CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. General Concepts
a. Substantive vs Procedural Law
b. Classification of Courts
c. Rule on Liberal Construction
d. Article VIII, Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution (and its limitations)
e. Jurisdiction (Concept, Kinds, How Acquired)
f. Important principles/doctrines (such as Judicial Heirarchy; Judicial
Stability/Non-Interference; Adherence of Jurisdiction; Primary Jurisdiction;
Ancillary Jurisdiction; Residual Jurisdiction)

2. General Law on Jurisdiction (Constitution, Judiciary Act of 1948, BP 129 and its
amendments).
a. Supreme Court
b. Court of Appeals
c. Regional Trial Court (note: focus on what constitutes the different kinds of
actions)
d. MTC/MTCC
e. Family Courts
f. Shari’a Courts

CASES:

Alfonso Singson Cortal et al vs Larrazabal Enterprises, G.R. No. 199107

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation, G.R. No. 159593
Salvador Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679
Senator Leila de Lima vs Hon. Juanita Guerrero, et al, G.R. No. 229781
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
Supapo v. Sps. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356

RULE 1

Classifications of Actions
Ordinary v Special Civil
In personam, In Rem, Quasi In Rem

Real v Personal v Mixed

Actions Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
Commencement of Action

Biaco v Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 161417. February 8, 2007.]

MA. TERESA CHAVES BIACO,  petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE

COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK,  respondent.

FACTS:

Ernesto Biaco is the husband of petitioner Ma. Teresa Chaves

Biaco. While employed in the Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
 (PCRB) as branch manager, Ernesto obtained several loans from the
respondent bank as evidenced by promissory notes.

As security for the payment of the said loans, Ernesto executed a real estate
mortgage in favor of the bank covering the parcel of land described in
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-14423. The real estate mortgages bore
the signatures of the spouses Biaco.
However, Ernesto failed to settle the above-mentioned loans on its due date.
On February 22, 2000, respondent bank filed a complaint for foreclosure of
mortgage against the spouses Ernesto and Teresa Biaco before the RTC of
Misamis Oriental. Summons was served to the spouses Biaco through
Ernesto at his office (Export and Industry Bank).
Ernesto received the summons but for unknown reasons, he failed to file an
answer. Hence, the spouses Biaco were declared in default upon motion of
the respondent bank.
Another problem is appraisal value of the land subject of the mortgage is
only P150,000.00 as reported by the Assessor's Office.
Trial COURT:
- ordering defendants spouses ERNESTO R. BIACO and MA. THERESA
[CHAVES] BIACO to pay plaintiff bank within a period of not less than
ninety (90) days nor more than one hundred (100) days from receipt of
this decision the loan
- In case of non-payment within the period, the Sheriff of this Court is
ordered to sell at public auction
On October 31, 2000, the sheriff served a copy of the writ of execution to the
spouses Biaco at their residence in #92 9th Street, Nazareth, Cagayan de Oro
City. The writ of execution was personally received by Ernesto. The
mortgaged property was sold at public auction in favor of the respondent
bank in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P150,000.00).
Being insufficient to cover the full amount of the obligation, the respondent
bank filed an "ex parte motion for judgment" praying for the issuance of a
writ of execution against the other properties of the spouses Biaco for the
full settlement of the remaining obligation. Granting the motion, the court
ordered that a writ of execution be issued against the spouses Biaco to
enforce and satisfy the judgment of the court for the balance of ONE
MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY
FOUR PESOS AND SEVENTY CENTAVOS (P1,369,974.70).  ITcCSA

