REMEDIAL LAW - CIVIL PROCEDURE upon its filing.
The rules do not require the court to make
2011 CASES AND DISCUSSIONS
1. G.R. No. 169144 , January 26, 2011
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE
THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR
THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR,
MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN GREGORIO
PALAGANAS vs. ERNESTO PALAGANAS
But our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by
foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been
probated and allowed in the countries of their execution.
The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has
already been allowed and probated in the country of its
execution.
2. G.R. No. 172879, February 2, 2011
ATTY. RICARDO B. BERMUDO vs. FERMINA TAYAG-ROXAS
Judge P: Remember in Special Proceedings, multiple appeals
are allowed. What does it mean if multiple appeals are
allowed? It means there is a Record on Appeal. So if an
aspect of a case is being appealed to a higher court, the
original records of said case will still be in the court of origin.
The rationale behind this multiple appeal mode is to enable
the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate
and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be
final.
3. G.R. No. 176339, January 10, 2011
DO-ALL METALS INDUSTRIES, INC., SPS. DOMINGO LIM
and LELY KUNG LIM vs. SECURITY BANK CORP.,
TITOLAIDO E. PAYONGAYONG, EVYLENE C. SISON, PHIL.
INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORP. and GIL SILOS
Judge P: Suppose a petitioner files a case and he paid all the
docket and other lawful fees and then, he filed a
supplemental complaint because he has claims of causes of
action which arose in the course of trial but he failed to file
docket and other lawful fees of the supplemental complaint.
Does it mean that the court will be ousted of its jurisdiction
of the entire case, both of the original and supplemental
complaint? NO. Non-payment of additional filing and other
lawful fees does not divest the court of its jurisdiction or the
jurisdiction it had or it already had over the case.
Judge P: What are the instances where filing fees and other
lawful fees are not required? Citizens Suit. Indigents or
Pauper Litigants. Clean Air Act. Clean Water Act.
But a supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the
rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid
LOU ANN C. GULBIN LLB4
Remedial Law- Civil Procedure
Case Doctrines and Discussions
UC-Banilad College Of Law
special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints.
Plaintiffs of course point out that the Bank itself raised the
issue of non-payment of additional filing fees only after the
RTC had rendered its decision in the case. The implication is
that the Bank should be deemed to have waived its objection
to such omission. But it is not for a party to the case or even
for the trial court to waive the payment of the additional
filing fees due on the supplemental complaint. Only the
Supreme Court can grant exemptions to the payment of the
fees due the courts and these exemptions are embodied in its
rules.
4. G.R. No. 153690, February 15, 2011
DAVID LU vs. PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR.,
VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, and LUDO &
LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Judge P: What is the test in determining whether the subject
matter of an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation?
Simplified: If the main purpose of the action is claims of
money, then it is capable of pecuniary estimation. If the main
purpose is not claims of money, it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, even if the plaintiffs wanted to claim for damages
or their are claims of damages. Money claims such as
attorney’s fees, moral damages, etc., they are only incidental
to the main action. For example recovery of possession and
ownership, they are incapable of pecuniary estimation even
if their are other money claims.
Actions which the Court has recognized as being incapable of
pecuniary estimation include legality of conveyances.
A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in
determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable
of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would
depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental
to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in
suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract
(specific performance) and in actions for support, or for
annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this
Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject
of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and
are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance. The
rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases,
besides the determination of damages, demand an inquiry
into other factors which the law has deemed to be more
within the competence of courts of first instance, which were
the lowest courts of record at the time that the first organic
laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction
(Act 136 of the Philippine Commission of June 11, 1901).
The latest amendments seem to imply that there can be no
case of intra-corporate controversy where the value of the
subject matter cannot be estimated. Even one for a mere
inspection of corporate books.
5. Evidence: (No Citation)
Firmly settled is the jurisprudential rule that, Forgery cannot
be presumed. It must be proved by clear, convincing and
positive evidence by a party alleging the same.
Who is the lawyer of the Government? Solicitor General.
Solicitor General’s role as the counsel for the Government
does not include as a counsel for the Government-Owned or
Controlled Corporation’s (GOCCs) because it is the
government’s corporate lawyer who will appear for the
GOCCs under the Administrative Code.
6. G.R. Nos. 171947-48, February 15, 2011
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY
With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of
continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that until
petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the
Court’s orders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction
over them until full execution of the judgment.
7. G.R. No. 181201, February 21, 2011
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC. vs. PHILIPPINE
DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Judge P: If a motion to dismiss is quashed or denied, may its
denial be questioned through Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65? NO. The general rule is that, one should proceed
with the trial. The main reason is that the denial for Motion
to Dismiss or Motion to Quash is an interlocutory order, and
as such it may be questioned only through Petition for
Certiorari under rule 65 when the court acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction.
8. G.R. No. 192217, March 2, 2011
DANILO L. PAREL vs. HEIRS OF SIMEON PRUDENCIO
General Rule: Writ of execution cannot be appealed.
Exceptions: Banaga v. Majaducon, however, enumerates the
instances where a writ of execution may be appealed:
1. The writ of execution varies the judgment;
2. There has been a change in the situation of the parties
LOU ANN C. GULBIN LLB4
Remedial Law- Civil Procedure
