Remedial Law Doctrines

J.
Dumaual 2020-2021
REMEDIAL LAW DOCTRINES 2) A public official may be charged in the

Sandiganbayan with estafa if it is alleged in the
Caveat: These cases were originally compiled by my information that she committed the same in relation to
remedial law professor. I added some personal notes and her office under Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606. A public
comments. Use at your own risk! Amat Victoria Curam. officer is said to have committed the crime in relation to
her office if she committed the same while in the
CIVPRO CASE DOCTRINES performance of his official functions or if she took
(Jurisdiction and Rules 1 to 33) advantage of her office to commit the crime.
I. JURISDICTION 3) Well-established is the rule that when a

motion to quash is denied, the remedy is not a
SANDIGANBAYAN petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to
trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special
SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN defenses invoked in their motion to quash. Remedial
measures as regards interlocutory orders, such as an
G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 order denying a motion to quash, are frowned upon and
REYES, R.T., J.: often dismissed. The reason for this rule is to avoid
multiplicity of appeals in a single action.
1) A government scholar in U. P., in her capacity
as student regent who is not receiving any salary, may
be charged with estafa in the Sandiganbayan under
Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 which provides that
the Sandiganbayan shall exercise jurisdiction over DUNCANO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
“Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state G.R. No. 191894 July 15, 2015
universities or educational institutions or foundations. PERALTA, J.:
Petitioner falls under this category. A student regent
performs functions similar to those of a board of 1) The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over
trustees of a non-stock corporation. Compensation is a Regional Director of the BIR with Salary Grade 26.
merely incidental and not an essential element of public Under P. D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 4 (A) (1)
office. of R.A No. 8249, only Regional Directors with Salary
Remedial Law Doctrines Page 1

J. Dumaual 2020-2021
Grade of 27 and higher fall within the exclusive cases involving violations of RA 9165 even if the same is
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Since a Regional committed by a public officer having a salary grade of at
Director is not included among the public officials least 27 and the crime is committed in relation to her
specifically enumerated in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g), he office. Section 90 of RA 9165 is an exception,
must have a salary grade of at least 27 to be cognizable couched in the special law on dangerous drugs, to
by the Sandiganbayan. the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as
amended by RA 10660. It is a canon of statutory
2) The Supreme Court has ruled that the construction that a special law prevails over a general
following are included among the public officials law and the latter is to be considered as an exception to
specifically enumerated in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g) to be the general. The only exception to the exception is
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, to wit: (1) a when the violation of R. A. No. 9165 is committed
member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod; (2) a by a minor in which case the Family Court shall
department manager of the Philippine Health exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over the
Insurance Corporation (Philhealth); (3) a student criminal action.
regent of the University of the Philippines and (4) a
Head of the Legal Department and Chief of the COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Documentation with corresponding ranks of Vice-
Presidents and Assistant Vice-President of the Armed CITY OF MANILA vs. JUDGE CUERDO
Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation
Benefits System (AFP-RSBS). G.R. No. 175723 February 4, 2014
PERALTA, J.:
1) A superior court exercising exclusive

DE LIMA vs. GUERRERO appellate jurisdiction over a particular case pending in
a lower court shall likewise exercise original
G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017 jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari seeking
VELASCO, JR., J.: nullification of an interlocutory order issued by such
lower court in the said case pending. Pursuant to this
doctrine, since the Court of Tax Appeals exercises
1) Under Section 90 of RA 9165, the RTC shall exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a case for tax
exercise jurisdiction to “exclusively try and hear refund pending in the RTC, it follows that the CTA also

exercises original jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within
seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued by its exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
the RTC in said tax refund case.
CE CASECNAN WATER and ENERGY CO. vs. PROV.
OF NUEVA ECIJA
2) It would be incongruent with the pronounced
judicial abhorrence to split jurisdiction to conclude G.R. No. 196278 June 17, 2015
that the intention of the law is to divide the authority DEL CASTILLO, J.:
over a local tax case filed with the RTC by giving to the
CA or this Court jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari 1) An action for injunction pending before the
against interlocutory orders of the RTC but giving to the RTC seeking to enjoin a local government from collecting
CTA the jurisdiction over the appeal from the decision of real property tax from a taxpayer is a local tax case over
the trial court in the same case. The grant of appellate which the CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
jurisdiction to the CTA over tax cases filed in and Since the CTA exercises appellate jurisdiction over
decided by the RTC should carry with it the power to such case, it also exercises original jurisdiction over
issue a writ of certiorari when necessary in aid of a petition for certiorari filed by the taxpayer seeking
such appellate jurisdiction. to annul the order of the RTC denying his application
for a writ of preliminary injunction in said case. The
3) While there is no express grant of such power doctrine established in the case of City of Manila vs.
to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Judge Cuerdo was applied in this case.
Constitution vests on the Supreme Court and lower
courts judicial power which includes the duty of the LOMONDOT vs. JUDGE BALINDONG
courts x x x to determine whether or not there has been
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess G.R. No. 192463 July 13, 2015
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or PERALTA, J.:
instrumentality of the Government. 1) The Shari’a Appellate Court was established
by R. A. No. 9054 to exercise appellate jurisdiction
In view of the foregoing, the power of the CTA over all cases tried in the Shari’a District Courts. It
includes that of determining whether or not there shall also exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for
has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate

jurisdiction. Considering, however, that the Shari’a

Appellate Court has yet to be organized with the
appointment of a Presiding Justice and two Associate
Justices, appeals or petitions from final orders or
decisions of the SDC shall be filed with the CA shall
be referred to a Special Division to be organized in
any of the CA stations preferably composed of
Muslim CA Justices.
MUN. OF TANGKAL vs. HON. BALINDONG
G.R. No. 193340 January 11, 2017

JARDELEZA, J.:
1) While the Code of Muslim Personal Laws vests

on SDCs concurrent jurisdiction over personal and
real actions wherein the parties involved are
Muslims, the SDC has no jurisdiction over an action for
recovery of possession of real property filed by a Muslim
individual against a municipality whose mayor is a
Muslim, the reason being that the real party in
interest in the case is not the mayor but the
municipality which cannot be considered a Muslim.

CONCEPT, DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION OF THE over such claims and disputes even if the parties
FOLLOWING: involved do not belong to the same ICC/IP group.
1. Delegated Jurisdiction 2) The IPRA's intent is neither to grant the NCIP

2. Special Jurisdiction sole jurisdiction over disputes involving ICCs/IPs, nor to
3. Limited Jurisdiction disregard the rights of non-ICCs/IPs under national
4. Primary Jurisdiction laws. However, the NCIP maintains primary
jurisdiction over: (1) adverse claims and border
UNDURAN vs. ABERASTURI disputes arising from delineation of ancestral
domains/lands; (2) cancellation of fraudulently
G.R. No. 181284 April 18, 2017 issued Certificate of Ancestral Domain
PERALTA, J.: Titles (CADTs); and (3) disputes and violations of
ICCs/IPs rights between members of the same
1) Pursuant to Section 66 of the Indigenous ICC/IP group.
Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall have 3) Under Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall
jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of have limited jurisdiction over claims and disputes
ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among involving rights of IPs/ICCs only when they arise
parties belonging to the same Indigenous Cultural between or among parties belonging to the same
Communities and Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IP) group. ICC/IP group; but if such claims and disputes arise
When such claims and disputes arise between or among between or among parties who do not belong to the
parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the same ICC/IP group, the proper regular courts shall have
case shall fall under the jurisdiction of the regular jurisdiction. However, under Sections 52(h) and 53, in
courts, instead of the NCIP. relation to Section 62 of the IPRA, as well as Section
54, the NCIP shall have primary jurisdiction over
Thus, even if the real issue involves dispute adverse claims and border disputes arising from the
over a land which appear to be located within the delineation of ancestral domains/lands, and
ancestral domain of an ICC/IP, it is not the NCIP but cancellation of fraudulently-issued CADTs,
the RTC which has the power to hear, try and decide regardless of whether the parties are non-ICCs/ IPs,
the case. In exceptional cases under Sections 52, 54 or members of different ICCs/IPs groups, as well as
and 62 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall still have jurisdiction

violations of ICCs/IPs rights under Section 72 of the IPRA violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that
where both parties belong to the same ICC/IP group. private property may not be taken for public use without
just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive
LBP vs. DALAUTA order can mandate that its own determination shall
prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the
G.R. No. 190004 August 8, 2017 courts be precluded from looking into the 'justness' of
MENDOZA, J.: the decreed compensation.
1) Under Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, the SAC 3) There is nothing contradictory between
(RTC) may exercise exclusive original jurisdiction DAR’s primary jurisdiction to determine and
over a petition for determination of just adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and SAC’s
compensation filed by the landowner despite the fact exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters
that the DARAB decision sustaining the LBP valuation of involving the implementation of agrarian reform,"
the subject property had long attained finality by the which includes the determination of questions of just
lapse of 15 days from notice. compensation. The first refers to administrative
proceedings, while the second refers
Although the rules speak of directly appealing the to judicial proceedings.
decision of adjudicators to the SAC, it is clear from
Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction
to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to
transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to Residual Jurisdiction
convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into
appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and DEV. BANK OF THE PHIL. vs. CARPIO
therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC
by private respondent is valid. G.R. No. 195450 February 1, 2017
MENDOZA, J.:
2) The valuation of property in eminent
domain is essentially a judicial function which 1) Residual jurisdiction is the authority of the
cannot be vested in administrative agencies. The trial court to issue orders (1) for the protection and
executive department or the legislature may make the preservation of the rights of the parties which do not
initial determination, but when a party claims a involve any matter litigated by the appeal; (2) to approve

compromises; (3) to permit appeals by indigent

litigants; (4) to order execution pending appeal in G.R. No. 198172 January 25, 2016
accordance with Section 2, Rule 39; and (5) to allow the BRION, J.:
withdrawal of the appeal, provided these are done after
the trial court has lost jurisdiction over the case and prior 1) While the RTC may have lost its appellate
to the transmittal of the original record or the record on jurisdiction over the case due to its dismissal in the
appeal to the appellate court. MTC, it may still exercise equity jurisdiction in order to
provide complete justice. A court may exercise equity
2) The "residual jurisdiction" of the trial court jurisdiction in cases where it is unable, as a court of
is available at a stage in which the court is normally law, to adapt its judgments to the special
deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal
subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is inflexibility when the law is applied to a given
reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity
parties or upon the approval of the records on jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust
appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original enrichment and to ensure restitution. Thus, the order
records or the records on appeal. In either instance, of the RTC as an appellate court which allowed the
the trial court still retains its so-called residual withdrawal of the deposited funds for the use and
jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve occupation of the leased premises was issued pursuant
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order to its equity jurisdiction because it has already lost its
execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of appellate jurisdiction.
the appeal.
2) The RTC’s equity jurisdiction is separate and
3) Before the trial court can exercise residual distinct from its appellate jurisdiction on the ejectment
jurisdiction over a case, a trial on the merits must case. The RTC could not have issued its orders in the
have been conducted, a judgment rendered and an exercise of its appellate jurisdiction since there was
appeal perfected. If trial has not been conducted, the nothing more to execute on the dismissed ejectment
court cannot exercise residual jurisdiction. case. As the RTC orders explained, the dismissal of the
ejectment case effectively and completely blotted out and
Equity Jurisdiction cancelled the complaint. Hence, the RTC orders were
clearly issued in the exercise of its equity
REGULUS DEV., INC. vs. DELA CRUZ

jurisdiction, not on the basis of its appellate invoked the “epistolary jurisdiction” of the Supreme
jurisdiction. Court to accord resident mammals such as whales,
dolphins and porpoises locus standi in the case.
3) A case or issue is considered moot and
academic when it ceases to present a justiciable Under the concept of “epistolary jurisdiction”,
controversy because of supervening events, courts are said to have the constitutional duty to
rendering the adjudication of the case or the deliver speedy and cheap justice at affordable cost in
resolution of the issue without any practical use or Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The courts must adopt
value. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such new kinds of procedural techniques in dealing with PIL.
case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness except Many technical rules of procedure must be relaxed.
when, among others, the case is capable of repetition yet Acting on letters written by or on behalf of the oppressed
evades judicial review. people is one such strategy by which the courts can
facilitate access to justice. Letters may be converted
into writ petitions for the reason that one could not
expect a person acting pro bono on behalf of
oppressed individuals to incur expenses from his
pocket to have a regular writ petition prepared by a
Epistolary Jurisdiction lawyer.
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS vs. REYES 2) The need to give the Resident Marine Mammals
legal standing has been eliminated by the Rules of
G.R. No. 180771 April 21, 2015 Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allows any
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a
suit to enforce our environmental laws.
1) Epistolary jurisdiction is the presumed
power of the court to relax technical rules of 3) The Rules of Procedure for Environmental
procedure in public interest litigation such as Cases allow filing of a citizen's suit. A citizen's suit
accepting letters from oppressed people as petitions to under this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an
initiate appropriate proceedings in court in lieu of action for the enforcement of environmental law on
petitions filed in strict compliance with the technical behalf of minors or generations yet unborn. It is
rules of procedure. The petitioners in the instant case essentially a representative suit that allows persons

who are not real parties in interest to institute EDCEL C. LAGMAN vs. PIMENTEL III
actions on behalf of the real party in interest. G.R. No. 235935 February 6, 2018
TIJAM, J.:
Oposa v. Factoran expanded the concept of "real
party in interest" to include minors and generations 1) Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution
yet unborn is a recognition of this court's ruling. This grants the courts judicial power (1) to settle actual
court recognized the capacity of minors (represented by controversies involving rights which are legally
their parents) to file a class suit on behalf of succeeding demandable and enforceable, and (2) to determine
generations based on the concept of intergenerational whether or not there has been grave abuse of
responsibility to ensure the future generation's access to discretion amounting to lack or excess of
and enjoyment of [the] country's natural resources. jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. The first part is to
4) Courts may decide cases otherwise moot and be known as the traditional concept of judicial power
academic under the following exceptions: while the latter part, an innovation of the 1987
Constitution, became known as the court's expanded
1) There is a grave violation of the jurisdiction. Under its expanded jurisdiction, courts
Constitution; can now delve into acts of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government traditionally
2) The exceptional character of the considered as political if such act was tainted with
situation and the paramount public interest is grave abuse of discretion.
involved;
Jurisdictional Estoppel
3) The constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide Duero vs. CA
the bench, the bar, and the public; and
G. R. No. 131282 January 4, 2002
4) The case is capable of repetition yet
evading review. 1) The defendant, an unschooled farmer, is not
barred by laches or estoppel from raising the issue of lack
Expanded/Extended Jurisdiction of jurisdiction of the RTC over the case in his motion for
reconsideration of the order denying his petition for relief

from judgment despite his having actively participated G. R. No. 129638 December 8, 2013
in the trial of the case by filing a motion for new trial
and petition for relief from judgment in the same trial 1) The proper recourse of an aggrieved party from
court. For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise a decision of the CA is to file with the Supreme Court
thereto must be unequivocal and intentional a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool 45. However, if the error, subject of the recourse, is one of
of injustice. jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated
by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting
2) Estoppel must be applied only in
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy
exceptional cases, as its misapplication could result
available to him would be a petition
in a miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, it was
for certiorari under Rule 65.
the plaintiff who filed the complaint before the RTC
which did not have jurisdiction over the action to
Gonzaga vs. CA
recover real property. The defendant, an unschooled
farmer, could not be expected to know the nuances of
G. R. No. 144025 December 27, 2002
jurisdiction and related issues. He should not be
penalized for committing the honest mistake of initially
1) A party who files an action with a court to
filing his motions with the RTC, before he realized that
secure affirmative relief cannot, after failing to obtain
the case was outside the RTC’s jurisdiction. To hold
such relief in a final and executory judgment, assail the
him in estoppel as the RTC did would amount to
jurisdiction of the court. The issue is not whether the
foreclosing his avenue to obtain a proper resolution
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
of his case.
action or not but whether the party should be barred
by estoppel from raising the issue of the court’s lack
It is also important to note that the defendant
of jurisdiction which he himself invoked by filing the
raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, not when the case
action with the court having no jurisdiction.
was already on appeal, but when the case was still
before the RTC that ruled him in default, denied his
motion for new trial as well as for relief from judgment,
MANILA BANKERS vs. NG KOK WEI
and denied likewise his two motions for reconsideration.
G.R. No. 139791 December 12, 2003
Donato vs. CA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

1) The defendant who actively participated in the

trial of the case in the RTC and did not raise the issue of
its lack of jurisdiction in his appeal with the Court of
Appeals is estopped from raising for the first time the
issue of the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction in the petition for
review on certiorari which he filed with the Supreme
Court. A party cannot participate in the proceedings
and submit the case for decision and then accept the
judgment, only if favorable, and attack it for lack of
jurisdiction, when adverse.
BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC. vs. CA

G.R. No. 173946 June 19, 2013
PEREZ, J.:
1) The principle of estoppel by laches applies

only when the issue is the court’s lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. It
finds no application whatsoever if the issue is the
court’s lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. Under Section 1 of Rule 9, if the defendant
fails to raise the issue of the court’s lack of jurisdiction
over his person either in a motion to dismiss or in his
answer, he is deemed to have waived such objection.
Estoppel by laches would have no relevance whatsoever.

Hierarchy of Courts shown in the petition. The SC has consistently

adhered to the judicial policy that it will not entertain
AGAN vs. PIATCO direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
G. R. No. 155001 May 5, 2003 obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify the availment of the
1) In a petition for certiorari filed directly with extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the
the Supreme Court, the rule on hierarchy of courts exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Liga’s petition is
may be relaxed when (1) the redress desired cannot bereft of such requirements.
be obtained in the lower courts or where (2)
exceptional and compelling circumstances justify
availment of a remedy within and calling for the SAINT MARY CRUSADE vs. RIEL
exercise of the Supreme Court’s primary jurisdiction.
The rule may also be relaxed if (3) exceptional G.R. No. 176508 January 12, 2015
circumstances exist and the case is of transcendental BERSAMIN, J.:
importance such as when it involves the construction
and operation of the country’s premier international 1) The filing by the petitioner of a petition for
airport. Another reason for relaxing the rule on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court to assail the
hierarchy of courts is when (4) crucial issues order of the RTC dismissing his petition for reconstitution
submitted for resolution are of first impression and of title is in violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts.
they entail the proper legal interpretation of key Although the Supreme Court has concurrent
provisions of the Constitution and other important jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in issuing the writ
laws. of certiorari, direct resort (to the SC) is allowed only
when there are special, extraordinary or compelling
LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY vs. ATIENZA reasons that justify the same. The Supreme Court
enforces the observance of the hierarchy of courts in
G. R. No. 154599 January 21, 2004 order to free itself from unnecessary, frivolous and
impertinent cases and thus afford time for it to deal with
1) For the Supreme Court to give due course to a the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the
petition for certiorari in derogation of the rule on Constitution has assigned to it.
hierarchy of courts, a special and important reason or
exceptional and compelling circumstance must be

determination of the constitutionality of such

INTRAMUROS ADMIN. vs. OFFSHORE CONSTR’N action. The consequences, of course, would be
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY national in scope.
G.R. No. 196795 March 7, 2018
LEONEN, J.:
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS vs. GALLEGOS
1) A petition for review on certiorari filed with the
Supreme Court to assail the judgment of the RTC G.R. No. 210759 June 23, 2015
affirming the decision of the MTC is not only an
improper remedy, a petition for review under Rule 42
being the correct one, it also violates the rule on 1) Lower courts should not construe a
hierarchy of courts. resolution of the Supreme Court as a mere request,
and should comply with it promptly and
2) The doctrine that requires respect for the completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays
hierarchy of courts is intended to ensure that every not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also
level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive.
an effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not Judges must respect the orders and decisions of
only determine the facts from the evaluation of the higher tribunals, especially the Supreme Court from
evidence presented before them. They are likewise which all other courts take their bearings. A
competent to determine issues of law which may resolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed
include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even as a mere request nor should it be complied with
an executive issuance in relation to the partially, inadequately or selectively.
Constitution. To effectively perform these functions,
they are territorially organized into regions and then into In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than
branches. Their writs generally reach within those a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity. The exacting
territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly standards of conduct demanded from judges are
perform the all-important task of inferring the facts designed to promote public confidence in the integrity
from the evidence as these are physically presented and impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge himself
before them. In many instances, the facts occur becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn
within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages
present the 'actual case' that makes ripe a

disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in instances, any motu proprio dismissal would amount to
the integrity of the judiciary itself. a violation of the right of the plaintiff to be heard. Under
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, however, a court
may motu proprio dismiss a claim when it appears
from the pleadings or evidence on record that it has
Residual Prerogatives no jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there
is another cause of action pending between the same
KATON vs. PALANCA parties for the same cause, or where the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of
G.R. No. 151149 September 7, 2004 limitations.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Concurrent Jurisdiction
1) “Residual prerogative” is the power of a
court under Section 1 of Rule 9, whether the court is PAT-OG vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, to motu G.R. No. 198755 June 5, 2013
proprio dismiss the case when it appears from the MENDOZA, J.:
pleadings or evidence on record that it has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there is 1) Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is
another action pending between the same parties for possessed over the same parties OR subject matter
the same cause, or where the action is barred by a at the same time by two or more separate tribunals.
prior judgment or by statute of limitations. “Residual When the law bestows upon a government body the
prerogative” is different from the “residual jurisdiction” of jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific
a court embodied in Section 9 of Rule 41. matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is
exclusive unless it be proved that another body is
2) In Gumabon v. Larin, it was held that the motu likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case,
proprio dismissal of a case was traditionally limited to both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
instances when the court clearly had no jurisdiction
over the subject matter and when the plaintiff did not Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several
appear during trial, failed to prosecute his action for an tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of
unreasonable length of time or neglected to comply with the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the
the rules or with any order of the court. Outside of these exclusion of the others.

2) Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670 provides that the real property results as a consequence of the
jurisdiction over administrative cases of public school principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary
teachers is lodged with the investigating committee estimation. The doctrine established in this case
constituted therein. Also, under Section 23 of R.A. overturned the ruling in the case of Home Guaranty vs.
No. 7836 (the Philippine Teachers R-II Builders where it was held that even if the action is
Professionalization Act of 1994), the Board of for annulment of contract which normally is an action
Professional Teachers is given the power, after due incapable of pecuniary estimation, if the real objective is
notice and hearing, to suspend or revoke the certificate to recover real property, the action will be treated as a
of registration of a professional teacher for causes real action and therefore capable of pecuniary
enumerated therein. In this case, it was CSC which first estimation.
acquired jurisdiction over the case because the complaint
was filed before it. Thus, it had the authority to proceed
and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and the
Board of Professional Teachers.
Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
FIRST SARMIENTO vs. PBCOM
G.R. No. 20283 June 19, 2018

LEONEN, J
1) To determine the nature of an action, whether

or not its subject matter is capable or incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action
or relief sought must be ascertained. If the principal
relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real
property, then the action is capable of pecuniary
estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is
not for the recovery of sum of money or real
property, even if a claim over a sum of money or

RULES 1 – 5 2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on

defendant’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim
A. Actions, Commencement (S3 and S5, R1) rule?
ALDAY vs. FGU INSURANCE

3) Will substantially the same evidence support
or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s
counterclaim?
GR No. 138822, January 22, 2001
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
4) Is there any logical relation between the
claim and the counterclaim?
1) As held in Suson vs. CA and Sun Insurance vs.
Asuncion, the non-payment of the correct docket fees
does not warrant the immediate dismissal of the case or If the answer to ANY of the foregoing questions
permissive counterclaim provided such docket fees are is “yes”, the counterclaim is compulsory.
paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period and there is no showing that the Another test, applied in the more recent case of
plaintiff or counterclaimant has attempted to evade Quintanilla v. Court of Appeals, is the “compelling test
the payment of the proper docket fees. of compulsoriness” which requires “a logical
relationship between the claim and counterclaim,
2) As capsulized in Valencia v. Court of that is, where conducting separate trials of the
Appeals, the tests that may be used in determining respective claims of the parties would entail a
whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, substantial duplication of effort and time by the
are as follows: parties and the court.”
1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the PROTON PILIPINAS vs. BANQUE NATIONALE
claim and counterclaim largely the same?
G. R. No. 151242 June 15, 2005
1) The failure of the plaintiff to pay the correct

docket fees because he merely relied on the assessment

of the Clerk of Court which turned out to be incorrect is

not a ground for the outright dismissal of the case but G. R. No. 187104 August 3, 2010
he should be allowed to pay the correct docket fees. This
is in line with the ruling in Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion 1) The payment in full of the appeal docket
where it was held that if the plaintiff was not in bad fees is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.
faith and has demonstrated his willingness to pay The failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal
the deficiency in the docket fees, then the case docket fees shall be a ground for the dismissal of his
should not be dismissed but he should be allowed to appeal and the judgment appealed from becoming final
pay the correct docket fees provided it is paid within the and executory. The right to appeal is not a natural
prescriptive or reglementary period. In Manchester right but a mere statutory privilege. For this reason,
Development Corporation vs. CA, the case was dismissed appeal must be made strictly in accordance with the
because it was shown that there was an effort on the requirements prescribed by law.
part of the plaintiff to defraud the government in avoiding
payment of the correct docket fees. GIPA vs. SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE
G.R. No.177425 June 18, 2014

RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS vs. FORMARAN DEL CASTILLO, J.:
G. R. No. 175914 February 10, 2009
1) Applying the rule that the payment of the full
1) If there was a clear attempt on the part of the amount of appellate court docket and lawful fees is
plaintiff to avoid paying higher docket fees for a real mandatory and jurisdictional, the failure of the appellant
action by filing an action for annulment of contract to pay the 30-peso deficiency in the appeal docket fees
when his real purpose was to recover title to real despite the lapse of 9 months from notice warrants the
property, then his case should be dismissed without dismissal of the appeal. The appellant’s invocation of
allowing him to pay the deficiency. Payment of the the liberal application of the rules cannot be granted
correct docket fees is not only mandatory but also because of his failure to adequately explain his
jurisdictional. failure to abide by the rules. Those who seek
exemption from the application of the rule have the
burden of proving the existence of exceptionally
meritorious reasons warranting such departure.
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY vs. COBARRUBIAS

2) The rule that a court acquires jurisdiction over provided that: (a) the fees are paid within a reasonable
any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket period; and (b) there was no intention on the part of
fees does not apply where the party does not the claimant to defraud the government.
deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment
of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide CAMASO vs. TSM SHIPPING, INC
by the rules by paying additional docket fees when
required by the court. G.R. No. 223290 November 07, 2016
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
SY-VARGAS vs. ESTATE OF OGSOS
G.R. No. 221062 October 05, 2016 1) It has long been settled that while the court
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fees, its non-payment
1) The nature of a counterclaim is at the time of filing of the initiatory pleading does
determinative of whether or not the counterclaimant not automatically cause its dismissal provided that:
is required to pay docket fees. The rule in permissive (a) the fees are paid within a reasonable period; and
counterclaims is that for the trial court to acquire (b) there was no intention on the part of the
jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is bound to pay claimant to defraud the government.
the prescribed docket fees. On the other hand, the
prevailing rule with respect to compulsory In the instant case, when the petitioner filed with
counterclaims is that no filing fees are required for the Court of Appeals his certiorari petition by mail, he
the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the attached thereto a personal check as payment of the
subject matter. docket fees. Although this was not an authorized
mode of payment, the attachment of such personal
2) A party’s failure to pay the required docket check shows that the petitioner exerted earnest
fees, per se, should not necessarily lead to the dismissal efforts to pay the required docket fees. Clearly, this
of his permissive counterclaim. It has long been settled exhibits good faith and evinces his intention not to
that while the court acquires jurisdiction over any case defraud the government.
only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees, its
2) There are certain peculiar circumstances that
non-payment at the time of filing of the initiatory
may warrant a relaxation of the rules on payment of
pleading does not automatically cause its dismissal
docket fees. The strict application of the rule may be

qualified by the following: first, failure to pay the

docket fees within the reglementary period allows
only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second,
such power should be used by the court in conjunction
with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance
with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as
with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of
all attendant circumstances.

B. One suit for one action (S3, R2) 2) In essence, forum shopping is the practice of
Splitting a single cause of action (S4, R2) litigants resorting to two different courts for the
Joinder of causes of action (S5, R2) purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase
their chances of obtaining a favorable judgment. In
DYNAMIC BUILDERS vs. PRESBITERO determining whether forum shopping exists, it is
important to consider the vexation caused to the courts
G.R. No. 174202 April 7, 2015 and the parties-litigants by a person who asks appellate
LEONEN, J.: courts and/or administrative entities to rule on the
same related causes and/or to grant the same or
1) Rule 2, Section 3 of the Rules of Court substantially the same relief, in the process creating the
provides that "a party may not institute more than possibility of conflicting decisions by the different courts
one suit for a single cause of action." Moreover, or for a on the same issues. We have ruled that forum
Section 4 discusses the splitting of a single cause of shopping is present when, in two or more cases
action in that "if two or more suits are instituted on the pending, there is identity of (1) parties (2) rights or
basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or causes of action and reliefs prayed for and (3) the
a judgment upon the merits in any one is available identity of the two preceding particulars is such that
as a ground for the dismissal of the others." The any judgment rendered in the other action, will,
splitting of a cause of action "violate[s] the policy against regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective is to judicata in the action under consideration.
avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the courts.
3) Republic Act No. 8975 definitively enjoins
This Petition seeks to enjoin the execution of all courts, except the Supreme Court, from issuing any
public respondent’s Decision and Resolution on the temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,
protest — the same Decision and Resolution sought to or preliminary mandatory injunction against the
be set aside in the Petition before the Regional Trial government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any
Court. In essence, petitioner seeks the same relief person or entity to restrain, prohibit or compel the
through two separate Petitions filed before separate bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the
courts. This violates the rule against forum national government. The only exception would be if
shopping. the matter is of extreme urgency involving a
constitutional issue, such that unless the

temporary restraining order is issued, grave

injustice and irreparable injury will arise.

