case
2. If defendant dies, effect of his death depends upon nature of the pending
Action

i. Effect of non-substitution of a deceased party

1. Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 G.R. NO.
140954. April 12, 2005
2. De la Cruz vs. Joaquin, 464 SCRA 576 G.R. No. 162788. July 28,
2005
3. Limbauan vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 148606, June 30, 2006
Death or separation of party who is a public officer (Sec. 17)
4. Florendo v. Coloma, 129 SCRA 304 G.R. No. L-60544 May 19,
1984

ii. Death or separation of party who is a public officer (Sec. 17)

p. Incompetency or incapacity (Sec. 18)

q. Transfer of interest (Sec. 19)
r. Indigent party (Sec. 21)
s. Notice to Solicitor General (Sec. 22)
t. Where obligation of the parties is solidary, either of the parties is indispensable
1. Cerezo vs. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004 Necessary
party or proper party (Secs. 8-9)
2. Laperal Devt. Corp. vs. CA, 223 SCRA 261 G.R. No. 96354 June 8,
1993

u. Joinder of parties
i. joinder of initial parties/ Permissive joinder of parties (Sec. 6)
1) compulsory
2) permissive
ii. third (fourth, etc.) party
iii. special joinder modes
1) class suit
1.Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank, 58 SCRA 559 (1974) G.R. No. L-
23136 August 26, 1974

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence

1. Soquillo v. Tortola, G.R. No. 192450 July 23, 2012
2. Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771 April 21,
2015
 3. Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993 August 22, 2012
4. Guizano v. Veneracion, G.R. No. 191128 September 12, 2012
5. Ang v. Pacunio, 8 G.R. No. 208928 July 8, 2015
6. Pau v. Deyto, 26 November 2012 G.R. No. 173336
7. Crisologo v. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 196894
March 3, 2014
8. LBP v. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, April 22, 2015
9. Spring Homes v. Tablada, G.R. No. 191667, April 22, 2015
10. St. Luke’s College of Medicine v. Perez, G.R. No. 222740,
September 28, 2016
11. De Leon v. Chu, G.R. No. 222740, September 28, 2016
12. Regalado v. Regalado, G.R. No. 196919 June 6, 2011
13. Pacific Rehouse Corp. v. Ngo, G.R. No. 214934, April 12, 2016

v. Intervention Rule 19
a) Who may intervene (Sec.1, Rule 19)
b) Ancillary to pending action
1. Saw vs. CA, 195 SCRA 740 G.R. No. 90580 April 8, 1991

c) Concept, Nature and Purposes

d) Requisites of Intervention
1. Labrador v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58168 December 19, 1989

e) When intervention disallowed

1. Gibson v. Revilla, 92 SCRA 219 G.R. No. L-41432 July 30, 1979
2. Lazatin v. Campos, 92 SCRA 250 G.R. No. L-43955-56 July 30, 1979

f) Effect of Denial of the Motion to intervene; Remedy from Denial

1. Saw vs. CA, 195 SCRA 740 G.R. No. 90580 April 8, 1991

g) Time to Intervene (Sec. 2, Rule 19)

h) Intervention even after judgment
1. Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 238 G.R. No. L-45168
September 25, 1979

i) How a person may intervene (Sec.2, Rule 19)

j) Exception
1. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. vs. Presiding Judge, 182 SCRA 820
(1990), G.R. No. 89909 September 21, 1990
2. Strategic Alliance Development Corporation vs. Radstock Securities
Limited, G.R. No. 178158, December 4, 2009

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence on Intervention

1. PNB v. Aznar, G.R. No. 171805, 30 May 2011
2. Heirs of Medrano v. De Vera, G.R. No. 165770 August 9, 2010
3. Board of Regents of MSU v. Osop, G.R. No. 172448, February 22,
2012
 4. Malvar v Kraft Foods Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 183952, September 9,
2013
5. Pulgar v. RTC of Mauban, Quezon, G.R. No. 157583 10 September
2014
6. Lim v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No. 178789, November 14, 2012

w. interpleader

x. Commencement of action; Condition Precedent;

x.1. Katarungang Pambarangay Law (As provided in Secs. 399-422, Ch. 7,
Title One, Book III, RA 7160)
1. Lumbuan vs. Ronqullo, G.R. No. 155713, May 5, 2006
a. Not jurisdictional but ground for dismissal under Rule 16, Sec. 1(j)
b. When parties may go directly to court without need of prior barangay
conciliation (Sec.412, Local Government Code, RA 7160)
c. Requirement does not apply to any complaint by or against corporations,
partnerships or juridical entities (Sec, 1, Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules)

x.2. Payment of Docket Fees/Payment of Filing Fees.

1. Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 , G.R. No.
140954. April 12, 2005
2. Do-All Metal Industries, Inc. v. Security Bank Corp., G.R. No.
176339 10 January 2011
3. Lu v. Lu Ym, G.R. No. 153690, 15 February 2011
4. Home Guaranty Corp. v. R-11 Builders Inc., 22 June 2011 G.R.
No. 192649
5. Dee v. Harvest All Investment Ltd., G.R. No. 224834, March
15, 2017
6. Navarez v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 191641, 2 September 2015

y. Selection of court

Y.1. Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts and Kinds of Pleadings

1. Rule 5 – Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts – Sec. 1 and Sec. 2

2. Rule 6 – Kinds of Pleadings - §1 to §13
a. Sec. 4 to 6, Sec. 9, Sec. 19 to 20 of 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure
b. Sec. 5 to 7, Sec. 11, Sec. 13 to 14 of Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims

1. Kinds of civil actions

i. Ordinary and special
ii. Personal, real
 iii. In personam, in rem, quasi-in rem
iv. Local and transitory

2. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

3. Jurisdiction
4. Venue of Actions (Rule 4)
1. Rule4 –Venue of Actions-Sec. 1 to 4
2. Rule 110, Sec. 15, Rules on Criminal Procedure
3. Sec. 5 R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act)
4. Sec. 4, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
5. Sec. 2(c), A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC

i. Venue defined
ii. Distinguish: jurisdiction and venue
iii. Venue of real actions (Sec. 1)
iv. Venue of Venue of personal actions (Sec. 2)
v. Venue of actions against non-residents (Sec. 3)
vi. Quasi in rem (action affects personal status of plaintiff) --
residence of plaintiff
vii. In rem (action affects property of defendant in Phils.) -- location
of property
viii. When the rules on venue not applicable (Sec. 4)
1. Diaz vs. Adiong, 219 SCRA 631 , G.R. No. 106847.
March 5, 1993
2. Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, G.R. No.
106920, 10 December 1993, 228 SCRA 385,

ix. Where parties have validly agreed in writing before filing of the
action on exclusive venue thereof
1. Legaspi vs. Republic, G.R. No. 160653, July 23, 2008

x. Waiver of improper venue

i. express waiver
ii. implied waiver
1. Dacoycoy vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74854, April 2, 1991
2. Nocum v. Tan, 470 SCRA 639, G.R. No. 145022 September 23, 2005

xi. How to question improper venue/ Dismissal based on improper

venue.
a) motion to dismiss (Rule 16, Sec. 1(c))
b) affirmative defense in answer (Rule 16, Sec. 6)

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence

1. BPI Family Bank v. Yujuico, G.R. No. 175796, 22 July 2015
2. Ochoa v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 192877, 23 March 2011
3. Paglaum Mgt. and Devt. Corp v. Union Bank, G.R. No. 179018 18
June 2012
 5. Summary procedure

z. Pleadings, motions and notice

1. Rule 7 – Parts of Pleadings – Sec. 1 to Sec. 5

2. Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated June 3, 2008 (Bar
Matter 1922)

General Principles on Pleadings;

a) Pleadings defined. (Sec. 1)
A.1. Nature of Pleadings.
A.2. Necessity and Purpose of Pleadings
A.3. Construction of Pleadings

b) Pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court. (Rule 6, Sec. 2)

c) Distinguished from motion (Rule 15, Sec. 1)
d) Parts of a pleading (Rule 7, Secs. 1-5)
i) Caption of the Pleading (Sec. 1)
A.1. Title of the action.
ii) Body of the Pleading (Sec. 2)
iii) Headings; designation of causes of action joined in one complaint.
iv) Relief
1. Prince Transport Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011
2. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129227. May 30, 2000

v) Signature and address. (Sec. 3)

3. Garrucho v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143791, 14 January 2005, 448
SCRA 165,
4. Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation G.R. No. 149576 August 8,
2006

v.1. Effect of unsigned pleading

e) Formal requirements
1) Verification in a pleading (Sec. 4)
1. a) How a pleading is verified. (A.M. No. 00-2-10, May 1, 2000)
5. Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, 650 SCRA 35, G.R. No. 154704
June 1, 2011
1.b) Significance of Verification
6. Sarmiento v. Zaratan, 514 SCRA 246, G.R. No. 167471  ,
February 5, 2007

1.c) Effect of lack of verification

7. Chua v. Torres, 468 SCRA 358, G.R. No. 151900 August 30, 2005
8. Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. v. NLRC, 272 SCRA
737, G.R.No. 112650. May 29, 1997
 1.d. Applicability to Special Civil Actions

2) Meaning of Forum Shopping

2.a) Certification of non-forum shopping (Sec. 5)
9. Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, 497 SCRA 562, G.R. No. 153785 August
3, 2006
10. Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company Inc., G.R. No. 195546,
March 14, 2012
11. Ao-As vs. CA, 491 SCRA 353, G.R. No. 128464, June 20, 2006

2.b) Forum shopping certificate for a corporation

12. PAL vs. Flight Attendants and Stewards Assn of the Phils.
(FASAP), G.R. No. 143088, January 24, 2006

2.c) Who executes the certification of against forum shopping; Rule if there
are
several plaintiffs or petitioners; exception.
13. Damasco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115755. December 4, 2000
14. Heirs of Francisco Retuya v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163039,
April 6, 2011.

2.d) How to determine existence of forum shopping;

15. Multinational v. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 104, G.R. No. 98023
October 17, 1991
16. Young v. Spouses Sy, G.R. 157745 September 26, 2006

2.3) Effect of non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum

Shopping; Exceptions.
17. Juaban v. Espina, 548 SCRA 588, G.R. No. 170049 March 14, 2008

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence on Parts of a Pleading (Rule 7)

18. Brown-Araneta v. Araneta, 9 October 2013, G.R. No. 190814,
19. In re: Reconstitution of TCTs 3031684 & 303169, G.R. No.
156797, 6 July 2010
20. William Go Que Construction v. Singson, G.R. No. 191699, April
19, 2016
21. Formoso v. PNB, G.R. No. 154704 June 1, 2011
22. Metrobank v. Abad Santos, G.R. NO. 157867 : December 15, 2009
23. De Guzman v. Chico, G.R. No.195445, December 07, 2016
24. Mid-Pasig Land Devt. Corp. v. Tablante, G.R. No. 162924 :
February 04, 2010
25. Monasterio-Pe v. Tong, G.R. No. 151369, March 23 : 2011
26. Cosco Phils. Shipping v. Kemper Insurance Co., G.R. No.
179488 : April 23, 2012
27. Heirs of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian G.R. No. 201816 April 8, 2013
f). Manner of making allegations in pleadings

Rule 8 – Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings – Sec. 1 to 12

1) How allegations made. In general (Rule 8, Sec. 1)

28. Ceroferr Realty Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139539
February 5, 2002
29. Tantuico, Jr. V. Republic, 204 SCRA 428, G.R. No. 89114
December 2, 1991

2) Pleading alternative causes of actions or defenses (Sec. 2, Rule 8)

30. La Mallorca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-20761, 27 July 1966,
17 SCRA 739

2) Conditions precedent (Rule 8, Sec. 3)

a. Effect of failure to comply with condition precedent
b. Capacity (Rule 8, Sec. 4)
c. Fraud and mistake, condition of mind (Rule 8, Sec. 5)
d. Pleading a Judgments (Rule 8, Sec. 6)
e. Actionable Document (Sec. 7, Rule 8)
31. Araneta Inc. v. Lyric Factor Exchange, Inc. 58 Phil.
736, G.R. No. 37730. November 14, 1933

i. How to contest actionable document; Oath required;

When not required. (Sec. 8, Rule 8)
f. Specific Denial (Sec. 10, Rule 8)
i. Effect of absence of a specific denial. (Sec. 11, Rule 8)
a. Republic v. Sarabia, 468 SCRA 142,
150, G.R.No. 157847 : August 25, 2005

ii. Purpose of a Specific Denial.