The sheriff executed two (2) notices of levy against properties registered
under the name of petitioner Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco. However, the notices
of levy were denied registration because Ma. Teresa had already sold the two
(2) properties to her daughters on April 11, 2001. 3
Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial Court decision
contending that extrinsic fraud prevented her from participating in the
judicial foreclosure proceedings. According to her, she came to know about
the judgment in the case only after the lapse of more than six (6)
months after its finality. She claimed that extrinsic fraud was perpetrated
against her because the bank failed to verify the authenticity of her
signature on the real estate mortgage and did not inquire into the reason
for the absence of her signature on the promissory notes. She moreover
asserted that the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction because summons
were served on her through her husband without any explanation as to why
personal service could not be made.
CA
- judicial foreclosure proceedings are actions quasi in rem. As such,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential as
long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res
- fraud committed by one against the other cannot be considered
extrinsic fraud.
Pet. For review
Petioner: even if the action is quasi in rem, personal service of summons is
essential in order to afford her due process.
- substituted service made by the sheriff at her husband's office cannot
be deemed proper service absent any explanation that efforts had
been made to personally serve summons upon her but that such
efforts failed.
- Extrinsic fraud was perpetrated not so much by her husband, who did
not inform her of the judicial foreclosure proceedings, but by the
sheriff who allegedly connived with her husband to just leave a copy of
the summons intended for her at the latter's office.
- should be deemed void for lack of jurisdiction over her person.
RESPONDENT BANK
- Respondent avers that service of summons upon the defendant is
not necessary in actions quasi in rem it being sufficient that the court
acquire jurisdiction over the res.
RULING
In short, di need ng ng juridisction sa person.
Pero kasi, yung second writ exec para satisfaction of remaining obligation.

The appellate court acted well in ruling that there was no fraud perpetrated
by respondent bank . NO EXTRINAIC FRAUD
 The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the
nature of the action, i.e., whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in
rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court likewise apply according to the nature of the action.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his
personal liability. An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead
of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is
named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. 14
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a
proceeding in rem  or  quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either
(1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought
into actual custody of the law; or
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of
the court is recognized and made effective. 15
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the
due process requirements. 16
A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court, such as
petitioner in this case, must be personally served with summons as provided
under Sec. 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If she cannot be personally
served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be
effected (1) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (2)
by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 14
of the Rules of Court.
In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by
respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court with jurisdiction over
the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As such,
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is not required, it being
sufficient that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject
matter. DCAHcT

There is a dimension to this case though that needs to be delved into.

Petitioner avers that she was not personally served summons. Instead,
summons was served to her through her husband at his office without any
explanation as to why the particular surrogate service was resorted to. The
Sheriff's Return of Service dated March 21, 2000 states:
xxx xxx xxx
That on March 16, 2000, the undersigned served the copies of
Summons, complaint and its annexes to the defendants Sps. Ernesto
R. & Ma. Teresa Ch. Biaco thru Ernesto R. Biaco[,] defendant of the
above-entitled case at his office EXPORT & INDUSTRY BANK,
Jofelmore Bldg.[,] Mortola St., Cagayan de Oro City and he
acknowledged receipt thereof as evidenced with his signature
appearing on the original copy of the Summons. 17 [Emphasis
supplied]

Without ruling on petitioner's allegation that her husband and the

sheriff connived to prevent summons from being served upon her
personally, we can see that petitioner was denied due process and was not
able to participate in the judicial foreclosure proceedings as a consequence.
The violation of petitioner's constitutional right to due process arising from
want of valid service of summons on her warrants the annulment of the
judgment of the trial court.
There is more, the trial court granted respondent PCRB's ex-
parte motion for deficiency judgment and ordered the issuance of a writ of
execution against the spouses Biaco to satisfy the remaining balance of the
award. In short, the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction over the res and
rendered a personal judgment against the spouses Biaco. This cannot be
countenanced.
In Sahagun v. Court of Appeals, 18 suit was brought against a non-
resident defendant, Abelardo Sahagun, and a writ of attachment was issued
and subsequently levied on a house and lot registered in his name. Claiming
ownership of the house, his wife, Carmelita Sahagun, filed a motion to
intervene. For failure of plaintiff to serve summons extraterritorially upon
Abelardo, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
The Court explained, citing  El Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 19 that
foreclosure and attachment proceedings are both actions quasi in rem. As
such, jurisdiction over the person of the (non-resident) defendant is not
essential. Service of summons on a non-resident defendant who is not
found in the country is required, not for purposes of physically acquiring
jurisdiction over his person but simply in pursuance of the requirements
of fair play, so that he may be informed of the pendency of the action
against him and the possibility that property belonging to him or in which he
has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of a resident, and
that he may thereby be accorded an opportunity to defend in the action,
should he be so minded.  CDaTAI
 Similarly, in this case, while the trial court acquired jurisdiction over
the res, its jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of judgment on the res. It
cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a judgment enforcing
petitioner's personal liability. In doing so without first having acquired
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, as it did, the trial court violated her
constitutional right to due process, warranting the annulment of the
judgment rendered in the case.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.