C. Parties to civil actions (S1, R3) plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation
Joinder of parties (S6, 7, R3) of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
Indispensable and necessary parties (S7 & may maintain an action for recovery of damages.11
8, R3)
Class suit (S12, R3) A cause of action is sufficient if a valid
Death or separation of a party (S16,17, 18, judgment may be rendered thereon if the alleged
R3) facts were admitted or proved.
Transfer of interest (S19, R3)
Contractual money claims (S20, R3) 2) A necessary party is one who is not
indispensable but who ought to be joined as party if
complete relief is to be accorded those already
RELUCIO vs. OPEZ parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of
the claim subject of the action. In the context of the
G.R. No. 138497 January 16, 2002 wife’s petition to be appointed sole administratrix of the
PARDO, J.: conjugal properties, forfeiture of her husband’s share
thereof, support and accounting, she would be accorded
1) A cause of action is an act or omission of complete relief if her husband is ordered to account for
one party (DEFENDANT) in violation of the legal his alleged conjugal partnership property, give support to
right of the other (PLAINTIFF). The elements of a her and her children, turn over his share in the co-
cause of action are: ownership with to the wife and dissolve his conjugal
partnership or absolute community property with her.
(a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by The husband’s concubine with whom he lived for
whatever means and under whatever law it arises many years would not be a real party in interest in
or is created; the petition.
(b) an obligation on the part of the If the concubine is not a real party in interest,
named defendant to respect or not to violate such she cannot be an indispensable party. An indispensable
right; and party is one without whom there can be no final
determination of an action. The concubine is likewise
(c) an act or omission on the part of not indispensable. Certainly, the trial court can issue a
such defendant in violation of the right of the judgment ordering the husband to make an accounting

of his conjugal partnership with the wife, and give says that the creditor `may proceed against anyone
support to respondent and their children, and dissolve of the solidary debtors or some or all of them
the husband’s conjugal partnership with his wife, and simultaneously'.
forfeit the husband’s share in the property co-owned by
him and his wife. Such judgment would be perfectly ORQUIOLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
valid and enforceable against her husband without his G.R. No. 141463 August 6, 2002
concubine being impleaded as co-responded with him. QUISUMBING, J.:
DE CASTRO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

1) A judgment cannot be enforced against the
G.R. No. 115838 July 18, 2002 judgment obligor’s successor-in-interest if (1) the latter
CARPIO, J.: (the successor-in-interest) was not impleaded as a
defendant; (2) he purchased the subject property from
the judgment obligor before the filing of the action;
1) When the law expressly provides for (3) he acquired Torrens title over the property
solidarity of the obligation, as in the liability of co- immediately after the purchase and (4) he relied on
principals in a contract of agency, each obligor may judgment obligor’s Torrens title over the subject
be compelled to pay the entire obligation. The agent property at the time of the purchase. The rule would
may recover the whole compensation from any one be different if the four conditions are not present.
of the co-principals. Since the agent/obligee may Petitioners acquired the lot before the commencement of
recover the whole obligation from any one of the co- the civil case. The sale to the petitioners was made
principals/co-obligors, the former may sue any one of BEFORE Ledesma claimed the lot.
the latter to recover the whole obligation without joining
the others based on Article 1216 of the Civil Code. The CHINA BANKING CORP. vs. OLIVER
other co-principals/co-obligors are neither necessary G.R. No. 135796 October 3, 2002
or indispensable parties. QUISUMBING, J.:
2) In Operators Incorporated vs. American Biscuit

Co., Inc., it was ruled that x x x solidarity does not make 1) In an action for annulment of the deed of
a solidary obligor an indispensable party in a suit filed mortgage filed against the mortgagee by a person who
by the obligee/creditor. Article 1216 of the Civil Code claims to be the registered owner of the mortgaged

property, the mortgagor with the same name as the DAVID vs. PARAGAS, JR.
petitioner and who submitted a TCT of the
mortgaged property is not an indispensable party. G.R. No. 176973 February 25, 2015
A party is not indispensable to the suit if his 1) As a rule, an appellate court may only resolve
interest in the controversy or subject matter is errors that were assigned by the appellant. The appellate
distinct and divisible from the interest of the other court may, however, by way of exceptions, resolve
parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a unassigned errors if they pertain to the following matters:
judgment which does complete justice to the parties
in court. In the instant case, the mortgagee has interest a) Matters affecting jurisdiction over the
in the loan which is distinct and divisible from the subject matter;
mortgagor’s interest in the land he used as collateral for
the loan. b) Matters which are evidently plain or
clerical errors within the contemplation of the
Further, a declaration of the mortgage’s nullity in law;
the case will not necessarily prejudice the mortgagor.
The mortgagee still needs to initiate proceedings to go c) Matters the consideration of which is
after the mortgagor, who in turn can raise other necessary in arriving at a just decision and
defenses pertinent to the two of them. A party is also complete resolution of the case or to serve the
not indispensable if his presence would merely interest of justice or to avoid dispensing
permit complete relief between him and those piecemeal justice;
already parties to the action, or will simply avoid
multiple litigation, as in the case of the mortgagee d) Matters of record which were raised in
and the mortgagor. The latter’s participation in this the trial court and which have some bearing on the
case will simply enable the mortgagee to make its claim issue submitted which the parties failed to
against the mortgagor in the case, and hence, avoid the raise or which the lower court ignored;
institution of another action. Thus, it was the mortgagee
who should have filed a third-party complaint or other e) Matters closely related to an error
action versus the mortgagor. assigned; and

f) Matters upon which the determination property of public dominion and therefore, beyond the
of a question properly assigned are dependent. commerce of man. Land Bank’s argument that the
taxpayer’s suit is improper because the proceeds of the
2) A compromise agreement could not be the basis of aloan to be used for the construction of the project are not
judgment or the dismissal of the complaint and counterclaimspublic funds is untenable because, eventually, the
if it was entered into with an entity which is not a party loan would be paid form public funds.
to the suit.
2) It is hornbook principle that a taxpayer is
3) The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.allowed to sue where there is a claim that public
The presence of all indispensable parties is necessary tofunds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is
vest the court with jurisdiction to try the case and render being deflected to any improper purpose, or that
a valid and binding judgement. there is wastage of public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. A
The absence of an indispensable party renders allperson suing as a taxpayer, however, must show that
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want ofthe act complained of directly involves the illegal
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even todisbursement of public funds derived from taxation. In
those present. The failure to implead an indispensable party is other words, for a taxpayer’s suit to prosper, two
not a mere procedural matter. Rather, it is a blatant violation of requisites must be met namely, (1) public funds
the absent party’s constitutional right to due process. derived from taxation are disbursed by a political
subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law
LAND BANK vs. CACAYURAN is violated or some irregularity is committed; and (2)
G.R. No. 191667 April 17, 2013 the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
LOTTE PHIL. CO. vs. DELA CRUZ
1) A longtime resident of the municipality has the G.R. No. 166302. July 28, 2005
locus standi to file a taxpayer’s suit against certain YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
municipal officials and Land Bank to assail, among
others, the validity of the loan applied for by the 1) In a petition for certiorari filed with the Court
municipality with Land Bank for a municipal project on of Appeals by the employees against the NLRC and the
the ground that the lot used as collateral thereof is principal (Lotte) assailing the decision of the Labor

Arbiter and the NLRC declaring the labor-only G.R. No. 190823 April 4, 2011
contractor (7J), not the principal (Lotte), as the employer CARPIO MORALES, J.:
and therefore liable for illegal dismissal and the
employees’ backwages, the labor-only contractor is an 1) The question as to whether an action
indispensable party and should have been survives or not depends on the nature of the action
impleaded as respondent, together with NLRC and and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which
the principal, Lotte. survive, the wrong complained [of] affects primarily
and principally property and property rights, the
In the case at bar, 7J is an indispensable party. It injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in
is a party in interest because it will be affected by the the causes of action which do not survive, the injury
outcome of the case. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC complained of is to the person, the property and rights
found 7J to be solely liable as the employer of of property affected being incidental.
petitioners (employees).
In the present action for specific performance, the
2) An indispensable party is a party in interest plaintiff was pursuing a property right arising from a
without whom no final determination can be had of an contract of sale, whereas the defendant was invoking
action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or nullity of the contract to protect his proprietary interest.
defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is Since the action involves property rights, it survives the
mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is death of party.
necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which
is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the 2) The death of a client immediately divests
right to act in a case". Thus, without the presence of the counsel of authority. Thus, any action taken by
an indispensable party to a suit, judgment of the the counsel on behalf of his deceased client would
court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an have no effect.
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of
the court null and void for want of authority to act, DE LA CRUZ vs. JOAQUIN
not only as to the absent parties but even as to
those present. G.R. No. 162788. July 28, 2005
CARABEO vs. DINGCO 1) The Rules require that when a party to a pending
action dies, he should be substituted by his legal

representatives. This requirement is necessitated by dueadjudged, judicially acted upon, or settled by

process. Thus, even if there is no or there is belated formaljudgment." The principle bars a subsequent suit involving the
substitution in accordance with the Rules but the legalsame parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Public policy
representatives of the deceased party were recognized byrequires that controversies must be settled with finality at a
the court and were able to participate in the case, the given point in time.
decision remains valid.
The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the
The general rule notwithstanding, former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must have
a formal substitution by heirs is not necessary when they been rendered on the merits of the controversy; (3) the
themselves voluntarily appear, participate in the case, andcourt that rendered it must have had jurisdiction over the
present evidence in defense of the deceased. These actionssubject matter and the parties; and (4) there must have
negate any claim that the right to due process was violated. been -- between the first and the second actions -- an
identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.
2) Forum shopping is the institution of two or more
actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the The onus of proving allegations of forum shopping
same cause of action, either simultaneously orrests upon the party raising them. The latter must therefore
successively, on the supposition that one or the otherprovide the court with relevant and clear specifications that
court would make a favorable disposition. would show the presence of an identity of parties, subject
matter, and cause of action between the present and the earlier
The test for determining the existence of forum shoppingsuits.
is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or
whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res NAVARRO vs. ESCOBIDO
judicata in another. We note, however, petitioners’ claim that
the subject matter of the present case has already been litigated G.R. No. 153788 November 27, 2009
and decided. Therefore, the applicable doctrine is res judicata. BRION, J.:
Under res judicata, a final judgment or decree on 1) There is no law authorizing sole
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction isproprietorships to bring suit in court. The law merely
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form
all later suits and on all points and matters determined inof business organization conducted for profit by a single
the previous suit. The term literally means a "matterindividual, and requires the proprietor or owner thereof

to secure licenses and permits, register the business 2) An indispensable party is one whose
name, and pay taxes to the national government. It interest will be affected by the court’s action in the
does not vest juridical or legal personality upon the litigation, and without whom no final determination
sole proprietorship nor empower it to file or defend of the case can be had. The party’s interest in the
an action in court. In an action involving the sole subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so
proprietorship, therefore, it is the proprietor who is inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his
the real party in interest. The descriptive words "doing legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute
business as “name of sole proprietorship" may be added necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution
to the title of the case, as is customarily done. of the dispute of the parties before the court which is
effective, complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence of an
2) The registration of the sole proprietorship in indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of
the name of one person – a woman – does not the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that the trade name only as to the absent parties but even as to those
as a property is hers alone, particularly when the present.
woman is married. By law, all property acquired
during the marriage, whether the acquisition ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE SANTIAGO vs. VILAR
appears to have been made, contracted or registered
in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to G.R. No. 225309 March 06, 2018
be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. TIJAM, J.:
DIVINAGRACIA vs. PARILLA 1) The joinder of indispensable parties is

mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is
G.R. No. 196750 March 11, 2015 necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to
act in a case. Thus, the failure to implead an
1) In an action for judicial partition, all the indispensable party to a suit will render all the
co-heirs and persons having an interest in the proceedings thereof null and void and prevent the
property, including vendees and those who have judgment of the court from attaining real finality.
allegedly sold their respective shares, are
indispensable parties. An action for partition will not lie
without the joinder of all said parties.

VENUE OF ACTIONS OF REAL convenience of the parties and the interest of

AND PERSONAL ACTIONS justice would be better served if the case were
brought in a court having proper jurisdiction in
PACIFIC CONSUL’NTS vs. SCHONFELD another venue — compare change of venue.
G.R. No. 166920 February 19, 2007 The mere fact that respondent is a Canadian
CALLEJO, SR., J.: citizen and was a repatriate does not warrant the
application of the principle forum non coveniens for the
following reasons: First. The Labor Code of the
1) While stipulations regarding venue are Philippines does not include forum non conveniens as a
considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations ground for the dismissal of the complaint. Second. The
in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle
rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court requires a factual determination; hence, it is properly
in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. considered as a defense. Third. The following
They should be considered merely as an agreement or circumstances are present: [a] Philippine Court may
additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so;
place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If provided, that the following requisites are met: (1) that
the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
there must be accompanying language clearly and conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a
categorically expressing their purpose and design position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and
that actions between them be litigated only at the the facts; and, (3) that the Philippine Court has or is
place named by them. For a stipulation regarding likely to have power to enforce its decision.
venue to supersede the provisions of Rule 4, it must use
the restrictive words like "only," "solely," BIACO vs. COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK
"exclusively in this court," "in no other court save —
," "particularly," "nowhere else but/except —," or G.R. No. 161417 February 8, 2007
words of equal import. TINGA, J.:
2) “Forum non conveniens” (forum is not 1) An action in personam is an action against

convenient) is the doctrine which allows a court with a person on the basis of his personal liability. An
jurisdiction over a case to dismiss it because the action in rem is an action against the thing itself

instead of against the person. An action quasi in on her warrants the annulment of the judgment of the
rem is one wherein an individual is named as trial court.
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien 3) Foreclosure and attachment proceedings are
burdening the property. both actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is not essential. Service
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the of summons on the defendant is required, not for
person of the defendant is necessary for the court to purposes of physically acquiring jurisdiction over his
validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem person but simply in pursuance of the requirements of
or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the fair play, so that he may be informed of the pendency
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on of the action against him and the possibility that
the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction property belonging to him or in which he has an
over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of
(1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, the adverse party, and that he may thereby be
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or accorded an opportunity to defend in the action,
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, should he be so minded.
in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective. 4) Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a
fraudulent act committed by the prevailing
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon party outside of the trial of the case, whereby
the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the the defeated party was prevented from presenting
court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the fully his side of the case by fraud or deception
due process requirements. practiced on him by the prevailing party. Extrinsic
fraud is present where the unsuccessful party had been
2) While in an action in rem or quasi in rem it is prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or
sufficient if the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by
the defendant must still be properly served keeping him away from court, a false promise of a
summons not to vest on the court jurisdiction over compromise; or where the defendant never had
him but to satisfy the requirement of due process. knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the
The violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to due acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or
process arising from want of valid service of summons without authority assumes to represent a party and

connives at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly and relevant jurisprudence. According to Section 1,
employed corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is one that
other side. The overriding consideration is that the affects title to or possession of real property, or an
fraudulent scheme of the prevailing interest therein. Thus, an action for partition or
litigant prevented a party from having his day in condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real
court. property is a real action. The real action is to be
commenced and tried in the proper court having
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK vs. YUJUICO jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which
G.R. No. 175796 July 22, 2015 explains why the action is also referred to as a local
BERSAMIN, J.: action. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all
other actions as personal actions. Such actions may
1) An action to recover the deficiency after the include those brought for the recovery of personal
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property property, or for the enforcement of some contract or
mortgage is a personal action, for it does not affect recovery of damages for its breach, or for the
title to or possession of real property, or any recovery of damages for the commission of an injury
interest therein. In the light of the foregoing, the venue to the person or property. The venue of a personal
of the extrajudicial foreclosure or mortgage need not be action is the place where the plaintiff or any of the
the same as the venue of the action to recover the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant
deficiency, which, being a personal action, shall be or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the
commenced in the proper court of the place where the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which
plaintiff. reason the action is considered a transitory one.
2) The court cannot motu proprio dismiss the PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. RAMOS
case on the ground of improper venue.
G.R. No. 228617 September 20, 2017
3) It is basic that the venue of an action REYES, JR., J:
depends on whether it is a real or a personal action.
The determinants of whether an action is of a real or a 1) In Briones v. Court of Appeals, it was held that
personal nature have been fixed by the Rules of Court in cases where the complaint assails only the terms,

conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument to institute actions arising from or in relation to
and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation their agreements; that is to say, as simply adding to or
contained therein shall still be binding on the expanding the venues indicated in said Rule 4.
parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly
dismissed on the ground of improper venue. Thus, since restrictive stipulations are in
Conversely, therefore, a complaint directly assailing derogation of the general policy, the language of the
the validity of the written instrument itself should parties must be so clear and categorical as to leave
not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation no doubt of their intention to limit the place or
contained therein and should be filed in accordance places, or to fix places other than those indicated in
with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it would Rule 4. In Spouses Lantin, the Court ruled that "the
be inherently inconsistent for a complaint of this nature to words exclusively and waiving for this purpose any other
recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact, venue are restrictive. In the instant case, the following
precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which stipulation on venue is considered restrictive, to wit:
such stipulation is contained.
18. In the event of suit arising from out of or in
2) Stipulations on venue may either be permissive connection with this mortgage and/or the promissory
or restrictive. "Written stipulations as to venue may be note/s secured by this mortgage, the parties hereto
restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in agree to bring their causes of action exclusively in
the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in that the the proper court/s of Makati, Metro Manila,
parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed the mortgagor waiving for this purpose any other
upon but also in the places fixed by law. As in any venue.
other agreement, what is essential is the
ascertainment of the intention of the parties
respecting the matter." 2) Service made through registered mail is proved
by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office
As a rule, venue stipulations should be deemed and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts
permissive merely, and that interpretation should be showing compliance with the rule.
adopted which most serves the parties' convenience.
In other words, stipulations designating venues other
than those assigned by Rule 4 should be interpreted as
designed to make it more convenient for the parties

E. SUMMARY PROCEDURE vs. SMALL CLAIMS certiorari may only be invoked when "there is no appeal, nor
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law,"
- What are their salient characteristics? this rule is not without exception. The availability of the
- How to determine if the case is summary or ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient
under small claims ground to prevent a party from making use of the
- OCA 45-2019: increased amounts of small extraordinary remedy of certiorari where appeal is not an
claims to P400,000. adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and
sufficient. It is the inadequacy – not the mere absence – of
all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC. vs. MONDEJAR without the writ that usually determines the propriety of
certiorari.
January 22, 2014 G.R. No. 200804
1) Considering that decisions of the MTC in small

claims cases are, under Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, effective October
1, 2008) are final and unappealable, the prevailing party
may immediately move for its execution. Nevertheless, the
proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other
proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does
not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
2) The foregoing general rule has been enunciated in

the case of Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance
Corporation, wherein it was held that "the extraordinary
writ of certiorari is always available where there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law." Although Section 1, Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of

KINDS OF PLEADINGS (Rule 6)

(S1 to S13) 1) Under Rule 17, where the plaintiff moves for
the dismissal of his complaint to which a
A. Pleadings: Complaint, Answer, Counterclaim, Cross-counterclaim has been interposed, the dismissal
claim, Reply, Third-Party Complaint, Counter-counterclaim. shall be limited to the complaint. Such dismissal
shall be without prejudice to the right of the
- Permissive vs. Compulsory counterclaim defendant to either prosecute his counterclaim in a
separate action or to have the same resolved in the
B. Defenses: Negative, Affirmative, Negative Pregnant same action. Should he opt for the first alternative, the
court should render the corresponding order granting
and reserving his right to prosecute his claim in a
ALBA vs. MALAPAJO separate complaint. Should he choose to have his
G.R. No. 198752 January 13, 2016 counterclaim disposed of in the same action wherein the
PERALTA, J.: complaint had been dismissed, he must manifest such
preference to the trial court within 15 days from
1) To determine whether a counterclaim is notice to him of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. These
compulsory or permissive, the following questions alternative remedies of the defendant are available to
must be answered: (a) Are the issues of fact and law him regardless of whether his counterclaim is compulsory
raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the or permissive.
same? (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit
on defendants’ claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule? (c) Will substantially the same METOROBANK vs. CPR PROMOTIONS
evidence support or refute plaintiffs’ claim as well as
the defendants’ counterclaim? and (d) Is there any G.R. No. 200567 June 22, 2015
logical relation between the claim and the VELASCO, JR., J.:
counterclaim? A “yes” answer to all four questions
would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory. 1) A defending party’s compulsory
counterclaim should be interposed at the time he
LIM TECK CHUAN vs. UY files his Answer, and the failure to do so shall
G. R. No. 155701 March 11, 2015 effectively bar such claim. In the instant case, what
REYES, J.: respondents initially claimed herein were moral and

exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. Then, carries with it an affirmation or at least an
realizing, based on its computation, that it should have implication of some kind favorable to the adverse
sought the recovery of the excess bid price, respondents party. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or
set up another counterclaim, this time in their modifying language and the words of the allegation as so
Appellant’s Brief filed before the CA. Unfortunately, qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been
respondents’ belated assertion proved fatal to their cause held that the qualifying circumstance alone is
as it did not cure their failure to timely raise such claim in denied while the fact itself is admitted. It is clear from
their Answer. Consequently, respondents’ claim for the respondent’s Comment that his denial only pertained as
excess, if any, is already barred. to the existence of a forced illicit relationship. Without a
categorical denial thereof, he is deemed to have admitted
VALDEZ vs. DABON his consensual affair with Sonia.
A.C. No. 7353 November 16, 2015 CANELAND SUGAR CORP. vs. ALON
Per Curiam:
G.R. No. 142896 September 12, 2007
1) While respondent interposed a blanket denial AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
of the romantic involvement that he had with a woman
not his wife, nonetheless he seemed to have tacitly
admitted the illicit affair only that it was not attended by 1) In Republic of the Philippines v.
sexual assaults, threats and intimidations. More telling Sandiganbayan, a negative pregnant is defined as a
is that respondent devoted considerable effort to "form of negative expression which carries with it an
demonstrate that the affair did not amount to gross affirmation or at least an implication of some kind
immoral conduct and that no sexual abuse, threat or favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant
intimidation was exerted upon the person of the woman, with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the
but not once did he squarely deny the affair itself. pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or
modifying language and the words of the allegation as so
The respondent's denial is a negative qualified or modified are literally denied, has been held
pregnant, a denial coupled with the admission of that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while
substantial facts in the pleading responded to which the fact itself is admitted."
are not squarely denied. Stated otherwise, a negative
pregnant is a form of negative expression which

RULE 7: PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING (S1- final order is appealable, to accord with the final
6) judgment rule enunciated in Section 1, Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court to the effect that "appeal may be
A. Parts: Caption, Body, Relief, Date taken from a judgment or final order that completely
B. Signature and Address disposes of the case, or of a particular matter
C. Verification vs. Certification therein when declared by these Rules to be
D. Parts vs. Contents appealable;" but the remedy from an interlocutory
one is not an appeal but a special civil action for
ALMA JOSE vs. JAVELLANA certiorari.
G.R. No. 158239 January 25, 2012
BERSAMIN, J.: MEDADO vs. HEIRS OF ANTONIO CONSING
1) The distinction between a final order and an G.R. No. 186720 February 8, 2012
interlocutory are as follows - A final order disposes of REYES, J.:
the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a
particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing 1) The general rule is that the certificate of
more to be done except to enforce by execution what non-forum shopping must be signed by all the
the court has determined. An interlocutory order plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of
does not completely dispose of the case but leaves them is insufficient. However, the Court has also
something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory stressed that the rules on forum shopping were
order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the designed to promote and facilitate the orderly
merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The administration of justice and thus should not be
test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment interpreted with such absolute literalness as to
is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective.
leave something to be done in the trial court with The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of
respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the with respect to the contents of the certification. This is
order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is because the requirement of strict compliance with the
final. provisions regarding the certification of non-forum
shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in
Whether an order is final or interlocutory that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed
determines whether appeal is the correct remedy or not. A with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus,

under justifiable circumstances, the Court has d) Where the petitioners are immediate
relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such relatives, who share a common interest in the
certification considering that although it is property subject of the action, the fact that only one
obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. of the petitioners executed the verification or
certification of forum shopping will not deter the court
2) In the following instances, the signature of one from proceeding with the action.
of several plaintiffs or petitioners in the verification or
certificate of non-forum shopping was deemed sufficient: 3) The general rule is that a motion for
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a
a) In HLC Construction and Development petition for certiorari may lie, its purpose being to
Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correct
Association, it was held that the signature of only one of any error attributed to it by re-examination of the
the petitioners in the certification against forum legal and factual circumstances of the case. There
shopping substantially complied with the rules because are, however, recognized exceptions permitting a resort
all the petitioners share a common interest and to the special civil action for certiorari without first filing
invoke a common cause of action or defense. a motion for reconsideration, to wit:
b) The same leniency was applied by the Court a) Where the order is a patent nullity because
in Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, because the lone petitioner the court a quo had no jurisdiction;
who executed the certification of non-forum
shopping was a relative and co-owner of the other b) Where the questions raised in
petitioners with whom he shares a common the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and
interest. passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as
those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
c) Where all the petitioners are immediate
relatives who share a common interest in the land c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the
sought to be reconveyed and a common cause of resolution of the question, and any further delay
action raising the same arguments in support would prejudice the interests of the Government or of
thereof, the signature of one of the petitioners in the the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is
verification or certification would suffice. perishable;

d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for constitutive of the requisites for auter action
reconsideration would be useless; pendant or lis pendens.
e) Where the petitioner was deprived of due COA vs. PALER

process and there is extreme urgency of relief;
G.R. No. 172623 March 3, 2010
f) Where, in a criminal case, relief from an CORONA, J.:
order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such relief
by the trial court is improbable; 1) Where the petitioner is the Commission on
Appointments, a government entity created by the
g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are Constitution, and headed by its Chairman, there is no
a nullity for lack of due process; need for the Chairman himself to sign the verification. Its
representative, lawyer or any person who personally
h) Where the proceedings were ex parte or in know the truth of the facts alleged in the petition
which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; may sign the verification.
and
With regard, however, to the certification of
i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law or non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it
where public interest is involved. must be executed by the plaintiff or any of the
principal parties and not by counsel, unless he has
4) There is forum shopping when the elements been duly authorized.
of litis pendentia are present, i.e., between actions
pending before courts, there exist: (1) identity of BASAN vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.
parties, or at least such parties as represent the same
interests in both actions, (2) identity of rights asserted G.R. Nos. 174365-66 February 4, 2015
and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the PERALTA, J.:
same facts, and (3) the identity of the two preceding
particulars is such that any judgment rendered in 1) While the general rule is that the
the other action will, regardless of which party is verification and certification of non-forum shopping
successful, amount to res judicata in the action must be signed by all the petitioners in a case, the
under consideration; said requisites are also signature of only one of them may be deemed

substantial compliance with the procedural 2) Before Bar Matter No. 1922 was amended, the
requirement. The rule on verification is deemed failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate in the
substantially complied with when one who has ample Information the number and date of issue of her MCLE
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the Certificate of Compliance is a ground for the dismissal of
complaint or petition signs the verification, and when the criminal action. The old provisions of B.M. No. 1922
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good required practicing members of the bar to indicate in all
faith or are true and correct. pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies,
the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate
When under reasonable or justifiable of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be
circumstances, as when all the petitioners share a applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance
common interest and invoke a common cause of period. Failure to disclose the required information
action or defense, the signature of only one of them would cause the dismissal of the case and the
in the certification against forum shopping expunction of the pleadings from the records.
substantially complies with the certification
requirement. An information, is for all intents and purposes,
considered an initiatory pleading because it is a
PEOPLE vs. ARROJADO written statement that contains the cause of action
of a party, which in criminal cases is the State as
G.R. No. 207041 November 09, 2015 represented by the prosecutor, against the accused.
PERALTA, J.: Like a pleading, the Information is also filed in court for
appropriate judgment. Undoubtedly then, an
1) Under the amendatory Resolution dated Information falls squarely within the ambit of Bar Matter
January 14, 2014 which amended Bar Matter No. 1922, No. 1922, in relation to Bar Matter 850.
the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her
pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her 2) To avoid inordinate delays in the disposition of
MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result cases brought about by a counsel's failure to indicate in
in the dismissal of the case and expunction of the his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his
pleadings from the records. Nonetheless, such failure or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, this Court
will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or issued an En Banc Resolution, dated January 14, 2014
disciplinary action. which amended B.M. No. 1922 by repealing the phrase
"Failure to disclose the required information would

cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of G.R. No. 222737 November 12, 2018
the pleadings from the records" and replacing it with PERALTA, J.:
"Failure to disclose the required information would
subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and 1) A distinction must be made between non-
disciplinary action." compliance with the requirement on or submission of
defective verification, and non-compliance with the
POWERHOUSE, INC. vs. REY requirement on or submission of defective certification
against forum shopping.
G.R. No. 190203 November 07, 2016
JARDELEZA, J.: As to verification, non-compliance therewith
or a defect therein does not necessarily render the
1) The following officials or employees of the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
company can sign the verification and certification submission or correction or act on the pleading if the
without need of a board resolution: (1) the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance
Chairperson of the Board of Directors; (2) the President with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the
of a corporation; (3) the General Manager or Acting ends of justice may be served thereby. Verification is
General Manager; (4) Personnel Officer; and (5) an deemed substantially complied with when one who
Employment Specialist in a labor case. The rationale has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
behind this rule is that these corporate officers or allegations in the complaint or petition signs the
representatives of the corporation are deemed to be in a verification, and when matters alleged in the
position to verify the truthfulness and correctness petition have been made in good faith or are true
of the allegations in the petition. and correct.
2) In the instant case, the verification and As to certification against forum shopping,
certification attached to the petition for certiorari filed with non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike
the CA was signed the President and General Manager of in verification, is generally not curable by its
the petitioner corporation, one of the officers enumerated subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
in the foregoing recognized exception. there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
"substantial compliance" or presence of "special
HEIRS OF GABRIEL vs. CEBRERO circumstances or compelling reasons".