33. PBCom v. Go, 642 SCRA 693, G.R. No. 175514
February 14, 2011

iii. Kinds of Specific Denial

34. Camitan v. Court of Appeals, 511 SCRA 364, G.R.
No. 128099 December 20, 2006

g. Pleading an official document (Sec. 9, Rule 8)

h. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted (Sec. 11,
Rule 8)
h.1. Judicial Admission
h.2. Modes of Denial
h.3. How Express Admissions Withdrawn
i. Official documents (Rule 8, Sec. 9)
j. Need to bring in new parties (Rule 6, Sec. 12)
k. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein.
k.1. When Court may Order any Pleading to be stricken out
 k.2. Pleadings or Matters to be Stricken out
k.3. False Allegations

g) Kinds of Pleadings
a) Complaint; Defined and in general (Rule 6, Sec. 3)
A.1. Filing of complaint
A.2 Significance of Filing of the Complaint
A.3. Payment of Docket Fees and acquisition of
jurisdiction.
A.4. Allegations In general (Rule 8, Sec. 1)
1. Reyes vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati, G.R. No. 165744, August
11, 2008 Capacity of parties (Rule 8, Sec. 4)

A.5 Actions based upon a document (Rule 8, Sec. 7)

b) Answer (Sec. 4, Rule 6)

B.1. Nature of an Answer.
B.2. Defenses in Answer.
B.3. Types of defenses
B.3.1. Negative Pregnant
1.Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Sweet
Lines, 212 SCRA 194 (1993), G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992

B.3.1. Negative Defenses; Define. (Sec. 5 (a), Rule 6)

- How alleged, generally (Rule 8, Sec. 10)
B.3.2. Affirmative Defenses; Define. (Sec. 5, Rule 6)
1. Pesane Animas Mongao v. Pryce Properties Corp., 467 SCRA
201, 214, G.R. No. 156474. August 16, 2005

B.4. Capacity of parties (Rule 8, Sec. 4)

B.5 Genuineness of documents (Rule 8, Sec. 8)
1. Memita vs Masongsong, G.R. No. 150912, May 28, 2007

B.6. Implied admissions (Rule 9, Sec. 1)

B.7 Periods to plead (Rule 11, Secs. 1-3)
B.8 Waiver of defenses (Rule 9, Sec. 2)
B.9 Counterclaim; Nature of a Counterclaim. (Sec. 6-7, Rule 6)
B.10.a How raised.
i. Included in answer (Rule 6, Sec. 9; Rule 11, Sec. 8)
ii. After answer (Rule 6, Sec. 9; Rule 11, Sec. 9)

B.10.b Kinds of counterclaims

i. Compulsory counterclaim; tests (Rule 6, Sec. 7; auxiliary to the

original suit
1. GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010.

a) jurisdiction (both as to amount and nature; exception)

 1.Maceda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83545, August
11, 1989

b) when original action filed with RTC, counterclaim

deemed compulsory regardless of amount
c) filing fees and non-forum shopping certification not
required
1.Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas (Batangas), Inc.,
G.R. No. 153171, May 4, 2996

d) barred if not raised (Rule 11, Sec. 8, Rule 9, Sec. 2)

-need not be answered
1.Sarmiento vs. San Juan, G.R. No. L-56605 January 28,
1983, 120 SCRA 403

e) Remedies For failure to raise compulsory counterclaim (Rule

9, Sec. 2)
f) allowed under the Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP,
Sec. 3)
g) Effect of dismissal of a complaint on the counterclaim
already set-up.
1. Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, 494 SCRA 393, 413. , G.R.
No. 170354 , June 30, 2006

h) Answer to counterclaim; In general (Rule 6, Sec. 4)

- period to plead (Sec. 4, Rule 11)

ii. Permissive Counterclaim;

1. Korea Exchange Bank vs. Gonzales, 456 SCRA 224, G.R.
Nos. 142286-87. April 15, 2005

B.10.C Distinction between a compulsory and permissive counterclaim.

1.. BA Finance Corp. vs. Co, 224 SCRA 163, G.R. No. 105751 June
30, 1993

B.10.D Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim (Sec. 10, Rule 11)

C) Cross – claim (Sec. 8, Rule 6)

C.1. Distinction between a counterclaim and a cross-claim.
C.2. Period to answer a cross-claim (Sec. 4, Rule 11)

D) Third-Party Complaint (Sec. 11, Rule 6)

D.1. Defined.
D.2. Remedies when denied

E) Answer to Third/Fourth Party Complaint

E.1. In general (Rule 6, Sec. 13)
E.2. Time to plead (Rule 11, Sec. 5)
 F) Reply (Sec. 10, Rule 6)
F.1. Defined and in general (Rule 6, Sec. 10)
F.2. When required (Rule 6, Sec.10)
Challenge due to authenticity of documents (Rule 8, Sec. 8)
1. Casent Realty Development Corp. vs. Philbanking Corporation,
G.R. No. 150731, September 14, 2007
F.3. Filing of reply, not mandatory.
G) Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. 12-8-8-SC)
H) Efficient Use Paper Rule (A.M.11-9-4-SC)

h) Amendment of Pleadings
a) In general (Rule 10, Sec. 1)
b) Liberality
1. Barfel Devt. Corp. vs. CA, 223 SCRA 268, G.R. No. 98177 June 8, 1993

c) Form (Rule 10, Sec. 7)

d) Effect (Rule 10, Sec. 8)
e) Kinds;
i. Formal amendments (Rule 10, Sec. 4)
1. Godinez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154330, February 15,
2007
ii. Substantial amendments
iii. Matter of right (Rule 10, Sec. 2)
1. Alpine Lending Investors vs. Corpuz, G.R. No. 157107,
November 24, 2006
iv. Matter of discretion (Rule 10, Sec. 3)
v. To conform to evidence (Rule 10, Sec. 5)
1.Philippine Ports Authority vs. William Gothong & Aboitiz
(Wg&A), Inc., G.R. No. 158401, January 28, 2008
2. Panganiban vs. Sps. Roldan, G.R. No. 163053, November 25,
2009
3. Swagman Hotels & Travel, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 161135, April
8, 2005

vi) Supplemental pleadings (Rule 10, Sec. 6)

vii)Filing of Amended pleadings (Sec. 7, Rule 10)
viii) Effect of Amended pleadings (Rule 10, Sec. 8)
1. Shoemart, Inc. vs. CA, 190 SCRA 189 G.R. No. 86956 October
1, 1990

ix) Remedies Periods to answer

x) Amendments (Rule 11, Sec. 3)
xi) Supplemental complaint (Rule 11, Sec. 7)
xiii) Distinguished from amended pleadings
1.Shoemart, Inc. vs. CA, 190 SCRA 189 (1990) –(same
case above)
Other cases/updates in jurisprudence on Kinds of Pleadings (Rule 6)

1. GSIS v. Caballero, G.R. Nos. 158090 4 October 2010

 2. Metrobank v. CPR Promotions, G.R. No. 200567, June 22, 2015
3. Calibre Traders Inc. v. Bayer Phils., G.R. No. 161431
October 13, 2010
4. Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Ogsos, G.R. No. 221062, October 05, 2016
5. Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Paras, G.R. No. 161909 : April
25, 2012

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 8)

1. Villaloan v. Lirio, G.R. No. 183869, August 03, 2015
2. Ledda v. BPI, G.R. No. 200868 21 November 2012
3. BP Oil v. Total Distribution, G.R. No. 214406, February 06, 2017
4. Titan Construction Corp. v. David, G.R. No. 169548 March 15, 2010
5. Fernando Medical Enterprises v. Wesleyan University Phil., Inc., G.R.
No. 207970, January 20, 2016

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 9)

1. Pacana-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., G.R. No. 168979
December 2, 2013
2. Otero v. Tan, G.R. No. 200134 August 15, 2012
3. Banco de Oro v. Tansipek, G.R. No. 181235 July 22, 2009
4. Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No. 173559, January 07, 2013

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 10)

1. Sps. Dela Cruz v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 172825 October 11,
2012
2. Cabrera v. Clarin, G.R. No. 215640, November 28, 2016

i) Bill of particulars (Rule 12, Secs. 1 to 6)

a. Office and purpose
1. Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 52 (1993) G.R. No. 106527. April 6,
1993.

b. What is beyond its scope

1. Tan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 84195. December 11, 1989

j) Intervention (Rule 19, Secs. 1 to 4) Ancillary to pending action

1.Saw vs. CA, 195 SCRA 740 (1991)
a) Exception
1. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. vs. Presiding Judge, 182
SCRA 820 (1990) May only be filed before judgment (Sec. 2)
2. Strategic Alliance Development Corporation vs. Radstock Securities
Limited, G.R. No. 178158, December 4, 2009
II. FILING OF THE ACTION

A. Commencement of the action

1. FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS

A. Filing
A.1) Meaning of Filing (Sec. 2, Rule 13)
A.1. Coverage (Rule 13, Secs. 1, 4)
A.3. How to prove filing (Sec.12, Rule 13)
A.4. Papers required to be filed and served. (Sec. 4, Rule 13)
A.2) Meaning of Service (Sec. 2, Rule 13)
A.2.a. Upon whom service shall be made.
1. People v. Gabriel, 510 SCRA 197, 202, G.R. No. 147832, December 6, 2006,
2. Delos Santos v. Elizalde, G.R. Nos. 141810 & 141812, February 2, 2007,

A.2.b Service upon counsel representing several parties

A.2.c Distinguish: filing and service of pleadings
A.3.) Periods of filing of pleadings
A.4.) Manner of filing (Rule 13, Sec. 3)
i. Personal filing
ii. Filing by registered mail
iii. Filing by accredited courier
iv. Transmittal by electronic mail or other electronic means
1. GSIS v. NLRC, 635 SCRA 251, 257, November 17, 2010. G.R.
No. 180045

B. Mode of service (Sec. 5 to 7, Rule 13)

i. Personal service
ii. Service by registered mail
iii. Service by accredited courier
iv. Service by electronic mail, facsimile transmission, or other
electronic means
v. Service as provided for in international conventions
1.Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
567 SCRA 483, 491-492 G.R. No. 161219 October 6, 2008

B.1. When personal service and service by mail deemed complete.

(Sec. 10, Rule 13)
B.2. Substituted service; When is complete. (Sec. 8, Rule 13)
B.3. How to prove service (Sec. 13, Rule 13)

C) Notice of Lis Pendens; Defined (Sec. 14, Rule 13)

C.1. Purpose of Lis Pendens
C.2. Effect of Lis Pendens
C.3. Actions where notice of Lis Pendens Allowed
C.4. Cancellation of Lis Pendens after Judgment without court order
C.5. Power of trial court to cancel notices of lis pendens

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence on Filing and Service of Pleadings (Rule 13)

 1. Palileo v. Planters Dev’t. Bank, 8 October 2014, G.R. No. 193650
2. Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182814
15 July 2015
3. Republic v. Viaje, G.R. No.180993 27 January 2016

B. Docket fees
C. Raffle of cases
D. Provisional remedies, if necessary
i) Preliminary Attachment (Rule 57)
ii) Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)
iii) Receivership (Rule 59)
iv) Replevin (Rule 60)
v) Support pendente lite (Rule 61)
III. WHEN COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES

A. Summons
• (Rule 14, Sec. 1 to 10, 11 to 20)
Administrative Circular No. 59-SC, November 19, 1989

a) Nature of Summons (Rule 14)

1. Republic of the Philippines v. Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, Sept. 14, 2011

b) Issuance of summons; not discretionary

c) Effect of knowledge of the filing of action
d) Purpose of summons
1. Gomez v. Court of Appeals, 425 SCRA 98, G.R. No. 127692 , March 10, 2004
2. Velayo-Fong v. Velayo, 510 SCRA 320, 331, G.R. No. 155488 December 6,
2006
3. Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041. July 29, 2005
4. Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128803 September 25, 1998
5. PCI Bank v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587 September 21, 2007