Brgy. San Roque v Pastor, G.R. No. 138896

Barrido v Nonato, G.R. No. 176492
Manchester Development v CA, 149 SCRA 562
Alindao vs Joson , G.R. No. 14132

RULE 2

Cause of Action
Right of Action v Cause of Action
Single Cause of Action v Splitting a Cause of Action
Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach
Joinder vs Misjoinder of Causes of Action
Totality Rule (BP 129 v ROC)
Chua v Metrobank, G.R. No. 182311
Montaner v Sharia District Court, G.R. No. 174975
Umale vs Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167246
Quioge et al vs Bautista et al, G.R. No. L-13159
Blossom & Co. Inc vs Manila Gas, G.R. No. L-32958
Arreza vs Diaz, 364 SCRA 88
Irene Sante vs Edilberto Claravall, G.R. No. 173915
Flores v. Mallare-Phillips, 144 SCRA 377

RULE 3

Legal Capacity v Legal Personality, (to Sue)

Parties in Interest (Indispensable, Necessary, Representative, Pro Forma, Quasi)
Permissive Joinder of Parties
Compulsory Joinder of Ind Parties
Class Suit
Substitution of Parties

Rayo vs Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142

Oposa v Factoran, G.R. No. 101083
Valdez-Tallorin vs Heirs of Juanito Tarona, G.R. No. 177429
Agro Conglomerates, Inc. vs CA, G.R. No. 117660
Juana Complex 1 Homeowners Association, Inc. vs Fil-Estate Land,, Inc., G.R. No.
152272
Newsweek, Inc. v IAC, G.R. No. L-63559
Mathay vs Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. L-23136
Insurance Company of North America vs United States Lines Co., G.R. No. L-21839

RULE 4

Venue v Jurisdiction
Venue of Actions
Exception to Rule on Venue

Sweet Lines vs Teves, G.R. No. L-37750

Raymond vs CA, G.R. No. 80380
Dacoycoy vs IAC, G.R. No. 74854

RULE 5

Rule on Small Claims

Rule on Summary Procedure
Barangay Conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar, et al., G.R. No. 200804
Jose Audie Abagatnan et al vs.Spouses Jonathan Clarito And Elsa Clarito, G.R. No.
211966
Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel v. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336

RULE 6

Pleadings (Definition, Kinds)

Defenses
Counterclaim (Compulsory v Permissive)
Third Party vs Complaint in Intervention

Fernando Medical Enterprises Inc. vs Wesleyan University Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
207970 (see Rule 8, Section 7)
Lazaro vs Brewmaster International, Inc., G.R. No. 182779
Mongao vs Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 156474
GSIS v Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090
Tan vs Go, G.R. No. 146595
Calo vs Ajax International, 22 SCRA 996
Agustin vs Bocalan, 135 SCRA 340

RULE 7

Parts of Pleading
Verification
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs Santos, G.R. No. 152579

Ma. Luisa Anabelle A. Torres vs Republic and Register of Deeds, Davao, G.R. No.
247490

RULE 8

Ultimate v Evidentiary Facts

Actionable Document (see rule on Rule 6, Section 2)
Definition
How to Contest
Effect of failure to contest
Denial (Types)
Negative Pregnant
Allegations not specifically denied, effect
(new provision) Affirmative Defenses

Canete v Genuino Ice Company, G.R. No. 154080

La Naval Drug Corp vs CA, G.R. No. 103200
Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs Mendoza, G.R. No. 176949
RULE 9

Non-waivable defenses
Default
Declaration of Default
Effects of Declaration of Default
Rights of Party in Default
Partial Default
Cases where default is not allowed

Sablas vs Sablas, G.R. No. 144568

Monarch Insurance vs. CA, G.R. No. 92735
Monzon vs Sps Relova, G.R. No. 171827

RULE 10

Amendments as a matter of right v by leave of court

Formal Amendment
(No) Amendment to conform to evidence
Supplemental Pleadings
Effect of Amended Pleadings

Alpine Lending Investors vs Corpuz, G.R. No. 157107

Zuniga-Santos vs Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380
Philippine Ports Authority vs Gothong, G.R. No. 158401
Philippine National Bank vs. Sps Manalo, G.R. No. 174433