2) The certification against forum shopping

must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in
a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped
as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense, the signature of
only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
3) Finally, the certification against forum

shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not
by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must
execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his
counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

RULE 8: MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN only when it expressly confesses the truth of such
PLEADINGS (S1-S13) allegations but also when it omits to deal with
them at all. The controversion of the ultimate facts
A. Allegations in pleadings: ultimate facts and must only be by specific denial. Section 10, Rule 8 of
evidence the Rules of Court recognizes only three modes by which
B. Actionable documents: how to allege, how to the denial in the answer raises an issue of fact. The first
contest is by the defending party specifying each material
C. Affirmative defenses in the answer; effects allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit
and, whenever practicable, setting forth the substance
of the matters upon which he relies to support his
FERNANDO MEDICAL vs. WESLEYAN UNIV. denial. The second applies to the defending party who
desires to deny only a part of an averment, and the
G.R. NO. 207970 January 20, 2016 denial is done by the defending party specifying so much
BERSAMIN, J.: of the material allegation of ultimate facts as is true and
material and denying only the remainder. The third is
1) The essential query in resolving a motion for done by the defending party who is without knowledge
judgment on the pleadings is whether or not there or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
are issues of fact generated by the pleadings. of a material averment made in the complaint by stating
Whether issues of fact exist in a case or not depends on so in the answer.
how the defending party’s answer has dealt with the
ultimate facts alleged in the complaint. The defending Any material averment in the complaint not so
party’s answer either admits or denies the allegations of specifically denied are deemed admitted except an
ultimate facts in the complaint or other initiatory averment of the amount of unliquidated damages.
pleading. The allegations of ultimate facts, being
undisputed, will not require evidence to establish GO TONG ELEC. vs. BPI FAM. SAVINGS BANK
the truth of such facts, but the allegations of
ultimate facts the answer properly denies, being G.R. No. 187487 June 29, 2015
disputed, will require evidence. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
2) The answer admits the material allegations 1) Under Section 8 of Rule 8, the mere use of the
of ultimate facts of the adverse party’s pleadings not phrases "specifically deny” the material allegation

“for being self-serving and pure conclusions compliance with an order for an inspection of the
intended to suit plaintiff’s purposes" does not original instrument is refused.
constitute an effective specific denial of said
material allegation. A denial is not specific simply ASIAN CONST. & DEV. CORP. vs. MENDOZA
because it is so qualified by the defendant. Stated
otherwise, a general denial does not become specific by G.R. No. 176949 June 27, 2012
the use of the word "specifically." Neither does it become DEL CASTILLO, J.:
so by the simple expedient of coupling the same with a
broad conclusion of law that the allegations contested 1) A document is actionable when an action or
are "self-serving" or are intended "to suit plaintiff’s defense is grounded upon such written instrument
purposes." or document. In the instant case, the Charge Invoices
are not actionable documents per se as these "only
2) The authenticity and due execution of the provide details on the alleged transactions." These
plaintiff’s actionable document may be properly denied documents need not be attached to or stated in the
by the defendant declaring under oath in his answer complaint as these are evidentiary in nature. In fact,
that he did not sign the document or that it is otherwise respondent’s cause of action is not based on these
false or fabricated. Failing in this, the defendant will be documents but on the contract of sale between the
deemed to have admitted both the genuineness and due parties. Under the 2019 amendments, however,
execution of the actionable document. Section 8 of Rule evidentiary matters must be attached to the
8 provides, as follows: complaint together with the judicial affidavits of
witnesses.
Section 8. How to contest such documents. - When
an action or defense is founded upon a written Section 7 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court states:
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding Section, the SEC. 7. Action or defense based on document. –
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under instrument or document, the substance of such
oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what instrument or document shall be set forth in the
he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
oath does not apply when the adverse party does attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be
not appear to be a party to the instrument or when

deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy

may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.
BENGUET EXPLORATION, INC. vs. CA
G.R. No. 117434 February 9, 2001

MENDOZA, J.:
1) The admission by the adverse party of the

due execution and genuineness of a document
simply means that "the party whose signature it
bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed
by another for him with his authority; that at the
time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as
set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that
the document was delivered; and that any formal
requisites required by law, such as a seal, an
acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are
waived by him.” When the law makes use of the phrase
'genuineness and due execution of the instrument' it
means nothing more than that the instrument is not
spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its
face from the one executed.
2) However, admission by the adverse party of

the due execution and genuineness of a
document does not preclude him from presenting
evidence to prove that the contents thereof is not
true or accurate.

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD default. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a
(S1 to S3) defendant is only declared in default if he fails to file
his Answer within the reglementary period. On the
A. Effect of failure to plead other hand, if a defendant fails to attend the pre-trial
B. Waiver of defenses and objections conference, the plaintiff can present his evidence ex parte.
C. Default Section 5 of Rule 18 provides, as follows:
- when to declare
- how to declare Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. The failure of
- Order of default vs. judgment by default; the plaintiff to appear (at the pre-trial conference) shall
remedies be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal
shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by
BDO vs. TRANSIPEK the court. A similar failure on the part of the
defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to
G. R. No. 181235 July 22, 2009 present his evidence ex parte and the court to render
judgment on the basis thereof.
1) The proper remedy for an order of default is
not a motion for reconsideration but a motion to lift BITTE vs. JONAS
order of default under Section 3(b) of Rule 9. A
motion to lift order of default should be verified and the G. R. No. 212256 December 9, 2015
defendant must show that he was prevented from filing MENDOZA, J.:
his answer within the prescribed period due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he 1) A defendant who has been declared in default
has a meritorious defense. is not precluded from appealing the judgment by
default. The rule is that the right to appeal from the
SALVADOR vs. RABAJA judgment by default is not lost and can be done on
grounds that (1) the amount of the judgment is
G.R. No. 199990 February 4, 2015 excessive or is different in kind from that prayed for,
MENDOZA, J.: or that (2) the plaintiff failed to prove the material
allegations of his complaint, or that (3) the decision is
1) A party’s failure to attend the pre-trial contrary to law." If a party who has been declared in
conference does not result in him being declared in default has in his arsenal the remedy of appeal from the

judgment of default on the basis of the decision having

been issued against the evidence or the law, that person
cannot be denied the remedy and opportunity to assail
the judgment in the appellate court. Despite being
burdened by the circumstances of default, the
defaulted defendant may still use all other
remedies available to question not only the
judgment of default but also the judgment on
appeal before this Court. Those remedies necessarily
include an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.

RULE 10: AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL facts and the multiplicity of suits thus be
PLEADINGS (S1 to S9) prevented. Hence, as long as it does not appear that the
motion for leave was made with bad faith or with intent
A. Amendments: 1) a matter of right or discretion to delay the proceedings, courts are justified to grant
2) formal or substantial leave and allow the filing of an amended pleading. Once
B. Amendment to conform to evidence, not a court grants leave to file an amended pleading, the
necessary same becomes binding and will not be disturbed on
C. Effects of Amendments appeal unless it appears that the court had abused its
D. Supplemental pleadings discretion.
YUJUICO vs. UNITED RESOURCES ASSET LISAM ENTERPRISES vs. BANCO DE ORO
G.R. No. 211113 June 29, 2015 G.R. No. 143264 April 23, 2012
PEREZ, J.: PERALTA, J.:
1) The rules of procedure allow a party in a civil 1) The granting of leave to file amended
action to amend his pleading as a matter of right, so pleading is a matter particularly addressed to the
long as the pleading is amended only once and sound discretion of the trial court; and that discretion
before a responsive pleading is served (or, if the is broad, subject only to the limitations that the
pleading sought to be amended is a reply, within ten amendments should not substantially change the cause
days after it is served). Otherwise, a party can only of action or alter the theory of the case, or that it was
amend his pleading upon prior leave of court. not made to delay the action. Nevertheless, as
enunciated in Valenzuela, even if the amendment
2) As a matter of judicial policy, courts are substantially alters the cause of action or defense, such
impelled to treat motions for leave to file amended amendment could still be allowed when it is sought
pleadings with liberality. This is especially true when a to serve the higher interest of substantial justice,
motion for leave is filed during the early stages of prevent delay, and secure a just, speedy and
proceedings or, at least, before trial. Our case law inexpensive disposition of actions and proceedings.
had long taught that bona fide amendments to pleadings
should be allowed in the interest of justice so that every 2) The courts should be liberal in allowing
case may, so far as possible, be determined on its real amendments to pleadings to avoid a multiplicity of suits

and in order that the real controversies between the defendant has to do to foreclose this remedial right is to
parties are presented, their rights determined, and the challenge the adequacy of the complaint before he files an
case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay. answer.
This liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit,
especially in this case where the amendment was made 2) Section 2 of Rule 10 states that a pleading
before the trial of the case, thereby giving the petitioners may be amended as a matter of right before a
all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare for responsive pleading is served. This only means that
trial. prior to the filing of an answer, the plaintiff has the
absolute right to amend the complaint whether a new
3) Furthermore, amendments to pleadings are cause of action or change in theory is introduced.
generally favored and should be liberally allowed in The reason for this rule is implied in the subsequent
furtherance of justice in order that every case, may Section 3 of Rule 10. Under this provision, substantial
so far as possible, be determined on its real facts and amendment of the complaint is not allowed without
in order to speed up the trial of the case or prevent leave of court after an answer has been served,
the circuitry of action and unnecessary expense. because any material change in the allegations
That is, unless there are circumstances such as contained in the complaint could prejudice the
inexcusable delay or the taking of the adverse party by rights of the defendant who has already set up his
surprise or the like, which might justify a refusal of defense in the answer.
permission to amend.
3) Conversely, it cannot be said that the
REMINGTON INDUS. SALES CORP. vs. CA defendant’s rights have been violated by changes
made in the complaint if he has yet to file an answer
G.R. No. 133657 May 29, 2002 thereto. In such an event, the defendant has not
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: presented any defense that can be altered or affected by
the amendment of the complaint in accordance with
1) The filing of a motion to dismiss does not Section 2 of Rule 10. The defendant still retains the
preclude the plaintiff from amending the complaint unqualified opportunity to address the allegations against
as a matter of right, a motion to dismiss not being a him by properly setting up his defense in the answer.
responsive pleading. If the rule is otherwise, the right to Considerable leeway is thus given to the plaintiff to
amend a pleading under Section 2, Rule 10 will be amend his complaint once, as a matter of right, prior
rendered nugatory and ineffectual, since all that a to the filing of an answer by the defendant.


RULE 13: FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS,

JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS (S1 to S19)
PALILEO vs. PLANTERS DEV. BANK
G.R. No. 193650 October 8, 2014

DEL CASTILLO, J.:
1) The filing with the court or service to the

adverse party of a motion or pleading by courier service
(LBC) is a mode not provided in the Rules. Under the
2019 amendments, this rule is no longer applicable.
HEIRS OF MIRANDA vs. MIRANDA
G.R. No. 179638 July 8, 2013

1) Under Section 3 of Rule, pleadings may be
filed in court either personally or by registered mail.
In the first case (personal), the date of filing is the
date of receipt. In the second case (registered mail),
the date of mailing is the date of receipt. Since the
filing of the Notice of Appeal via a private courier is a
mode of filing not provided in the Rules, the date of its
delivery of pleadings to the LBC could not to be
considered as the date of filing thereof. Instead, it is the
date of actual receipt by the court which would be
deemed as the date of filing of the NOA. This rule may
no longer apply because of the 2019 amendments.

RULE 14: SUMMONS (S1 – S23) In an action for partition, which is an action quasi in
rem, a defendant who is not a resident and not found in the
Philippines cannot be properly served summons for purposes
VALMONTE vs. CA of complying with due process through her co-
G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996 defendant/husband in the Philippines absent special authority
to receive the summons on her behalf. She must be served
1) In actions in rem or quasi in rem, such assummons in accordance with S17 of R14.
partition, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long as MILLENIUM IND. COM. CORP. vs. TAN
the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. If the defendant
is not a resident and not found in the Philippines, he must be G.R. No. 131724. February 28, 2000
served summons extraterritorially in accordance with S17 of
R14. 1) It is settled that substantial compliance by
serving summons on persons other than those mentioned
Service of summons in the manner provided in S17 in the above rule may be justified. In G & G Trading
is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdictionCorporation v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that although the
but for complying with the requirements of fair play or dueservice of summons was made on a person not enumerated in
process, so that he will be informed of the pendency of theSection 13 of Rule 14 (this is under the old rules prior to
action against him and the possibility that property in the1997), if it appears that the summons and complaint were in
Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interestfact received by the corporation, there is substantial
may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and hecompliance with the rule as its purpose has been attained.
can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so
minded. In Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court
enumerated the requisites for the application of the
As explained in the leading case of Banco Españoldoctrine of substantial compliance, to wit:
Filipino v. Palanca :
(a) There must be actual receipt of the
An action quasi in rem differs from an action in rem in summons by the person served, i.e.,
that in the former (quasi in rem) a specific defendant is named transferring possession of the copy of the
and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest summons from the Sheriff to the person served;
therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.

(b) The person served must sign a receipt G.R. NO. 170943, September 23, 2008
or the sheriff's return; and
1) Under Section 14, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
(c) There must be actual receipt of the Procedure, service of summons by publication on a
summons by the corporation through the defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown will
person on whom the summons was actually vest on the court jurisdiction over the person of the
served. defendant even in actions in personam.
The third requisite is the most important for it is 2) A defendant who was served summons by publication
through such receipt that the purpose of the rule onbecause his whereabouts are unknown need not be furnished
service of summons is attained. notice of further proceedings after he is declared in
default. He simply could not be served notice of further
Since summons was served on the defendantproceedings because his whereabouts are unknown. Nemo
corporation on November 21, 1995, the ruling in this casetenetur ad impossibile. The law obliges no one to perform
was based on Section 13, Rule 14 of the old rules prior toimpossibility.
the July 1, 1997 amendments.
MASON vs. CA
E. B. VILLAROSA v. BENITO
G.R. No. 144662 : October 13, 2003
GR No. 136426, Aug 06, 1999
1) The doctrine of substantial compliance established in
1) Service of summons on the branch manager ofthe Millenium case which was decided when the 1964 Rules of
defendant E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. at its branchCourt were still in force and effect has already been
office at Cagayan de Oro, instead of upon the general manageroverturned by the ruling in the Villarosa case which was
at its principal office was improper and did not vest on thedecided based on the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus,
court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. This rulingservice of summons on defendant-corporation through its
was based on Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules offiling clerk was declare invalid by the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure.
JOSE v. BOYON
SANTOS, JR. vs. PNOC EXPLORATION G.R. No. 147369 October 23, 2003

3) Extraterritorial service of summons,

1) The pertinent facts and circumstances particularly service of summons by publication,
attendant to the service of summons must be stated applies only when the defendant is not a resident
in the proof of service or Officers Return; otherwise, and not found in the Philippines and the action is in
any substituted service made in lieu of personal service rem or quasi in rem. In the instant case, what was
cannot be upheld. This is necessary because substituted filed before the trial court was an action for specific
service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It performance, an action which the SC has consistently
is a method extraordinary in character and hence may considered as an action in personam.
be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances
authorized by statute. Here, no such explanation was MANOTOC vs. CA
made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with
the requirements of substituted service renders said G.R. No. 130974 August 16, 2006
service ineffective.
1) The following are the requirements for a
2) With regards to the requirements of valid substituted service of summons:
substituted service of summons and the effect of
noncompliance with the subsequent proceedings (1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service
therefor, the SC has held that the impossibility of
personal service justifying availment of substituted The sheriff’s return must show that defendant
service should be explained in the proof of service; could not be personally served summons within a
why efforts exerted towards personal service failed. The reasonable time or that there is impossibility of
pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the prompt personal service or summons. A period of one
service of summons must be stated in the proof of month from the issuance of summons within which to
service or Officers Return; otherwise, the substituted personally serve summons on the defendant can be
service cannot be upheld. It bears stressing that since considered "reasonable time".
service of summons, especially for actions in
personam, is essential for the acquisition of It must be shown in the sheriff’s return that he
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the made at least three (3) attempts on at least two
resort to a substituted service must be duly different dates to personally serve the summons on
justified. Failure to do so would invalidate all the defendant. He must also cite why such efforts
subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. were unsuccessful.

(2) Specific Details in the Return ONG v. CO
The sheriff must describe the facts and G.R. No. 206653, February 25, 2015
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal
service. The efforts made to find the defendant and 1) The ruling in this case strictly applied the doctrine
the reasons behind the failure must be clearly established in Manotoc with regards to a valid substituted
narrated in detail. The date and time of the attempts on service of summons. In this case, the SC declared that the
personal service, the inquiries made to locate the substituted service of summons as invalid because of the
defendant, the name/s of the occupants of the alleged following reasons, to wit:
residence or house of defendant and all other acts done,
though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must “The server’s return utterly lacks sufficient
be specified to justify substituted service. detail of the attempts undertaken by the process
server to personally serve the summons on
(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion petitioner. The server simply made a general
statement that summons was effected after
A person of suitable age and discretion is one who several futile attempts to serve the same
has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years personally. The server did not state the specific
old) and is considered to have enough discernment number of attempts made to perform the personal
to understand the importance of a summons. service of summons; the dates and the
corresponding time the attempts were made; and
(4) A Competent Person in Charge the underlying reason for each unsuccessful
service. He did not explain either if there were
The person on whom the substituted service will inquiries made to locate the petitioner, who was
be made must be the one managing the office or the defendant in the case. These important acts
business of defendant, such as the president or to serve the summons on petitioner, though
manager; and such individual must have sufficient futile, must be specified in the return to justify
knowledge to understand the obligation of the substituted service.
defendant in the summons, its importance, and the
prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the The server’s return did not describe in detail
summons. Again, these details must be contained in the the person who received the summons, on behalf
Return. of petitioner. It simply stated that the summons

was received “by Mr. Roly Espinosa of sufficient specific actions he took to make sure that the residence
age and discretion, the Security Officer thereat.” It where he left a copy of the summons was the actual
did not expound on the competence of the security residence of the defendant at the time of the service.
officer to receive the summons. Moreover, he must clearly show the efforts he took to
determine that the person with whom he left the
Also, aside from the server’s return, summons was a resident of the house of the defendant
respondent failed to indicate any portion of the and that he was of sufficient age and discretion.
records which would describe the specific
attempts to personally serve the summons. The ruling in this case with regards to
Respondent did not even claim that petitioner substituted service of summons follows close the rulings
made any voluntary appearance and actively in Manotoc vs. CA, Hamilton vs. Levy and Keister vs.
participated in Civil Case No. 02-0306.” Narcereo.
DOMAGAS vs. JENSEN DOLE PHILIPPINES v. QUILALA
G.R. No. 158407 January 17, 2005 GR No. 168723 Jul 09, 2008
1) Strict compliance with the mode of service is 1) Initially, the SC opined that there was no
required in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction proper service of summons on the defendant corporation
over the person of the defendant. The statutory because summons was served on an employee of
requirement of substituted service must be followed another corporation and there was no showing that she
faithfully and strictly and any substituted service was duly authorized by the president of the defendant
other than that authorized by the statute is corporation to receive the summons for him. The SC,
rendered ineffective. however, eventually ruled that the court acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant corporation by the
The server must clearly state in his return that he latter’s voluntary appearance.
left a copy of the summons and the complaint at the The filing by the defendant of motions
residence of the defendant at the time of the service with seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer,
a person of sufficient age and discretion then residing for additional time to file answer, for
therein. He must also indicate in his return what reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift

order of default with motion for reconsideration, are received the summons. The doctrine of substantial
considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction compliance has already been superseded.
of the court.
GUY vs. GACOTT
In the case at bar, when the defendant corporation
filed a motion for additional time to file responsive January 13, 2016 G.R. No. 206147
pleading, it effectively sought affirmative relief from the
court, invoked its jurisdiction and acknowledged receipt 1) Although a partnership is based on delectus
of the summons thereby voluntarily submitting itself to its personae or mutual agency, whereby any partner can
jurisdiction. generally represent the partnership in its business
affairs, it is non sequitur that a suit against the
GREEN STAR EXPRESS, INC. v. NISSIN-UNIVERSAL partnership is necessarily a suit impleading each and
ROBINA CORP. every partner. It must be remembered that a
partnership is a juridical entity that has a distinct
G.R. No. 181517, July 06, 2015 and separate personality from the persons
composing it.
1) The rules on service of summons upon a
domestic private juridical entity must be strictly In relation to the rules of civil procedure, it is
complied with, otherwise, the court cannot be said to elementary that a judgment of a court is conclusive
have acquired jurisdiction over the person of the and binding only upon the parties and their
defendant. successors-in-interest after the commencement of
the action in court. A decision rendered on a complaint
In the case at bar, summons was served on a in a civil action or proceeding does not bind or prejudice
certain Tinio, a member of the defendant corporation’s a person not impleaded therein, for no person shall be
accounting staff. Although it was claimed that Tinio adversely affected by the outcome of a civil action or
received the summons upon the instruction of the proceeding in which he is not a party. The principle
defendant corporation’s general manager, such fact did that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered
not appear in the sheriff’s return. Neither was the sheriff in an action or proceeding in which he has not been
presented to testify to such fact. This is regardless of the made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee
fact that the defendant corporation may have actually of due process of law.

In Muñoz v. Yabut, Jr., the Court The SC ruled, however, that while the defendant
declared that a person not impleaded and corporation was not properly served summons, it
given the opportunity to take part in the voluntarily appeared before and submitted itself to the
proceedings was not bound by the decision jurisdiction of the court when it filed its pre-trial
declaring as null and void the title from brief without any reservation as to the court's jurisdiction
which his title to the property had been over it and even prayed that it be allowed to reserve the
derived. The effect of a judgment could not presentation of additional evidence.
be extended to non-parties by simply
issuing an alias writ of execution against
them, for no man should be prejudiced by SUNRISE GARDEN CORPORATION v. CA
any proceeding to which he was a stranger.
GR No. 158836, Sep 30, 2015
G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC. v. TIARA
COMMERCIAL CORP. 1) In Philippine Commercial International Bank v.
Spouses Dy Hong Pi, et al., the SC discussed that
G.R. No. 201378, October 18, 2017 voluntary appearance in court may not always result
in submission to the jurisdiction of a court.
1) Service of summons on the financial
supervisor of the defendant corporation was Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant
improper and did not vest the court jurisdiction over in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive
the defendant corporation. Section 11 of Rule 14 power of legal processes exerted over his person, or
requires strict compliance and the old doctrine that his voluntary appearance in court. As a general
substantial compliance is sufficient no longer applies. proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
In E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Benito, the SC deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
ruled that the liberal construction of the rules cannot be court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had
invoked as a substitute for the plain requirements stated occasion to declare that the filing of motions (a) to admit
in Section 11 of Rule 14. In Mason v. Court of Appeals, answer, (b) for additional time to file answer, (c) for
it definitively ruled that Villarosa settled the question of reconsideration of a default judgment, and (d) to lift
the application of the rule on substantial compliance. order of default with motion for reconsideration, is
considered voluntary submission to the court's
jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept

of conditional appearance, such that a party who of lack of jurisdiction was raised at the first instance and
makes a special appearance to challenge, among repeatedly argued by K-9 Security Agency and
others, the court's jurisdiction over his person respondent First Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc. in
cannot be considered to have submitted to its their pleadings.
authority.
TUJAN-MILITANTE vs. NUSTAD
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear
that: G. R. No. 209518 June 19, 2017
1)Special appearance operates as 1) While petitioner’s motion to dismiss challenged

an exception to the general rule on the jurisdiction of the court a quo on the ground of
(
voluntary appearance; improper service of summons, the subsequent filing of
a Motion for Reconsideration which sought for
2) Accordingly, objections to the affirmative relief is tantamount to voluntary
jurisdiction of the court over the person appearance and submission to the authority of such
of the defendant must be explicitly court. Such affirmative relief is inconsistent with the
(
made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal position that no voluntary appearance had been made,
manner; and and to ask for such relief, without the proper objection,
necessitates submission to the [court]'s jurisdiction.
3) Failure to do so constitutes
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction
of the court, especially in instances where
a( pleading or motion seeking affirmative
relief is filed and submitted to the court for
resolution.
The appearance of respondent First Alliance Real

Estate Development, Inc. and K-9 Security Agency could
not be deemed as a voluntary appearance because it
was for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the
trial court. The records of the case show that the defense

RULE 15: MOTIONS (S1 – S13) ACAMPADO vs. COSMILLA
G.R. No. 198531 September 28, 2015

REPUBLIC vs. DIMARUCOT PEREZ, J.:
G.R. No. 202069 March 07, 2018

CAGUIOA, J.: 1) A Motion for Reconsideration is a contentious
(litigious) motion that needs to comply with the required
1) The 3-day notice rule was established not for notice and hearing and service to the adverse party as
the benefit of movant but for the adverse party, in order mandated by Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15. The foregoing
to avoid surprises and grant the latter sufficient time to requirements — that the notice shall be directed to the
study the motion and enable it to meet the arguments parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for
interposed therein. The duty to ensure receipt by the the hearing of the motion — are mandatory, and if not
adverse party at least three days before the proposed religiously complied with, the motion becomes pro
hearing date necessarily falls on the movant. forma. A motion that does not comply with the
requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules
Depending on the nature of the case and the of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of
issues involved therein, however, the application of the court has no right to receive and which the court has no
above mentioned rule may be relaxed. It is well settled authority to act upon.
that procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of
substantial justice. Accordingly, the strict and rigid NOTE: The foregoing doctrine laid down in the
application, of procedural rules which would result in instant case and in Laude vs. Gines-Jabalde is no
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote longer applicable because of the 2019 amendments
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. which removed the requirement of notice of hearing
for all litigious motions.
NOTE: The foregoing doctrine is no longer
applicable because of the 2019 amendments which DE GUZMAN vs. OCHOA
removed the requirement of notice of hearing for all
litigious motions. G.R. No. 169292 April 13, 2011
MENDOZA, J.:

1) Section 8 of Rule 15 defines an omnibus

motion as a motion attacking a pleading, judgment
or proceeding. A motion to dismiss is an omnibus
motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the
complaint. For this reason, a motion to dismiss, like RULE 19: INTERVENTION (S1 – S4)
any other omnibus motion, must raise and include all
objections available at the time of the filing of the motion
because under Section 8, "all objections not so included OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. SISON
shall be deemed waived." As inferred from the provision,
only the following defenses under Section 1, Rule 9, are G.R. No. 185954 February 16, 2010
excepted from its application: [a] lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter; [b] there is another action 1) To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the
pending between the same parties for the same Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the
cause (litis pendentia); [c] the action is barred by movant has a legal interest in the matter in
prior judgment (res judicata); and [d] the action is litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly delay
barred by the statute of limitations or prescription. or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be
2) In the case at bench, the petitioners raised the capable of being properly decided in a separate
ground of defective verification and certification of forum proceeding.
shopping only when they filed their second motion to
dismiss, despite the fact that this ground was existent The interest, which entitles one to intervene,
and available to them at the time of the filing of their must involve the matter in litigation and of such
first motion to dismiss. Absent any justifiable reason to direct and immediate character that the intervenor
explain this fatal omission, the ground of defective will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and
verification and certification of forum shopping was effect of the judgment.
deemed waived and could no longer be questioned by the
petitioners in their second motion to dismiss. The Office of the Ombudsman is not a third party
who has a legal interest in the appeal to the Court of
NOTE: Rule 16 has been deleted and some of Appeals of its own resolution finding respondent Sison
its provisions have been transposed to Rule 15. administratively liable. It is not one which would be
directly affected by the judgment of the Court of

Appeals. It must be remembered that the legal interest

required for an intervention must be direct and G.R. No. 178221 December 1, 2010
immediate in character. Moreover, what was brought
on appeal before the Court of Appeals was the very 1) A court’s power to allow or deny intervention,
Decision by the Office of the Ombudsman (finding albeit discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by the
respondent Sison administratively liable). Plainly, basic demand of sound judicial procedure that only a
the Office of the Ombudsman, as an adjudicator, person with interest in an action or proceeding may
and not an advocate, has no legal interest at stake be allowed to intervene. Otherwise stated, a court has
in the outcome of the appealed case. no authority to allow a person, who has no interest in
an action or proceeding, to intervene therein.
2) Petitioner’s motion for intervention was
filed out of time. Rule 19 provides explicitly that a Consequently, when a court commits a mistake
motion to intervene may be filed at any time before and allows an uninterested person to intervene in a
rendition of judgment by the trial court. In the case—the mistake is not simply an error of
instant case, the Omnibus Motion for Intervention was judgment, but one of jurisdiction. In such event, the
filed only on July 22, 2008, after the Decision of the CA allowance is made in excess of the court’s jurisdiction
was promulgated on June 26, 2008. and can only be the product of an exercise of discretion
gravely abused. That kind of error may be reviewed in
In support of its position, petitioner cites Office of a special civil action for certiorari.
the Ombudsman v. Samaniego. That case, however, is
not applicable here, since the Office of the Ombudsman RODRIQUEZ vs. CA
filed the motion for intervention during the pendency of
the proceedings before the CA. G. R. No. 168286 August 24, 2005
In support of its position, petitioner cites Office of 1) The rule is well-settled that after the intervenor
the Ombudsman v. Samaniego. That case, however, is has been allowed by the trial court to appear in the
not applicable here, since the Office of the Ombudsman action, any compromise agreement entered into
filed the motion for intervention during the pendency of between the plaintiff and the intervenor that does
the proceedings before the CA. not defeat or constitute a waiver of their respective
claims against the defendant will not give the
AÑONUEVO vs. INTESTATE ESTATE OF JALANDONI latter a valid ground to ask for the dismissal of the

original action filed by the plaintiff against him

nor the intervenor’s claim against him. “The rule on intervention, like all
other rules of procedure is intended to
YAO vs. PERELLO make the powers of the Court fully and
completely available for justice. It is aimed
G.R. No. 153828 October 24, 2003 to facilitate a comprehensive adjudication
of rival claims overriding technicalities on
1) A judgment creditor has no legal interest in the the timeliness of the filing thereof. Indeed,
matter in litigation that would warrant his intervention in exceptional cases, the Court has allowed
in an action for prohibition filed by a person not a intervention notwithstanding the rendition
party in the original action whose share in a of judgment by the trial court. In one case,
property co-owned with the judgment debtor was intervention was allowed even when the
wrongfully levied for execution sale. petition for review of the assailed judgment
was already submitted for decision in the
Assuming he had a legal interest in the matter in Supreme Court.
litigation, his motion to intervene was properly denied by In Mago v. Court of Appeals,
the trial court for having been filed more than a month intervention was granted even after the
after judgment was rendered in the action for prohibition. decision became final and executory, thus
PINLAC vs. CA, The permissive tenor of the

provision on intervention shows the
G.R. No. 91486 September 10, 2003 intention of the Rules to give to the
court the full measure of discretion in
1) On July 22, 2002, the Republic of the permitting or disallowing the same. But
Philippines, represented by the Land Registration needless to say, this discretion should be
Authority (LRA), thru the Office of the Solicitor General exercised judiciously and only after
(OSG), filed with the SC a motion for intervention and a consideration of all the circumstances
Petition-In-Intervention in a petition for certiorari obtaining in the case.
where the SC has already rendered a decision. To
justify granting the RP’s motion for intervention despite its CHIPONGIAN vs. BENITEZ-LIRIO
late filing, the SC made the following pronouncements:

G. R. No. 162692 August 26, 2015
1) Intervention is "a remedy by which a third

party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings,
becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to
protect or preserve a right or interest which may be
affected by such proceedings." If an intervention
makes a third party a litigant in the main proceedings,
his pleading-in-intervention should form part of the main
case. Accordingly, when the petitioner intervened in
Special Proceedings No. SP-797, his complaint-in-
intervention, once admitted by the RTC, became part of
the main case, rendering any final disposition thereof
subject to the rules specifically applicable to special
proceedings, including Rule 109 of the Rules of
Court, which deals with appeals in special proceedings.
Thus, petitioner’s appeal by notice of appeal of

the judgment of the court dismissing his complaint-in-
intervention was improper.
The proper mode of appealing a judgment or

final order in special proceedings is by notice of
appeal and record on appeal as required by Section
2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

RULE 23 – 29: MODES OF DISCOVERY the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and in
virtue of a commission duly issued by the Philippine
A. Rule 23. Depositions pending actions (S1- Court in which the action is pending, and in
29) accordance, moreover, with the provisions of the
Philippine Rules of Court pursuant to which opportunity
PEOPLE vs. M. C. SERGIO for cross-examination of the deponent will be fully
G. R. No. 240053 October 9, 2019 accorded to the adverse party.
Hernando, J,:
Petitioner also contends that the "taking of
1) Under Section 5 of Rule 119, the prosecution deposition is a mode of pretrial discovery to be availed of
may, under Rule 23, take the deposition of its witness before the action comes to trial." Not so. Depositions
who is in prison awaiting execution in a foreign country. may be taken at any time after the institution of any
This is a liberal interpretation of Section 5 of Rule 119 action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no
which allows the conditional examination of a rule that limits deposition-taking only to the period of
prosecution witness before the court before which the pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the taking of
case is pending if he is too sick or infirm to appear depositions after pre-trial. Indeed, the law authorizes
before the court or has to depart from the Philippines the taking of depositions of witnesses before or after an
without a definite date of returning. appeal is taken from the judgment of a Regional Trial
Court "to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event
DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. vs. REYES of further proceedings in the said court" (Rule 134,
G.R. No. 108229 August 24, 1993 Rules of Court), and even during the process of
execution of a final and executory judgment (East
1) Petitioner objects to the taking of deposition of Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521, 544).
two witnesses of the adverse party in Taipei (Taiwan) on
various grounds. Dasmariñas further claims that the taking of
deposition under the circumstances is a "departure from
The first is that the deposition-taking will take the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of
place in "a foreign jurisdiction not recognized by the examining witnesses in open court where the demeanor
Philippines in view of its 'one-China policy.'" This is could be observed by the trial judge;" that it is
inconsequential. What matters is that the deposition is "inherently unfair" to allow APL, "a foreign entity suing
taken before a Philippine official acting by authority of in the Philippines, to present its evidence by mere

deposition of its witnesses away from the 'penetrating The trial court was correct in opining that the
scrutiny' of the trial Judge while petitioner is obligated depositions proposed by accused Webb to be taken from
to bring and present its witnesses in open court subject the five U.S. based witnesses would be merely
to the prying eyes and probing questions of the Judge." corroborative or cumulative in nature. The trial court
also correctly observed that allowing the taking of
Of course the deposition-taking in the case at bar deposition would only be a superfluous exercise that will
is a "departure from the accepted and usual judicial not reasonably add to the persuasiveness of the
proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where evidence already on record.
their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge;"
but the procedure is not on that account rendered illegal VDA. DE MANGUERRA vs. RISOS
nor is the deposition thereby taken, inadmissible. It G.R. No. 152643 August 28, 2008
precisely falls within one of the exceptions where the law
permits such a situation, i.e., the use of deposition in 1) The deposition of a prosecution witness who is
lieu of the actual appearance and testimony of the claimed to be too sick to travel and appear before the
deponent in open court and without being "subject to court where the criminal case in pending cannot be
the prying eyes and probing questions of the Judge." taken under Rule 23. Such prosecution witness may
only testify and be examined before the court where the
case is pending under Section 15 of Rule 119. The
PEOPLE vs. WEBB prosecution’s claim that its witness is very sick does not
G. R. No. 132577 August 17, 1999 exempt her from the application but, in fact, places her
squarely within the coverage of Section 15 of Rule119
1) The trial court judge did not commit grave which expressly applies when the prosecution witness
abuse of discretion when she denied accused Webb’s “is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial.
motion to take deposition by oral examination of five US-
based defense witnesses whose testimonies were only The conditional examination of a prosecution
intended to prove the veracity of the contents as well as witness for the purpose of taking his deposition should
the admissibility of certain exhibits which, in fact, had be made before the court, or at least before the judge,
already been offered by the accused Webb and admitted where the case is pending. Such is the clear mandate of
in evidence by the trial court. Section 15 of Rule 119. If the deposition is made
elsewhere, as allowed by Rule 23, the accused may not
be able to attend, as when he is under detention. More

importantly, this requirement ensures that the judge must still be done before the court where the case is
would be able to observe the witness’ deportment to pending as mandated by Section 15 of Rule 119. The
enable him to properly assess his credibility. Section 15 deposition of the prosecution witness cannot be taken
of Rule 119 is designed mainly for the protection of the somewhere else, much less in a foreign country under
accused’s constitutional rights. Rule 23.
To take the deposition of the prosecution witness

DISINI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN elsewhere and not before the very same court where the
G. R. No. 175730 July 5, 2019 case is pending would not only deprive a detained
accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also
1) In regard to the Motion for Leave to Take deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the
Deposition filed by petitioner, it is important to note that prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his
there are two instances when the defendant can take credibility, which is especially intolerable when the
depositions under Section 1 of Rule 23: (1) after the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case
court has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or the against the accused. This is the import of the Court's
property subject of the action; and (2) after an answer ruling in Vda. de Manguerra[19] where we further
has been served. Both instances presuppose that the declared that –
court has already acquired jurisdiction over the
defendant. By seeking the relief contained in this While the prosecution has the right to preserve
provision, petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily the testimony of its witness in order to prove its case,
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the rules which are designed mainly for the protection of
the Sandiganbayan. Thus, petitioner may be held to the accused's constitutional rights should prevail. The
have waived his objections regarding the lack of giving of testimony during trial is the general rule. The
jurisdiction over his person by seeking affirmative relief conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial
through the said provision. is only an exception, and as such, calls for a strict
construction of the rules.
GO vs. PEOPLE
G. R. No. 185527 July 18, 2012 B. Rule 25: Interrogatories to parties (S1-S6)
1) The conditional examination of a sick and

infirm prosecution witness who cannot testify at the trial

AFULUGENCIA vs. METRO BANK Interrogatories under Rule 25 and Production or

G. R. No. 185145 February 5. 2014 Inspection of Documents or Things under Rule 27 may
be denied in the following instances:
1) Section 6 of Rule 25 which provides that a) The facts sought to be elicited from through the
“a party not served with written interrogatories may written interrogatories could already be seen from the
not be compelled by the adverse party to give allegations in as well as attachments to the pleadings of
testimony in open court, or to give a deposition complaint and answer;
pending appeal” applies even when the adverse is a b) The written interrogatories are mistakenly
corporation and the persons whose testimony in open addressed to an officer of the adverse party who has no
court is sought to be compelled are officers or employees personal knowledge of the facts sought to be elicited
thereof. through the written interrogatories;
c) All the facts and issues that the movant wants
One of the purposes of Section 6 of Rule 25 is to to determine through the written interrogatories could
prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is be addressed in the summary hearing of the
there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of administrative case;
trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve d) If the resort to the mode of discovery is clearly
written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand intended to delay the summary proceeding of the
will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case administrative case.
if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness
stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be D. Rule 26. Admission by adverse party (S1 –
treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying S5)
the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a
prior written interrogatory might bring. DUQUE vs. YU
G.R. No. 226130 February 19, 2018
PHIL. HEALTH vs. OUR LADY OF LOURDES 1) Section 2 of Rule 26 provides that when a party
HOSPITAL to whom a request for admission as to the truth of any
G.R. No. 193158 November 11, 2015 material and relevant matter of fact fails to file a sworn
statement answering it, he shall be deemed to have
1) In an administrative case, a party’s motion to admitted each of the matters of which admission was
avail of modes of discoveries such as Written requested.

The foregoing rule, however, does not apply when

the party to whom such request for admission was
served had already controverted the matters subject of
such request in his earlier pleading. Otherwise stated, if
the matters in a request for admission have already
been admitted or denied in previous pleadings by the
requested party, the latter cannot be compelled to admit
or deny them anew.
The rationale is that "admissions by an adverse

party as a mode of discovery contemplates of
interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light
on the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading,
and does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has
already been alleged in the pleadings.

Rule 31: Consolidation or Severance (S1, 2) In the present case, the complaint for reversion
filed by petitioner RP (Civil Case No. 225-0-92) was
REP. OF THE PHIL. vs. consolidated with the complaint for recovery of
HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ORIBELLO possession filed by Oribello (Civil Case No. 223-0-91).
G.R. No. 199501 March 6, 2013 While these two cases involve the same parcel of land
and common questions of law and fact, each action
1) In the context of legal procedure, the term retains its separate and distinct character.
"consolidation" is used in three different senses:
(1) Where all except one of several actions The reversion suit settles whether the subject land
are stayed until one is tried, in which case the will be reverted to the State, while the recovery of
judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to possession case determines which private party has the
the others. This is not actually consolidation but better right of possession over the subject property. These
is referred to as such. (quasi-consolidation) cases, involving different issues and seeking different
remedies, require the rendition and entry of separate
(2) Where several actions are combined judgments. The consolidation is merely for joint trial
into one, lose their separate identity, and of the cases. Notably, the complaint for recovery of
become a single action in which a single possession proceeded independently of the reversion
judgment is rendered. This is illustrated by a case, and was disposed of accordingly by the trial
situation where several actions are pending court.
between the same parties stating claims which
might have been set out originally in one Since each action does not lose its distinct
complaint. (actual consolidation) character, severance of one action from the other is
not necessary to appeal a judgment already rendered
(3) Where several actions are ordered to in one action. There is no rule or law prohibiting the
be tried together but each retains its separate appeal of a judgment or part of a judgment in one case
character and requires the entry of a separate which is consolidated with other cases. Further,
judgment. This type of consolidation does not severance is within the sound discretion of the court
merge the suits into a single action, or cause the for convenience or to avoid prejudice. It is not
parties to one action to be parties to the other. mandatory under the Rules of Court that the court
(consolidation for trial) sever one case from the other cases before a party
can appeal an adverse ruling on such case.

main action, such separate trial would deprive Metrobank

METROBANK vs. SANDOVAL of its right to rebut the evidence presented by the
Republic in the main action.
G.R. No. 169677 February 18, 2013
1) The general rule is that all the issues and

claims in a case should be tried jointly. It is only in
exceptional instances when there are special and
persuasive reasons for departing from the rule that
the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may allow
that distinct issues or causes of action asserted in
the same case be tried separately from the main
action. The court may properly allow such separate trial
if the party seeking it clearly shows that a separate trial
would avoid prejudice, promote justice and further
convenience for and give a fair trial to all the parties.
Based on the foregoing, the Sandiganbayan

committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered a
separate trial of the cause of action against Metrobank
stating that the same was distinct and separate from the
case against the original defendants.
The cause of action against Metrobank was, in

fact, necessarily connected with the cause of action
against the original defendants. Should the
Sandiganbayan decide in the main case that the subject
properties are ill-gotten and should be forfeited, such
decision would definitely prejudice Metrobank as it would
also be deprived of its title over the subject properties. If
the case against Metrobank is tried separately from the

Rule 33: Demurrer to Evidence (S1 and S2) accused, and the fact that the motion was filed even
before the prosecution has formally offered its evidence,
RADIOWEALTH FIN. CO. vs. DEL ROSARIO should establish that what was filed by the accused
was a motion to dismiss on the ground of the denial
G.R. No. 138739 July 6, 2000 of his right to a speedy trial and not a demurrer to
evidence. The distinction is important because if what
1) When a demurrer to evidence granted by a trial was filed was a demurrer to evidence and there was no
court is reversed on appeal, the appellate court shall leave of court, then its denial would deprive the accused
not remand the case for further proceedings but of his right to present evidence. A denial of a motion to
rather should render judgment on the basis of the dismiss on the ground of the denial of the accused’s right
evidence proffered by the plaintiff. to a speedy trial would not, under any circumstance,
deprive the accused of his right to present evidence.
CABADOR vs. PEOPLE CLAUDIO vs. SARAZA
G.R. No. 186001 October 2, 2009 GR No. 213286 Aug 26, 2015
1) In determining whether the motion filed by the 1) A demurrer to evidence is a motion to

accused is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss dismiss filed by the defendant after the plaintiff has
on the ground of the denial of his right to a speedy trial, rested his case on the ground that the plaintiff failed
the court must consider (1) the allegations in it made in to produce at least prima facie evidence to prove
good faith; (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it the material allegations in his complaint
is filed; and (3) the primary objective of the party constituting his cause of action against the defendant
filing it. and consequently rendering the plaintiff without any
right to the reliefs he prayed for.
The fact that most of the allegations in the
accused’s motion to dismiss referred to the more than Thus, if after resting his case the plaintiff was
five-year delay in the prosecution of the case as well as able to produce evidence that, standing alone and in the
the repeated failure of the prosecution to present and absence of controverting evidence, would suffice to prove
formally offer its evidence, making only a passing his cause of action against the defendant, a demurrer to
mention of the weakness of the evidence against the evidence filed by the latter should be denied.

Demurrer to evidence should not be granted

FELIPE vs. MGM MOTOR TRADING CORP. on the basis alone of the plaintiff’s delay in formally
offering his evidence because it essentially deprives
G. R. No. 191849 September 23, 2015 him of due process.
1) If the defendant is able to show in his 2) The quantum of evidence required for
demurrer to evidence that the plaintiff, after resting his forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 is
case, failed to prove by prima facie evidence the material the same with other civil cases — preponderance of
facts alleged in the complaint constituting his cause of evidence.
action against the defendant and therefore not entitled
to the reliefs he prayed for, the trial court would be 3) When a criminal case is dismissed on
justified in granting the demurrer to evidence and demurrer to evidence, the dismissal is equivalent to
dismissing the case. an acquittal. Thus, once the court grants the
demurrer, the grant amounts to an acquittal; any
REPUBLIC vs. GIMENEZ further prosecution of the accused would violate the
constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. The
G. R. No. 174673 January 11, 2016 prosecution, however, may assail such acquittal through
Leonen a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the
narrow ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
1) Demurrer to evidence authorizes a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
judgment on the merits of the case without the
defendant having to submit evidence on his part, as 4) A judgement by the Sandiganbayan in a civil
he would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff's evidence forfeiture case under R. A. No. 1379 may properly be
shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought." appealed to the SC by way of Rule 45.
The order of dismissal must be clearly supported by facts
and law since an order granting demurrer is a judgment 5) The Rules provide that "the court shall
on the merits. It is imperative that it be a reasoned consider no evidence which has not been formally
decision clearly and distinctly stating therein the facts offered." A formal offer is necessary because judges are
and the law on which it is based. mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by
the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial

judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the available in the ordinary course of law which is for
proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, the accused to go to trial. Moreover, Section 23 of Rule
this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and 119 expressly provides that "the order denying the
object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the
as the appellate court will not be required to review demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or
documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. by certiorari before judgment."
To consider a party's evidence which was not The foregoing rule, however, is not absolute. The
formally offered during trial would deprive the other Constitution itself has imposed upon the courts the duty
party of due process. Evidence not formally offered to correct errors of jurisdiction as a result of capricious,
has no probative value and must be excluded by the arbitrary, whimsical and despotic exercise of discretion.
court. Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
expressly grants the courts the power to determine
6) The purpose of requiring specific denials whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
from the defendant is to make him disclose the discretion amounting to lack or excess of
matters alleged in the complaint which he intends to jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
disprove at the trial, together with the matter which he instrumentality of the Government.
relies upon to support the denial. There is, therefore, a
proper specific denial if the defendant sufficiently The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse
discloses the matters which wishes to disprove during of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
the trial and the matters he relies upon in making such on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
denial. Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to
the contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one
MACAPAGAL ARROYO vs. PEOPLE side. This is because the courts have the bounden
constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of
G.R. No. 220598 April 28, 2017 discretion whenever and wherever it is committed.
Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character
1) The special civil action for certiorari is and effect of the denial of the demurrer to evidence,
generally not proper to assail an order of the court the accused could avail themselves of the remedy
in a criminal action denying the accused’s demurrer of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave
to evidence, the reason being that another remedy is abuse of discretion.

of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues

CASE DOCTRINES ON RULES of fact, or that the issue posed is patently
34, 35, 36, 37, 40-45, 50, 38, 47 and 39 insubstantial as to constitute a genuine issue.
Genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the
RULE 34 presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS which is fictitious or contrived.
RULE 35 2) Any review by the appellate court of the

SUMMARY JUDGMENT propriety of the summary judgment rendered by the trial
court based on these pleadings would not involve an
REPUBLIC v. SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. evaluation of the probative value of any evidence, but
GR No. 209324 December 9, 2015 would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the
law was properly applied given the facts and these
1) Summary judgment is a procedural device supporting documents. Therefore, what would
resorted to in order to avoid long drawn-out inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of
litigations and useless delays. When the pleadings on law, and not questions of fact, which are not proper in
file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, but should be raised
tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief directly to the SC by way of a petition for review on
by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are certiorari under Rule 45.
not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case
summarily by applying the law to the material
facts. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise COMGLASCO CORP. vs. SANTOS CAR
issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions CHECK CENTER CORP.
show that such issues are not genuine, then summary G.R. No. 202989 March 25, 2015
judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a
matter of law. The determinative factor, therefore, in 1) A judgment on the pleadings may properly
a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or be rendered if the answer admits the material
absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. allegations in the complaint and invokes an
affirmative defense that the court may rule upon
For a full-blown trial to be dispensed with, the without the presentation of evidence because it does
party who moves for summary judgment has the burden not raise genuine factual issues.

by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The

A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for
the facts as pleaded, and is based exclusively upon summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a
the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the genuine issue as to any material fact.
parties and the accompanying annexes. It is settled
that the trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for 2) A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact which
judgment on the pleadings filed by the plaintiff if there is requires the presentation of evidence as
no controverted matter in the case after the answer is distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or
filed. A genuine issue of fact is that which requires the false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear
presentation of evidence, as distinguished from a sham, uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or
fictitious, contrived or false issue. genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary
judgment is called for.
PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS vs. GO
3) The party who moves for summary
G.R. No. 175514 February 14, 2011 judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly
the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the
1) Rule 35 provides that when there is no issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,
summary judgment may be rendered. Summary or 4) In this case, the SC ruled that the trial court
accelerated judgment is a procedural technique erred in rendering summary judgement because the
aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an defendant’s answer properly denied some material facts
early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense alleged in the complaint thereby tendering genuine issues
and loss of time involved in a trial. as to material facts that would require a full-blown trial
where the parties could present evidence to prove their
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are conflicting versions of certain material facts.
no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation
of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on their face the ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO
pleadings appear to raise issues, when the affidavits,
depositions and admissions show that such issues G.R. No. 201427 March 18, 2015
are not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed

1) Judgment on the pleadings is proper “where pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or
an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise omitting to deal with them at all. Now, if an answer does
admits the material allegations of the adverse in fact specifically deny the material averments of the
party’s pleading.” Summary judgment, on the other complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses
hand, will be granted “if the pleadings, supporting (allegations of new matter which, while admitting the
affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, material allegations of the complaint expressly or
show that, except as to the amount of damages, there impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a naturally be improper.”
matter of law.”
On the other hand, “whether x x x the issues
2) The existence or appearance of ostensible raised by the Answer are genuine is not the crux of
issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their inquiry in a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what It is so only in a motion for summary judgment. In a case
distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from one for judgment on the pleadings, the Answer is such that
for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for no issue is raised at all. The essential question in such
judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible a case is whether there are issues generated by the
issue at all because of the failure of the defending pleadings.”47 “A ‘genuine issue’ is an issue of fact which
party’s answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished
in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When
exist -i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or
which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or
qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses question as to the facts, and summary judgment is
are in truth set out in the answer but the issues thus called for.”
arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not
genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or
admissions.
3) An answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it

“does not deny the material allegations in the complaint
or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s

RULE 36 The October 4, 2011 resolution did not adjudicate

JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS on the merits of G.R. No. 178083. We explicitly stated so
& ENTRY THEREOF in the resolution of March 13, 2012. What we thereby
did was instead to exercise the Court's inherent power
FASAP vs. PAL to recall orders and resolutions before they attain
IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. finality. In so doing, the Court only exercised prudence
178083 in order to ensure that the Second Division was vested
with the appropriate legal competence in accordance
G.R. No. 178083 March 13, 2018 with and under the Court's prevailing internal rules to
review and resolve the pending motion for
1) The requirement for the Court to state the legal reconsideration. We rationalized the exercise thusly:
and factual basis for its decisions is found in Section 14,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which reads: 2) The Supreme Court, whether sitting En Banc or
in Division, acts as a collegial body. By virtue of the
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by collegiality, the Chief Justice alone cannot promulgate
any court without expressing therein clearly and or issue any decisions or orders. In Complaint of Mr.
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Aurelio Jndencia Arrienda Against SC Justices Puno,
Kapunan, Pardo, Ynares Santiago, the Court has
The constitutional provision clearly indicates that elucidated on the collegial nature of the Court in relation
it contemplates only a decision, which is the judgment to the role of the Chief Justice, viz.:
or order that adjudicates on the merits of a case. This is
clear from the text and tenor of Section 1, Rule 36 of the The complainant’s vituperation against the Chief
Rules of Court, the rule that implements the Justice on account of what he perceived was the latter's
constitutional provision, to wit: refusal "to take a direct positive and favorable action" on
his letters of appeal overstepped the limits of proper
Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final conduct. It betrayed his lack of understanding of a
orders. A judgment or final order determining the fundamental principle in our system of laws. Although
merits of the case shall be in writing personally and the Chief Justice is primus inter pares, he cannot
directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and legally decide a case on his own because of the
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is Court's nature as a collegial body. Neither can the
based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court.

Chief Justice, by himself, overturn the decision of

the Court, whether of a division or the en banc.
There is only one Supreme Court from whose

decisions all other courts are required to take their
bearings. While most of the Court's work is performed by
its three divisions, the Court remains one court - single,
unitary, complete and supreme. Flowing from this is the
fact that, while individual justices may dissent or only
partially concur, when the Court states what the law
is, it speaks with only one voice. Any doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court may be
modified or reversed only by the Court en banc
3) When a second motion for reconsideration

based on a valid ground is allowed, the running of the
period for appeal from the date of the filing of the motion
until such time that the same is acted upon is
suspended. Correspondingly, granting the motion for
leave to file a second motion for reconsideration has
the effect of preventing the challenged decision from
attaining finality. This is the reason why a second
motion for reconsideration should present extra-
ordinarily persuasive reasons.
By granting PAL’s motion for leave to file a second

motion for reconsideration, the Court effectively averted
the July 22, 2008 decision and the October 2, 2009
resolution from attaining finality.

REMEDIES VS. FINAL JUDGMENTS the adverse party. Neither can the purported new
witness’s testimony in another case be considered as
RULE 37 newly discovered evidence since the facts to be testified
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION to by him which were existing before and during the
trial, could have been presented by the movant-plaintiffs
MENDEZONA vs. OZAMIZ at the trial below.
G.R. No. 143370 February 6, 2002 2) Lack of diligence is exhibited where the newly
discovered evidence was necessary or proper under the
pleadings, and its existence must have occurred to the
1) A motion for new trial upon the ground of party in the course of the preparation of the case, but no
newly discovered evidence is properly granted only effort was made to secure it; there is a failure to make
where there is concurrence of the following requisites, inquiry of persons who were likely to know the facts in
namely: question, especially where information was not sought
from co-parties; there is a failure to seek evidence
(a) the evidence had been discovered after available through public records; there is a failure to
trial; discover evidence that is within the control of the
complaining party; there is a failure to follow leads
(b) the evidence could not have been contained in other evidence; and, there is a failure to
discovered and produced during trial even with the utilize available discovery procedures.
exercise of reasonable diligence; and
3) Factual findings of the appellate court are
(c) the evidence is material and not merely generally conclusive on the Supreme Court which is
corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of not a trier of facts. It is not the function of the
such weight that if admitted, would probably alter the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over
result. again. However, this rule is not without exception. If
there is a showing that the appellate court’s findings of
The requirement of reasonable diligence has not facts complained of are totally devoid of support in the
been met by the movant-plaintiff. As early as the pre-trial record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to
of the case at bar, the name of the purported new constitute grave abuse of discretion, this Court must
witness has already cropped up as a possible witness for discard such erroneous findings of facts.

4) A notarized document duly acknowledged 1) In an appeal by certiorari, it is improper for the

before a notary public has in its favor the petitioner to ask the SC to remand the case to the RTC
presumption of regularity, and it carries the for further reception of evidence citing as a ground the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to inadequacy of her evidence due to the fault of her former
its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without counsel. Such remand of the case to the RTC for further
further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to proceedings would amount to the grant of a new trial that
full faith and credit upon its face. is not procedurally proper at the time when the case is
already on appeal at the SC.
5) Whosoever alleges the fraud or invalidity of
a notarized document has the burden of proving the Section 1 of Rule 37 provides that an aggrieved
same by evidence that is clear, convincing, and more party may move the trial court to set aside a judgment
than merely preponderant. or final order already rendered and to grant a new trial
within the period for taking an appeal on any of the
PEOPLE vs. LI KA KIM following grounds:
G.R. No. 148586 May 25, 2004 (1) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence that could not have been guarded against by
1) The requisites of newly discovered evidence in ordinary prudence, and by reason of which the
order to justify a new trial are that - (a) the evidence is aggrieved party's rights during the trial have probably
discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not been impaired; or
have been discovered and produced at the trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
evidence is material, not merely cumulative, reasonable diligence, the aggrieved party could not have
corroborative, or impeaching, and of such weight that, discovered and produced at the trial, and that would
if admitted, would likely change the judgment. probably alter the result if presented.
Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the

PADILLA-RUMBAUA vs. RUMBAUA proceedings in the trial court as a result of the
ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel
G.R. NO. 166738 August 14, 2009 do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were
to be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases,

there would never be an end to litigation so long as a before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure
new counsel could be employed to allege and show that it.
the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, The phrase “reasonable diligence” is often equated
experienced or learned. with "reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the
movant.” In other words, the concept of due diligence has
CHUA vs. PEOPLE both a time component and a good faith component. The
movant for a new trial must not only have acted in a
G.R. No. 196853 July 13, 2015 timely fashion in gathering evidence before or during the
trial, he must also have acted reasonably and in good
1) Under the Rules of Court, the requisites for faith as well. Due diligence contemplates that the
newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain
discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances
have been discovered and produced at the trial with and the facts known to him.
reasonable diligence; and (c) it is material, not merely
cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such 2) Jurisprudence dictates that there is a ‘question
weight that, if admitted, will probably change the of law’ when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
judgment. law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the
other hand, there is a ‘question of fact’ when the issue
The question of whether evidence is newly raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the
discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when alleged facts. The test for determining whether the
was the evidence discovered, and a predictive supposed error was one of ‘law’ or ‘fact’ is not the
one, i.e., when should or could it have been appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather,
discovered. It is to the latter that the requirement it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues
of due diligence has relevance. In order that a raised without evaluating the evidence, in which
particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact.
newly discovered to justify new trial, what is essential is In other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts,
not so much the time when the evidence offered first the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn
sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to from these facts are correct is a question of law.
the knowledge of the party submitting it; what is However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation
essential is that the offering party had exercised of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or
reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence

relevance of surrounding circumstances and their

relationship to each other, the issue is factual."
SENIT vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 192914 January 11, 2016
1) The accused’s motion for new trial may

properly be denied if his failure to present evidence
during the trial of the case was due to his own fault
and negligence.
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered

evidence may be granted only if the following requisites
are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after
trial; (b) that said evidence could not have been
discovered and produced at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material,
not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and
(d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if
admitted, it would probably change the judgment.
It is essential that the offering party exercised

reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence
before or during trial but nonetheless failed to secure
it." A new trial may not be had on the basis of evidence
which was available during trial but was not presented
due to the movant’s negligence. New trial is likewise
unavailing when the purported errors and irregularities
committed in the course of the trial against the
substantive rights of the accused do not exist.