In relation to actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem

e) Contents of summons (Sec. 2)
f) Duty of counsel
g) Voluntary appearance by defendant ( Sec. 20)
1. Cezar vs. Ricafort-Bautista, G.R. No. 136415,. October 31, 2006
2. Lhuillier vs. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010
3.Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 499 SCRA 21, G.R. No. 130974 August 16, 2006

h) Who issues the summons;

i)When summons is issued (Sec. 1, Rule 14)
j) To whom summons is directed; Contents of summons (Sec. 2, Rule 14)
k) Who serves the summons (Sec. 3, Rule 14)
l) Return and proof of service (Sec. 4, Rule 14)
m) Issuance of alias summons (Sec. 5, Rule 14)
n) Uniformity of the Rules on Summons
o) Service upon entity without a judicial personality (Sec. 8, Rule 14)
p) Service upon prisoner (Sec. 9, Rule 14)
q) Service upon a minor and an incompetent (Sec. 10, Rule 14)
r) Service upon a private domestic juridical entity (Sec. 11, Rule 14)
1. G & G Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-78299
February 29, 1988
2. Aboitiz International Forwarders, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
142272
3. Paramount Insurance Corp. v. A.C. Ordoñez Corp., G.R. No. 175109
August 6, 2008
4. Carson Realty & Management Corp vs. Red G.R. No. 174414 March 14,
2008
 s) Service upon a foreign private juridical entity not registered in the Philippines A.M. No.
11-3-6-SC dated March 15, 2011 amending Rule 14, Sec. 12
t) Service upon public corporation (Sec. 13, Rule 14)
u) Service upon unincorporated government agency
1. Republic of the Philippines v. Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, Sept. 14, 2011

w) Service in person on defendant (Sec. 6, Rule 14)

w.1. Tender of summons.
1. Hamilton v. Levy, 344 SCRA 821

x) Substituted service of summons (Sec. 7, Rule 14)

1. Afdal v. Carlos, 636 SCRA 389, G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010,
2. Jose v. Boyon, 414 SCRA 216, G.R. No. 147369: October 23, 2003

x.1. How substituted service is made

1. Guanzon v. Arradaza, 510 SCRA 309 G.R. No. 155392 December 6, 2006

x.2. Effect if defendant does not actually receive the summons

1. Montalban v. Maximo. 22 SCRA 1070 G.R. No. L-22997 March 15, 1968

x.3. When defendant prevents service of summons

1. Robinson v. Miralles, 510 SCRA 678 G.R. No. 163584 December 12, 2006
x.4. Requisite of valid substituted service

y) Summons by publication (Sec. 15, Rule 14)

1. Banco do Brasil v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 121576-78 June 16, 2000
2. Cynthia Alaban v. Court of Appeals, 470 SCRA 697, G.R. No. 156021
September 23, 2005

Proof of service (Sec. 18)

z) Service upon defendants whose identity or whereabouts are unknown (Sec. 14, Rule 14)
1. Santos v. PNOC Exploration Corp., 566 SCRA 272 G.R. No. 170943
aa) Service upon a resident temporarily out of the Philippines (Sec. 16, Rule 14)
1.Palma vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010
Non-resident (Sec. 15)
aa.1. Extraterritorial Service; Requisites.
aa.2. Actions involved in extraterritorial service of summons.
aa.3. Mode of extraterritorial service.
1. Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 539, G.R. No. 128803
September 25, 1998
2. Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 92, G.R. No. 108538 January
22, 1996
bb) Summons when complaint is amended
1. Vlason Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 26, 257-258 G.R.
Nos. 121662-64 July 6, 1999

2. Modes of Service of Summons

a. personal service
 b. substituted service
c. constructive service (by publication)
d. extraterritorial service

B. Voluntary appearance

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 14)

1. Gentle Supreme Phils. Inc. v. Consulta, 1 September 2010, G.R. No. 183182: September 01,
2010
2. Macasaet v. Co, 5 June 2013, G.R. No. 156759
3. Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corp., v. Ting Guan Trading Corp., 7 April 2014 G.R. No.
182153
4. Palma v. Galvez, 10 March 2010 G.R. No. 165273
5. NM Rothschild & Sons [Aus] Ltd v. Lepanto Consolidating Mining Co., 28 November 2011
G.R. No. 175799
 IV. INCIDENTS AFTER COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER THE
PARTIES

Rule 15 – Motions – Sec. 1 to 15

A. In general (Sec. 1)
a) Define Motion (Sec.1, Rule 15)
b) Form (Sec. 2)
c) Generally (Sec. 10)
d) May be oral (Sec. 2)
e) Motion for leave (Sec. 9)
f) Contents (Sec. 3)
g) Prohibited motion (Summary Procedure; Writ of Amparo; Small Claim Cases;
Environmental Cases)
h) Omnibus motion rule (Sec. 8)
i) Exceptions (Rule 9, Sec. 1)
j)Hearing of the motion; litigated and ex parte motions (Sec. 4, Rule 15)
1. Sarmiento v. Zaratan, 514 SCRA 246, G.R. No. 167471 February 5,
2007 k) Notice of hearing (Secs. 4, 5)
k.1) General rule: without compliance – scrap of paper
1. Sps. Rustia vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 156903, November 24, 2006
k.2) Defective notice of hearing
1.Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Malinias., G. R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007 Exceptions

l) Motions which may be granted ex parte

m) Where adverse party had opportunity to oppose
1.Lanto vs. Dimaporo, 16 SCRA 599 (1966) G.R. No. L-21905 March 31, 1966
2. Vlason Enterprises Corp. vs. CA, 330 SCRA 26 (1999) G.R. Nos. 121662-64 July 6,
1999

n) Proof of service (Sec. 6)

o) Hearing of motions (Sec. 7)
p) Effect of failure to set the motion for hearing
1. Vette Industrial Sales Co. Inc. v. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532, 545 G.R. No. 170232
December 5, 2006

B. Four general types of motion to dismiss under the Rules

1. Motion to dismiss before answer Rule 9 Sec. 1 (Rule 16 been deleted and/or
transposed)
2. Motion to dismiss by plaintiff (Rule 17)
3. Motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence after plaintiff has rested his case
under Rule 33
4. Motion to dismiss appeal either in RTC (Rule 41, Sec. 13), CA (Rule 50, Sec.
1) or SC (Rule 56, Sec. 5)

C. Plaintiff‘s notice and motions

a. notice of dismissal of the complaint under Rule 17, Section 1
1. O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corp. vs. Macamir Realty and
CA, G.R. No. 135803, March 26, 2006

a.1 Two dismissal rule - Defined.

b. Upon motion of plaintiff – after answer (Sec. 2)
1. Antonio, Jr. vs. Morales G.R. No. 165552, January 23, 2007

b. amended complaint under Rule 10, Section 2

c. motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint under Rule 10, Section 6
d. motion to declare defendant in default under Rule 9, Section 3

d.1 When may a defendant be declared in default?

1. Failure to file answer (Rule (9, Sec. 3)
2. Failure to furnish copy of answer
3. Failure to appear at pre-trial (Rule 18, Sec. 5)
4. Failure to comply with modes of discovery
(Rule 29, Sec. 3 [d])

d.2) Nature of Default

1. Vlason Enterprises Corp. vs. CA, 310 SCRA 26 (1999), G.R. Nos. 121662-
64 July 6, 1999,
2. Monzon Spouses Relova v. Addio Properties Inc., 565 SCRA 514, G.R.
NO. 171827
3. Cathay Pacific Airways v. Romillo, Jr. 141 SCRA 451, G.R. No. L-64276

d.3) Requisites before a party may be declared in default

1. Spouses delos Santos v. Carpio, 501 SCRA 390, G.R. No. 153696
September 11, 2006

d.4) Elements of valid declaration of default

1. Sablas v. Sablas, 526 SCRA 292, G.R. No. 144568

d.5) Effect of declaration of default (Sec. 3 (a) Rule 9)

1. Monarch Insurance v. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 71, G.R. No. 92735
June 8, 2000
2. Gajudo vs. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. N o. 151098, March 21, 2006
3. Vlason Enterprises Corp. vs. CA, 310 SCRA 26, G.R. Nos. 121662-64 July
6, 1999

d.6) Effect of partial default (Sec. 3 (c) Rule 9)

d.7) Action of the court after the declaration/order of default (Sec.3, Rule 9)
- render judgment
- hearing ex parte

d.8) Remedies of a defending party declared in default

i. After notice and before judgment (Sec. 3, par. b., Rule 9)
1. Villareal v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 511, G.R. No. 107314
September 17, 1998
 2. Ramnani vs. CA, 221 SCRA 582 (1993), G.R. No. 101789

ii. After judgment and before such judgment becomes final and
executory
1. Lina v. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 637, G.R. No. L-63397
April 9, 1985

iia) Motion for reconsideration or new trial (Rule 37)

iib) Appeal (Rules 40 and 41)
1.Martinez vs. Republic, G.R. No. 160895, October 30, 2006

iii. After judgment becomes final and executory

1. Laus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101256, March 8, 1993

iii.a) Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38)

iii.b) Annulment of judgment (Rule 47)

iv. Is certiorari a proper remedy?

1. Jao vs. CA, 251 SCRA 391, G.R. No. 93233 December 19,
1995
2. Indiana Aerospace University vs. CHED, 356 SCRA 367
(2001), G.R. No. 139371

d.9) Implied lifting of the order of default

d.10) Extent of relief to be awarded (Sec. 3, par. d, Rule 9)

d.11) Cases when a declaration/order of default cannot be made (Sec. 3 par.
e, Rule 9)

D. Defendant‘s motions
a. motion to set aside order of default under Rule 9, Section 3
b. motion for extension of time to file responsive pleading under Rule 11, Section 11
c. motion for bill of particulars under Rule 12, Sec. 1 to 6
c.1) When to file motion for bill of particulars (Sec. 1, Rule 12)
c.2) Purpose of the motion in civil cases; in criminal cases
1. Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 52 (1993)
c.3) Requirements for the motion.
c.4) Action of the court (Sec. 2, Rule 12)
c.5) Instances when Bill of Particulars Allowed; When it is improper.
c.6) Compliance with the Order of the court granting motion for bill of
particulars (Sec. 3, Rule 12);
c.7 Effect of non-compliance (Sec. 4, Rule 12).
c.8 Stay of period to file responsive pleadings (Sec. 5, Rule 12)

d. motion to dismiss complaint under Rule 16

d.1) Grounds (Sec. 1, Rule 16)
i. Lack of jurisdiction
1. Boticano vs. Chu, G.R. No. L-58036 March 16, 1987
 2. Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip, G.R. No. 154684, September 8,
2005

ii. Res judicata

1. Del Rosario vs Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No.
150134, October 31, 2007 Failure to state a cause of action
2. Heirs of Antonio Santos vs. Heirs of Crispulo Beramo, G.R.
No. 151454 August 8, 2010
3. FELS Energy Inc. v. Province of Batangas, 516 SCRA 186,
201

ii.a ) Concepts of res judicata

29. Topacio v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 635
SCRA 50, G.R. No. 157644 November 17, 2010

ii.b) Elements of Res judicata

ii.c) Application of Res Judicata to quasi judicial proceedings
1. Heirs of Wenceslao Tabia v. Court of
Appeals, 516 SCRA 431, G.R. NOS. 129377
& 129399 : February 22, 2007

ii.d) No res judicata in criminal proceedings

1. Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, 539 SCRA 415,
G.R. NO. 166038 : December 4, 2007

iii. Statute of frauds

1. Asia Production Co., Inc. vs. Pano, 205 SCRA 458 (1992), G.R. No.
L-51058 January 27, 1992

d.2) Period to file Motion to Dismiss (Sec. 1, Rule 16)

d.3 When a motion to dismiss may be filed even after the answer has been
served and filed
1. Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas, 638 SCRA 444, December 15, 2010, G.R. No.
157852
d.4) Laches as a ground for motion to dismiss.
1. Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevarra, 515 SCRA 627, 636, G.R. No.
143188 February 14, 2007

e. Remedy of the defendant if the motion is denied (Sec. 4, Rule 16)