Case Doctrines and Discussions
UC-Banilad College Of Law
making execution inequitable or unjust;
3. Execution is sought to be enforced against property
exempt from execution;
4. It appears that the controversy has never been subject
to the judgment of the court;
5. The terms of the judgment are not clear enough and
there remains room for interpretation thereof; or
6. It appears that the writ of execution has been
improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance,
or is issued against the wrong party, or that the
judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or
the writ was issued without authority;
9. G.R. No. 160736, March 23, 2011
AIR ADS INCORPORATED vs. TAGUM AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (TADECO)
Judge P: Supposed there is a defect in the certification
against forum shopping and so the case was dismissed, can it
be re-filed? Yes, if the order of the court says that the
dismissal is without prejudice.
Indeed, Air Ads’ options to correct its dire situation included
the refiling, for, although the Rules of Court declares that the
failure to comply with the requirements of Section 5 of Rule
7 shall not be cured by amendment, nowhere does the rule
prohibit the filing of a similar complaint or pleading
following the dismissal without qualification of the earlier
one.
10. G.R. No. 151369, March 23, 2011
ANITA MONASTERIO-PE and the SPOUSES ROMULO TAN
and EDITHA PE-TAN vs. JOSE JUAN TONG, herein
represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, JOSE Y. ONG
Judge P: What questions may be raised under Rule 45,
Petition for Review? Only questions of law. Except in cases of
Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data because questions of fact,
or of law or both may be raised in court. These are the only
two exceptions.
Moreover, the appeal under Rule 45 of the said Rules
contemplates that the RTC rendered the judgment, final
order or resolution acting in its original jurisdiction. In the
present case, the assailed Decision and Order of the RTC
were issued in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Indeed, the settled rule is that the execution of the
certification against forum shopping by the attorney-in-fact
is not a violation of the requirement that the parties must
personally sign the same. The attorney-in-fact, who has
authority to file, and who actually filed the complaint as the
representative of the plaintiff, is a party to the ejectment
suit.
While tolerance is lawful, such possession becomes illegal
upon demand to vacate by the owner and the possessor by
tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.
A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's
tolerance or permission, without any contract between them,
is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will
vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for
ejectment is the proper remedy against him.
Article 1498 of the Civil Code provides that when the sale is
made through a public instrument, the execution thereof
shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the
object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not
appear or cannot clearly be inferred.
11. G.R. No. 169895, March 23, 2011
ISAGANI M. YAMBOT, LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC, JOSE
MA. D. NOLASCO, ARTEMIO T. ENGRACIA, JR. and VOLT
CONTRERAS vs. Hon. ARTEMIO TUQUERO in his capacity
as Secretary of Justice, and ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR.
Judge: If the DOJ says that there is probable cause, can the
accused/respondents file a petition for certiorari? In this
case, YES. But this is exceptional. The general rule is that the
court will not intervene with the findings of the DOJ because
of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. The court will only
intervene if the case has already reached the court.
Under exceptional circumstances, a petition
for certiorari assailing the resolution of the Secretary of
Justice (involving an appeal of the prosecutor’s ruling on
probable cause) may be allowed, notwithstanding the filing
of an information with the trial court.
Doctrine of Fair Commentaries in Libel
The concept of privileged communication is implicit in the
constitutionally protected freedom of the press, which would
be threatened when criminal suits are unscrupulously
leveled by persons wishing to silence the media on account
of unfounded claims of inaccuracies in news reports.
12. G.R. No. 192877, March 23, 2011
SPOUSES HERMES P. OCHOA and ARACELI D. OCHOA vs.
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
(May be a good source of bar exam question)
Judge P: Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale of REM cannot be
made legally outside of the province in which the property is
situated. Rule 4 of RoC, Venue of Actions, cannot be made to
apply in such a case because Rule 4 pertains to venue of
actions and extrajudicial foreclosure is not an action
contemplated in this case because it is made outside of the
court.
Verily then, with respect to the venue of extrajudicial
LOU ANN C. GULBIN LLB4
Remedial Law- Civil Procedure
Case Doctrines and Discussions
UC-Banilad College Of Law
foreclosure sales, Act No. 3135, as amended, applies, it being
a special law dealing particularly with extrajudicial
foreclosure sales of real estate mortgages, and not the
general provisions of the Rules of Court on Venue of Actions.
Consequently, the stipulated exclusive venue of Makati City is
relevant only to actions arising from or related to the
mortgage, such as petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of
Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages.
13. No Citation
The court was not informed of the debt of the party and so
the court continued hearing the case and a judgment was
rendered, can you blame the court for rendering a judgment?
NO, because the court was not informed in the first place.
What is the duty of the lawyer upon the death of his client?
Inform the court of the said death within 30 days after the
death and state the address/addresses of the heir/heirs.
After the court will receive the address/addresses of the
heir/heirs, it will issue an order of substitution. An issuance
of the order of substitution is a duty of the court and not of
the lawyer.
If the case has already reached the SC and the indispensable
party was not included, may the indispensable party still
intervene in the proceeding? YES because the decisions
rendered were null and void for not including the
indispensable party.
14. G.R. Nos. 184461-62, May 31, 2011
LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC, LT. COL. FELIPE ANOTADO AND
LT. FRANCIS MIRABELLE SAMSON vs. ERLINDA T.
CADAPAN AND CONCEPCION E. EMPEÑO
Order of priority in filing a Writ of Amparo: The petition
may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified
person or entity in the following order:
(a) Any member of the immediate family, namely:
the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved
party;
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative
of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
(c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association
or institution, if there is no known member of the
immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
Reason for the order: To prevent the indiscriminate filing
of the Writ of Amparo