RULES 40 – 45 (APPEALS) order of dismissal but the case was tried on the
merits. Both paragraphs, however, involve the same
A. Appeals from MTC to RTC (R40) ground for dismissal, i.e., lack of jurisdiction.
DE VERA vs. SANTIAGO In the instant case, the CA erred when it annulled
the decisions of both the MTC and the RTC for the
G.R. No. 179457 June 22, 2015 reason that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case
which was later reviewed on appeal by the RTC. The CA
should have not annulled the decision of the RTC
1) The second paragraph of Section 8, Rule 40 of but should have reviewed the same as if it was
the Rules of Court provides as follows: rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction in accordance with the second
xxx paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 40.
If the case was tried on the merits 2) In a petition for review on certiorari under
by the lower court without jurisdiction over Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the
the subject matter, the Regional Trial parties and passed upon by this Court. In certain
Court on appeal shall not dismiss the exceptional cases, however, the Court may probe and
case if it has original jurisdiction resolve factual issues, viz.:
thereof, but shall decide the case in
accordance with the preceding section (a) When the findings are grounded
(shall try the case on the merits as if entirely on speculation, surmises, or
the case was originally filed with it), conjectures;
without prejudice to the admission of
amended pleadings and additional (b) When the inference made is
evidence in the interest of justice. manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
The first paragraph of Section 8, Rule 40 (c) When there is grave abuse of
contemplates an appeal from an order of dismissal discretion;
issued without trial of the case on the merits, while
the second paragraph deals with an appeal from an

(d) When the judgment is based on a B. Appeal from RTC to CA (R41)

misapprehension of facts;
HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA vs. MUN. OF IBA
(e) When the findings of facts are
conflicting; GR No. 162217 Jul 22, 2015
(f) When in making its findings the CA 1) A judgment rendered by the RTC granting a
went beyond the issues of the case, or its petition for certiorari filed by an aggrieved party to set
findings are contrary to the admissions of both aside the order of the MTC denying due course to his
the appellant and the appellee; notice of appeal is appealable to the Court of Appeals
by notice of appeal under Section 2(a) of Rule 41.
(g) When the CA’s findings are contrary
to those by the trial court; 2) The distinctions between the various modes of
appeal cannot be taken for granted, or easily dismissed,
(h) When the findings are conclusions or lightly treated. The appeal by notice of appeal
without citation of specific evidence on which under Rule 41 is a matter or right, but the appeal by
they are based; petition for review under Rule 42 is a matter of
discretion. An appeal as a matter of right, which refers
(i) When the facts set forth in the to the right to seek the review by a superior court of the
petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main judgment rendered by the trial court, exists after the trial
and reply briefs, are not disputed by the in the first instance. In contrast, the discretionary
respondent; appeal, which is taken from the decision or final order
rendered by a court in the exercise of its primary
(j) When the findings of fact are premised
appellate jurisdiction, may be disallowed by the superior
on the supposed absence of evidence and
court in its discretion.
contradicted by the evidence on record; or
3) The procedure taken after the perfection of an
(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked
appeal under Rule 41 also significantly differs from that
certain relevant facts not disputed by the
taken under Rule 42. Under Section 10 of Rule 41, the
parties, which, if properly considered, would
clerk of court of the RTC is burdened to immediately
justify a different conclusion.
undertake the transmittal of the records by verifying the

correctness and completeness of the records of the case; First, not all pleadings and parts of
the transmittal to the CA must be made within 30 days case records are required to be attached to
from the perfection of the appeal. This requirement of the petition. Only those which are
transmittal of the records does not arise under Rule 42, relevant and pertinent must accompany
except upon order of the CA when deemed necessary. it. The test of relevancy is whether the
document in question will support the
C. Petition for Review from RTC to CA (R42) material allegations in the petition,
whether said document will make out
MARAVILLA vs. RIOS a prima facie case of grave abuse of
discretion as to convince the court to give
G.R. No. 196875 August 19, 2015 due course to the petition.
1) Under Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Second, even if a document is

Civil Procedure (1997 Rules), a petition for review relevant and pertinent to the petition, it
shall be accompanied by, among others, copies of need not be appended if it is shown that
the pleadings and other material portions of the the contents thereof can also [be] found
record as would support the allegations of the in another document already attached
petition. to the petition. Thus, if the material
allegations in a position paper are
Section 3 of the same rule states that failure of summarized in a questioned judgment, it
the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements will suffice that only a certified true copy of
regarding the contents of and the documents which the judgment is attached.
should accompany the petition shall be sufficient Third, a petition lacking an essential
ground for the dismissal thereof. pleading or part of the case record may still
be given due course or reinstated (if earlier
In Galvez v. Court of Appeals, it was held that
dismissed) upon showing that petitioner
there are three guideposts in determining the necessity
later submitted the documents required,
of attaching pleadings and portions of the record to
or that it will serve the higher interest
petitions under Rules 42 and 65 of the 1997 Rules, to
of justice that the case be decided on
wit:
the merits.

D. Appeals from QJA to CA (R43) judicial agency, when supported by substantial

evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.
GALINDEZ vs. FIRMALAN
E. Procedure for ordinary appeals in CA (R44)
G. R. No. 187186 June 6, 2018
Leonen DE LOS SANTOS vs. LUCENIO
1) As a rule, courts should accord respect, if not G.R. No. 215659, March 19, 2018
finality, to findings of fact of administrative agencies, DEL CASTILLO, J.:
such as the DENR, which have acquired expertise
because of their jurisdiction. Findings of fact of Section 15 of Rule 44 embodies the settled
administrative bodies charged with specific fields of principle that, on appeal, the parties are not allowed
expertise are to be afforded great weight in the to change their "theory of the case,". In other words,
absence of substantial showing that such findings an issue not alleged in the complaint nor raised before the
are patently erroneous or tainted with abuse of trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as
discretion. this goes against the basic rules of fair play, justice, and
due process. In the same way, a defense not pleaded in
In Solid Homes v. Payawal, it was explained that the answer cannot also be raised for the first time on
administrative agencies are considered specialists in the appeal.
fields assigned to them; hence, they can resolve
problems in their respective fields "with more expertise In Peña v. Spouses Tolentino, it was held that “x x
and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature x a party cannot change his theory of the case or his
or the courts of justice." Thus, the SC has consistently cause of action on appeal. This rule affirms that 'courts
accorded respect and even finality to the findings of fact of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a
of administrative bodies, in recognition of their expertise question not in issue.' Thus, a judgment that goes
and technical knowledge over matters falling within beyond the issues and purports to adjudicate something
their jurisdiction. on which the court did not hear the parties is not only
irregular but also extrajudicial and invalid. The legal
Moreover, Rule 43, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil theory under which the controversy
Procedure provides that findings of fact of a quasi- was heard and decided in the dial, court should be
the same theory under which the review on appeal is

conducted. Otherwise, prejudice will result to the are: (1) when the factual conclusion is a finding
adverse party. Points of law, theories, issues, and grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and
arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly
lower court will not be ordinarily considered by a mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is
reviewing court, inasmuch as they cannot be raised for abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based
the first time on appeal. This would be offensive to the on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings
basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process. of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA went beyond
the issues of the case in making its findings, which
F. Appeal by certiorari (R45) are further contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee; (7) when the CA's findings
MENDOZA vs. PALUGOD are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the
conclusions do not cite the specific evidence on
G.R. No. 220517 June 20, 2018 which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in
CAGUIOA, J.: the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; (10)
1) As a rule, the factual findings of the CA when the CA's findings of fact, supposedly premised on
affirming those of the RTC are final and conclusive, the absence of evidence, are contradicted by the
and they cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court evidence on record; or (11) when the CA manifestly
which has jurisdiction to rule only on questions of overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
law in Rule 45 petitions to review. parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion.
A question of fact requires the Court to review the
truthfulness or falsity of the allegations of the parties. KENSONIC v. UNI-LINE MULTI-RESOURCES
This review includes assessment of the "probative
value of the evidence presented.” There is also a GR Nos. 211820-21 Jun 06, 2018
question of fact when the issue presented before the
Court is the correctness of the lower courts' appreciation 1) In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45,
of the evidence presented by the parties. the SC may only resolve questions of law, not
questions of facts. This is so because the SC is not a
There are, however, recognized exceptions trier of fact. As a rule, the SC will accord great weight
where the Court may review questions of fact. These

and respect to the finding of facts of administrative 1) Under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of
agencies on matters within their field of competence. Court, there are three modes of appeal from decisions of
the RTC, to wit:
The distinction between a question of law and a
question of fact is well defined. In Tongonan Holdings Section 2. Modes of appeal. –
and Development Corporation v. Escaño, Jr., it was held
that “a question of law arises when there is doubt as (a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal
to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by
there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of
to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. its original jurisdiction shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal with the court
For a question to be one of law, the same must not which rendered the judgment or final order
involve an examination of the probative value of the appealed from and serving a copy thereof
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The upon the adverse party. No record on
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law appeal shall be required except in special
provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is proceedings and other cases of multiple or
clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence separate appeals where law on these Rules
presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the so require. In such cases, the record on
test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is appeal shall be filed and served in like
not the appellation given to such question by the manner.
party raising the same; rather, it is whether the
appellate court can determine the issue raised (b) Petition for review. - The appeal
without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by
which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of
question of fact. its appellate jurisdiction shall be by
petition for review in accordance with Rule
G. Dismissal of appeal (R50) 42.
VALDERAMA vs. ARGUELLES (c) Appeal by certiorari. - In all

cases where only questions of law are
G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018 raised or involved, the appeal shall be to

the Supreme Court by petition for controversy or resolve important questions involved in a
review on certiorari in accordance with the case.
the Rule 45.
3) A subsequent annotation of a notice of lis
Moreover, Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules provide pendens on a certificate of title does not necessarily
that an appeal to the CA raising only questions of law render a pending petition for cancellation of adverse claim
shall be dismissed outright, thus: on the same title moot and academic.
Section 2. Dismissal of improper H. Fresh period rule

appeal to the Court of Appeals. - An appeal
under Rule 41 taken from the Regional FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE vs. COA
Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising
only questions of law shall be dismissed, G.R. No. 213525 November 21, 2017
issues purely of law not being reviewable
by said court. Similarly, an appeal by 1) The Fresh Period Rule applies only to
notice of appeal instead of by petition for appeals in civil and criminal cases, and in special
review from the appellate judgment of a proceedings filed under Rule 40, Rule 41, Rule 42,
Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed. Rule 43, Rule 45, and Rule 122. It does not apply to
a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 64.
An appeal erroneously taken to
the Court of Appeals shall not be 2) Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of
transferred to the appropriate court but Court prohibits a second motion for reconsideration by
shall be dismissed outright. the same party. Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules
of the Supreme Court echoes the prohibition, providing
2) Failure to perfect an appeal within the thusly:
period provided by law renders the appealed
judgment or order final and immutable. However, this Section 3. Second motion for
rule is not without exceptions. In some cases, the SC reconsideration. - The Court shall not
has relaxed the rules and taken cognizance of a petition entertain a second motion for
for review on certiorari after an improper appeal to the CA reconsideration, and any exception to
"in the interest of justice and in order to write finis to the this rule can only be granted in the

higher interest of justice by the Court to be no question that courts have the power by virtue of
en banc upon a vote of at least two- their very creation to impose silence, respect, and
thirds of its actual membership. There is decorum in their presence, submission to their lawful
reconsideration "in the higher interest of mandates, and to preserve themselves and their officers
justice" when the assailed decision is not from the approach and insults of pollution.
only legally erroneous, but is likewise
patently unjust and potentially capable of The power to punish for contempt essentially
causing unwarranted and irremediable exists for the preservation of order in judicial
injury or damage to the parties. A second proceedings and for the enforcement of judgments,
motion for reconsideration can only be orders, and mandates of the courts, and,
entertained before the ruling sought to consequently, for the due administration of justice.
be reconsidered becomes final by The reason behind the power to punish for contempt is
operation of law or by the Court's that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of
declaration. their institution; without such guarantee, the institution
of the courts would be resting on a very shaky
In the Division, a vote of three foundation.
Members shall be required to elevate a
second motion for reconsideration to
the Court En Banc.
A second motion for reconsideration, albeit B. Annulment of judgment of the RTC (R47)
prohibited, may be entertained in the higher interest of
justice, such as when the assailed decision is not only DIONA vs. BALANGUE
legally erroneous but also patently unjust and potentially
capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury G.R. No. 173559 January 7, 2013
or damage to the moving party.
1) A Petition for Annulment of Judgment
3) The power to punish for contempt is under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy
inherent in all courts, and need not be specifically granted only under exceptional circumstances where
granted by statute. It lies at the core of the a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail
administration of a judicial system. Indeed, there ought of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,

petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. Said Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston,36 this
rule explicitly provides that it is not available as a Court expounded that:
substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the
party’s own neglect in promptly availing of the The raison d’être in limiting the extent of relief
same. "The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that may be granted is that it cannot be presumed that
that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of the defendant would not file an Answer and allow
finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate himself to be declared in default had he known that the
sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an plaintiff will be accorded a relief greater than or different
effective administration of justice that once a judgment in kind from that sought in the Complaint. No doubt,
has become final, the issue or cause involved therein the reason behind Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of
should be laid to rest." Court is to safeguard defendant’s right to due
process against unforeseen and arbitrarily issued
2) While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of judgment.
Court a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be
based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack 3) Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of
of jurisdiction, jurisprudence recognizes lack of due competence of counsel binds the client. This is based on
process as additional ground to annul a judgment. In the rule that any act performed by a counsel within
Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, this Court declared that a the scope of his general or implied authority is
final and executory judgment may still be set aside if, regarded as an act of his client. A recognized exception
upon mere inspection thereof, its patent nullity can be to the rule is when the lawyers were grossly negligent in
shown for having been issued without jurisdiction or for their duty to maintain their client’s cause and such
lack of due process of law. amounted to a deprivation of their client’s property
without due process of law. In which case, the courts
2) It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered
prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being thereby.
sought by the party. They cannot also grant a relief
without first ascertaining the evidence presented in
support thereof. Due process considerations require
that judgments must conform to and be supported
by the pleadings and evidence presented in court. In

YUK LING ONG vs. CO to be discharged from the burden of being bound to a
G.R. No. 206653, February 25, 2015 judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with.
1) Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for

Annulment of Judgment RTC under Rule 47 pertains LASALA vs. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY
to either the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the GR No. 171582 Aug 19, 2015
subject matter of the case or its failure to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The
former is a matter of substantive law because it is only 1) Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for
by law that courts are conferred jurisdiction over the Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 pertains only
subject matter of the case. The latter is a matter of to the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject
procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or matter of the case. It does not include a situation where
other processes on the defendant by which the court the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
acquires jurisdiction over his person. to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Thus, a petition for
annulment may not be filed on the ground that, in
In the instant case, the SC declared the judgment rendering the subject judgment, the RTC acted with
of the RTC in a case for nullity of marriage null and void grave abuse of discretion.
for failure of the process sever to effect proper
substituted service of summons on the defendant in In a petition for annulment based on lack of
accordance with Manotoc vs. CA. jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot rely on jurisdictional
defect due to grave abuse of discretion, but on absolute
2) Annulment of judgment is a recourse lack of jurisdiction. The concept of lack of
equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional jurisdiction as a ground to annul a judgment does
cases as where there is no available or other not embrace grave abuse of discretion amounting to
adequate remedy. Section 2 of Rule 47 provides for two lack or excess of jurisdiction.
grounds for annulment of judgment, that is, extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment is In the instant case, the SC affirmed the decision of
an equitable principle not because it allows a party- the CA granting the petition for annulment of the decision
litigant another opportunity to reopen a judgment that of the RTC granting the defendant’s counterclaim on the
has long lapsed into finality but because it enables him ground that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
counterclaim. The records showed that the counterclaim

was permissive and the defendant failed to pay the the same?; (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit
requisite docket fees. on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?; (c) Will substantially the same
2) Extrinsic fraud in a petition for annulment evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as the
refers to "any fraudulent act of the prevailing party defendant's counterclaim?; and (d) Is there any logical
in litigation committed outside of the trial of the relation between the claim and the counterclaim? A
case, where the defeated party is prevented from positive answer to all four questions would indicate
fully exhibiting his side by fraud or deception that the counterclaim is compulsory.[51] Otherwise, it
practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping is permissive.
him away from court, by giving him a false promise of a
compromise, or where his own lawyer fraudulently or MANGUBAT vs. MORGA-SEVA
without authority connives at his defeat.”
GR No. 202611, Nov 23, 2015
The rule is that a lawyer's mistake or gross
negligence does not amount to extrinsic fraud that would 1) In a petition for annulment of judgment based
be a ground for a petition for annulment. Where the on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely
lawyer’s negligence, however, is so gross that it an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute
amounts to collusion with the prevailing party then lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence
it becomes extrinsic fraud. of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have
taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not
In Bayog v. Natino, for instance, it was held vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
that the unconscionable failure of a lawyer to inform his
client of his receipt of the trial court's order and the 2) A distinction must be made between lack of
motion for execution, and to take the appropriate action jurisdiction and error in the exercise of jurisdiction.
against either or both to protect his client's Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of
rights amounted to connivance with the prevailing jurisdiction. If the court has jurisdiction over the parties
party, which constituted extrinsic fraud. and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction.
3) To determine if a counterclaim is compulsory, And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise
the following tests apply: (a) Are the issues of fact and of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the
law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely proper subject of an appeal. It is lack of jurisdiction

not error in the exercise of jurisdiction that is a defeat; these and similar cases which show that there
ground for annulment of judgment. has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of
the case are reasons for which a petition may be filed to
3) Even if the claim of lack of jurisdiction is well- set aside and annul the former judgment and open the
grounded, the petition for annulment may still be properly case for a new and fair hearing.
denied if it is shown that petitioner is already barred by
laches from raising it as a ground. In instant case, the As a ground for annulment of judgment,
petitioner was deemed barred by laches because he extrinsic fraud must arise from an act of the adverse
waited four years from the finality of the assailed party, and the fraud must be of such nature as to
order before he petitioned for its annulment. have deprived the petitioner of its day in court. The
Records show that petitioner did not lack opportunities fraud is not extrinsic if the act was committed by the
to file the petition much earlier. petitioner's own counsel.
4) Only judgments or final orders, not K. Effect of foreign judgment (S48)

interlocutory orders, may be the subject of a
petition for annulment under Rule 47. FUJIKI vs. MARINAY
SIBAL vs. BUQUEL G.R. No. 196049 June 26, 2013
G.R. No. 197825 January 11, 2016 1) In recognizing foreign judgments, Philippine
courts cannot substitute their judgment on how the case
1) Not every kind of fraud justifies the action was decided by the foreign court and under foreign law.
of annulment of judgment. Only extrinsic fraud does. They cannot decide on the rights, duties or legal capacity
Fraud is extrinsic when the aggrieved party has been of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign
prevented from fully presenting his case, by fraud or judgment. Philippine courts are limited to the question of
deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the
keeping him away from court, a false promise of a Philippines. Thus, Philippine courts may only determine
compromise; or where the defendant never had (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent
knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts with an overriding public policy in the Philippines;
of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or and (2) whether an opposing party is able to prove an
without authority connives with the adverse party at his extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e.

want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, facts of a person’s life which are recorded by the State
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753.
These are facts of public consequence such as birth,
If there is neither conflict with Philippine public death or marriage, which the State has an interest in
policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, recording.
Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the
foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations. 4) The principle in Article 26 of the Family Code
Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states applies in a marriage between a Filipino and a foreign
that the foreign judgment is already "presumptive citizen who obtains a foreign judgment nullifying the
evidence of a right between the parties." marriage on the ground of bigamy. The Filipino spouse
may file a petition abroad to declare the marriage void
2) A petition to recognize a foreign judgment on the ground of bigamy. The principle in the second
declaring a marriage void (e.g. on the ground of bigamy) paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies
does not require relitigation by Philippine court of the because the foreign spouse, after the foreign
case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity judgment nullifying the marriage, is capacitated to
of marriage that would require compliance with the Rule remarry under the laws of his or her country. If the
on Annulment or Nullity of Marriage or A.M. No. 02-11- foreign judgment is not recognized in the Philippines, the
10-SC. This is absurd because it will litigate the case Filipino spouse will be discriminated—the foreign spouse
anew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign can remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.
judgments, which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims
and issues." BPI vs. GUEVARA
3) Since the recognition of a foreign judgment, G.R. No. 167052 March 11, 2015
including a foreign divorce decree, only requires
proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in a
special proceeding for cancellation or correction of 1) In an action for recognition and enforcement of
entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the a foreign judgment, the plaintiff needs only to prove the
Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court fact of the foreign judgment. There is, however, an
provides that "[a] special proceeding is a remedy by important distinction between a foreign judgment in
which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a an action in rem and one in personam. For an action
particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify in rem, the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive

upon the title to the thing, while in an action in

personam, the foreign judgment is presumptive, and
not conclusive, of a right as between the parties.
In both cases, however, the foreign judgment may

be impeached on the grounds of (1) want of
jurisdiction, (2) want of notice to the party, (3)
collusion, (4) fraud, or (5) clear mistake of law or fact.
The party assailing the foreign judgment has the burden
of proving the foregoing grounds.

CASE DOCTRINES ON RULES THE PROV’L GOVT. OF AURORA vs. MARCO

38, 47 and 39 G. R. No. 202331 April 22, 2015
REMEDIES AGAINST EXECUTORY JUDGMENT 1) The remedy of a petition for relief from
judgment is not among those provided under the
A. Relief from judgment (R38) Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service. This means that the remedy is not allowed
MESINA vs. MEER under civil service rules.
G. R. No. 146845 Jul 2, 2002
2) The rule that no appeal may taken from an
1) Under Rule 38, an appellant whose appeal in order of execution applies to the resolution of the Civil
the CA has been denied may not file a petition for relief Service Commission directing the execution of its final
from judgment alleging the he was prevented from order. Thus, the CA, pursuant to Section 1(i) of Rule 50,
presenting his case in the MTC, the court of origin, by should have dismissed the petition for relief filed by the
extrinsic fraud, mistake and excusable negligence. Rule aggrieved party seeking the reversal of the resolution of
38 applies only to judgments rendered by the RTC or the CSC directing the execution of its final order. The
MTC, not the CA in the exercise of its appellate proper remedy for the aggrieved party would have been a
jurisdiction. petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and The rule prohibiting appeals from orders of
is allowed only under exceptional circumstances and execution is based on the doctrine of immutability of
only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence final judgments. Under this doctrine, a final and
is present. Where the defendant has other available or executory judgment "is removed from the power and
adequate remedy such as a motion for new trial or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further
appeal from the adverse decision, he cannot avail alter or amend it, much less revoke it." The judgment
himself of this remedy. remains immutable even if it is later on discovered to be
erroneous. The doctrine "is grounded on fundamental
considerations of public policy and sound practice that
at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of the
courts must become final at some definite date fixed by

law. To allow courts to amend final [and executory] days from knowledge of the judgment, order or other
judgments will result in endless litigation." proceeding to be set aside; and second, within a fixed
period of six (6) months from entry of such judgment,
3) The doctrine of immutability of final judgments order or other proceeding. Strict compliance with these
applies to decisions rendered by the Civil Service periods is required because a petition for relief from
Commission. A decision of the Civil Service Commission judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the
becomes final and executory if no motion for State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any
reconsideration is filed within the 15-day reglementary further the fundamental principle that a judgment,
period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform Rules order or proceeding must, at some definite time, attain
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. finality in order to put an end to litigation.
THOMASITES (TCIS) vs. RODRIGUEZ B. Annulment of judgment of the RTC (R47)

G.R. No. 203642 January 18, 2016
DIONA vs. BALANGUE
1) Relief from judgment is a remedy provided by G.R. No. 173559 January 7, 2013
law to any person against whom a decision or order is
entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable 1) A Petition for Annulment of Judgment under
negligence. It is a remedy, equitable in character, that is Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only
allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other under exceptional circumstances where a party, without
available or adequate remedy. When a party has another fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary
remedy available to him, which may either be a motion remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the appropriate remedies. Said rule explicitly provides that it
trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was
mistake, or excusable negligence from filing such motion lost due to the party’s own neglect in promptly availing
or taking such appeal, he cannot avail of the remedy of of the same. "The underlying reason is traceable to the
petition for relief. notion that annulling final judgments goes against the
grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and
2) As provided in Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential
of Court, a party filing a petition for relief from judgment to an effective administration of justice that once a
must strictly comply with two (2) reglementary judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved
periods: first, the petition must be filed within sixty (60) therein should be laid to rest."

2) While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of 3) Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of
Court a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be competence of counsel binds the client. This is based on
based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the
jurisdiction, jurisprudence recognizes lack of due scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as
process as additional ground to annul a judgment. In an act of his client. A recognized exception to the rule is
Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, this Court declared that a when the lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to
final and executory judgment may still be set aside if, maintain their client’s cause and such amounted to a
upon mere inspection thereof, its patent nullity can be deprivation of their client’s property without due process
shown for having been issued without jurisdiction or for of law. In which case, the courts must step in and
lack of due process of law. accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.
2) It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not YUK LING ONG vs. CO
prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being G.R. No. 206653, February 25, 2015
sought by the party. They cannot also grant a relief
without first ascertaining the evidence presented in 1) Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for Annulment
support thereof. Due process considerations require of Judgment RTC under Rule 47 pertains to either the
that judgments must conform to and be supported by RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
the pleadings and evidence presented in court. In case or its failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston, this of the defendant. The former is a matter of substantive
Court expounded that: law because it is only by law that courts are conferred
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. The
The raison d’être in limiting the extent of relief latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the
that may be granted is that it cannot be presumed that service of summons or other processes on the defendant
the defendant would not file an Answer and allow by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.
himself to be declared in default had he known that the
plaintiff will be accorded a relief greater than or different In the instant case, the SC declared the judgment
in kind from that sought in the Complaint. No doubt, of the RTC in a case for nullity of marriage null and void
the reason behind Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of for failure of the process sever to effect proper
Court is to safeguard defendant’s right to due process substituted service of summons on the defendant in
against unforeseen and arbitrarily issued judgment. accordance with Manotoc vs. CA.

2) Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable not embrace grave abuse of discretion amounting to
in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where lack or excess of jurisdiction.
there is no available or other adequate remedy. Section
2 of Rule 47 provides for two grounds for annulment of In the instant case, the SC affirmed the decision
judgment, that is, extrinsic fraud and lack of of the CA granting the petition for annulment of the
jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment is an equitable decision of the RTC granting the defendant’s
principle not because it allows a party-litigant another counterclaim on the ground that the RTC did not
opportunity to reopen a judgment that has long lapsed acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim. The records
into finality but because it enables him to be discharged showed that the counterclaim was permissive and the
from the burden of being bound to a judgment that is an defendant failed to pay the requisite docket fees.
absolute nullity to begin with.
2) Extrinsic fraud in a petition for annulment
LASALA vs. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY refers to "any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in
GR No. 171582 Aug 19, 2015 litigation committed outside of the trial of the case,
where the defeated party is prevented from fully
exhibiting his side by fraud or deception practiced on
1) Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for Annulment him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away from
of Judgment under Rule 47 pertains only to the RTC’s court, by giving him a false promise of a compromise, or
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. It where his own lawyer fraudulently or without
does not include a situation where the RTC acted with authority connives at his defeat.”
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Thus, a petition for annulment may not be The rule is that a lawyer's mistake or gross
filed on the ground that, in rendering the subject negligence does not amount to extrinsic fraud that
judgment, the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. would be a ground for a petition for annulment. Where
the lawyer’s negligence, however, is so gross that it
In a petition for annulment based on lack of amounts to collusion with the prevailing party then it
jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot rely on jurisdictional becomes extrinsic fraud.
defect due to grave abuse of discretion, but on absolute
lack of jurisdiction. The concept of lack of In Bayog v. Natino, for instance, it was held
jurisdiction as a ground to annul a judgment does that the unconscionable failure of a lawyer to inform his
client of his receipt of the trial court's order and the

motion for execution, and to take the appropriate action Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of
against either or both to protect his client's jurisdiction. If the court has jurisdiction over the parties
rights amounted to connivance with the prevailing and the subject matter, the decision on all other
party, which constituted extrinsic fraud. questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such
jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit
3) To determine if a counterclaim is compulsory, in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of
the following tests apply: (a) Are the issues of fact and judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. It is
law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely lack of jurisdiction not error in the exercise of
the same?; (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit jurisdiction that is a ground for annulment of judgment.
on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?; (c) Will substantially the same 3) Even if the claim of lack of jurisdiction is well-
evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as the grounded, the petition for annulment may still be
defendant's counterclaim?; and (d) Is there any logical properly denied if it is shown that petitioner is already
relation between the claim and the counterclaim? A barred by laches from raising it as a ground. In instant
positive answer to all four questions would indicate that case, the petitioner was deemed barred by laches
the counterclaim is compulsory.[51] Otherwise, it is because he waited four years from the finality of the
permissive. assailed order before he petitioned for its annulment.
Records show that petitioner did not lack opportunities
MANGUBAT vs. MORGA-SEVA to file the petition much earlier.
GR No. 202611, Nov 23, 2015
4) Only judgments or final orders, not
1) In a petition for annulment of judgment based interlocutory orders, may be the subject of a petition for
on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely annulment under Rule 47.
an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute
lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence SIBAL vs. BUQUEL
of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have G.R. No. 197825 January 11, 2016
taken cognizance of the petition because the law does
not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. 1) Not every kind of fraud justifies the action of
annulment of judgment. Only extrinsic fraud does.
2) A distinction must be made between lack of Fraud is extrinsic when the aggrieved party has been
jurisdiction and error in the exercise of jurisdiction. prevented from fully presenting his case, by fraud or

deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by Otherwise, instead of being an instrument of solicitude
keeping him away from court, a false promise of a and justice, the writ may well become a tool of
compromise; or where the defendant never had oppression and inequity.
knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the
acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or In other words, when superior and urgent
without authority connives with the adverse party at his reasons exist warranting execution pending appeal and
defeat; these and similar cases which show that there such superior and urgent reasons outweighs the
has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of possible damages that the appellant may suffer by
the case are reasons for which a petition may be filed to reason of such execution pending appeal, then the
set aside and annul the former judgment and open the motion for execution pending appeal should be granted.
case for a new and fair hearing.
2) In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v.
As a ground for annulment of judgment, extrinsic Court of Appeals, it was held that “xxx Multiple appeals
fraud must arise from an act of the adverse party, and are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for
the fraud must be of such nature as to have deprived recovery of property with accounting, in actions for
the petitioner of its d ay in court. The fraud is not partition of property with accounting, in the special civil
extrinsic if the act was committed by the petitioner's actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage.
own counsel. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in
the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed
EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION in the event that a separate and distinct issue is
OF JUDGMENT (R39) resolved by the court and held to be final.
Kinds of execution In an action for legal separation, multiple apples

are not allowed. The issues involved in an action for
BAÑEZ vs. BAÑEZ legal separation necessarily relates to the same marital
G.R. No. 132592/133628 January 23, 2002 relationship between the parties. The effects of legal
separation, such as entitlement to live separately,
1) As held in Echaus vs. Court of Appeals, dissolution and liquidation of the absolute community
execution pending appeal is allowed when superior or conjugal partnership, and custody of the minor
circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the children, follow from the decree of legal separation. They
damages that may result from the issuance of the writ. are not separate or distinct matters that may be

resolved by the court and become final prior to or apart

from the decree of legal separation. Rather, they are 1) Execution pending appeal or discretionary
mere incidents of legal separation. Thus, they may not execution is permissible only when "good reasons" exist
be subject to multiple appeals. for immediately executing the judgment before finality or
pending appeal or even before the expiration of the time
SANTOS vs. COMELEC to appeal. "Good reasons" are compelling circumstances
G. R. No. 235058 September 4, 2018 justifying the immediate execution lest judgment
becomes illusory, or the prevailing party may, after the
1) It is a general rule that the writ of execution lapse of time, become unable to enjoy it, considering the
should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision tactics of the adverse party who may apparently have no
to be executed, and that the execution is void if it is in case except to delay.
excess of and beyond the original judgment or award,
for it is a settled general principle that a writ of The Rules of Court does not state, enumerate, or
execution must conform strictly to every essential give examples of "good reasons" to justify execution. The
particular of the judgment promulgated.[37] Nonetheless, determination of what is a good reason must,
the Court had held that a judgment is not confined to necessarily, be addressed to the sound discretion of the
what appears on the face of the decision, but extends trial court. In other words, the issuance of the writ of
as well to those necessarily included therein or execution must necessarily be controlled by the
necessary thereto. judgment of the judge in accordance with his own
conscience and by a sense of justice and equity, free from
2) The better approach would be to allow the the control of another’s judgment or conscience. It must
crediting of the votes of the nuisance candidate to the be so for discretion implies the absence of a hard and
legitimate candidate, who have similar fast rule.16
names, regardless whether the decision or resolution
of the COMELEC became final and executory before In this case, the trial court granted private
or after the elections. In that way, the will of the respondent’s motion for discretionary execution due to
electorate shall be respected as observed his advanced age of 79. In the case of De Leon v. Soriano,
in Bautista and Martinez III. it was held that old age is a "good reason" to allow
execution pending appeal as any delay in the final
FEBTC vs. TOH disposition of the present case may deny private
G.R. No. 144018 June 23, 2003