1. Douglas Lu Ym v. Gertrudes Nabua, 452 SCRA 298 G.R. No. 161309
February 23, 2005

- file answer, unless without jurisdiction, in which case, Rule 65

petition
1. NPC vs. CA, 185 SCRA 169 G.R. No. 84695. May 8, 1990
 f. Remedy of the plaintiff if the motion to dismiss is granted.
- appeal or refile complaint
g. When complaint cannot be refiled (Sec. 5, Rule 16)
refiling barred if motion based on Sec. 1 (f), (h) and (i)
On periods for pleading (Sec. 4)
-On other grounds and omnibus motion rule (Rule 9, Sec. 1; Rule 15, Sec. 8)

h) Effect of dismissal of complaint on counterclaim (Sec. 6, 2nd par. Rule 16)

i) Effect of Granting of motion to dismiss
j) Hearing on the motion to dismiss (Sec. 2, Rule 16)
1. Capiral v. Robles, G.R. No. 173628, Nov. 16, 2011

k) The resolution of the motion to dismiss shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons
therefor. (Sec. 3)
1. Luistro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158819, April 16, 2009
2. Municipality of Binan vs. CA, 219 SCRA 69 (1993) G.R. No. 94733 February 17,
1993

l). preliminary hearing not mandatory

m) preliminary hearing on an affirmative defense for failure to state a cause of action not
necessary

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 15)

1. Home Development Mutual Fund v. Sps. See, 22 June 2011, G.R. No. 170292
2. J.O.S. Managing Builders v. United Overseas Bank, 14 September 2016 G.R. No.
219815,

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 16)

1. Padilla v. Globe Asiatique Realty Corp., 6 August 2014 G.R. No. 207376
2. Alabang Dev’t. Corp., v. Alabang Hills Village Assocation, 2 June 2014 G.R. No.
187456
V. JOINDER OF ISSUES
A. Plaintiff‘s motions and pleadings
1. Motions
a. To dismiss complaint under Rule 17, Sec. 2
a.1. Effect of dismissal upon a counterclaim already pleaded.
a.2. Dismissal without prejudice

b. To amend or supplement complaint under Rule 17, Secs. 3 and 6

c. For judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34
e. For summary judgment under Rule 35
f. To set pre-trial

2. Pleadings
a. Reply
b. Answer to counterclaim
3. Others
a. Pre-trial brief

B. Defendant‘s motion and pleading

1. Motion
a. Motion to dismiss complaint due to fault of plaintiff under Rule 17, Sec. 3
a.1. Grounds for Dismissal
a.2.Failure to appear; Test of Failure to Prosecute; Unreasonable length of time
1. Smith Bell and Co. v. American President Lines Ltd., 94 Phil. 879
a.3. Failure to Comply with Order of the Court
a.4. Dismissal for failure to comply with discover procedure
a.5. Failure to appear at Pre-Trial
a.6. Effect of dismissal on the counterclaim

1. Cruz. vs. CA, G.R. No. 164797, February 13, 2006

2. Philippine National Bank vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 182507, June 18,
201
3. 3A Apparel Corporation vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No.
186175, August 25, 2010
b. Effect on counterclaim
1. Pinga vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June 30, 2006
2. Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R.
No. 172242, August 14, 2007

b. Remedy of plaintiff
1. Ko vs. PNB, 479 SCRA 298, January 28, 2006
2. Pleading
a. Answer with or without counterclaim
3. Others
a. Pre-trial brief

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 17)

 Ching v. Cheng, 8 October 2014
 VI. PRE-TRIAL

1. Rule 18 – Pre-Trial – Sec. 1 to Sec. 7

2. Sec. 7 and Sec. 8, Rule on Summary Procedure
3. Sec. 18 Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
4. Admin. Circular No. 03-1-09-SC (July 13, 2004)
5. OCA Circular 51-2011 CAM/JDR

A. Concept, Nature and purpose of Pre-Trial (Rule 18)

a) (Sec. 2) When (Sec. 1)
1. LCK Industries Inc. vs. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 170606,
November 23, 2007
2. Interlining Corporation v. Philippine Trust Company, 378 SCRA 521

b) Effect of Failure to conduct pre-trial

1. National Power Corp. v. Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060, July 27, 2011

c) Referral to the Philippine Mediation Center (Adm. Circular No. 20-2002,

March 24, 2002; A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, July 13, 2004

d) How pre-trial is called; filing of motion by plaintiff (Sec.1, Rule 18)

Effect of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Rule on Guidelines to be Observed
by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-
Trial and Use of Deposition- Discovery Measures), which took effect
on August 16, 2004

e) When motion is filed by plaintiff (Adm. Circular No. 3-99, Jan. 15, 1999; A.M.
03-01-09-SC)
f) Last pleading file - meaning
1. Sarmiento v. Juan, 120 SCRA 403, 408
g) Notice of pre-trial (Sec. 3, Rule 18)
1. Agulto v. Tecson, 476 SCRA 395
h) Appearance of parties and counsel in pre-trial (Sec. 4, Rule 18)
1. Senarlo v. Judge Paderanga, 617 SCRA 247
2. Real Bank Inc., v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp. 633 SCRA 124
H.1. How non-appearance is excused
1. Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp. 639
SCRA 441

i) Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, effective January 1, 2013

1.Lara's Gift and Decors, Inc. v. PNB General Insurers Co., G.R. No.
230429, January 24, 2018

j) Pre-Trial Brief; Filing and Contents (Sec. 6, Rule 18)

J.1. Identification and markings of evidence (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, July
13, 2004)
J.2. Legal effects of representations and statements in pre-trial brief
J.4. No termination of pre-trial for failure to settle
 J.5. One day examination of witnesses rule; Most important witness rule;
Questions are to be asked by the judge (A.M. No. 03-1-09 SC)

k) Effect of failure to file (sec. 5, Rule 18)

1. Ramos v. Spouses Lavendia, 568 SCRA 293

k.1 By the plaintiff

1. Mondonedo v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 28 (see Rule 17, Sec.
3)
2. Calalang vs. CA, 217 SCRA 462 (1993)
k.2 By the defendant
1. Mangelen v. Court of Appeals 215 SCRA 230
2. Paredes v. Verano, G.R. No. 164375, Oct. 12, 2006
3. Spouses Corpuz vs. Citibank, N.A., G.R. No. 175677, July 31,
2009

k.3 On defendant, compare with default (Rule 9, Sec. 3)

1. Citibank N.A. vs. Chua, 220 SCRA 75 (1993)
2. Spouses Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol), Inc,
G.R. No. 202597, February 08, 2017

l) Record or order of pre-trial (Sec. 7)

L.1. Pre-trial Order; Contents (Adm. Circular No. 1-89) ; When issued (A.M.
No. 03-1- 09-SC)
1. Heirs of Conahap v. Regaña, 458 SCRA 741

L.2. Implied issues are deemed included in the pre-trial order

1. Philippine Export And Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v.
Amalgamated Management and Development Corp., G.R. No.
177729, September 28, 2011
m) Distinction between pre-trial in civil case and in criminal case
n) Preliminary conference under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
o) Preliminary conference in the Court of Appeals
A. Plaintiff‘s motions
1. To present evidence ex parte and render judgment

B. Defendant‘s motion
1. Motion to dismiss

C. Common motions
1. To postpone
2. For consolidation or severance 3 For trial by commissioner

D. Joinder
1. Joinder of claims or causes of action
2. Joinder of parties
 Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 18)
1. BPI v. Genuino, 22 July 2015
2. Philam Life Ins. Co., v. Enerio, 15 September 2010
3. PNB v. Sps. Perez, 15 June 2011
4. Pacana-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply Inc., 2 December 2013
VII. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY (Rules 23 to 29)
A. Depositions
B. Interrogatories to parties
C. Admission by adverse party
D. Production or inspections of documents or things
E. Physical and mental examination of persons
a) Meaning of discovery
b) Purpose of discovery
1. Mercader v. DBP, 332 SCRA 82
c) Duty of the court in relation to mode of discovery
d) Modes of discovery under the Rules of Court
D.1. Deposition (Rules 23-24)
D.1.1. Deposition. Defined
D.1.3. Depositions pending action; leave of court when required (Sec.1, Rule 23)
D.1.4. Deposition of a prisoner (Sec.1, Rule 23)
D.1.5 Before whom taken (Sec. 10, 11, 13, 14, Rule 23)
D.1.6. Examination of the deponent (Sec. 15, Rule 23)
D.1.7. Use of depositions pending action (Sec.4, Rule 23)
D.1.8. Effect of substitution of parties (Sec. 5, Rule 23)
D.1.9. Effect of the taking of deposition of a person (Sec. 7, Rule 23)
D.1.10. Effect of using the deposition of a person (Sec. 8, Rule 23)
D.1.11. Oral deposition (Sec. 17, 19, 20, 21, Rule 23)
D.1.12. Deposition upon written interrogatories (Sec. 25, 26 Rule 23)
D.1.13. Deposition before action (Sec. 1, Rule 24)
D.1.14. Perpetuation of testimony before action (Sec. 3, 4, Rule 24)
D.1.15. Deposition pending appeal (Sec. 7, Rule 24)
Cases

1. Fortune Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994
2. Koh vs, IAC, September 23, 1986
3. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, November 21, 1991
4. Camus de Lopez vs. Maceren, August 31, 1954, 95 Phil 753
5. Caguiat vs. Torres, 30 SCRA 106
6. Dasmarinas Garments Inc. vs. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622
7. Cariaga vs. CA, 358 SCRA 583

Interrogatories to Parties, Admission by Adverse Party, Production or Inspection of

Documents or Things, Physical and Mental Examination of Persons, and Refusal to
Comply with Modes of Discovery

D.2. Interrogatories to Parties (Rule 25)

D.2.1. Purposes of Interrogatories to parties (Sec.1, Rule 25)
D.2.2. Distinguished interrogatories from a bill of particular; from deposition
D.2.3. How to avail; Procedure (Sec.2., 3, 4, Rule 25)
D.2.4. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories (Sec. 6, Rule 25)

D.3. Admission by Adverse Party (Rule 26)

D.3.1. Purpose of Admission by adverse party
D.3.2. When request is made
D.3.3. Effect of not filing a written request for admission (Sec.5, Rule 26)
D.3.4. Effect of failure to file and serve a sworn statement of denial (Sec. 2, Rule
26)
D.3.5. Effect of admission (Sec. 3, Rule 26)
D.3.6. Deferment of compliance (Sec. 2, par. 2, Rule 26)
D.3.7. Withdrawal of admission (Sec.4, Rule 26)

D.4. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things (Rule 27)

D.4.1. Purpose (Sec.1)
D.4.2. Filing of a motion; order of the court
D.4.3. Privileged Documents
1. Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., 540 SCRA 215

D.5. Physical and Mental Examination of Persons (Rule 28)

D.5.1. Applicability (Sec.1, Rule 28)
D.5.2. Procedure (Sec. 2, 3, Rule 28)
D.5.3. Waiver of Privilege

D.6. Refusal to Comply with the Modes of Discovery (Rule 29)

D.6.1. Refusal to answer any question upon oral examination (Sec.1, Rule 29)
D.6.2. Refusal to answer designated or particular questions or refusal to produce
documents or things to submit to physical or mental examination (Sec.3, Rule
29)
D.6.3. Refusal to be sworn (Sec. 2, Rule 29)
D.6.4. Refusal to Admit (Sec. 4, Rule 29)
D.6.5. Failure to attend depositions or to serve answers to written interrogatories
(Sec.5, Rule 29)
1. Zepeda v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 172175, Oct. 9, 2006

e) Alternative Dispute Resolution

E.1. Katarungang Pambarangay
Sec. 399-422, Book III, Title I, Chapter 7, RA 7160

E.2. 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure For Small Claims Cases as Amended
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, December 8, 2015
1. GMCC United Development Corporation v. Gotesco Regency Twin
Towers Condominium Corporation, G.R. No. 206137, 08 April 2015
2. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014
3. Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation G.R. No. 164344,
December 23, 2008
 E.3. Court Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution
A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, January 11, 2011
OCA Circular No. 051-11, April 6, 2011

E.4. Construction Arbitration

Executive Order No. 1008, February 4, 1985

CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration,

August 15, 2011 (As amended by CIAC Resolution Nos. 15-2006, 16-2006, 18-
2006, 19-2006, 02-2007, 07-2007, 13-2007, 02-2008, 03-2008, 11-2008, 01-
2010, 04-2010, and 07-2010)
CIAC Resolution No. 07-16, November 3, 2016

1. Chung Fu Industries (Philippines) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

96283, February 25, 1992
2. William Golangco Construction Corp. v. Ray Burton Development
Corp., G.R. No. 163582, August 9, 2010
3. Federal Builders, Inc. v. Power Factors, Inc., G.R. No. 211504, March
8, 2017