The exclusive and successive order mandated by the
above-quoted provision must be followed. The order of
priority is not without reason—"to prevent the
indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions for amparo
which may even prejudice the right to life, liberty or security
of the aggrieved party."
Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure
of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil
or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the
Constitution or law.
Syllabi: The evolution of the command responsibility
doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war
and armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, "command
responsibility," in its simplest terms, means the
"responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by
subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons
subject to their control in international wars or domestic
conflict." In this sense, command responsibility is properly a
form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907
adopted the doctrine of command responsibility,
foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior
accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates
should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. As then
formulated, command responsibility is "an omission mode
of individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is
made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates
for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed
to crimes he ordered).
It bears stressing that command responsibility is properly a
form of criminal complicity, and thus a substantive rule that
points to criminal or administrative liability.
An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it
ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities
involved. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative
suit. Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to direct
specified courses of action to government agencies to
safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security
of aggrieved individuals.
Example: Torture.
If a subordinate tortures somebody and the superior knew of
such torture and he did not report it, the responsibility of the
superior is a principal of the crime of torture.
Writ of Amparo will not result to a criminal responsibility. Its
purpose is to protect enforced disappearances and
extrajudicial killings.
Command Responsibility in its simplest terms means the
responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by
subordinate members of the AFP or other persons subject to
LOU ANN C. GULBIN LLB4
Remedial Law- Civil Procedure
Case Doctrines and Discussions
UC-Banilad College Of Law
their control in international wars or domestic conflicts.
Follow the definition of Command Responsibility under
the the IHL.
Amparo Proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it
ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities
involved. Quantum of evidence needed is only substantial
because it is very difficult to proved enforced
disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Neither does it
partake the nature of civil or criminal suit. Rather it is a
remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of
action to government agencies to safeguard the
constitutional right to life liberty and security of aggrieved
individuals.
In Tagitis, we defined the concept of responsibility and
accountability for Writ of Amparo cases as follows:
Responsibility in terms of authorship (not liability), this is
only as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft,
among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal
and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper
courts.
Accountability refers to the measure of remedies that
should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in
the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of
their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above;
or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced
disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or
those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance.
It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility,
as legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for
extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats, may
be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the
command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle
of international law or customary international law in
accordance with the incorporation clause of the
Constitution.
If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to
these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine
the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and
has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments
complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise remedial
measures that may be appropriate under the premises to
protect rights covered by the writ of amparo.
Command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo
cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that
have the power to effectively implement whatever processes
an amparo court would issue.