respondent of his right to enjoy fully the money he has (b) there must be good reasons for
with defendant bank. execution pending appeal;
2) The special civil action for certiorari may be (c) the good reasons must be stated in the
given due course, notwithstanding that no motion for special order.
reconsideration has been filed before the lower court
under certain exceptional circumstances. These As a discretionary execution, execution pending
exceptions include instances where: (1) the issue raised appeal is permissible only when good reasons exist for
is purely one of law; (2) public interest is involved; (3) the immediately executing the judgment before finality or
matter is one of urgency; (4) the question of jurisdiction pending appeal or even before the expiration of the
was squarely raised, submitted to, met and decided by period to appeal. Good reasons, special, important,
the lower court; and (5) where the order is a patent pressing reasons must exist to justify execution pending
nullity. appeal; otherwise, instead of an instrument of solicitude
and justice, it may well become a tool of oppression and
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE vs. FELIX inequality. Good reasons consist of exceptional
G.R. No. 148090 November 28, 2006 circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury
or damage that the losing party may suffer should the
1) Execution pending appeal is an exception to appealed judgment be reversed later.
the general rule. It is an extraordinary remedy. This rule
is strictly construed against the movant because courts In the instant case, the serious illness of the
look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a movant’s wife and the movant’s urgent need for funds to
judgment which has not acquired finality. Such defray the medical expenses for his wife’s illness were
execution affects the rights of the parties which are yet not considered by the SC as “good reasons” to grant
to be ascertained on appeal. execution pending appeal. For illness to be considered a
“good reason” to warrant execution pending appeal, it
The requisites for the grant of an execution of a should be that of the movant himself.
judgment pending appeal are the following:
The SC also deemed untenable as a ground for
(a) there must be a motion by the discretionary execution the trial court’s opinion that the
prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; appeal taken would be dilatory. The SC said it is not for
the trial court to determine the merit of a decision it

rendered as this is the role of the appellate Court. appeal; and (c) the good reason must be stated in a
Hence, it is not within the competence of the trial court, special order.
in resolving the motion for execution pending appeal, to
rule that the appeal is patently dilatory and to rely on What would justify execution pending appeal is
the same as the basis for finding good reason to grant the presence of good reasons consisting of exceptional
the motion. circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury
or damage that the losing party may suffer, should the
2) The movant’s offer to post a bond, standing appealed judgment be reversed later. Since the
alone and absent the good reasons required under execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception
Section 2 of Rule 39, is not enough to allow execution to the general rule, the existence of good reasons is
pending appeal. The bond is only an additional factor for essential.
the protection of the party against whom the judgment
will be executed. In the instant case, the SC nullified the trial
court’s grant of execution pending appeal because the
ABENION vs. SHELL PETROLEUM “good reasons” cited to justify the discretionary
G.R. No. 200749/208725 February 6, 2017 execution were true only of a few but not all the parties
who were benefited by the execution.
1) As a rule, judgment may be executed only in
any of the following instances: (a) when the judgment 2) Under Section 2 of Rule 39, the court to may
has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment act upon a motion for execution pending appeal while it
debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) retains jurisdiction over the action or, even after it has
when the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal lost jurisdiction, for as long as the record of the case is
having been filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the still with it. In the latter case, the court would be
appeal has been resolved and the records of the case exercising its residual jurisdiction.
have been returned to the court of origin.
3) When there is a pending Motion for
However, Section 2(a) of Rule 39 allows execution Reconsideration of the court’s decision, it would be
pending appeal but only upon concurrence of the improper and premature for the court to grant the
following requisites: (a) there must be a motion by the motion for execution pending appeal. The pendency of
prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (b) the MR legally precludes execution of the court’s
there must be a good reason for execution pending decision because the motion serves as the movant's

vehicle to point out the findings and conclusions of the before it is barred by the statute of
decision which, in his view, are not supported by law or limitations.
the evidence and, therefore, gives the trial judge the
occasion to reverse himself. In the event that the trial Execution by motion is only available if the
judge finds the MR meritorious, he can of course reverse enforcement of the judgment was sought within five (5)
the decision. years from the date of its entry. This is a matter of
right. "On the other hand, execution by independent
Mode of execution action is mandatory if the five-year prescriptive period
for execution by motion had already elapsed. The said
By motion (S6) judgment is reduced to a right of action which must be
enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular
VILLAREAL vs. MWSS court. The action must be filed before it is barred by the
G.R. No. 232202 February 28, 2018 statute of limitations which, under the Civil Code, is ten
(10) years from the finality of the judgment. The date of
1) Execution may be either through motion or an entry, in turn, is the same as the date of finality of
independent action. The two modes of execution under judgment.
the Rules are available, depending on the timing when
the prevailing party invoked his right to enforce the For execution by motion to be valid, the judgment
court's judgment. Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules, states creditor must ensure the accomplishment of two acts
thus: within the five-year prescriptive period, as follows: (a)
the filing of the motion for the issuance of the writ of
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by execution; and (b) the court's actual issuance of the
independent action. - A final and executory writ.
judgment or order may be executed on
motion within five (5) years from the date of The jurisdiction of a court to issue a writ of
its entry. After the lapse of such time, and execution by motion is only effective within the five-year
before it is barred by the statute of period from the entry of judgment. Outside this five-year
limitations, a judgment may be enforced by period, any writ of execution issued pursuant to a
action. The revived judgment may also be motion filed by the judgment creditor, is null and void. If
enforced by motion within five (5) years from no writ of execution was issued by the court within the
the date of its entry and thereafter by action five-year period, even a motion filed within such

prescriptive period would not suffice. A writ issued by facias. Thus, the time during which execution is stayed
the court after the lapse of the five-year period is already should be excluded, and the said time will be extended
null and void. The judgment creditor's only recourse by any delay occasioned by the debtor.
then is to file an independent action, which must also be
within the prescriptive period set by law for the 3) The remedies provided under Rules 45 and 65
enforcement of judgments. of the Rules of Court are differentiated, as follows:
The limitation that a judgment be enforced by A review on certiorari under a Rule 45 petition is
execution within five years, otherwise it loses efficacy, generally limited to the review of legal issues; the Court
goes to the very jurisdiction of the Court. A writ issued only resolves questions of law which have been properly
after such period is void, and the failure to object raised by the parties during the appeal and in the
thereto does not validate it, for the reason that petition. Under this mode, the Court determines
jurisdiction of courts is solely conferred by law and not whether a proper application of the law was made in a
by express or implied will of the parties. given set of facts. A Rule 65 review, on the other hand,
is strictly confined to the determination of the propriety
2) There are instances, however, when execution of the trial court's jurisdiction – whether it has
by motion even after the lapse of five years may be jurisdiction over the case and if so, whether the exercise
allowed but only upon meritorious grounds. These of its jurisdiction has or has not been attended by grave
exceptions have one common denominator, i.e., the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the jurisdiction.
judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his benefit or
advantage. RCBC vs. SERRA
G. R. No. 203241 July 10, 2013
In computing the time limit for enforcing a final
judgment, the general rule is that there should not be 1) The Rules of Court provide that a final and
included the time when execution is stayed, either by executory judgment may be executed by motion within
agreement of the parties for a definite time, by five years from the date of its entry or by an action after
injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of error, by the lapse of five years and before prescription sets in.
the death of a party or otherwise. Any interruption or This rule, however, admits of several exceptions.
delay occasioned by the debtor will extend the time Execution by motion may still be allowed even after the
within which the writ may be issued without scire lapse of five years when the delay is caused or

occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor or the however, because the judgment obligor sold the subject
delay is incurred for his benefit or advantage. property to third parties who were able to have the title
thereto transferred to their names. It was only after
In the instant case, the SC allowed the execution twelve years from entry of judgment, after the judgment
by motion even after the lapse of the five-year period obligees were able to have the title annulled and
because it was respondent Serra who committed various transferred back to their names, that they filed another
acts, like effecting a simulated donation of the subject motion for execution.
property, purposely to prevent the execution of the
judgment. The SC allowed the execution stating that the
delay was not due to the fault of the judgment obligees
By independent action (S6) but of the judgment obligors, who deliberately sold the
subject property to another to avoid the outcome of the
DAVIS vs. DAVIS
case filed against them, and which delay incurred to
G.R. No. 233489 March 7, 2018
their benefit/advantage. The SC added that it is only
logical, just, and equitable that the period during which
1) Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
an action for annulment of title and document was
a "judgment may be executed within five (5) years from
being litigated upon shall be deemed to have interrupted
the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final
or tolled the running of the five-year period for
and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it
enforcement of a judgment by mere motion.
is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may
be enforced by action." 2) A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine
qua non for the filing of a Petition for Certiorari, the
There are, however, instances when the SC, upon
purpose of which is to grant an opportunity for the court
meritorious grounds, has allowed execution by motion
to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it
even after the lapse of five years. These exceptions have
by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances
one common denominator, and that is: the delay is
of the case. Moreover, the filing of a motion for
caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment debtor
reconsideration may be deemed to be a plain, speedy
or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that,
under Rule 65, would preclude the filing of a petition for
In the instant case, the motion for execution was
certiorari.
filed and the writ of execution was issued well within the
five-year period. The writ could not be enforced,

The foregoing, however, is not an ironclad rule as Properties exempt from execution (S13)
it admits well-defined exceptions. One of these
exceptions is where the questions raised in D' ARMOURED SEC. AGENCY vs. ORPIA
the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and G.R. No. 151325 June 27, 2005
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as
those raised and passed upon in the lower court. 1) Under Section 13 of Rule 39 as well as under
Article 1708 of the New Civil Code, the properties
PANOTES vs. CITY TOWNHOUSE DEV. CORP. exempt from execution pertain to natural persons, not
G.R. No. 154739 January 23, 2007 juridical persons. More specifically, the exemptions are
meant to favor laboring men or women whose works are
1) An action for revival of judgment is no more manual. Exemptions under Section 13 of Rule 39 rule
than a procedural means of securing the execution of a are confined only to natural persons and not to
previous judgment which has become dormant after the juridical entities. The rule speaks of salaries, wages
passage of five years without it being executed upon and earning from the ‘personal services’ rendered by the
motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to re- judgment obligor. The rule further requires that such
open any issue affecting the merits of the judgment earnings be intended for the support of the judgment
debtor’s case nor the propriety or correctness of the first debtor’s family.
judgment. Moreover, the action for revival of judgment
may be filed only against the original judgment obligor. In the instant case, the SC declared that the
collectibles belonging to petitioner, a security agency
In the instant case, the SC sustained the that were garnished under a writ of execution were not
dismissal of the action for revival of judgment because it exempt from execution under Section 13 of Rule 39. In
was filed not against the original judgment obligor but another case where a security agency claimed that the
against a party who was not privy to the original action guns it gives to its guards are tools and implements
but was claimed to be the successor-in-interest of the exempt from execution, the SC ruled that the exemption
original judgment obligor. It was shown, however, that pertains only to natural and not to juridical persons.
the third party against whom the action for revival of
judgment did not succeed the original judgment obligor Third party claim (S16)
in respect to the latter’s judgment obligation.
PSALM vs. MAUNLAD HOMES, INC.
G.R. No. 215933 February 8, 2017

Under Section 17 of Rule 39, the aggrieved third-

1) A third person whose property was seized by a party claimant may also file an action for damages
sheriff to answer for the obligation of the judgment against the sheriff within one hundred twenty (120) days
debtor may avail himself of the remedy known from the date of the filing of the bond. The bond filed by
as "terceria, " provided in Section 17, Rule 39, by serving the judgment creditor will answer for whatever damages
on the officer making the levy an affidavit of his title and the third-party claimant may have suffered by reason of
a copy thereof upon the judgment creditor. the sheriff taking or keeping of the property subject of
Consequently, the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the the "terceria."
property, unless such judgment creditor or his agent, on
demand of the officer, indemnifies the officer against 3) In the instant case, the SC sustained the
such claim by a bond in a sum not greater than the resolution of the CA denying the petition for certiorari
value of the property levied on. filed by PSALM, the third-party claimant, on the ground
that it was not the proper remedy for the denial by the
2) A third-party claimant whose claim was denied trial court of its third-party claim. PSALM should have
by the court cannot appeal from the order denying his filed a separate reinvidicatory action to vindicate his title
third-party claim since he is not a party in the action on the attached properties.
where the writ of execution was issued. Neither may he
seek the annulment of the order denying his claim by Effect of judgment (S47)
filing a petition for certiorari for the simple reason that
he has an a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the CITY OF CEBU vs. DEDAMO
ordinary course of law. G.R. No. 172852 January 30, 2013
The remedy of the aggrieved third-party claimant

is to file a separate and independent reinvidicatory 1) Under the principle of res judicata or
action to recover ownership and possession of his conclusiveness of judgment, when a right or fact has
property against the judgment creditor or the purchaser been judicially tried and determined by a court of
of the property at the public auction sale. It is in this competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such
separate and independent action that the issue of the trial has been given, the judgment of the court, as long
third-party claimant's title to the levied properties can as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
be resolved with finality. parties and those in privity with them. Stated differently,
conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation in a

second case of a fact or question already settled in a the foreign judgment is already "presumptive evidence of
previous case. Neither party, therefore, may bring a right between the parties."
another action against the other party to relitigate a fact
or issue already adjudicated between them in the 2) A petition to recognize a foreign judgment
previous action. declaring a marriage void (e.g. on the ground of bigamy)
does not require relitigation by Philippine court of the
K. Effect of foreign judgment (S48) case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage that would require compliance with the Rule
FUJIKI vs. MARINAY on Annulment or Nullity of Marriage or A.M. No. 02-11-
G.R. No. 196049 June 26, 2013 10-SC. This is absurd because it will litigate the case
anew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign
1) In recognizing foreign judgments, Philippine judgments, which is "to limit repetitive litigation on
courts cannot substitute their judgment on how the claims and issues."
case was decided by the foreign court and under foreign
law. They cannot decide on the rights, duties or legal 3) Since the recognition of a foreign judgment,
capacity of the foreign citizen who is a party to the including a foreign divorce decree, only requires proof of
foreign judgment. Philippine courts are limited to the fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special
question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the
judgment in the Philippines. Thus, Philippine courts civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule
may only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a]
inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
Philippines; and (2) whether an opposing party is able to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108
prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life which
i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public
consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which
If there is neither conflict with Philippine public the State has an interest in recording.
policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment,
Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the 4) The principle in Article 26 of the Family Code
foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations. applies in a marriage between a Filipino and a foreign
Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that citizen who obtains a foreign judgment nullifying the

marriage on the ground of bigamy. The Filipino spouse

may file a petition abroad to declare the marriage void
on the ground of bigamy. The principle in the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies
because the foreign spouse, after the foreign judgment
nullifying the marriage, is capacitated to remarry under
the laws of his or her country. If the foreign judgment is
not recognized in the Philippines, the Filipino spouse
will be discriminated—the foreign spouse can remarry
while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.
BPI vs. GUEVARA

G.R. No. 167052 March 11, 2015
1) In an action for recognition and enforcement of

a foreign judgment, the plaintiff needs only to prove the
fact of the foreign judgment. There is, however, an
important distinction between a foreign judgment in an
action in rem and one in personam. For an action in rem,
the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title
to the thing, while in an action in personam, the foreign
judgment is presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right
as between the parties.
In both cases, however, the foreign judgment may

be impeached on the grounds of (1) want of jurisdiction,
(2) want of notice to the party, (3) collusion, (4) fraud, or
(5) clear mistake of law or fact. The party assailing the
foreign judgment has the burden of proving the
foregoing grounds.

By its nature, preliminary attachment under Rule 57 is

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (R57 to R61) an ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but
to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief
1. Grounds (S1) sought and expected to be granted in the main or
2. Requirements (S3) principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental
3. Manner of Attachment (S5) to the main action.
4. Discharge of Attachment (S5, S12, S13)
5. Third Party Claim (S14) As such, it is available during its pendency which may
6. Claim for damages (S20) be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect
certain rights and interests during the interim, awaiting
LIM vs. LAZARO* the ultimate effects of a final judgment in the case. In
G.R. No. 185734, July 3, 2013 addition, attachment is also availed of in order to
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or
I constructive seizure of the property in those instances
While Rule 57 is silent on the length of time within where personal or substituted service of summons on
which an attachment lien shall continue to subsist after the defendant cannot be effected.
the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence
dictates that the said lien continues until: LIGON vs. RTC OF MAKATI*
a. The debt is paid, or G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014
b. The sale is had under execution issued on the PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
judgment or until I
c. The judgment is satisfied, or The attachment lien on a property annotated on its title
d. The attachment discharged or vacated in the same by order of a court in a pending case shall subsist and
manner provided by law. be carried over to the title of any subsequent buyer of
the property in an execution sale.
This rule applies even if a judgment based on a II
compromise agreement (not appealable and immediately Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which
executory) has been rendered or the judgment has the property of an adverse party is taken into legal
become final and executory. custody, either at the commencement of an action or at
II any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of

any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or Whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to the
any proper party. acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant -
issuance of summons, order of attachment and writ of
An attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is attachment - these do not and cannot bind and affect
against the particular property, enforceable against the the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his
whole world. person is eventually obtained by the court, either by
III service on him of summons or other coercive process or
The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the his voluntary submission to the court’s authority.
attached property which nothing can subsequently
destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer
levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it
property attached is an indebted thing and a virtual is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a
condemnation of it to pay the owner’s debt. copy of the applicant’s affidavit and attachment bond,
and of the order of attachment, as explicitly required by
The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons addressed
under execution issued on the judgment, or until the to said defendant as well as a copy of the complaint.
judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or II
vacated in some manner provided by law. The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment
IV involves three stages:
A prior registration of an attachment lien creates a • First, the court issues the order granting the
preference, such that when an attachment has been application;
duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof • Second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to
subsequent to the attachment takes the property the order granting the writ; and
subject to the said attachment. As provided under PD • Third, the writ is implemented.
1529, said registration operates as a form of
constructive notice to the whole world. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be
MANGILA vs. COURT OF APPEALS* first obtained.
G.R. No. 125027, August 12, 2002
CARPIO, J.: However, once the implementation of the writ
I commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction

over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the NACHURA, J.:
court has no power and authority to act in any manner I
against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court Section 1(d) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides, as
will not bind the defendant. follows:
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may
CHUIDIAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN issue.-At the commencement of the action or at any
G.R. No. 139941, January 19, 2001 time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: proper party may have the property of the adverse
I party attached as security for the satisfaction of any
The Rules of Court specifically provide the party whose judgment that may be recovered in the following
property has been attached under a writ preliminary cases: x x x x
attachment two courses of action – first, to file a (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty
counterbond in accordance with Section 12 of Rule 57 of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the
and second, to quash the attachment on the ground obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the
that it was irregularly or improvidently issued, as performance thereof.
provided for in Section 13 of Rule 57.
II For a writ of attachment to issue under the foregoing
Under the second course of action, however, the rule rule, the applicant must sufficiently show the factual
contemplates that the defect must be in the very circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent
issuance of the attachment writ. For instance, the intent cannot be inferred from the debtor's mere non-
attachment may be discharged under Section 13 of Rule payment of the debt or failure to comply with his
57 when it is proven that the allegations of the obligation. The applicant must then be able to
complaint were deceptively framed, or when the demonstrate that the debtor has intended to defraud the
complaint fails to state a cause of action. creditor.
II
Supervening events which may or may not justify In Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, it
the discharge of the writ are not within the purview was held that “to sustain an attachment on this ground,
of this particular rule. it must be shown that the debtor in contracting the debt
or incurring the obligation intended to defraud the
ALEJANDRO NG WEE vs. TANKIANSEE creditor.
G.R. No. 171124, February 13, 2008

The fraud (dolo causante as opposed to dolo incidente) humiliation and annoyance. The rules governing its
must relate to the execution of the agreement and must issuance are, therefore, strictly construed against the
have been the reason which induced the other party into applicant, such that if the requisites for its grant are not
giving consent which he would not have otherwise given. shown to be all present, the court shall refrain from
issuing it, for, otherwise, the court which issues it acts
To constitute a ground for attachment in Section 1 (d), in excess of its jurisdiction.
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, fraud should be
committed upon contracting the obligation sued upon. A Likewise, the writ should not be abused to cause
debt is fraudulently contracted if at the time of unnecessary prejudice. If it is wrongfully issued on the
contracting it the debtor has a preconceived plan or basis of false or insufficient allegations, it should at once
intention not to pay. be corrected.
Fraud is a state of mind and need not be proved by TORRES vs. NICANOR SATSATIN
direct evidence but may be inferred from the G.R. No. 166759, November 25, 2009
circumstances attendant in each case. Dolo incidente is PERALTA, J.:
the fraud committed in the performance of the I
obligation. Every (attachment) bond should be accompanied by a
III clearance from the Supreme Court showing that the
The affidavit, being the foundation of the writ, must company concerned is qualified to transact business
contain such particulars as to how the fraud imputed to which is valid only for thirty (30) days from the date of
respondent was committed for the court to decide its issuance.
whether or not to issue the writ.
However, it is apparent that the Certification issued by
Absent any statement of other factual circumstances to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) at the time
show that respondent, at the time of contracting the the bond was issued clearly shows that the bonds
obligation had a preconceived plan or intention not to offered by Western Guaranty Corporation may be
pay, the affidavit is insufficient to support the issuance accepted only in the RTCs of the cities of Makati, Pasay,
of a writ of preliminary attachment. and Pasig. Therefore, the surety bond issued by the
IV bonding company should not have been accepted by the
The provisional remedy of preliminary attachment is RTC of Dasmariñas.
harsh and rigorous for it exposes the debtor to II

Even if the writ of attachment was validly issued and the order of attachment or to the value of the property
trial court subsequently acquired jurisdiction over the to be attached, exclusive of costs."
defendant by service of summons upon him, such
belated service of summons cannot cure the fatal defect From the foregoing, it is evidently clear that once the
in the earlier enforcement of the writ of preliminary writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy of
attachment. the petitioners in lifting the same is through a cash
deposit or the filing of the counter-bond.
The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process
on respondents without first obtaining jurisdiction over In Security Pacific Assurance Corporation v. Tria-Infante,
person of the defendant. The preliminary writ of it was held that one of the ways to secure the discharge
attachment must be served after or simultaneous with of an attachment is for the party whose property has
the service of summons on the defendant whether by been attached, to post a counterbond or make the
personal service, substituted service or by publication requisite cash deposit in an amount equal to that fixed
as warranted by the circumstances of the case. by the court in the order of attachment.
The subsequent service of summons does not confer a While it is true that the word deposit cannot only be
retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of confined or construed to refer to cash, a broader
the defendant because the law does not allow for interpretation thereof is not justified for the reason that
retroactivity of a belated service. a party seeking a stay of the attachment under Section 5
is required to make a deposit in an amount equal to
LUZON DEV. BANK vs. ERLINDA KRISHNAN the bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or
G.R. No. 203530, April 13, 2015 to the value of the property to be attached.
PERALTA, J.:
I The proximate relation of the word "deposit" and
Section 5 of Rule 57 states that "the sheriff enforcing the "amount" is unmistakable in Section 5 of Rule 57.
writ shall xxx attach xxx only so much of the property Plainly, in construing said words, it can be safely
xxx of the party against whom the writ is issued concluded that Section 5 requires the deposit of money
xxx, unless the former (latter) makes a deposit with as the word "amount" commonly refers to or is regularly
the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a associated with a sum of money.
counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an
amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the NORTHERN ISLANDS, CO., vs. GARCIA

G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015 contracted if at the time of contracting it, the debtor has
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: a preconceived plan or intention not to pay.
I
When the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the main The fraud (dolo causante) must relate to the execution of
case due to the perfection of an appeal and the the agreement and must have been the reason which
expiration of the period to appeal of the adverse party, it induced the other party into giving consent which he
necessarily loses its jurisdiction over all matters merely would not have otherwise given.
ancillary thereto.
Fraudulent intent is not a physical entity, but a
After losing jurisdiction over the main case, it is condition of the mind beyond the reach of the senses,
therefore improper for the trial court to still conduct a usually kept secret, very unlikely to be confessed, and
trial by commissioners in order to determine the therefore, can only be proved by unguarded expressions,
excessiveness of the preliminary attachment, it being a conduct and circumstances.
mere ancillary matter to the main case.
Thus, the applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment
In Sps. Olib v. Judge Pastoral, it was held that in view of must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the
the nature of a preliminary attachment, the attachment alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be
itself cannot be the subject of a separate action inferred from the debtor's mere non-payment of the debt
independent of the principal action which had already or failure to comply with his obligation.
been appealed because the attachment is only an
incident of such principal action. The particulars of such circumstances necessarily
include the time, persons, places and specific acts of
WATERCRAFT VENTURE CORP. vs. WOLFE fraud committed. An affidavit which does not contain
G.R. No. 181721, September 9, 2015 concrete and specific grounds is inadequate to sustain
PERALTA, J.: the issuance of such writ. In fact, mere general
I averments render the writ defective and the court that
To constitute a ground for attachment in Section 1(d) of ordered its issuance acted with grave abuse of discretion
Rule 57, it must be shown in the affidavit that the amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
debtor in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation
intended to defraud the creditor. A debt is fraudulently PHIL-AIR CON. CENTER vs. RCJ LINES
GR No. 193821, Nov 23, 2015

BRION, J.: approval of a cash or surety bond in an amount

I equivalent to the value of the property seized and the
There are various modes of discharging an lifting of the attachment on the basis thereof. The
attachment under Rule 57, viz.: counter-bond stands in place of the property so
1. By depositing cash or posting a counter-bond under released.
Section 12; II
2. By proving that the attachment bond was The discharge of the attachment by depositing cash or
improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that posting a counter-bond under Section 12 should not be
the bond is insufficient under Section 13; confused with the discharge under Section 13. Section
3. By showing that the attachment is excessive under 13 speaks of discharge on the ground that the writ was
Section 13; and improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that the
4. By claiming that the property is exempt from attachment bond is insufficient, or that the attachment
execution under Section 2. is excessive.
Under the first mode, the court will order the discharge The discharge under Section 12 takes effect upon
of the attachment after posting of a counter-bond or depositing cash, and after
1. The movant makes a cash deposit or posts a hearing to determine the sufficiency of the cash deposit
counter-bond and or counter-bond. On the other hand, the discharge
2. The court hears the motion to discharge the under Section 13 takes effect only upon showing that
attachment with due notice to the adverse party. the plaintiffs attachment bond was improperly or
irregularly issued, or that the bond is insufficient. The
The amount of the cash deposit or counter-bond must discharge of the attachment under Section 13 must be
be equal to that fixed by the court in the order of made only after hearing.
attachment, exclusive of costs. The cash deposit or III
counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment Under the Rules, the attachment bond answers for all
that the attaching party may recover in the action. damages incurred by the party against whom the
attachment was issued. Thus, the applicant cannot be
The filing of a counter-bond to discharge the attachment held directly liable for the costs adjudged to and the
applies when there has already been a seizure of damages sustained by the defendant because of the
property by the sheriff and all that is entailed is the attachment.
presentation of a motion to the proper court, seeking

Section 4 of Rule 57 positively lays down the rule that In Agra, et al. v. Philippine National Bank, it was held
the attachment bond will pay "all the costs which may that laches is a recourse in equity and is applied only
be adjudged to the adverse party and in the absence, never in contravention, of statutory law.
all damages which he may sustain by reason of the Thus, laches cannot, as a rule, abate a collection suit
attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that filed within the prescriptive period mandated by the Civil
the applicant was not entitled thereto." Code.
IV
The court should not declare the applicant directly liable
for damages, including the counter-bond premium, but
should instead order the execution of the judgment
award on the attachment bond. To impose direct liability
to the applicant would defeat the purpose of the
attachment bond, which is not dissolved despite the
lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment.
V
An order to the applicant to refund the counter-bond
premium is likewise erroneous. The premium payment
may be deemed a cost incurred by the defendant to lift
the attachment. Such cost may be charged against the
attachment bond.
VI
Where the law provides the period within which to file
an action in court, the assertion of the claim or the
filing of the action in court at any time within the
prescriptive period is generally deemed
reasonable, and thus, does not call for the application
of laches. As we held in one case, unless reasons of
inequitable proportions are adduced, any imputed
delay within the prescriptive period is not delay in law
that would bar relief.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (R58) The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial
1. Definition, Classes (S1) power to issue the writ is that the court may thereby
2. Grounds (S3), TRO prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury
3. Requirements (S4) to some of the parties before their claims can be
4. Damages (S8) thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated.
IDOLOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS It is to be resorted to only when there is a pressing

G.R. No. 141853, February 7, 2001 necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: be remedied under any standard of compensation.
I II
Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting A mortgagor/debtor has no more proprietary right over
substantive rights and interests. Before an injunction the foreclosed property (right in esse) to entitle her to
can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites the issuance of a writ of injunction where it appears that
be present: the mortgaged property had already been sold in a
a) There must be aright in esse or the existence of a public auction, the sheriff's certificate of sale was
right to be protected; registered with the RD and he failed to redeem the
b) The act against which the injunction is to be property within one year from the registration of the
directed is a violation of such right. sheriff's sale.
Hence the existence of a right violated, is a prerequisite GUSTILO vs. HON. REAL
to the granting of an injunction. Injunction is not A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250, February 28, 2001
designed to protect contingent or future rights. QUISUMBING, J.:
I
Failure to establish either the existence of a clear and Before an injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential
positive right which should be judicially protected that the following requisites be present: (1) there must
through the writ of injunction or that the defendant has be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be
committed or has attempted to commit any act which protected; and (2) the act against which injunction to be
has endangered or tends to endanger the existence of directed is a violation of such right.
said right, is a sufficient ground for denying the
injunction. The onus probandi is on movant to show that there
exists a right to be protected, which is directly

threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Further, heard in a summary hearing. In other words, a
there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is summary hearing may not be dispensed with.
material and substantial and that there is an urgent
and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a LAGROSAS vs. BRISTOL-MYERS
serious damage. GR No. 168637 Sep 12, 2008
II QUISUMBING, J.:
Where the winning candidate had been duly proclaimed I
as punong barangay and taken his oath of office and The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent
therefore entitled to all the rights of said office, his threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of
exercise of such rights could not cause an irreparable the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied
injury or violate the right of the losing candidate as to and adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve
justify the issuance of a TRO. the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard
III fully.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-95
provides: A preliminary injunction may be granted only when,
2. The application for a TRO shall be acted among other things, the applicant, not explicitly
upon only after all parties are heard in a summary exempted, files with the court where the action or
hearing conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or
the records are transmitted to the branch selected by person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court,
raffle. The records shall be transmitted immediately to the effect that the applicant will pay such party or
after raffle (Emphasis supplied). person all damages which he may sustain by reason of
xxx the injunction or temporary restraining order if the
4. With the exception of the provisions which court should finally decide that the applicant was not
necessarily involve multiple-sala stations, these rules entitled thereto.
shall apply to single-sala stations especially with
regard to immediate notice to all parties of all The injunction bond is intended as a security for
applications for TRO. damages in case it is finally decided that the injunction
ought not to have been granted. Its principal purpose is
The foregoing clearly shows that whenever an to protect the enjoined party against loss or damage by
application for a TRO is filed, the court may act on the reason of the injunction, and the bond is usually
application only after all parties have been notified and conditioned accordingly.