E.5. International Commercial Arbitration

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
Arbitration Rules, December 15, 1976
1. Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Lerma, G.R. No. 143581, January
7, 2008
2. MCC Industial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633,
October 17, 2007
3. Department of Foreign Affairs v. BCA International Corp., G.R.
No. 210858, June 29, 2016
4. Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., G.R. No. 161957, 167994,
January 22, 2007
5. Transfield Phils., Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corp., G.R. No. 146717,
May 19, 2006
6. RCBC Capital Corp. v. Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc., G.R. No.
196171, 199238, December 10, 2012
7. Republic Act No. 876, June 19, 1953
8. Umbao v. Yap, G.R. No. L-8933, February 28, 1957
9. Continental Marble Corp. V. National Labor Relations
Commission (Nlrc);, Et Al., G.R. No. L-43825, May 9, 1988
10. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. St. Francis Square Realty, G.R
Nos. 198916-17, 198920-21, 11 January 2016
11. Bases Conversion Development Authority, et al., v. DMCI
Project Developers, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 173137, 11 January
2016
12. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. World Interactive Network
Systems Japan Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 169332, February 11, 2008
 E.7. Republic Act No. 9285, April 2, 2004

E.8 Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution

A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC, September 1, 2009
Executive Order No. 78, July 4, 2012

1. Fruehauf Electronics Philippines Corp. v. Technology Electronics Assembly and

Management Pacific Corp., G.R. No. 204197, November 23, 2016
2. Department of Foreign Affairs v. BCA International Corp., G.R. No. 210858,
June 29, 2016
3. Tuna Processing, Inc. v. Philippine Kingford, Inc., G.R. No. 185582, [February
29, 2012
4. RCBC Capital Corp. v. Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc., G.R. No. 196171, 199238,
December 10, 2012
5. Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc., v. Spouses Rune And Lea Stroe, G.R. No.
204689, January 21, 2015
6. Koppel, Inc. (Formerly Known As Kpl Aircon, Inc.), v. Makati Rotary Club
Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 198075, September 4, 2013
7. Department Of Environment And Natural Resources (DENR), v. United Planners
Consultants, Inc. (UPCI), G.R. No. 212081, February 23, 2015
9. Luzon Iron Development Group Corp. v. Bridestone Mining and Development
Corp., G.R. No. 220546, December 7, 2016
10. Federal Express Corp. v. Airfreight 2100, Inc., G.R. No. 216600, November 21,
2016
33. Fyfe v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 160071, June 6, 2016
 Calendar of Cases, Subpoena, and Computation of Time
1. Rule 20 – Calendar of Cases – Sec 1 to 2
2. Rule 21 – Subpoena - Sec1 to 10
3. Rule 22 – Computation of Time – Sec 1 to 2

VIII. SUBPOENA

a) Kinds of Subpoena (Sec.1, Rule 21)

i. Subpoena ad testificandum
ii. Subpoena duces tecum
b) By whom issued (Sec. 2, Rule 21)
c) Forms and contents (Sec. 3, Rule 21)
1. Universal Rubber Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,et.al., 215 SCRA
85, 91
2. Roco v. Contreras, G.R. No. 158275, June 28, 2005
d) Quashing a subpoena; Grounds (Sec. 4, Rule 21)
e) Subpoena for deposition (Sec. 5, Rule 21)
f) Service of a subpoena; manner (Sec. 6, Rule 21)
g) Compelling attendance (Sec. 8, Rule 21)
h) Failure to obey subpoena - contempt (Sec. 9, Rule 21)
i) Exceptions to Section 8 and 9 of Rule 21 (Sec. 10, Rule 21)

Trial, Consolidation, Trial by Commissioner, and Demurrer to Evidence

1. Rule30–Trial-Sec. 1to Sec. 9

2. Rule 31 – Consolidation Sec. 1 to Sec. 2
3. Rule 32 – Trial by Commissioner - Sec. 1 to Sec. 13
4. Rule 33 – Demurrer to Evidence - Sec. 1

IX. TRIAL

a) Nature of Trial
1. Acosta v. People, 5 SCRA 774

b) Trial and hearing, distinguished.

1. Trocio v. Labayo, 53 SCRA 97, 100

c) When case ready for trial

1. Principe v. Eria, 90 Phil. 684
d) When trial is unnecessary.

e) Notice of Trial (Sec. 1, Rule 30)

f) Calendaring of Cases (Rule 20)
F.1. Preferences (Sec.1)
F.2. Assignment of Cases (Sec. 2)
g) Session Hours (Adm. Circular No. 3-39, January 15, 1999)
h) Adjournments and postponements (Sec. 2, Rule 30)
h.1. Limitation on the authority to adjourn
1. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 301 SCRA 237, 245
i) Postponement on the grounds of illness of party or counsel; Requisites (Sec. 4, Rule
30)
j) Postponement on the grounds of absences of evidence; Requisites (Sec. 3, Rule 30)
1. Milwaukee Industries v. Court of Tax Appeals, 636 SCRA 70, Nov. 24,
2010.
k) Order of Trial, (Sec. 5, Rule 30)
K.1. Orders in Chambers
K.2. Order of Trials maybe Changed
1. Yu v. Mapayo, 44 SCRA 163
K.3. Presentation of Additional Evidence

l) Agreed statement of facts; No proof required (Sec. 6, Rule 30)

m) Statement of judgment (Sec. 7, Rule 30)
n) Suspension of Actions (Sec. 8, Rule 30)
o) Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court - Requisites (Sec. 9, Rule
30)

p. Consolidation or Severance
a) Define (Sec. 1, Rule 31)
1. Philippine National Bank vs. Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc., G.R.
No. 183211, June 6, 2009
*Compare with Rule 2, Sec. 5 & Rule 3, Sec. 6.

b) Three ways of Consolidation

1. Salazar v. CFI of Laguna, 64 Phil. 785
2. Phil. Airlines, Inc. and Far Eastern Air Transport v. Teodoro and
Capitol Subdivision Inc., 97 Phil. 462
3. Delta Motors Sales Corp. v. Mangosing, 70 SCRA 599
4. Superlines Transportation Co. v. Victor, 124 SCRA 939
5. Steel Corporation of the Phils. v. Equitable PCI-Bank, Inc., 635
SCRA 403

c) Consolidation of Civil and Criminal cases; allowed (Sec. 2 (a) Rule 111
of 1985 Criminal Procedure)
1. Republic v. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 505

d) When consolidation mandatory

1. Philippine Savings Bank v. Mañalac, G.R. No. 145441, April 26, 2005

e) Separate trials/ Severance of trial, (Sec.2, Rule 31)

Q. TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER (Rule 32, Sec 1 to 3))

a) Commissioner Defined.
b) Consent of all parties necessary. Reference without consent void. (Sec. 1, Rule
32)
 1. Philippine Savings Bank v. Mañalac, G.R. No. 145441, April 26, 2005

c) Reference ordered on motion (Sec. 2, Rule 32)

C.1. Situation when reference may be made.
C.2. Practice of Delegation to Clerk of Court
1. Apurillo v. Garciano, 28 SCRA 1054

d) Order of reference; power of commissioners (Sec. 3, Rule 32)

e) Oath of Commissioner. (Sec. 4, Rule 32)
1. Perlas v. Ehrman, 53 Phil. 607

f) Refusal of witness (Sec. 7, Rule 32)

g) Commissioner shall avoid delay (Sec. 8, Rule 32)
h) Notice to parties of the filing of report; when to file objections; Effect of failure
to object (Sec. 10, Rule 32)
i) Hearing upon request; Failure to set the commissioner's report for hearing. (Sec.
11, Rule 32)
j) Stipulations as to findings. (Sec. 12, Rule 32)
k) Compensation of commissioners (Sec. 13, Rule 32)
l) Adjournments and postponements (Sec. 2)
m) Lack of cause of action may be cured by evidence presented during the trial and
Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence under Rule 10, Sec. 5
1. Swagman Hotels & Travel, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 161135, April 8, 2005

Updates in jurisprudence (Rule 31)- Kinds of Consolidation

1. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 16 December 2011
2. Republic v. Oribello, 6 March 2013

X. AFTER TRIAL BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT

A. Common motion
1. To submit memorandum

B. Defendant’s motion
1.For judgment on demurrer to evidence (Rule 33)

a) Concept and Rationale of Rule.

1. Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresita Santiago, 435 Scra 690
2. Siyangco v. Costibolo, 27 SCRA 272,

b) Demurrer to Evidence distinguished from Motion to Dismiss in Rule 16.

1. The Manila Banking Corp. vs. University of Baguio, Inc., G.R.No. 159189,
February 21, 2007

c) Stage of the proceedings when demurrer to evidence is availed of (Sec.1, Rule

33)
d) Grounds for Demurrer to Evidence
1. Republic v. Tuvera, 516 SCRA 113
e) Effect of Denial of Demurrer to evidence
1. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 416
2. Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan, 405 SCRA 558
3. Gementiza v. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 724

f) Effect of Granting of the Demurrer to Evidence

1. Radiowealth Finance Corp. v. Del Rosario, 335 SCRA 288
2. Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc.,
465 SCRA 117
g) Demurrer in a civil case as distinguished from demurrer in criminal case

1. Republic vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246, February 16, 2007

h) Distinguished from demurrer in criminal case (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 33)

1. Gonzales v. Bugaay, 22 February 2012
2. GMA Network Inc. v. Central CATV, Inc., 18 July 2014
 XI. JUDGMENT

1. Rule 36 – Judgment, Final Orders and Entry Thereof – Sec. 1 to 6

2. Sec. 13 to 14, Art. VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution

a) a) Form (Rule 36, Sec. 1)

b) Concept of final judgment and final order
1. BA Finance Corp. vs. CA, 229 SCRA 566 (1994)
c) Meaning of Judgment
1. Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit, 344 SCRA 838, 848
2. Social Justice Society v. Atienza, 545 SCRA 92, 114
d) Kinds (as to finality)
a. Rendition of judgment (Rule 36, Sec. 1)
b. Entry of judgment (Rule 36, Sec. 2)
c. Entry of satisfaction of judgment (Rule 39, Secs. 44 and 45)

e) Kinds (as to process of procuring)

a. Judgment on the pleadings, Rule 34
b. Judgment on demurrer to evidence, Rule 33
c. Summary judgments, Rule 35
d. Default judgments, Rule 9, Sec. 3
e. Judgments after ex parte presentation of evidence, Rule 18, Sec. 5
f. Orders for dismissal
i. Motion to dismiss, Rule 16
ii. Dismissals under Rule 17
iii. Dismissals under Rule 18, Sec. 5
iv. Dismissals under Rule 29, Sec. 5

f) Kinds (as to parties)

a. As against one or more several parties, Rule 36, Sec. 3
b. Several judgment, Rule 36, Sec. 4
c. Against entity without juridical personality, Rule 36, Sec. 6

g) Kinds (as to claims)

a. Entire
b. At various stages or separate judgments, Rule 36, Sec. 5
See also Rule 41, Sec. 1 (f)

h) Kinds (as to how executed)

a. Judgments not stayed on appeal, Rule 39, Sec. 4
b. Judgments for money, Rule 39, Sec. 9
c. Judgments for specific acts, Rule 39, Sec. 10
d. Special judgments, Rule 39, Sec. 11

i) Effect of judgments and final orders

a. Local, Rule 39, Sec. 47
b. Foreign, Rule 39, Sec. 48
j) Requisites of valid Judgment
1. Acosta v. COMELEC, 293 SCRA 578
2. Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto V, 461 SCRA 450
3. Naguiat v. NLRC, 269 SCRA 564
4. Miguel v. JCT Group, Inc. 453 SCRA 529
5. Guevarra v. Sandiganbayan, 454 SCRA 372

k) Conflict between the dispositive portion and body of the decision

1. Morales v. Court of Appeals, 461 SCRA 34
2. So v. Food Fest Land Inc., 642 SCRA 592, February 9, 2011

l) Ambiguity in the judgment; clarificatory judgment

m) Interlocutory Orders. Define.
1. Rudecon Mangament Corp. v. Singson, 454 SCRA 612

m.1. Questioning Interlocutory Orders

1. Silverio v. Filipino Business Consultants, 466 SCRA 584

n) Memorandum Decisions; Define.