RA 9851 (IHL) is thus the substantive law that definitively
imputes criminal liability to those superiors who, despite
their position, still fail to take all necessary and reasonable
measures within their power to prevent or repress the
commission of illegal acts or to submit these matters to the
competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
If there is a trial of a case and it becomes final and executory,
what happens next? Application and issuance of the writ of
execution.
Does the writ of execution applies to Amparo or Habeas
Corpus cases? NO. The reason is that proceedings should not
be delayed and execution of any decisions thereof must be
expedited as soon as possible. Since any delay even for a day
may jeopardized the very rights that these writs seeks to
immediately protect. However, you should also suppletory
apply the RoC.
There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo
or habeas corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and
security of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not
be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be
expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even
for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs
seek to immediately protect.
Summary proceedings, it bears emphasis, are immediately
executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be
taken therefrom.
15. G.R. No. 177130, June 7, 2011
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA in his official capacity as THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY vs. HON. JENNY LIND R.
ALDECOA-DELORINO
Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. - When the proceedings of
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment
be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceedings in the action or matter specified
therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require. (emphasis supplied)
A petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to
assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative
function.
LOU ANN C. GULBIN LLB4
Remedial Law- Civil Procedure
Case Doctrines and Discussions
UC-Banilad College Of Law
Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule
relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no
standard by which their amount can be measured with
reasonable accuracy. Judge P: In short, Incapable of
pecuniary estimation
16. G.R. No. 167391, June 8, 2011
PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
CORPORATION vs. MAXIMO BONIFACIO
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of
any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real
property. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property
or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently
valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove
such cloud or to quiet the title. In such action, the competent
court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the
complainant and the other claimants, not only to place
things in their proper places, and make the claimant, who
has no rights to said immovable, respect and not disturb the
one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that
whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the
property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly
introduce any desired improvements, as well as use, and
even abuse the property.
Significantly, an action to quiet title is characterized as a
proceeding quasi in rem. In an action quasi in rem, an
individual is named a defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interests to the obligation or loan
burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the
status, ownership or liability of a particular property but
which are intended to operate on these questions only as
between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to
ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible
claimants. The judgment therein is binding only upon the
parties who joined in the action.
This is consistent with the nature of the relief in an action for
declaratory relief where the judgment in the case can be
carried into effect without requiring the parties to pay
damages or to perform any act.
17. G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011
JESSE U. LUCAS vs. JESUS S. LUCAS
(Evidence)
An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory
order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case,
as it leaves something to be done by the court before the
case is finally decided on the merits.
An action in personam is lodged against a person based on
personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the
thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in
rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject
that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien
or obligation. A petition directed against the "thing" itself or
the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition
for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries
in the birth certificate, is an action in rem.
The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an
action in rem. By the simple filing of the petition to establish
illegitimate filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly had
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the latter
thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case. An in
rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication.
A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief
has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the
latter an opportunity to contest it.
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing
order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the
applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a
prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or
"good cause" for the holding of the test. In these states, a
court order for blood testing is considered a "search," which,
under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a
finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the
requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility,
was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of
probable cause.
The same condition precedent should be applied in our
jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere
harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for
DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
18. G.R. No. 170575, June 8, 2011
Spouses MANUEL and FLORENTINA DEL ROSARIO vs.
GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION, Inc.
"‘Stealth,’ on the other hand, is defined as any secret, sly, or
clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into
or remain within residence of another without permission,"
while strategy connotes the employment of machinations or
artifices to gain possession of the subject property.
In their Complaint, petitioners maintained that the
respondent took possession and control of the subject
property without any contractual or legal basis. Assuming
that these allegations are true, it hence follows that
respondent’s possession was illegal from the very beginning.
Therefore, the foundation of petitioners’ complaint is one for
forcible entry – that is "the forcible exclusion of the original
LOU ANN C. GULBIN LLB4
Remedial Law- Civil Procedure
Case Doctrines and Discussions
UC-Banilad College Of Law
possessor by a person who has entered without right." Thus,
and as correctly found by the CA, there can be no tolerance
as petitioners alleged that respondent’s possession was
illegal at the inception.
19. G.R. No. 192649, June 22, 2011
HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION vs. R-II BUILDERS INC.
and NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
In De Leon v. Court of Appeals, this Court had, of course,
ruled that a case for rescission or annulment of contract is
not susceptible of pecuniary estimation although it may
eventually result in the recovery of real property.
"A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in
determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought."
20. G.R. No. 184253, July 6, 2011
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CPO MAGDALENO
PERALTA PN (Ret.)
Contractual stipulations empowering the lessor to repossess
the leased property extrajudicially from a lessee whose lease
has expired have been held to be valid.
21. G.R. No. 183711, July 5, 2011
EDITA T. BURGOS vs. PRESIDENT GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR.,
LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO
GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL
CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, DIRECTOR
GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON
22. G.R. No. 168251, July 27, 2011
JESUS M. MONTEMAYOR vs. VICENTE D. MILLORA
"A debt is liquidated when its existence and amount are
determined. It is not necessary that it be admitted by the
debtor. Nor is it necessary that the credit appear in a final
judgment in order that it can be considered as liquidated; it
is enough that its exact amount is known. And a debt is
considered liquidated, not only when it is expressed already
in definite figures which do not require verification, but also
when the determination of the exact amount depends only
on a simple arithmetical operation x x x."
23. G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011
LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, OCEANIC
CONTAINER LINES, INC., SOLID SHIPPING LINES
CORPORATION, SULPICIO LINES, INC., ET AL. Vs.
DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, LORENZO CINCO, and CORA CURAY