II G.R. No. 172138, September 8, 2010

In this case for illegal dismissal, the Court of Appeals CARPIO, J.:
issued the writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the I
implementation of the writ of execution and notices of Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who
garnishment issued by the NLRC (in favor of the must apply for it must come with equity or with clean
employee and against the employer) pending final hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity
resolution of the case by the CA. are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he
who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
By deciding, however, in favor of the employer and
declaring that he had no right to the monetary awards The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also
granted by the NLRC, and that the implementation of expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity
the writ of execution and notices of garnishment was shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be
properly enjoined, the CA in effect ruled that the denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his
employee did not sustain any damage by reason of the conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or
injunction. fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.
II
Since the injunction bond is intended to protect the In the instant case, after the parents of the erring
employee against loss or damage by reason of the students who participated in an initiation agreed in
injunction only, not a security for the judgment award writing with the school that their children will have to
by the NLRC, the CA should have ordered the discharge transfer to another school, they reneged on their
and release of the injunction cash bond. promise and, instead, sued the school to compel it to
readmit their children.
In its Decision dated January 28, 2005, the appellate
court disposed of the case by granting Bristol-Myers' The parents came to court with unclean hands. A court
petition and reinstating the Decision dated September may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has been
24, 2002 of the NLRC which dismissed the complaint for inequitable, unfair and dishonest as in the instant case.
dismissal. It also ordered the discharge of the TRO cash
bond and injunction cash bond. Thus, both conditions SOLID BUILDERS, INC. vs. CHINA BANK
of the writ of preliminary injunction were satisfied. G.R. No. 179665, April 3, 2013
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
JENOSA vs. DELARIARTE I

A debtor-mortgagor does do not have a clear and be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought
positive right (right in esse) that would justify the to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be
issuance of a writ of injunction to prevent the creditor- proven that the violation sought to be prevented would
mortgagee from foreclosing on the mortgaged property cause an irreparable injury.
simply on the basis of the alleged usurious, exorbitant
and confiscatory rate of interest. KNIGHTS OF RIZAL vs. DMCI HOMES, INC.
G.R. No. 213948 April 18, 2017
Even assuming that the interest rate agreed upon by the CARPIO, J.:
parties is indeed usurious, the nullity of the stipulation I
of usurious interest does not affect the lender’s right to Injunctive reliefs are meant to preserve substantive
recover the principal loan, nor affect the other terms rights and prevent further injury until final adjudication
thereof. on the merits of the case. In the present case, since the
legal rights of the Knights of Rizal (to prevent the
Thus, in a usurious loan with mortgage, the right to construction of a building given permit by the City of
foreclose the mortgage subsists, and this right can be Manila) are not well-defined, clear, and certain, the
exercised by the creditor upon failure by the debtor to petition for mandamus must be dismissed and the TRO
pay the debt due. The right of the mortgagee to foreclose lifted.
the mortgage cannot be prevented by a writ of II
preliminary injunction. The general rule is that courts will not disturb the
II findings of administrative agencies when they are
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary supported by substantial evidence. In this case, DMCI-
event which must be granted only in the face of actual PDI already acquired vested rights in the various
and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court permits, licenses, or even variances it had applied for in
taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary order to build a 49-storey building which is, and had
injunction is to determine whether the requisites been, allowed by the City of Manila's zoning ordinance.
necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in
the case before it. As we have time and again held, courts generally
hesitate to review discretionary decisions or actions of
A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the administrative agencies in the absence of proof that
status quo ante, upon the applicant’s showing of two such decisions or actions were arrived at with grave
important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of ejectment from the land from which he derives his
jurisdiction. livelihood would work injustice to him, would probably
be in violation of his rights and would render the
NOVICIO vs. HON. LIM, JR judgment of the MTC dismissing the forcible entry case
G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015 against him ineffectual.
BRION, J.: III
I When a court denies an application for a writ of
A preliminary injunction is proper when the plaintiff preliminary injunction, it must clearly state in its order
appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought and the findings and conclusions based on the evidence and
has substantial interest in the right sought to be the law.
defended. While the existence of the right need not be
conclusively established, it must be clear. This is to enable the appellate court to determine
whether the trial court committed grave abuse of its
A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in
on initial or incomplete evidence. Such evidence need resolving, one way or the other, the plea for injunctive
only be a sampling intended merely to give the court an relief. The court must cite the legal or factual basis for
evidence of justification for a preliminary injunction the denial. When the court denies the applicant’s motion
pending the decision on the merits of the case, and is for reconsideration, its order must also contain the
not conclusive of the principal action which has yet to factual and legal bases for the denial.
be decided.
CAYABYAB vs. DIMSON
In a prayer for preliminary injunction, therefore, the G.R. No. 223862, July 10, 2017
plaintiff is not required to submit conclusive and PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
complete evidence. He is only required to show that he I
has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in The operator of a poultry business is not entitled to
his complaint. injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of a CDO
II issued by the Office of the Mayor due to his failure to
The applicant is entitled to the issuance by the CA of a secure a Mayor’s permit. A business permit must be
preliminary injunction to restrain the RTC from secured from the municipal business permits and
executing its decision ordering his ejectment from the licensing office in order for the business to legally
disputed land after he has clearly shown that his operate in the locality.

ground for the issuance of a TRO in his favor, since an

While poultry farming is admittedly a legitimate application for injunctive relief is construed strictly
business, it cannot operate without a business permit, against him.
which expires on the 31st of December of every year and
must be renewed before the end of January of the REPUBLIC vs. REV. CLAUDIO R. CORTEZ
following year. GR. No. 197472, September 7, 2015
II DEL CASTILLO, J.:
A writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO are I
injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies for the Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding
protection of substantive rights and interests. To be whereby a party is directed either to do a particular act,
entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must in which case it is called a mandatory injunction, or to
show that: refrain from doing a particular act, in which case it is
a. There exists a clear and unmistakable right to be called a prohibitory injunction. It may be the main
protected; action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an
b. This right is directly threatened by an act sought to incident in the main action.
be enjoined; II
c. The invasion of the right is material and substantial; The main action for injunction is distinct from the
and provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary
d. There is an urgent and paramount necessity for the injunction. A preliminary injunction does not determine
writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage. the merits of a case or decide controverted facts. Since it
III is a mere preventive remedy, it only seeks to prevent
The grant or denial of an injunctive relief in a pending threatened wrong, further injury and irreparable harm
case rests on the sound discretion of the court since the or injustice until the rights of the parties are settled.
assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end
involve findings of fact left for the conclusive It is usually granted when it is made to appear that
determination of the said court. there is a substantial controversy between the parties
and one of them is committing an act or threatening the
Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in immediate commission of an act that will cause
injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the
when there is grave abuse of discretion. The burden is, controversy before a full hearing can be had on the
thus, on the applicant to show that there is meritorious merits of the case. A preliminary injunction is granted at

any stage of an action or proceeding prior to judgment

or final order. AMA LAND, INC. vs. WACK WACK
III G.R. No. 202342, July 19, 2017
For the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the CAGUIOA, J.:
applicant is required to show, at least tentatively, that I
he has a right which is not vitiated by any substantial Wack Wack Residents’ Association is not entitled to
challenge or contradiction. Simply stated, the applicant injunctive relief to prevent the construction of a
needs only to show that he has the ostensible right to condominium building near its premises on the
the final relief prayed for in his complaint. ground that such construction would violate its
IV members' right to live in a peaceful, quiet and safe
On the other hand, the main action for injunction seeks environment.
a judgment that embodies a final injunction.
The annoyance that may be caused by the noise and
A final injunction is one which perpetually restrains the dust coming from the construction is not permanent
party or person enjoined from the commission or in nature but merely temporary. Once the building is
continuance of an act, or in case of mandatory completed, said members’ right to live in a peaceful,
injunctive writ, one which confirms the preliminary quiet and safe environment will be restored without
mandatory injunction. noise and dust.
II
It is issued when the court, after trial on the merits, is To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the petitioner
convinced that the applicant is entitled to have the act must show that:
or acts complained of permanently enjoined. Otherwise 1. There exists a clear and unmistakable right to be
stated, it is only after the court has come up with a protected;
definite pronouncement respecting an applicant’s right 2. This right is directly threatened by the act sought to
and of the act violative of such right, based on its be enjoined;
appreciation of the evidence presented, that a final 3. The invasion of the right is material and substantial;
injunction is issued. and
4. There is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
To be a basis for a final and permanent injunction, the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.
right and the act violative thereof must be established III
by the applicant with absolute certainty.

The grant or denial of the injunctive relief rests on the

sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the
case, since the assessment and evaluation of evidence
towards that end involves findings of fact left to the
conclusive determination by such court; and the
exercise of judicial discretion by such court will not be
interfered with, except upon a finding of grave abuse of
discretion.

C. RECEIVERSHIP (R59) prescriptive period for collecting debts owing to it

1. When writ may issue (S1) and foreclosing on mortgaged properties.
2. Requirements (S2) II
3. Power of receiver (S6) While it is true that the period during which a bank is
4. Termination and Compensation (S8) placed under receivership is deemed fuerza mayor which
prevents it from doing business, the bank, through the
LARROBIS vs. PHIL. VETERANS BANK receiver, is not prohibited from bringing actions to
G.R. No. 135706, October 1, 2004 collect debts owing to it. Given this rule, the fact of
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: receivership does not suspend the running of the
I prescriptive period for collecting debts owing to it and
When a bank is prohibited from continuing to do foreclosing on mortgaged properties.
business by the Central Bank and a receiver is
appointed for such bank, that bank would not be able to CHAVEZ vs. CA
do new business, i.e., to grant new loans or to G.R. No. 174356, January 20, 2010
accept new deposits. ABAD, J.:
I
However, the receiver of the bank is in fact obliged to In an appeal of the order of the RTC dismissing for lack
collect debts owing to the bank, which debts form part of jurisdiction an action to recover possession of coconut
of the assets of the bank. The receiver must assemble land from the defendant, it was error for the CA to have
the assets and pay the obligation of the bank under granted the plaintiff’s application for the appointment of
receivership, and take steps to prevent dissipation of a receiver where the applicant herself did not claim that
such assets. the subject property is in danger of being lost, removed,
or materially injured, necessitating its protection or
Accordingly, the receiver of the bank is obliged to collect preservation.
pre-existing debts due to the bank, and in connection
therewith, to foreclose mortgages securing such debts. An application for the appointment of a receiver under
Section 1(b) of Rule 59 requires that the property or
Thus, the fact that a bank has been placed under fund subject of the action is in danger of being lost,
receivership and a receiver has been appointed removed, or materially injured, necessitating its
therefor will not suspend the running of the protection or preservation.

Its object is the prevention of imminent danger to the With regards to the appointment of a receiver for a
property. If the action does not require such protection bank, it is not the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-
or preservation, the remedy is not the appointment of a Corporate Controversies, or Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil
receiver. Procedure on Receivership that applies but instead,
II Sections 29 and 30 of the New Central Bank Act.
In the instant case, the applicant’s main gripe is that
the defendant deprived her of her share of the land’s Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act provides that
produce. She does not claim that the land or its the "appointment of a receiver under this section shall
productive capacity would disappear or be wasted if not be vested exclusively with the Monetary Board."
entrusted to a receiver.
The term "exclusively" connotes that only the Monetary
Nor does the applicant claim that the land has been Board can resolve the issue of whether a bank is to be
materially injured, necessitating its protection and placed under receivership and, upon an affirmative
preservation. Because receivership is a harsh remedy finding, it also has authority to appoint a receiver. This
that can be granted only in extreme situations, the is further affirmed by the fact that the law allows the
applicant must prove a clear right to its issuance. Monetary Board to take action "summarily and without
III need for prior hearing."
Since the RTC dismissed the action for lack of
jurisdiction over the case, holding that the issues it And, as a clincher, the law explicitly provides that
raised properly belong to the DARAB, the CA should "actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section
have first determined whether the RTC had jurisdiction or under Section 29 of this Act shall be final and
over the case before granting the application for the executory, and may not be restrained or set aside by the
appointment of a receiver. After all, the case before the court except on a petition for certiorari on the ground
CA was just an offshoot of the case brought before the that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or
RTC. with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.”
KORUGA vs. ARCENAS
G.R. No. 168332, June 19, 2009 From the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that
NACHURA, J.: the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit
I that seeks to place a bank under receivership.

TANTANO vs. ESPINA-CABOVERDE Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that she
G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013 needed this income for her medical expenses and daily
VELASCO, JR., J.: sustenance.
I
The applicant’s alleged need to immediately and But it can be gleaned from her application that, aside
regularly receive her share in the income from the from her bare assertion that the adverse party solely
subject property to defray her medical expenses and appropriated the fruits and rentals earned from the
support is not a valid justification for the appointment of disputed properties in connivance with some of her
a receiver. siblings, she has not presented or alleged anything else
to prove that the disputed properties were in danger of
The approval of an application for receivership merely on being wasted or materially injured and that the
this ground is not only unwarranted but also an appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and
arbitrary exercise of discretion because financial need feasible means to preserve their integrity.
and like reasons are not found in Sec. 1 of Rule 59
which prescribes specific grounds or reasons for
granting receivership.
II
To justify the appointment of a receiver under Sec. 1(d)
of Rule 59, the applicant must clearly show that the
subject fund or property is in danger of being lost or
materially impaired and that placing it under
receivership is the most convenient and feasible means
to preserve, administer or dispose of it.
III
In the instant case, it appears that the applicant sought
receivership mainly because she considers this the best
remedy to ensure that she would receive her share in
the income of the disputed properties.

D. REPLEVIN (R60) plaintiff, is outside the pale of competence of a labor

1. When writ may issue (S1) tribunal and beyond the field of specialization of Labor
2. Requirements (S2) Arbiters.
3. Third Party Claim (S7) II
4. Judgment and Damages (S9, 10) The labor dispute involved is not intertwined with the
issue in the replevin case. The respective issues raised
SMART COM. vs. ASTORGA in each forum can be resolved independently of the
G.R. No. 148132, January 28, 2008 other. In thus ruling, the SC is not sanctioning split
NACHURA, J.: jurisdiction but defining avenues of jurisdiction as laid
I down by pertinent laws.
An action for replevin filed by an employer against a
dismissed employee to recover a car given to the latter HAO vs. ANDRES
as part of the employer’s car plan is well within the A.M. No. P-07-2384, June 18, 2008
jurisdiction of the regular court despite the pendency of QUISUMBING, J.:
a related labor case. I
There are well-defined steps provided in the Rules of
In Basaya, Jr. v. Militante, the SC upheld the Court regarding the proper implementation of a writ of
jurisdiction of the RTC over the replevin suit, explaining replevin and/or an order of seizure. The Rules, likewise,
that “replevin is a possessory action, the gist of which is is explicit on the duty of the sheriff in its
the right of possession in the plaintiff. implementation. Section 6 of Rule 60 provides that the
property seized under a writ of replevin is not to be
The primary relief sought therein is the return of the delivered immediately to the plaintiff.
property in specie wrongfully detained by another
person. It is an ordinary statutory proceeding to In accordance with the said rules, the sheriff should
adjudicate rights to the title or possession of personal wait no less than five days in order to give the
property. complainant an opportunity to object to the sufficiency
of the bond or of the surety or sureties thereon, or
The question of whether or not a party has the right of require the return of the seized motor vehicles by filing a
possession over the property involved and if so, whether counter-bond, before delivering the seized property to
or not the adverse party has wrongfully taken and the plaintiff.
detained said property as to require its return to II

It matters not that the plaintiff is given possession of the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may
seized property merely for safekeeping as stated in the recover from the applicant in the action.
depository receipts. The rule is clear that the property
seized should not be immediately delivered to the There is nothing in the rules that requires the applicant
plaintiff, and the sheriff must retain custody of the to make a prior demand on the possessor of the property
seized property for at least five days. before he can file an action for a writ of replevin.
II
Hence, the act of the sheriff in delivering the seized In suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real
property immediately after seizure to the plaintiff for parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of
whatever purpose, without observing the five-day the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, any one of
requirement finds no legal justification. them may bring an action, any kind of action, for the
III recovery of co-owned properties.
The SC has explained that the purpose of the five-day
period is to give a chance to the defendant to object to Thus, any one of the co-owners is an indispensable
the sufficiency of the bond or the surety or sureties party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable
thereon or require the return of the property by filing a parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a
counterbond. complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without
their participation, since the suit is presumed to have
NAVARRO vs. HON. ESCOBIDO been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.
G.R. No. 153788, November 27, 2009
BRION, J.: AGNER vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK
I G.R. No. 182963, June 3, 2013
Prior demand is not required for the filing of an action PERALTA, J.:
for replevin. For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the
applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond, If, for some reason, the property subject matter of the
pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 60. action for replevin is not recovered and delivered to
plaintiff despite the issuance of a writ of replevin, the
The bond must be executed to the adverse party in trial court may properly grant the alternative prayer for
double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit sum of money, which is equivalent to the remedy of
aforementioned, for the return of the property to the "exacting fulfillment of the obligation." Certainly, there
adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for the

would be no double recovery or unjust enrichment to

speak.

E. SUPPORT (R61) depending upon the means of the giver and the needs of
the recipient (Art. 297); and that the right to receive
1. Application (S1) support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted
2. Comment, hearing, order (S2. 3. 4) to a third person neither can it be compensated with
3. Enforcement of order (S5) what the recipient owes the obligator (Art .301).
4. Restitution (S7)
Furthermore, the right to support cannot be waived or
DE ASIS vs. COURT OF APPEALS transferred to third parties and future support cannot
G.R. No. 127578 February 15, 1999 be the subject of compromise (Art. 2035; Coral v.
PURISIMA, J.: Gallego, 38 O.G. 3135, cited in IV Civil Code by Padilla,
I p. 648; 1956 Ed.).
The dismissal with prejudice of an action for support
based on the agreement of the parties is not res In view of the foregoing premises, it is indisputable that
judicata to a subsequent action for support involving the the present action for support can be brought,
same parties. In Advincula vs. Advincula (10 SCRA 189) notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against
The minor instituted a case for acknowledgment and the same defendant was dismissed with prejudice.
support against her putative father.
The dismissal of the first case was not an adjudication
On motion of both parties and for the reason that upon the merits, as heretofore shown, the right of herein
the "plaintiff has lost interest and is no longer interested plaintiff-appellant to reiterate her suit for support and
in continuing the case against the defendant and has no acknowledgment is available, as her needs arise. Once
further evidence to introduce in support of the the needs of plaintiff arise, she has the right to bring an
complaint", the case was dismissed. Thereafter, a action for support, for it is only then that her cause for
similar case was instituted by Manuela, which the action is accrues.
defendant moved to dismiss, theorizing that the
dismissal of the first case precluded the filing of the PEOPLE vs. MANAHAN
second case. G.R. No. 128157 September 29, 1999
BELLOSILLO, J.:
In the above cited case, it was held that “the Civil Code I
provides that the allowance for support is provisional Article 345 of The Revised Penal Code provides that
because the amount may be increased or decreased persons guilty of rape shall also be sentenced to

"acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should

prevent him from doing so," and "in every case to Also, while parental authority under Title IX (and the
support the offspring." Thus, if the accused is married, correlative parental rights) pertains to parents, passing
he cannot be compelled to acknowledge the child but he to ascendants only upon its termination or suspension,
may be ordered to give support. the obligation to provide legal support passes on to
ascendants not only upon default of the parents but
In People v. Guerrero, it was held that since the rapist also for the latter’s inability to provide sufficient
was married, he cannot be compelled to recognize the support. As we observed in another case raising the
offspring of the crime, should there be any, as his child, ancillary issue of an ascendant’s obligation to give
whether legitimate or illegitimate." support in light of the father’s sufficient means:
III
LIM vs. LIM In accordance with the order of support under Art. 199,
G.R. No. 163209, October 30, 2009 grandchildren cannot demand support directly from
CARPIO, J.: their grandparents if they have parents (ascendants of
I nearest degree) who are capable of supporting them.
Under the relevant provisions of Title VIII of the Civil IV
Code, as amended, a minor may demand support from Grandparents’ partial concurrent obligation, however,
his grandparents if his parents are unable to give extends only to their descendants (grandchildren by
support even if they still exercise parental authority over their son) as this word is commonly understood to refer
him. to relatives, by blood of lower degree, not to the wife of
II their son, the minor’s mother. Thus, a wife’s right to
By statutory and jurisprudential mandate, the liability receive support extends only to her husband, arising
of ascendants to provide legal support to their from their marital bond, not to her husband’s parents.
descendants is beyond cavil. The question, however, is
when their liability is triggered. GOTARDO vs. BULING
G.R. No. 165166, August 15, 2012
Although the obligation to provide support arising from BRION, J.:
parental authority ends upon the emancipation of the I
child, the same obligation arising from spousal and Once filiation has been established, at least by prima
general familial ties ideally lasts during the obligee's facie evidence, the obligation to give support follows as a
lifetime. matter of course. A parent is obliged to support his

child, whether legitimate or illegitimate. Support We have held that such other proof of one's filiation may
consists of everything indispensable for sustenance, be a "baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family
dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and bible in which his name has been entered, common
transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of reputation respecting pedigree, admission by silence,
the family. the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof
admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court."
Thus, the amount of support is variable and, for this IV
reason, no final judgment on the amount of support is In Herrera v. Alba, it was explained that there are four
made as the amount shall be in proportion to the significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity
resources or means of the giver and the necessities of action that parties have to face: a prima facie case,
the recipient. It may be reduced or increased affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and
proportionately according to the reduction or increase of physical resemblance between the putative father and
the necessities of the recipient and the resources or the child.
means of the person obliged to support.
II A prima facie case exists if a woman declares —
Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to supported by corroborative proof — that she had sexual
adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right relations with the putative father; at this point, the
associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support burden of evidence shifts to the putative father.
or inheritance. In paternity cases, the burden of proof] is
on the person who alleges that the putative father is the We explained further that the two affirmative defenses
biological father of the child. available to the putative father are:
III 1. Incapability of sexual relations with the mother due
One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate, to either physical absence or impotency, or
through the record of birth appearing in the civil register 2. That the mother had sexual relations with other
or a final judgment, an admission of filiation in a public men at the time of conception.
document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by the parent concerned, or the open and REPUBLIC vs. YAHON
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate or G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014
illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Rules of Court and special laws. I

The scope of reliefs in protection orders (e. g. issued By analogy, foreigners are likewise governed by their
under R. A. No. 9262) is broadened to ensure that the national law with respect to family rights and duties,
victim or offended party is afforded all the remedies including the duty to give support to one’s minor child.
necessary to curtail access by a perpetrator to the II
victim. In Vivo v. Cloribel, it was held that an alien cannot
invoke the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines
This serves to safeguard the victim from greater risk of as it adheres to the principle that family rights and
violence; to accord the victim and any designated family duties are governed by his personal law, i.e., the laws of
or household member safety in the family residence, and the nation to which he belongs even when staying in a
to prevent the perpetrator from committing acts that foreign country (cf. Civil Code, Article 15).
jeopardize the employment and support of the victim.
In a suit for support against a foreign national, however,
It also enables the court to award temporary custody of he must allege and prove by way of defense his national
minor children to protect the children from violence, to law for the same to apply, otherwise Philippine law will
prevent their abduction by the perpetrator and to apply under the doctrine of processual presumption.
ensure their financial support." This doctrine provides that if the foreign law involved is
not properly pleaded and proved, Philippine courts will
DEL SOCORRO vs. VAN WILSEM presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or
G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014 domestic or internal law.
PERALTA, J.: III
I Although the national law of an alien states that parents
Article 195 of the New Civil Code cannot be invoked have no obligation to support their children or that such
against a foreign national to compel him to give support obligation is not punishable by law, said law would still
to his minor son in the Philippines, the reason being not find applicability in the Philippines in light of the
that Article 15 of the New Civil Code stresses the ruling in Bank of America, NT and SA v. American Realty
principle of nationality. In other words, insofar as Corporation.
Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions IV
of the Family Code on support, the same only applies to In the above cited case, it was held that, assuming
Filipino citizens. arguendo that the English Law on the matter were
properly pleaded and proved in accordance with Section
24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the

jurisprudence laid down in Yao Kee, et al. vs. Sy- Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need
Gonzales, said foreign law would still not find to delve fully into the merits of the case before it can
applicability. settle an application for this relief. All that a court is
tasked to do is determine the kind and amount of
When the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve
to a sound and established public policy of the forum the application. It is enough that the facts be
such as the Philippines, the said foreign law, judgment established by affidavits or other documentary evidence
or order shall not be applied. appearing in the record.
III
LIM-LUA vs. LUA The matter of increase or reduction of support should be
G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013 submitted to the trial court in which the action for
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: declaration for nullity of marriage was filed. The amount
I of support may be reduced or increased proportionately
As a matter of law, the amount of support which those according to the reduction or increase of the necessities
related by marriage and family relationship is generally of the recipient and the resources or means of the
obliged to give each other shall be in proportion to the person obliged to support. As held in Advincula v.
resources or means of the giver and to the needs of the Advincula:
recipient. Such support comprises everything “Judgment for support does not become final. The
indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, right to support is of such nature that its allowance is
medical attendance, education and transportation, in essentially provisional; for during the entire period
keeping with the financial capacity of the family. that a needy party is entitled to support, his or her
II alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance
Upon receipt of a verified petition for declaration of with his increased or decreased needs, and with the
absolute nullity of void marriage or for annulment of means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject
voidable marriage, or for legal separation, and at any to final determination.”
time during the proceeding, the court, motu proprio or III
upon verified application of any of the parties, guardian American jurisprudence provides that when a father is
or designated custodian, may temporarily grant support required by a divorce decree to make child support
pendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment or final payments directly to the mother, he cannot claim credit
order. for payments voluntarily made directly to the children.