1. Ong Chia Kwan v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 586

o) Rendition of Judgment. Meaning. (Rule 36)

1. Castro v. Malazo, 99 SCRA 164

p) Period to render decision. (Art. VIII, Sec. 15, Constitution of the Philippines
1. Plata v. Torres, 570 SCRA 12

p.1. Extension of period to render judgment

1. Arap v. Mustafa, 379 SCRA 1

q) Rule on Stare Decisis

1. Hortencia v. Cuenca, 456 SCRA 300

r) Obiter Dictum
1. Ayala Corp. v. Rosa-Diana Realty, 346 SCRA 663

s) Amendment of judgment
a. Before it becomes final and executory
1. Eternal Gardens Memorial vs. IAC, 165 SCRA 439 (1988)3
2. Nunal vs. CA, 221 SCRA 26 (1993)
3. Industrial Timber Corp. vs. NLRC, 233 SCRA 597 (1994)

t) Supplemental judgment
1. Esquivel vs. Alegre, 172 SCRA 315 (1989)

t.1. Difference between an Amended Judgment and a Supplemental Judgment

1. Aznar III, et.al. v. Bernard et.al., 161 SCRA 276
 u) Judgments nunc pro tunc (literally "now for then"), define.
1. Cardoza vs. Singson, 181 SCRA 45 (1990)
2. Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Apeals, 450 SCRA 482

• Law of the case

v) Bar by former judgment and conclusiveness of judgment distinguished
1. Del Rosario vs Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No 150134,
October 31, 2007
w) Immutability of final judgment
1. Griffith vs. Estur, G.R. No. 161777, May 7, 2008
2. Arra Realty Corp. v. Paces International Corp., 636 SCRA 339

w.1. Reasons for the rule on conclusiveness of judgment

w.2. Two-fold purposes of immutability of judgment
w.3. Exceptions to the rule on immutability of judgments

x) When judgment becomes final (Sec. 1, Rule 39)

x.1. Final judgment versus interlocutory order (Sec.2, Rule 36)
1. Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, 634 SCRA 635

n) Res judicata effect of final judgment or final order

N.1. Two aspects of Res Judicata

o) Effect of Void Judgments (the doctrine of total nullity)

1. MWSS v. Sison, 124 SCRA 394

p) Several Judgment (Sec. 4, Rule 36)

1. Fernando v. Santamaria, 446 SCRA 136

q) Separate Judgment (Sec. 5, Rule 36)

r) Conditional Judgment, meaning.
1. Cu-Unjieng v. Mabalacat Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 384

s) Judgment Sin Perjuicio, meaning.

1. Director of Lands v. Sanz, 45 Phil. 117

u) Judgment upon compromise, define.

1. Diamond Builders Conglomeration v. Country Bankers Corp., 540 SCRA 194
2. Philippine Journalist, Inc. v. NLRC, 501 SCRA 75

v) Judgment upon a confession (Cognovit Actionem)

w) Judgment against entity without juridical personality (Sec. 6, Rule 36)

x) Entry of Judgment; date thereof (Sec. 2, Rule 36)

X.1. Relevance of knowing the date of Entry of Judgment.
 y) Judgment on the pleadings
Y.1. Nature; Motion Required (Sec.1, Rule 34)
Y.2. Grounds for judgment on the pleadings
Y.3. Cases where judgment on the pleadings will not apply

z) Summary Judgment
1. Ontimare vs. Elep, G.R. No. 159224, January 20, 2006
2. Spouses Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol), Inc, G.R. No.
202597, February 08, 2017
Z.1. Nature of summary judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 35)
Z.2. Summary judgment, when rendered.
Z.3. Distinctions:
i) From judgment on the pleadings
1. Narra Intergrated Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 781
ii. From a motion to dismiss
Z.4. Validity of Summary Judgment (Sec. 3, Rule 34)
Z.5. Summary Judgment; When not granted.
1. Roque v. Encarnacion, 95 Phil. 643
2. Gatchalian v. Pavilin, et.al. 6 SCRA 508
3.Sunbanun vs. Go, G.R. No 163280, February 2, 2010
4. Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 156304, October
23, 2006

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 34)

1. Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank, 8 February 2017
2. Pacific Rehaus v. Export & Industry Bank, 13 October 2010

Other cases/updates in jurisprudence (Rule 35)

1. Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, 15 November 2010
Other cases/updates in jurisprudence on Judgments (Rule 36)
1. Shimizu Phils Contractors v. Magsalin, 20 June 2012
2. PNB v. Entapa, 7 September 2016
3. Magno v. Magno, 17 August 2016
XII. AFTER JUDGMENT

A. Remedies before finality of judgment

1. Motion for reconsideration
2. Motion for new trial
3. Appeal
a. Ordinary appeal
Rule 40
Rule 41
b. Petition for review
Rule 42
Rule 43
c. Petition for review on certiorari
Rule 45

B. Remedies after finality of judgment

1. Petition for relief from judgment
2. Annulment of judgment
3. Petition for certiorari

A. Common motions
1. For reconsideration (Rule 37)
a) Object of the motion.
b) When to file (Sec. 1, Rule 37);
c) No extension (Sec. 2, Rule 40, Sec. 3, Rule 41)
1. Delos Santos v. Elizalde, 514 SCRA 14
2. Heirs of Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 565 SCRA 506
d) Effect of filing of the motion on the period to appeal (Sec. 2, Rule 40; Sec. 3,
Rule 41)
e) Grounds for Motion for Reconsideration (Sec. 1, Rule 37)
f) Effect when motion is denied; Order of Denial not appealable. (Sec. 9, Rule
37)
g) Effect of granting a motion for reconsideration (Sec. 3, Rule 37)
1. Esquivel v. Alegre, 172 SCRA 315
h) Partial Reconsideration (Sec. 7, Rule 37)
i) Single motion rule (Sec. 5, Rule 37)
j) Motion for reconsideration in summary procedure (Sec. 19 {c}, IV, 1991
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Small Claims (Sec. 14 {c})
k) Periods (Sec. 1) For filing
l) Effect of motion for extension of time to file See also Rule 41, Sec. 3, par. 2;
Rule 40, Sec. 2., par. 2
m) Not required for appeal
n) Second motion for new trial (Sec. 5, par. 1)
o) Second motion for reconsideration (Sec. 5, par. 2)
1. CI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan, G.R. No. 151215, April 5,
2010
p) For resolution (Sec. 4)
 2. For new trial (Rule 37)
a) Nature of new trial.
b) When to file (Sec.1, Rule 37)
c) Effect of filing of the motion on the period to appeal (Sec. 2, Rule 40; Sec. 3,
Rule 41)
d) Form of a motion for new trial. (Sec. 2, Rule 37)
e) Grounds for a motion for new trial. (Sec. 1, Rule 37)
i. Fraud, Accident, Mistake, Excusable Negligence (FAME)
ii. Newly discover evidence
ii.1. Requisites:
1. Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011

f) Affidavit of Merit; Gross Negligence of counsel not a ground.

1. Uy v. First Metro Integrated Steel Corp.,503 SCRA 712
g) Resolution of the motion (Sec. 4, Rule 37)
h) Denial of the motion; fresh period rule; Order of denial not appealable (Sec. 9,
Rule 37)
1. Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 633
i) Remedy when motion is denied (sec. 9)
j) Effect of granting the motion for new trial (Sec. 6, Rule 37)
k) Partial New Trial (Sec. 7, Rule 37; Sec. 8, Rule 37)
l) Second motion for new trial (Sec. 5, Rule 37)
m) Motion for new trial in summary procedure (Sec. 19 [c] IV, 1991 Revised Rules
on Summary Procedures and Small Claims (Sec. 14 [c])
XIII. APPEAL AND REVIEW (Rules 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)

A. Before finality
1. Ordinary appeal
2. Petition for review
3. Petition for review on certiorari

B. After finality
1. Petition for certiorari
2. Petition for relief from judgment
3. Petition for annulment of judgment

a. Nature of Appeal
b. Effect of Appeal
c. Requisites of Appeal
d. Execution Pending Appeal
e. General principles on appeal
1. Stolt Nielsen v. NLRC, 477 SCRA 516
2. Canton v. City of Cebu, 515 SCRA 441
3. Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig-ALU v. Court of Appeals,
467 SCRA 483
e.1) Judgments or orders not appealable (Sec. 1, Rule 41)
B.1. Remedy in case the judgment or final order is not appealable (Sec. 9, Rule
37)
e.2) Issues that may be raised on appeal
1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp., 504 SCRA 484
e.3) When errors not raised on appeal may be considered
1. Dy vs. NLRC, 145 SCRA 211
2. Comilang v. Burcena, 482 SCRA 342

e.4) Payment of docket fee

1. Regalado v. Go, 514 SCRA 616
2. Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA 563

e.5) Record on appeal; Notice of Appeal (Sec. 2[a], Rule 41)

1. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 186

e.6) Dismissal of Appeal; Court of Appeals (Sec.1, Rule 50); Supreme Court (Sec.5, Rule
56)
1. The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court of Appeals, 551 SCRA
223
2. Beatingo v. Gasis, 642 SCRA 539

f. Subject of appeal (Sec. 1) Non-appealable orders

A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (dated December 4, 2007 – took effect on December 27, 2007) –
Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65

g) Denial of motion for reconsideration of order dismissing a complaint not an interlocutory

order
 1. Silverio, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 178933, September 16, 2009

S). Appeal from Municipal Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court (Rule 40)
a) Where to appeal (Sec. 1)
b) When to appeal (Sec. 2)
c) How to appeal (Sec. 3)
d) Perfection of appeal (Sec. 4) See Rule 41, Sec. 9
e) Appellate court and other lawful fees (Sec. 5) Same as Rule 41, Sec. 4
f) Procedure in RTC (Sec. 7)
g) Appeal from MTC order dismissing case
i. without trial on the merits (Sec. 8, par. 1)
ii. with trial on the merits (Sec. 8. par. 2)
1. Provost vs. CA, G.R. No. 160406, June 26, 2006
2. Encarnacion vs. Amigo, G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006

Other cases/Updates in jurisprudence (Appeal)

 PBCom v. CA, 15 February 2017
 Adora v. Zamora, 30 May 2011
 Hiponia-Mayuga v. Metro Bank, 22 June 2015
 PAGCOR v. Aumentado, 22 July 2010
 BPI v. Co., 9 November 2015
 Gonzales v. Pe, 9 August 2011
 Palma v. Galvez, 10 March 2010
 Cruz v. MIAA, 9 September 2013
 San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders Inc. v. Bayang, 20 April 2015
 Mamba v. Bueno, 7 February 2017
 Huang v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 17 February 2016

t) Appeal from Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals (Rule 41)
a) Subject of appeal (Sec. 1)
b) Non-appealable orders A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (dated December 4, 2007 – took effect
on December 27, 2007) – Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65
c) Modes of appeal (Sec. 2)
d) Period of ordinary appeal (Sec. 3)
e) Interrupted by timely MNT or MR
f) No motion for extension of time to file MNT or MR
g) MR filed on last day of 15-day period
1. Manila Memorial Park vs. CA, 344 SCRA 769 (2001)
h) New rule on appeal after denial of MR or MNT
1. Neypes vs. CA, 469 SCRA 633 (2005)
i) When appeal allowed even if period to appealhas expired
1. Trans International vs. CA, 285 SCRA 49 (1998)
j) RTC cannot dismiss appeal on ground that only questions of law involved
1. Kho vs. Camacho, 204 SCRA 150 (1991)
k) Appellee who has not appealed may not obtain affirmative relief from appellate court
1. Custodio vs. CA, 253 SCRA 483 (1996)
l) Exception – when there is solidarity in obligations
`1. Citytrust Banking Corp. vs. CA, 196 SCRA 553 (1991)
 m) Perfection of appeal (Sec. 9, 1st and 2nd pars.)
n) Loss of jurisdiction (Sec. 9, 3rd and 4th pars.)
o) Residual powers (Sec. 9, 5th par.)
p) Dismissal of appeal (Sec. 13)
a. late filing
b. non-payment of docket and other lawful fees

u) Ordinary Appealed Cases (RULE 41, 42, 44 )

a) Scope and title of cases; Cases appealed to the Court of Appeals (Sec. 1, Rule 41)
b) Appellant's brief (Sec. 7, Rule 44)
B.1. When to file;
c) Appellee's brief (Sec. 8, Rule 44)
C.1. When to file;
d) Contents of Appellant's Brief(Sec. 13, Rule 44); Appellee's Brief (Sec. 14, Rule 44)
e) Questions that may be raised on appeal; Exceptions (Sec. 15, Rule 44)
f) Petition for Review from Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals (Rule 42)
g) Appeal from RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
1. Ross Rica Sales Center, Inc. vs. Ong, G.R. No. 132197, August 16,
2005
h) Pure questions of law may be raised (Sec. 2,)
1. Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt. Co, Inc.vs. CA, 297 SCRA 602
(1998)
c) Effect of failure to comply with requirements (Sec. 3, Rule 42)
d) Action by court (Sec. 4, Rule 42)
a. Require filing of comment or
b. Dismiss petition outright
e) When petition given due course (Sec. 6, Rule 42)
1. Ditching vs. CA, 263 SCRA 343 (1996)
f) Perfection of appeal (Sec. 8, 1st par. Rule 42)
g) Loss of jurisdiction (Sec. 8, 2nd par., Rule 42)
h) Residual powers (Sec. 8, 3rd par., Rule 42)
i) Effect of appeal (Sec. 8, 4th par., Rule 42)
General rule: shall STAY judgment or final order
Exceptions:
a. civil cases decided under the Rule on Summary Procedure
b. when CA, law or Rules of Court provide otherwise