Plainly, therefore, the word summary with respect to the
punishment for contempt refers not to the timing of the
action with reference to the offense but to the procedure that
dispenses with the formality, delay, and digression that
result from the issuance of process, service of complaint and
answer, holding hearings, taking evidence, listening to
arguments, awaiting briefs, submission of findings, and all
that goes with a conventional court trial.
24. G.R. No. 159051, September 21, 2011
MAGLANA RICE AND CORN MILL, INC., and RAMON P.
DAO vs. ANNIE L. TAN and her husband MANUEL TAN
voluntary appearance.
Construction Industry cases should be filed in CIAC
(Exclusive Original Jurisdiction)
A petition for annulment of judgment or final orders of an
RTC in civil actions can only be availed of where the ordinary
remedy for new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through the
fault of the petitioner.
27. G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNARD G. MIRTO

A frivolous appeal is one where no error can be brought
before the appellate court, or whose result is obvious and
the arguments of error are totally bereft of merit, or which is
prosecuted in bad faith, or which is contrary to established
law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for
change. It is frivolous, too, when it does not present any
justiciable question, or is one so readily recognizable as
devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little, if
any, prospect that it can succeed. A losing party has no right
to prosecute a frivolous appeal, because he and his counsel
are not relieved from the obligation to demonstrate
persuasively even when appeal is a matter of right the
substantial and reversible errors committed during the trial.
Costs are certain allowances authorized by statute or court
rule to reimburse the successful party for expenses incurred
in prosecuting or defending an action or special proceedings.
They are in the nature of incidental damages allowed to
indemnify a party against the expense of successfully
asserting his rights in court. The theory on which they are
allowed to a plaintiff is that the default of defendant made it
necessary to sue him, and to a defendant, that plaintiff sued
him without cause.
Money received by an employee in behalf of his or her
employer is considered to be only in the material possession
of the employee.
28. G.R. No. 186050, December 13, 2011
ARTHUR BALAO vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
Subsequently, we have clarified that the inapplicability of the
doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo
proceeding does not, by any measure, preclude impleading
military or police commanders on the ground that the
complained acts in the petition were committed with their
direct or indirect acquiescence. Commanders may therefore
be impleaded—not actually on the basis of command
responsibility—but rather on the ground of their
responsibility, or at least accountability.

25. G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011

EMERITA M. DE GUZMAN vs. ANTONIO M. TUMOLVA
(Good question for Bar Exam)

Factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and

conclusive and not reviewable by this Court on appeal.

26. No Citation

In case when two or more defendants are subsidiarily liable

or solidarily liable by the final judgment of the trial court,
discretionary execution can be allowed if all the defendants
have been found to be insolvent.

Extra-territorial service applies only when the action is in

rem or quasi in rem.

Seeking affirmative relief in a court is tantamount to

LOU ANN C. GULBIN LLB4

Remedial Law- Civil Procedure
Case Doctrines and Discussions
UC-Banilad College Of Law