Other cases/Updates in jurisprudence (Rule 42)

1. Heirs of Garcia v. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, 22 July 2015
2. Landbank v. CA, 11 April 2011
3. Brgy. Sangalang v. Brgy. Maguihan, 23 December 2009

v) Quasi-Judicial Agencies to CA (Sections 1 to 13, Rule 43)

a) Scope (Sec.1)
1. Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 440 (1998)
b) Ombudsman criminal cases – Supreme Court via Rule 65
 1. Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 269 (1997)
c) Cases not covered (Sec. 2)
1. St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 (1998)
2. Lanting vs. Ombudsman, 458 SCRA 93 Cases not covered (Sec. 2)
d) Decisions of Secretary of Labor and Director of Bureau of Labor Relations –
petition for certiorari to CA under Rule 65
e) Decisions of DOJ Secretary in petitions for review prosecutors‘ resolutions –
petition for certiorari to CA under Rule 65
1. Santos vs. Go, 473 SCRA 350 (2005)
1. Alcaraz vs. Gonzales, G.R. NO. 164715, September 20, 2006 Not
applicable where there is error of jurisdiction
f) Not applicable where there is error of jurisdiction
1. Fortich vs. Corona, 289 SCRA 624 (1998)

g) Where to appeal (Sec. 3)

h) Pure questions of law may be raised
i) Period of appeal (Sec. 4)
j) How appeal taken (Sec. 5)
k) Form and contents (Sec. 6)
l) Effect of failure to comply with requirements (Sec. 7)
- sufficient ground for dismissal
m) Action by court (Sec. 8)
a. Require filing of comment or
b. Dismiss petition outright
n) When petition given due course (Sec. 10)
prima facie finding that court or agency committed errors of fact or law
warranting reversal or modification
o) Effect of appeal (Sec.12)
General rule: shall NOT STAY award, judgment, final order or resolution
Exceptions:
a. when CA directs otherwise
b. when the law directs otherwise (additional exception)
1. Lapid vs. CA, 334 SCRA 738 (2000) and

Other cases/Updates in jurisprudence (Rule 43)

1. Narra Nickel Mining & Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated
Mines Corp., 9 December 2015
2. Basiana Mining Exploration Corp. v. Secretary of the DENR, 7 March
2016
3. Lim v. Moldex Land Inc., 25 January 2017

w) Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule 45)

a) What to file; from what courts, how to appeal (Sec. 1) CA, SB, CTA, RTC only
b) Remedies of appeal and certiorari mutually exclusive;
c) Rule 45 distinguished from Rule 65;
d) petition for certiorari treated as petition for review
 1. Nunez vs. GSIS Family Bank, 475 SCRA 305 (2005)
e) Only questions of law may be raised
Exc. In an appeal from a judgment or final order of the court in a petition for a
writ of amparo or writ of habeas data, questions of fact may be raised (A.M. No.
07-9-12-SC, Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007; A.M. No.
08-0-16-SC, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, effective February 2, 2008)

f) Questions of law and questions of fact distinguished; if no questions of fact, Rule

45 petition.
1. China Road and Bridge Corp. vs. CA, 348 SCRA 401 (2000)
g) Time for filing (Sec. 2)
h) Docket and other lawful fees (Sec. 3) Proof of service (Sec. 3)
i) Contents of and documents to accompany petition (Sec. 4)
j) Effect of failure to comply with requirements (Sec. 5, par. 1)
- sufficient ground for dismissal Denial motu proprio (Sec. 5, par. 2)
k) Review discretionary (Sec. 6)
- not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion
- granted only when there are special and important reasons
1. People v. Flores, 481 SCRA 451
l) Pleadings and documents that may be required (Sec. 7)
- to determine whether to dismiss or deny petition under Sec. 5
- where petition given due course under Sec. 8
m) Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases (Sec. 9)
n) Questions of law; Questions of fact
1. Co v. Vargas, G.R. No. 195167, Nov. 16, 2011
2. Heirs of Feraren v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159328, Oct. 5, 2011
3. Republic v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 169067, Oct. 6, 2010
o) Findings of facts; not ordinarily reviewed
1. Tayco v. Heirs of Tayco-Flores, 637 SCRA 742
2. Meneses v. Venturozo, G.R. No. 172196, Oct. 19, 2011
p) When questions of facts may be passed upon in a Rule 45 petition
1. Natividad v. MTRCB, 540 SCRA 124, 135

Other cases/Updates in jurisprudence (Rule 45)

1. Medina v. Koike, 27 July 2016
2. Five Star Marketing Co.,Inc. v. Booc, 535 SCRA 28

y) Petition for Relief from Judgments, Orders or Other Proceedings Rule 38 (Sections 1 to 7)
A. Petition for Relief from Judgments, Orders or Other Proceedings
a) Grounds and nature (Secs. 1, 2)
b) Requires final judgment or loss of appeal
c) Can this remedy be availed of in the Court of Appeals?
d) Time for filing (Sec. 3)
e) Strictly followed
1. Escueta vs. Lim, G.R. No. 137162, January 24, 2007
f) Contents
g) Affidavit of merit (Sec. 3)
 h) When motion for reconsideration considered as petition for relief
i) Action of court before answer
j) Power to deny
k) Preliminary injunction pending proceeding (Sec. 5)
l) Order to file answer (Sec. 4)
m) Procedure
n) Availability of preliminary injunction (Sec. 5)
o) Proceedings after answer is filed (Sec. 6)
p) Where denial of appeal is set aside (Sec. 7)
q) Action of court after giving due course
r) Grant of petition for relief (Sec. 7)
s) Denial of petition for relief (Rule 41, Sec. 1 (b))
t) Remedies after petition for relief expires
u) Reopening not allowed
1. Alvendia vs. IAC, 181 SCRA 282

Other cases/Updates in jurisprudence (Rule 38)

1. Madarang v. Sps. Morales, 9 June 2014

z. Annulment of Judgment (RULE 47)

a) When remedy available
b) Where applicable
The phrase ―any court‖ refers only to Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial
Courts.
1. People vs. Bitanga, G.R. No. 159222, June 26, 2007
2. Fraginal vs. Paranal, G.R. No. 150207, February 22, 2007
3. Grande vs. University of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 148456, September 15,
2006
4. Purcon, Jr. vs. MRM Philippines, Inc.,G.R. No. 182718, September 26,
2008 Grounds

c) Grounds (Sec. 2)
1. Cosmic Lumber Corp. vs. CA, 265 SCRA 166 (1996)
d) Where petition filed (Secs. 1, 10)
e) Period for filing (Sec. 3)
f) Laches
1. Marcelino vs. CA, 210 SCRA 444 (1992)
g) Parties and contents (Sec. 4)
h) May be filed by a non-party to the judgment
i) Available even if judgment has been executed (Sec. 9)
1. Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Phils. vs. CA, 178 SCRA 178(1989)
j) Action by the court (Sec. 5)
k) Procedure (Sec. 6)
l) Effect of judgment (Sec. 7)
m) Suspension of prescriptive period (Sec. 8)
n) Only available against a final and executory judgment
1. Valencia vs. CA, 352 SCRA 72 (2001) Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable
negligence
2. Gomez vs. Montalban, G.R. No. 174414, March 14, 2008 Time for filing
 (Sec. 3)

o) Annulment of MTC judgment should be filed with RTC

1. Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Malinias, G. R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007

Other cases/Updates in jurisprudence (Rule 47)

1. Sps. Manila v. Sps. Manzo, 7 September 2011
2. Yu v. Yu, 20 June 2016
3. Mejia-Espinoza v. Carino, 25 January 2017
4. Imperial v. Armes, 30 January 2017
5. Crispino v. Tansay, 5 December 2016

XIV. EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

1. Rule 39 – Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments – Sec. 15 to Sec. 48
2. Art. 1491 Civil Code of the Philippines

A. In general
1. Kinds of execution
a. Mandatory
b. Discretionary

B. Procedure for execution

1. In case of death of party
2. Of judgments for money
3. Of judgments for specific act
4. Of special judgments

C. Execution sales
a. Sales on execution
b. Conveyance of property sold on execution
c. Redemption of property sold on execution

D. Satisfaction of judgment

Cases:

1. Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 237

2. Tambunting vs. CA, 167 SCRA 16
3. Sy, et. al vs. Discaya, G.R. No. 86301, January 23, 1990
4. Ching vs. CA, February 23, 2004
5. Traders Royal Bank vs. IAC, 133 SCRA 141
6. De Leon vs. Salvador, 36 SCRA 567
7. Iligan Bay Manufacturing Corp. vs. Dy, 524 SCRA 55
8. Palicte vs. Ramolete, 154 SCRA 132
9. Olego vs. rebuena, 67 SCRA 446
10. Roxas vs. Buan, 167 SCRA 43
11. Bermudez vs. Gonzales, 347 SCRA 611
12. Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs. CA, July 20, 2001
13. Mijares vs. Ranada, April 12, 2005
14. De Sayman vs. CA, 121 SCRA 651
15. Premiere Development Bank vs. Flores, 574 SCRA 66
16. Reburiano vs. CA, 301 SCRA 342
17. Salvante vs. Cruz, 88 Phil 236
18. Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin, 23 SCRA 637
19. Silverio et al vs. Filipino Business Consultants Inc, G.R. No. 143312, August 12,
2005
B. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

A. Preliminary Attachment

Rule 57 – Preliminary Attachment

A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC
Section 13, Rule 39
Articles 153 and 157, Family Code of the Philippines

1. Grounds (Sec. 1)
2. Requirements (Sec. 3)
3. Manner of Attaching (Sec. 5)
4. Discharge of Attachment (Sec. 5, 12, 13)
5. 3rd Party Claim (Sec. 14)
6. Claim for Damages (Sec. 20)

Cases

1. Lim Jr. vs. Lazaro, G.R. No. 185734 July 3, 2013

2. Ligon vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 56 G.R. No. 190028 February 26, 2014
3. Mangila vs. Ca, G.R. No. 125027 - August 12, 2002
4. Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 139941 January 19, 2001
5. Alejandro Ng Wee vs. Tankiansee G.R. NO. 171124 February 13, 2008
6. Torres vs. Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759 November 25, 2009
7. Luzon Development Bank v. Krisman, G.R. No. 203530, April 13, 2015
8. Northern Luzon Island Co. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 203240
9. Watercraft Venture Corp. v. Wolfe G.R. No. 181721, September 09, 2015
10. Phil. Airconditioning Center v. RCJ Lines G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015
B. Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)

Laws:
1. Rule 58 – Preliminary Injunction
2. Sec. 9(1) B.P . Blg. 129
3. A.M. 99-10-5-0
4. P .D. 1818
5. P .D. 605
6. Republic Act No. 8975 (November 7, 2000)
7. R.A. No. 7653, Sec. 25

1. Definition, classes (Sec. 1)

2. Grounds (Sec. 3); TRO
3. Requirements, Sec. 4
4. Damages (Sec. 8)

Cases:

1. Estares vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 144755, June 8, 2005

2. Mabuyo Farms Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 140058, August 1, 2002
3. China Banking Corporation vs. Co G.R. No. 174569, September 17, 2008
4. Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Court of Appeals, November 25, 2004
5. Bacolod City Water District vs. Labayen 446 SCRA 110, December 10, 2004
6. Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando Pampanga vs. Soriano, et al, G.R.
No. 153829 and G.R. No. 160909, August 17, 2011
7. Medina vs. Judge Canon, A.M. RTJ-11-298, February 22, 2012
8. Ortigas vs. CA G.R. No. 79128, June 16, 1983
9. Buyco vs. Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, December 21, 2009
10. Heirs of the late J.B.L. Reyes vs. CA 338 SCRA 282
11. Philippine National Bank vs. Ritratto Group, July 31, 2001
12. Medina vs. Greenfield Development G.R. No. 140228, November 19, 2004
13. Hutchinson Ports Phils. vs. SBMA, August 31, 2000
14. Nische vs. Equitable-PCI Bank, February 19, 2007
15. Zuño vs. Cabredo, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1779, 402 SCRA 75
16. Filipino Metals, Corp vs. Secretary of DTI, G.R. No. 157498, July 15, 2005
17. Novecio vs. Lim G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015
18. Liberty Broadcasting Network vs. Atlocom G.R. No. 205875, June 30, 2015
19. Republic vs. Cortez, GR. No. 197472 September 7, 2015

II. Receivership, Replevin, Support Pendente Lite, Interpleader, Declaratory Relief, and
Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit

Laws:
1. Rule 59 – Receivership
2. Rule 60 – Replevin
3. Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite
• Articles 194, 195, 201, 202, Family Code of the Philippines
• A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC

4. Rule 62 – Interpleader
5. Rule 63 – Declaratory Relief
6. Rule 64 - Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Commission
on Elections and the Commission on Audit

Cases:

C. Receivership (Rule 59)

1. Normandy vs. Duque 29 SCRA 385 (1969)
2. Commodities Storage vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 125008, June 19, 1997
3. De Los Reyes vs. Hon Bayona, March 29, 1960
4. National Investment and Development Corp vs. Judge Aquino 163 SCRA 153, June
30, 1988
5. Dolor vs. Sindiam L-27631, April 30, 1971
6. Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court 273 SCRA 521, June 17, 1997

D. Replevin (Rule 60)

Yang vs. Valdez 177 SCRA 141, August 31, 1989
Filinvest Credit Corp vs. CA, September 27, 1995 Adoma
vs. Gatcheco 448 SCRA 299, January 27, 2005
Paat vs. CA 266 SCRA 167, January 16, 1997
Citibank vs. CA 304 SCRA 679, March 17, 1999
Fernandez et al vs. International Corporate Bank G.R. No. 131283, October 7, 1999
Citibank vs. CA 304 SCRA 679, March 17, 1999

E. Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61)

1. Reyes vs. Ines-Luciano G.R. No. L-48219, February 28, 1979
2. Lam vs. Chua G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004
3. Calderon vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013
C. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION (Rule 62 to 71)

A. Interpleader (Rule 62)

1. What is an Action Interpleader (Sec. 1)
2. Requisites (Sec. 1)
3. Procedure (sec. 2 to 7)

1. Ocampo vs. Tirona G.R. No. 147812, April 6, 2005

2. Wack Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Lee E. Won, G.R. No. L-23851, 30 SCRA 165
3. Eternal gardens vs. IAC G.R. No. 73794 September 19, 1988
4. Pasricha v. Don Luis Dizon Realty G.R. No. 136409 March 14, 2008
5. Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Dev. Bank G.R. Nos. 154470-71 September 24, 2012

B. Declaratory Relief (Rule 63)

1. DBM vs. Manila’s Finest Retirees Association, G.R. No. 169446, May 9, 2007
2. Tano vs. Socrates G.R. No. 110249, August 14, 1997
3. Martelino vs. NHMF Corp. G.R. No. 160208, June 30, 2008
4. Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Ind. G.R. NO. 150806 - January 28, 2008
5. Republic v. Orbecido, G.R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005
6. Malana v. Tappa G.R. NO. 181303 : September 17, 2009
7. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012
8. Sabitsana vs. Muetigui, G.R. No. 181359 August 5, 2013
9. Republic vs. Roque G.R. No. 204603 September 24, 2013
10. Dept. of Finance vs. Dela Cruz G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015

C. Review of Judgments and Final Orders of the COMELEC and COA (Rule 64)
1. Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 206987
September 10, 2013

D) Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus Rule 65

D1. Certiorari
a) Constitutional provisions on judicial power Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2, Constitution
b) Petition for certiorari, in general (Sec. 1)
a. Grounds
b. Requirements
c. Procedure, parties and effects

6. Ampil vs. Ombudsman G.R. No. 192685 July 31, 2013

7. Maglalang vs PAGCOR G.R. No. 190566 December 11, 2013
8. Prov. Of Leyte vs. Energy Dev. Corporation G.R. No. 203124, June 22,
2015
c) Distinction between without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction and grave of abuse
of discretion
d) Remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction
1. Jamer vs. NLRC, 278 SCRA 632 (1997)
 e) Distinction between error of jurisdiction and error of judgment
a. When court without jurisdiction and it rendered decision, committed error of
jurisdiction - decision null and void even if correct, and remedy is certiorari.

b. When court with jurisdiction and rendered decision, but decision not correct,
committed error of judgment – decision valid even if wrong, and remedy is appeal

f) Questions of fact cannot be raised

1. Day vs. RTC of Zamboanga City, 191 SCRA 610 (1999)
g) Neither questions of fact nor of law entertained
1.Romy’s Freight Service vs. Castro, 490 SCRA 165 (2006)
h) Only issue involved is jurisdiction, either want of or excess thereof
1. Gerardo vs. De la Pena, 192 SCRA 691 (1992)
i) Distinction between certiorari under Rule 45 as a mode of appeal and certiorari under
Rule 65 as a special civil action
1. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. CA, 334 SCRA 305 (2000)
j) No appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy General rule, if appeal
available, no certiorari
1. Fajardo vs. Bautista, 232 SCRA 292 (1994) Exceptions
k) May be availed of even when appeal is available or period to appeal has expired
1. Luis vs. CA, 184 SCRA 230 (1993)
l) When appeal not adequate, or equally beneficial, speedy or adequate
1. Jaca vs. Davao Lumber Co., 113 SCRA 107 (1982)

m) Motion for reconsideration required; exceptions

1. Tan vs. CA, 275 SCRA 568 (1997)

n) Period for filing (Sec. 4)

D2) Prohibition
a. Grounds
b. Requirements
c. Procedure, parties and effects
Cases
1. David vs. Rivera 420 SCRA 90, January 16, 2004
2. Tan et al vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986
3. Vivas vs. Monetray Board of BSP G.R. No. 191424 August 7, 2013
4. Corales vs. Republic G.R. No. 186613, August 27, 2013

D3) Mandamus
a. Grounds
b. Requirements
c. Procedure, parties and effects
d. Damages
Cases
 1. Mayuga vs. CA, August 30, 1996
2. Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010
3. Matibay vs. Garcia, January 25, 1983
4. Paloma vs. Mora, 470 SCRA 711
5. MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 574 SCRA 661, December 18
6. Hipos vs. Bay G.R. Nos. 174813-15 March 17, 2009
7. Funa vs. Manila Economic and Cultural Office G.R. No. 193462, February 04,
2014
8. Cudia vs. Superintendent of PMA G.R. No. 211362 February 24, 2015
9. Villanueva v. JBC G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015

E) Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

a. Parties (Sec. 1 to 6 )
b. Period (Sec. 1 to 8)
c. Limitation (Sec. 11 )
d. Judgment for Cost (Sec. 12)

Cases
1. Mendoza vs. Allas G.R. No. 131977. February 4, 1999
2. Calleja vs. Panday G.R. No. 168696 February 28, 2006
3. Lokin Jr. vs. COMELEC G.R. Nos. 179431-32 June 22, 2010
4. Aratea vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 195229 October 9, 2012
5. De Castro Vs. Carlos G.R. No. 194994 April 16, 2013
6. Velasco vs. Belmonte January 12, 2016 G.R. No. 211140
7. Republic vs. Sereno G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018

F) Expropriation (Rule 67)

a. The right to Eminent Domain
- Constitutional Provision “private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation”
- RA 7196 : The Local Government Code Sec. 19
b. Who may expropriate
c. Two stages of expropriation
1. determination of public use
2. just compensation

Cases
1. City of Manila vs. Serrano G.R. No. 142304 June 20, 2001
2. National Power Corp. vs. CA G.R. No. 198139, September 08, 2014
3. Republic vs. Andaya G.R. No. 160656 June 15, 2007
4. Abad vs. Fil. Homes Realty G.R. No. 189239 November 24, 2010
5. NPC vs. YCLA Sugar Dev. Corp G.R. No. 193936 December 11, 2013
6. Limkaichong vs. LBP G.R. No. 158464, August 02, 2016
G) Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68)
1. The Complaint (sec. 1)
2. The Judgment (Sec. 2)
3. Sale of foreclosed property (Sec. 3)
- Equity of Redemption
4. deficiency Judgment (Sec. 6)

Cases
1. Ramirez vs. Manila Banking Corp. foreclosure G.R. No. 198800 December 11,
2013
2. Marquez vs. Alindog G.R. No. 184045 January 22, 2014
3. Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff Foreclosure G.R. NO. 148448 : August 17, 2004
4. LZK Holdings vs. Planters Development Bank G.R. No. 187973, January 20,
2014
5. Goldenway Merchandizing Corp. vs. Equitable PCI Bank G.R. NO. 195540 :
March 13, 2013
6. Solid Builders vs. CBC G.R. No. 179665 April 3, 2013
7. Robles vs. Yapcinco G.R. No. 169568, October 22, 2014
8. MBTC vs. CPR Promotions and Marketing Inc. G.R. No. 200567, June 22, 2015

H) PARTITION (Rule 69)

1. The complaint (Sec. 1)
2. The Order (Sec. 2)
3. Stages of Partition
4. Rule of Commissioner (Sec. 3 to 7)
5. The judgment (Sec. 11)

Cases
1. Balus vs. Balus partition G.R. No. 168970 January 15, 2010
2. Feliciano vs. Canosa partition G.R. No. 161746 September 1, 2010
3. Mangahan vs. Brobio partition G.R. No. 183852 : October 20, 2010
4. Vda. De Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla G.R. NO. 154322 : August 22, 2006

I) FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER (Rule 70)

1. Parties (Sec, 1)
2. Procedure: Summary (sec. 3 to 5)
3. Judgment (Sec. 17)
4. Immediate Execution (sec. 19 vs. Sec. 21)
- preliminary injunction (Sec. 20)
5. Appeals

Cases
1. Suarez vs. Emboy. Jr. G.R. No. 187944, March 12, 2014
2. Alconera vs. Pallanan A.M. No. P-12-3069 January 20, 2014
3. Teodoro vs. Espino G.R. No. 189248 February 5, 2014
 4. Ferrer vs. Rabaca A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580 October 6, 2010
5. CGR vs. Treyes G.R. NO. 170916 : April 27, 2007
6. Zacarias vs. Anacay G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014
7. Manalang vs. Bacani G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015
8. Supapo vs. De Jesus G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015
9. Dela Cruz vs. Hermano G.R. No. 176055 March 17, 2014
10. Erorita vs. Dumlao January 25, 2016 G.R. No. 195477

I) CONTEMPT (Rule 71)

1. Kinds: direct (Sec. 1); Indirect (Sec. 3)
2. Procedure (sec. 4 to 9)
3. Judgment and Review (sec. 11)

Cases:

1. Yasay vs. Recto G.R. NO. 129521 SEPTEMBER 7, 1999

2. Sison vs. Caoibes, Jr. A.M. NO. RTJ-03-1771 MAY 27, 2004
3. Espanol vs. Formoso G.R. NO. 150949 JUNE 21, 2007
4. Marantan vs. Diokno G.R. NO. 205956 FEBRUARY 12, 2014
5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez G.R. NO. 182738, FEBRUARY 24, 2014
6. Tormis vs. Paredes A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366, February 04, 2015
7. Pulumbarit vs. Ca G.R. NOS. 153745-46 OCTOBER 14, 2015
8. Balindong vs. CA G.R. NO. 177600 OCTOBER 19, 2015