However, special considerations of an equitable nature ABELLA vs. CABAÑERO

may justify a court in crediting such payments on his G. R. No. 206647 August 9, 2017
indebtedness to the mother, when such can be done LEONEN, J.:
without injustice to her. I
For a child to claim support from his putative father, he
SALAS vs. MATUSALEM must first establish filiation between him and the
GR No. 180284 Sep 11, 2013 former. When filiation is beyond question or has been
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: established in an action, support may be demanded and
I granted in the same action.
Under Article 175 (2) of the Family Code, an action for
support filed during the lifetime of the putative father To establish filiation, an action for compulsory
will survive despite his death during the pendency recognition may be filed against the putative father
thereof. Likewise, the death of the putative father is not ahead of an action for support. In the alternative, an
a bar to the action commenced during his lifetime by action for support may be directly filed, where the
one claiming to be his illegitimate child. The rule on matter of filiation shall be integrated and resolved.
substitution of parties provided in Section 16 of Rule II
applies. A minor may institute an action to compel his putative
II father to recognize him as the former’s natural child and
The action for support must be brought within the same at the same time to obtain relief as am heir. The two
period specified in Article 173, except when the action is distinct causes of action may be joined either in an
based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which action to compel recognition as an illegitimate child or
case the action must be brought during the lifetime of an action for support.
the alleged parent.
In other words, there is no need that the action to
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be compel acknowledgment should first be instituted and
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the prosecuted before a minor may file an action for support
appointment of an executor or administrator and the or an action to obtain relief as an heir.
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (Rules 62-71) rule that before a person will be deemed to be in a
position to ask for an order of interpleader, he must be
INTERPLEADER (R62) prepared to show, among other prerequisites, that he
has not become independently liable under a final
1. What is an action in Interpleader (S1) judgment to any other claimant upon the same subject
2. Requisites (S1) matter.
3. Procedure (S2 to S7)
ETERNAL GARDENS vs. IAC
G.R. No. 73794 September 19, 1988
WACK WACK G. & C. CLUB vs. WON PARAS, J.:
G.R. No. L-23851 March 26, 1976
CASTRO, C.J.: 1) The essence of an interpleader, aside from the
disavowal by the plaintiff of interest in the property in
1) A plaintiff's action of interpleader is too late litigation, is the deposit of the property or funds in
when filed after judgment has been rendered against controversy with the court. The rule, which is founded
him in favor of one of the contending on justice and equity is "that the plaintiff may not
claimants, especially where he had notice of the continue to benefit from the property or funds in
conflicting claims prior to the rendition of the litigation during the pendency of the suit at the expense
judgment and neglected the opportunity to implead the of whoever will ultimately be decided as entitled
adverse claimants in the suit where judgment was thereto."
entered. This must be so, because once judgment is
obtained against him by one claimant, he becomes liable PASRICHA vs. DON LUIS DISON REALTY
to the latter. G.R. No. 136409 March 14, 2008
NACHURA, J.:
2) It is too late for the plaintiff to invoke the
remedy of interpleader if long before the rendition of a
judgment against him in favor of one claimant, he had 1) An action for interpleader is proper when the
notice of the adverse claim of another claimant upon the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals
same subject matter. The plaintiff should have should be made due to conflicting claims with regards to
impleaded the second claimant in the action filed which of the conflicting claimants has the right to collect
against him by the first claimant. It is the general the rentals. The remedy is afforded not to protect a

person against double liability but to protect him 3) Interpleader is a civil action made special by
against double vexation in respect of one liability. The the existence of particular rules to govern its application
lessee cannot opt not to pay the rental instead of and operation. Under Section 2, Rule 6 of the Rules of
availing of the remedy of interpleader. Court, governing ordinary civil actions, a party’s claim is
asserted "in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim,
third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-
intervention." In an interpleader suit, however, a claim
is not required to be contained in any of these pleadings
BANK OF COM. vs. PLANTERS DEV. BANK but in the answer-(of the conflicting claimants)-in-
G.R. Nos. 154470-71 September 24, 2012 interpleader. This claim is different from the counter-
BRION, J.: claim (or cross-claim, third party-complaint) which is
separately allowed under Section 5, par. 2 of Rule 62.
1) The remedy of interpleader may be availed of
by filing a complaint in interpleader under Rule 62 or by DECLARATORY RELIEF
setting up a "counterclaim/cross-claim for interpleader" AND SIMILAR REMEDIES (R63)
in the defendant’s answer.
1. Nature; kinds (S1)
2) The remedy of interpleader, as a special civil 2. Parties (S2)
action, is primarily governed by Rule 62 and secondarily 3. Conversion into ordinary action (S6)
by the rules on ordinary civil actions. Rule 62 does not
expressly authorize the filing of a complaint-in-
interpleader as part of, although separate and
independent from, the answer. Similarly, Section 5 of ALMEDA vs. BATHALA MARKETING IND.
Rule 6, in relation to Section 1 of Rule 9, does not G.R. No. 150806 January 28, 2008
include a complaint-in-interpleader as a claim, a form of NACHURA, J.:
defense, or as an objection that a defendant may be
allowed to put up in his answer or in a motion to 1) Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an
dismiss. Interpleader, however, may be availed of by a action for declaratory relief, as follows:
defendant by setting up in his answer
"counterclaim/cross-claim for interpleader".

a) the subject matter of the controversy must be a as he complied strictly with the terms and conditions set
deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, forth in their contract of lease by paying the rentals
executive order or regulation, or ordinance; stipulated therein. The lessee religiously fulfilled its
obligations to the lessor even during the pendency of the
b) the terms of said documents and the validity present suit for declaratory relief. There is no showing
thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction; that respondent committed an act constituting a breach
of the subject contract of lease. Thus, respondent is not
c) there must have been no breach of the barred from instituting before the trial court the petition
documents in question; for declaratory relief.
d) there must be an actual justiciable controversy

or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons whose G. R. No. 185320 April 19, 2017
interests are adverse; DE BORJ vs. PINALAKAS NA UGNAYAN NG MALILIIT
NA MANGINGISDA
e) the issue must be ripe for judicial REPUBLIC, OPPOSITOR.
determination; and JARDELEZA, J.:
f) adequate relief is not available through other 1) For a petition for declaratory relief to prosper,
means or other forms of action or proceeding. it must be shown that (a) there is a justiciable
controversy, (b) the controversy is between persons
After petitioners demanded payment of adjusted rentals whose interests are adverse, (c) the party seeking the
and in the months that followed, respondent complied relief has a legal interest in the controversy, and (d) the
with the terms and conditions set forth in their contract issue invoked is ripe for judicial determination.
of lease by paying the rentals stipulated therein.
Respondent religiously fulfilled its obligations to 2) The instant petition for declaratory relief lacks
petitioners even during the pendency of the present suit. all four requisites. First, the petition does not present a
justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one as
2) The lessee’s refusal to pay the increased to warrant a court's intervention. A justiciable
rentals demanded by the lessor cannot be considered as controversy is a definite and concrete dispute touching
a breach of the contract of lease as to preclude the on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal
lessee from filing an action for declaratory relief as long interests, which may be resolved by a court of law

through the application of a law. It must be appropriate real events before courts may step in to settle actual
or ripe for judicial determination, admitting of specific controversies involving rights which are legally
relief through a decree that is conclusive in character. It demandable and enforceable.
must not be conjectural or merely anticipatory, which
only seeks for an opinion that advises what the law
would be on a hypothetical state of facts. MALANA vs. TAPPA
G.R. No. 181303 September 17, 2009
3) A perusal of the petition shows that the CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
petitioner failed to demonstrate how he is left to sustain
or he is in immediate danger to sustain some direct 1) Where the law or contract has already been
injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed contravened prior to the filing of an action for
provisions of the subject law. Petitioner only assert declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume
general interests as a citizen and taxpayer and jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has
infractions which the government could prospectively no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief
commit if the enforcement of the said law would remain if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed
untrammelled. As his petition would disclose, before the institution of the action.
petitioner’s fear of prosecution was solely based on
remarks of certain government officials which were 2) In the present case, petitioners’ Complaint for
addressed to the general public. He, however, failed to quieting of title was filed after petitioners already
show how these remarks tended towards any demanded and respondents refused to vacate the
prosecutorial or governmental action geared towards the subject property. In fact, said Complaint was filed only
implementation of the subject law against him. In other subsequent to the latter’s express claim of ownership
words, there was no particular, real or imminent threat over the subject property before the Lupong
to him. Tagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners’ title.
Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had
4) The possibility of abuse in the implementation already been deprived of the possession of their
of the subject law does not avail to take the present property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an
petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case
imagined. Such possibility is not peculiar to the subject for declaratory relief. An accion publiciana is a suit for
law since the exercise of any power granted by law may the recovery of possession, filed one year after the
be abused. Allegations of abuse must be anchored on occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful

withholding of possession of the realty. An accion 1) In a petition for prohibition and injunction filed
reivindicatoria is a suit that has for its object one’s directly with the Supreme Court, Francisco I. Chavez, a
recovery of possession over the real property as owner. nominee to replace the removed Chief Justice Renato
Corona, posed the following pivotal questions - Does the
3) To determine which court has jurisdiction over first paragraph of Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987
the actions identified in the second paragraph of Section Constitution allow more than one (1) member of
1 of Rule 63, said provision must be read together with Congress to sit in the JBC? Is the practice of having two
those of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as (2) representatives from each house of Congress with
amended. Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does one (1) vote each sanctioned by the Constitution?
not categorically require that an action to quiet title be
filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word "may" – 2) Pursuant to the rule that the nature of an
that an action for quieting of title "may be brought action is determined by the allegations therein and the
under the Rule" on petitions for declaratory relief, and a character of the relief sought, the instant petition is
person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief deemed as essentially an action for declaratory relief
"may x x x bring an action in the appropriate Regional under Rule 63. The Constitution as the subject matter,
Trial Court." The use of the word "may" in a statute and the validity and construction of Section 8 (1), Article
denotes that the provision is merely permissive and VIII as the issue raised, the petition should properly be
indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an considered as that which would result in the
option. In contrast, the mandatory provision of the adjudication of rights sans the execution process
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses because the only relief to be granted is the very
the word "shall" and explicitly requires the MTC to declaration of the rights under the document sought to
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil be construed. It being so, the original jurisdiction over
actions which involve title to or possession of real the petition lies with the appropriate Regional Trial
property where the assessed value does not exceed Court (RTC). Notwithstanding the fact that only
₱20,000.00. questions of law are raised in the petition, an action for
declaratory relief is not among those within the original
CHAVEZ vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in Section
G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012 5, Article VIII of the Constitution.
MENDOZA, J.:
3) Due to the serious implications of the issues
raised in the petition, however, not only to government

processes involved but also to the sanctity of the There, it was held that taxpayers, voters, concerned
Constitution, the Court deems it more prudent to take citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to
cognizance of it. After all, the petition is also for sue, provided that the following requirements are met:
prohibition under Rule 65 seeking to enjoin Congress (1) cases involve constitutional issues; (2) for taxpayers,
from sending two (2) representatives with one (1) full there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public
vote each to the JBC. funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; (3) for
voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in
4) The Supreme Courts’ power of judicial review, the validity of the election law in question; (4) for
like almost all other powers conferred by the concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the
Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely: issues raised are of transcendental importance which
(1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling must be settled early; and (5) for legislators, there must
for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person be a claim that the official action complained of infringes
challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; upon their prerogatives as legislators.
he must have a personal and substantial interest in the
case, such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct SABITSANA vs. MUERTEGUI
injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of G.R. No. 181359 August 5, 2013
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible DEL CASTILLO, J.:
opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must
be the very lis mota of the case. Generally, a party will 1) Under the Rules, an action for quieting of title
be allowed to litigate only when these conditions sine may be instituted in the RTC, regardless of the assessed
qua non are present, especially when the value of the real property in dispute. Under Rule 63 of
constitutionality of an act by a co-equal branch of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to real
government is put in issue. property or remove clouds therefrom may be brought in
the appropriate RTC.
5) Anent locus standi, the question to be
answered is this: does the party possess a personal DEPT.OF FINANCE vs. HON. DELA CRUZ
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015
that there is real, concrete and legal conflict of rights CARPIO, J.:
and duties from the issues presented before the Court?
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court summarized 1) Since a reading of the petition for declaratory
the rules on locus standi as culled from jurisprudence. relief filed by respondents before the RTC shows that

they were questioning their mass detail and

reassignment to a different post in the BOC, the CSC
appears to have jurisdiction over the case. The
respondents, however, went beyond questioning their
being detailed to another post. Respondents further
assailed the validity and constitutionality of EO 140,
making their petition a proper action for declaratory
relief before the RTC.
ERICE vs. SISON

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2407
CAGUIOA, J.:
1) Court orders or decisions cannot be the

subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief. They
are not included within the purview of the words "other
written instrument" in Rule 63 governing petitions for
declaratory relief. The same principle applies
to orders, resolutions, or decisions of quasi-judicial
bodies, and this is anchored on the principle of res
judicata. Consequently, a judgment rendered by a court
or a quasi-judicial body is conclusive on the parties,
subject only to appellate authority. The losing party
cannot modify or escape the effects of judgment under
the guise of an action for declaratory relief.

REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OF AND MANDAMUS (R65)

COMELEC AND COA (R64)
1. Certiorari (S1)
1. The distinctive nature and procedure of this a. grounds
special civil action. b. requirements
c. procedure, parties and effects
ANAD vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 206987 September 10, 2013 A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC. vs. MONDEJAR
PEREZ, J.: G.R. No. 200804 January 22, 2014
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
1) The only question that may be raised in a
petition for certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court is whether or not the COMELEC or COA 1) Considering that under Section 23 of the Rule
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of Procedure for Small Claims Cases decisions of the
or excess of jurisdiction. For a petition for certiorari MTC in small claims are final and unappealable, the
to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party
and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. may, thus, immediately move for its execution.
Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small
"Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a claims cases, similar to other proceedings where
specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude
exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or the aggrieved party from filing a petition for
personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
capricious exercise of power that amounts to an
evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty 2) The SC has consistently ruled that "the
enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available
law. For an act to be struck down as having been done where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy
with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
must be patent and gross. A mere error of law or fact
will not suffice. 3) Although Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that the
special civil action of certiorari may only be invoked
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the law per se provides no administrative review for
availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not administrative cases. Under the Civil Service law, an
constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from employee penalized with a suspension of not more than
making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari 30 days cannot appeal to the CSC.
where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally
beneficial, speedy and sufficient. It is the 2) Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
inadequacy – not the mere absence – of all other administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to
legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice seek the intervention of the court, he or she should
without the writ that usually determines the have availed himself of all the means of
propriety of certiorari. administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence,
if resort to a remedy within the administrative
4) Truly, an essential requisite for the availability machinery can still be made by giving the administrative
of the extraordinary remedies under the Rules is an officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
absence of an appeal nor any "plain, speedy and matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such
adequate remedy" in the ordinary course of law, one remedy should be exhausted first before the court's
which has been so defined as a "remedy which (would) judicial power can be sought.
equally (be) beneficial, speedy and sufficient not merely
a remedy which at some time in the future will bring 3) The premature invocation of the intervention of
about a revival of the judgment x x x complained of in the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. The doctrine of
the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which will exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on
promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious practical and legal reasons, one of which is to give the
effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior administrative agency concerned every opportunity to
court or tribunal" concerned. correct its error and dispose of the case.
MAGLALANG vs. PAGCOR 4) However, the doctrine of exhaustion of

G.R. No. 190566 December 11, 2013 administrative remedies is not absolute as it admits of
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: the following exceptions:
1) The doctrine of exhaustion of (1) when there is a violation of due process; (2) when
administrative remedies before seeking judicial the issue involved is purely a legal question; (3) when
review (e. g. petition for certiorari) does not apply if the administrative action is patently illegal

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (4) when for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a
there is estoppel on the part of the administrative finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint, or
agency concerned; (5) when there is irreparable of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack
injury; (6) when the respondent is a department of jurisdiction.
secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the
President bears the implied and assumed approval PEOPLE vs. CASTANEDA
of the latter; (7) when to require exhaustion of G.R. No. 208290 December 11, 2013
administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (8) PER CURIAM:
when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; (9)
when the subject matter is a private land in land 1) Section 4 of Rule 65 is explicit in stating
case proceedings; (10) when the rule does not provide that certiorari should be instituted within a period
a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or
there are circumstances indicating the urgency of resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is
judicial intervention, and unreasonable delay would inextensible to avoid any unreasonable delay that
greatly prejudice the complainant; (12) where no would violate the constitutional rights of parties to
administrative review is provided by law; (13) where a speedy disposition of their case. While there are
the rule of qualified political agency applies and (14) recognized exceptions to such strict observance, there
where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative should be an effort on the part of the party invoking
remedies has been rendered moot. liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious
explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.
5) Decisions of administrative or quasi-
administrative agencies which are declared by law final 2) While a judgment of acquittal in a criminal
and unappealable are subject to judicial review (petition case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under
for certiorari) if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it must be shown that
upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
law. When such administrative or quasi-judicial excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.
bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such
nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court 3) Grave abuse of discretion is defined as
will not hesitate to reverse the factual capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
findings. Thus, the decision of the Ombudsman may be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
reviewed, modified or reversed via petition discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to

an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to 2) A real party in interest is one "who stands
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in to be benefited or injured by the judgment or the
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in party entitled to the avails of the suit. 'Interest'
an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion within the meaning of the rule means material
and hostility. interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the
decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
UP BOARD OF REGENTS vs. LIGOT-TELAN question involved, or a mere incidental interest."
G.R. No. 110280 October 12, 1993 Undoubtedly, the U.P. Board of Regents has an interest
ROMERO, J.: to protect inasmuch as what is in issue here is its power
to impose disciplinary action against a student who
1) The lower court gravely abused its discretion in violated the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct
issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. Mandamus is and Discipline by withholding information in connection
never issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear with his application for STFAP benefits, which
and certain right on the part of the petitioner being information, if disclosed, would have sufficed to
required. By virtue of the issuance of the writ, the UP's disqualify him from receiving the financial assistance he
exercise of academic freedom was peremptorily sought.
curtailed. Moreover, the door was flung wide open for
Nadal to do exactly what the decision of the BOR Having specifically named Drs. Abueva and Caoili
prohibited him from doing and that is, to violate the as respondents in the petition for mandamus that he
suspension order by enrolling for the first semester of filed below, Nadal is now estopped from questioning
1993-1994. If it is allowed continue with his studies he their personality to file the instant petition. Moreover,
would, in effect render moot and academic the under Sec. 7 of the U.P. Charter (Act 1870) and Sec. 11
disciplinary sanction of suspension legally imposed of the University Code "all process" against the BOR
upon him by the BOR's final decision. Not only would shall be served on "the president or secretary thereof'." It
this undermine the authority of the U.P. to discipline its is in accordance with these legal provisions that Dr.
students who violated the rules and regulations of the Caoili is named as a petitioner.
institution but, more importantly, subvert the very
concept and lofty intent to give financial assistance to TUASON vs. RD of CALOOCAN CITY
poor but deserving students. G.R. No. 70484 January 29, 1988
NARVASA, J.:

1) Under Section 1 of Rule 65, the

extraordinary writ of certiorari may properly issue to 1) A special civil action under Rule 65 is not be a
nullify only judicial or quasi-judicial acts performed cure for failure to timely file an appeal (e. g. Rule
by any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial 43). Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be
or quasi-judicial functions. The writ of certiorari, availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an
however, may also issue to nullify an executive officer’s ordinary appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was
unlawful exercise of judicial power. occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of
remedies.
By issuing PD No. 293 which, among others,
invalidated the petitioner’s title over a parcel of land 2) A party cannot substitute the special civil
which he had validly purchased from the Government, action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
President Marcos unlawfully exercised judicial power. Court for the remedy of appeal. The existence and
He made a determination of facts, and applied the law to availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the
those facts, declaring what the legal rights of the parties availability of the special civil action of certiorari.
were in the premises. These acts essentially constitute Remedies of appeal (including petitions for review)
a judicial function, or an exercise of jurisdiction. and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or
successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a
2) Mr. Marcos’s acts may thus be properly substitute for an appeal, especially if one's own
struck down by the writ of certiorari, because it is negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned
done by an officer in the performance of what in such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is
essence is a judicial function, done without or in that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy
excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is
discretion. Since Mr. Marcos was never vested with available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground
judicial power, such power being vested in the courts, therefor is grave abuse of discretion.
the judicial acts done by him were perpetrated without 2) The rule that an appeal and a certiorari are not
jurisdiction, being completely alien to his office as chief interchangeable admits of exceptions. A petition
executive. for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review
on certiorari, particularly: (1) if the petition
GSIS vs. COURT OF APPEALS for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period
G.R. No. 230953, June 20, 2018 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2)
PERALTA, J.: when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when

there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of

rules.
REYES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. Nos. 203797-98, June 27, 2018
REYES, JR., J.:
1) A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope

and narrow in character. The special civil action
for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without
jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to
correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or
mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court.

Prohibition (S2) commission of an act perceived to be illegal. As a rule,

a) grounds the proper function of a writ of prohibition is to prevent
b) requirements the doing of an act which is about to be done. It is not
c) procedure, parties and effects intended to provide a remedy for acts already
accomplished. When the act sought to be prevented has
VIVAS vs. MONETARY BOARD OF BSP already accomplished, the remedy of prohibition is no
G.R. No. 191424 August 7, 2013 longer appropriate. Settled is the rule that prohibition
MENDOZA, J.: does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait
accompli.
1) Under Section 30 of Resolution No. 276 7653
issued by the Monetary Board, any act of the MB 4) While the SC, the CA and the RTC have
placing a bank under conservatorship, receivership or original concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of
liquidation may not be restrained or set aside except on certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, the concurrence
a petition for certiorari. The petition for prohibition of jurisdiction does not grant a party seeking any of the
availed of by petitioner was, therefore, the wrong extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file a
remedy. petition in any court of his choice. To go directly to the
SC, a party must advance a special or important reason
2) The writ of prohibition is that process by which for doing so.
a superior court prevents inferior courts, tribunals,
officers, or persons from usurping or exercising a CORALES vs. REPUBLIC
jurisdiction with which they have not been vested by G.R. No. 186613 August 27, 2013
law, and confines them to the exercise of those powers PEREZ, J.:
legally conferred. Its office is to restrain subordinate
courts, tribunals or persons from exercising jurisdiction 1) Prohibition, being a preventive remedy to seek
over matters not within its cognizance or exceeding its a judgment ordering the defendant to desist from
jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance. The continuing with the commission of an act perceived to
rule on prohibition is enshrined in Section 2 of Rule 65. be illegal, may only be resorted to when there is "no
appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
3) Prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking in the ordinary course of law. Thus, if the aggrieved
that a judgment be rendered which would direct the party has administrative remedies still available to him,
defendant to desist from continuing with the he may not avail himself of a petition for prohibition.

2) If resort to a remedy within the administrative Section 1 of Rule 43 specifically provides for appeals
machinery can still be made by giving the administrative from decisions of the Civil Service Commission.
officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then
such remedy should be exhausted first before the
court’s judicial power can be sought. The premature
invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to
one’s cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is based on practical and legal
reasons.
CAREER EXEC. SERVICE BOARD vs CSC

G.R. No. 197762 March 7, 2017
SERENO, CJ.:
1) It is settled that a resort to the extraordinary

remedies of certiorari and prohibition is proper only in
cases where (a) a tribunal, a board or an officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
and (b) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Rule 65
of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the concurrence
of both these requisites.
2) In the instant case, the second requirement is

plainly absent as an appeal was available to the Career
Executive Service Board in the form of a petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mandamus (S3) remedy of petitioners should have been to file a Petition

a) grounds for Certiorari against the assailed Order of the Judge.
b) requisites
c) procedure, parties and effects SANCHEZ vs. LASTIMOSO
d. damages G.R. No. 161735 September 25, 2007
NACHURA, J.:
HIPOS, SR. vs. JUDGE TEODORO A. BAY
G.R. Nos. 174813-15 March 17, 2009 1) The remedy of mandamus is employed only to
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial
duty, but not to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary
1) The rule is that matters involving judgment one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command to
and discretion are beyond the reach of a writ of exercise a power already possessed and to perform a
mandamus. By way of an exception, however, such writ duty already imposed. The writ can be issued only when
may be issued to compel a judicial officer to act in those the applicant’s legal right to the performance of a
matters when he refuses to act. But mandamus is never particular act sought to be compelled is clear and
available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion complete, one which is indubitably granted by law or is
in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an inferable as a matter of law.
action already taken in the exercise of either. In other
words, while a judge who refuses to act on a Motion to In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly
Withdraw Information filed by the public prosecutor issue, two requisites must be satisfied: first, the
may be compelled by mandamus to act on the same, petitioner has a clear legal right to the claim that is
such judge cannot be compelled to act in a certain way, sought and, second, the respondent has an imperative
i.e., to grant or deny such Motion. duty to perform that which is demanded of him.
Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel
2) In the case at bar, the Judge did not refuse to compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over
act on the Motion to Withdraw Information. He had, in which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function
fact, already acted on it by denying the same. of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite,
Accordingly, mandamus is not available anymore. If not to inquire and to adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the
petitioners believed that the Judge committed grave office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but
abuse of discretion in the issuance of such Order to implement that which is already established. Unless
denying the Motion to Withdraw Information, the proper

the right to relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will Panlungsod. As it has not been repealed by the
not issue. Sanggunian or annulled by the courts.
2) In the instant case, the PNP Chief’s issuance of 2) Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or
the order for the absorption of dismissed PC constable to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable
to the newly organized PNP is not compellable by a writ or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal
of mandamus precisely because the same does not function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to
involve a performance of a ministerial duty. The PC expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate; thus, it is
constable was discharged from the PC service, neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal
subsequently cleared of the charge against him, applied right but to implement that which is already
for reinstatement but his application was not acted established. Unless the right to the relief sought is
upon until the integration of the PC into the PNP in unclouded, mandamus will not issue.
1990. The power to appoint is essentially discretionary
to be performed by the officer in which it is vested LAYGO vs. MUN. MAYOR OF SOLANO, N. V.
according to his best lights, the only condition being G.R. No. 188448 January 11, 2017
that the appointee should possess the qualifications JARDELEZA, J.:
required by law. Consequently, it cannot be the subject
of an application for a writ of mandamus. Furthermore, 1) Mandamus is a command issuing from a court
the PC constable did not have a clear legal right over the of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the
issuance of the absorption orders. sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or
board, or to some corporation or person requiring the
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY vs. ATIENZA performance of a particular duty therein specified,
G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007 which duty results from the official station of the party
CORONA, J.: to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law.
1) Considering that the Local Government Code 2) As a rule, mandamus will lie if any of the
imposes upon a city mayor the duty to "enforce all laws following grounds is present: [a] that the respondent
and ordinances relative to the governance of the city”, he court, officer, board, or person unlawfully neglected the
may be compelled by mandamus to enforce an existing performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins
ordinance duly passed by the Sanggunian as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station; or [b]
that such court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully

excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment PERALTA, J.:

of a right or office to which he is entitled.
1) PMA cannot be compelled by mandamus to
3) The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will restore Cadet Cudia's rights and entitlements as a full-
not lie to compel the performance of duties that are fledged graduating cadet, including his diploma, awards,
discretionary in nature. If the law imposes a duty upon and commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign on the
a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or basis of academic freedom and, therefore, beyond the
when the duty shall be performed, such duty is province of the Court to decide.
discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial
only when the discharge of the same requires neither 2) Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. It
the exercise of official discretion or judgment. In other cannot be availed against an official or government
words, a purely ministerial act or duty is one which an agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or
officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a judgment. For a writ to issue, petitioners should have a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and there
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents
own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the to perform the act sought to be mandated.
act done.
VILLANUEVA vs. JBC
4) In the instant case, the petition for mandamus G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015
sought to compel the municipal mayor to cancel the REYES, J.:
lease contract of petitioners for market stalls with the
Municipal Government. Since the Sanggunian resolution 1) Mandamus cannot be availed of by an
did not authorize the mayor to motu propio or applicant in assailing JBC's policy and for excluding
automatically terminate or cancel the lease with a lessee him from the list of candidates for the RTC courts he
who is delinquent in the payment of rentals or who is in applied for. For a writ of mandamus to issue, the
violation of any of the provisions of the contract, his petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing
duty is discretionary which cannot be compelled by demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the
mandamus. respondent to perform the act required. The petitioner
bears the burden to show that there is such a clear legal
CUDIA vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PMA right to the performance of the act, and a corresponding
G.R. No. 211362 February 24, 2015

compelling duty on the part of the respondent to

perform the act.
2) The function of the JBC to select and

recommend nominees for vacant judicial positions is
discretionary, not ministerial. More so, the petitioner
cannot claim any legal right to be included in the list of
nominees for judicial vacancies. Possession of the
constitutional and statutory qualifications for
appointment to the judiciary may not be used to legally
demand that one's name be included in the list of
candidates for a judicial vacancy.

QUO WARRANTO (R66) 2) Quo warranto and impeachment may

proceed independently of each other as these
1. Parties (S1 to S6) remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds,
2. Period to file (S8) (3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and
3. Limitation (S11) dismissal, and (4) limitations. The term "quo warranto" is
4. Judgment for cost (S12) Latin for "by what authority." Therefore, as the name
suggests, quo warranto is a writ of inquiry. It
determines whether an individual has the legal right
REPUBLIC vs. SERENO to hold the public office he or she occupies.
G.R. No. 237428 May 11, 2018
TIJAM, J.: 4) The one-year period fixed in the Rules for
filing a petition for quo warranto is a condition
1) Under Section 5, Article VIII of the precedent to the existence of the cause of action
Constitution, the SC, concurrent with the RTC and for quo warranto and that the inaction of an officer for
the CA, exercises original jurisdiction over petitions one year could be validly considered a waiver of his right
for quo warranto. While the hierarchy of courts serves to file the same. The one-year period requirement,
as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for however, applies if the petitioner is a private
petitions for the extraordinary writs, a direct individual asserting his right of office.
invocation of the Supreme Court's original
jurisdiction to issue such writs is allowed when there In the instant case, however, it is not a private
are special and important reasons therefor, clearly individual who is claiming title to the Office of the Chief
and specifically set out in the petition. In the instant Justice. It is the government itself which commenced
case, direct resort to the Court is justified considering the present petition for quo warranto and puts in issue
that the action for quo warranto questions the the qualification of the person holding the highest
qualification of no less than a Member of the Court. The position in the Judiciary. The one-year limitation is
issue of whether a person usurps, intrudes into, or not applicable when the petitioner is the
unlawfully holds or exercises a public office is a government itself seeking relief for a public wrong
matter of public concern over which the government and suing for public interest.
takes special interest as it obviously cannot allow
an intruder or impostor to occupy a public 4) Prescription does not lie against the
position. government. The remedy of quo warranto is intended to

prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully 1) Where the action for quo warranto is filed
asserted. Indeed, on point is People v. Bailey, when it by a private person, he must prove that he is
ruled that because quo warranto serves to end a entitled to the controverted position, otherwise
continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of
applies to the action. Needless to say, no prudent and the office. If the court finds for the respondent, the
just court would allow an unqualified person to hold judgment should simply state that the respondent is
public office, much more the highest position in the entitled to the office. If, however, the court finds for
Judiciary. the petitioner and declares the respondent guilty of
usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or
The SC considered certain exceptional exercising the office, judgment shall be rendered (1) that
circumstances which takes a petition for quo such defendant be ousted and altogether excluded
warranto out of the statute of limitations, to wit: ( 1) therefrom, and (2) that the plaintiff or relator, as the
there was no acquiescence to or inaction on the part case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment
of the petitioner, amounting to the abandonment of may be rendered (3) determining the respective rights
his right to the position; (2) it was an act of the in and to the office, position, right, privilege, or
government through its responsible officials which franchise of all the parties to the action as justice
contributed to the delay in the filing of the action; and requires.
(3) the petition was grounded upon the assertion that
petitioner's removal from the questioned position 2) Ordinarily, a judgment against a public
was contrary to law. officer in regard to a public right binds his successor
in office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo
5) The one-year reglementary period for filing warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does
a petition for quo warranto may be counted from not bind the respondent's successor in office, even
the cause of the ouster or from knowledge by though such successor may trace his title to the
petitioner of the cause of the ouster. same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of
quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as
MENDOZA vs. ALLAS such, but always against the person — to determine
G.R. No. 131977 February 4, 1999 whether he is constitutionally and legally
PUNO, J.: authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any
function of the office to which he lays claim.

3) In the case at bar, the petition for quo G.R. Nos. 179431-32 June 22, 2010
warranto was filed by petitioner solely against the BERSAMIN, J.:
person then holding the office. What was threshed out
before the trial court was the qualification and right 1) An election protest proposes to oust the
of petitioner to the contested position as against winning candidate from office. It is strictly a contest
said person who was holding the office, not against between the defeated and the winning candidates,
the present holder of the office. Thus, the decision of based on the grounds of electoral frauds and
the trial court in the action for quo warrant will not bind irregularities, to determine who between them has
the present holder of the office. actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast
and is entitled to hold the office. It can only be filed
by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted for in the preceding
elections.
A special civil action for quo warranto refers

to questions of disloyalty to the State, or of
CALLEJA vs. PANDAY ineligibility of the winning candidate. The objective of
G.R. No. 168696 February 28, 2006 the action is to unseat the ineligible person from the
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: office, but not to install the petitioner in his place.
Any voter may initiate the action, which is, strictly
1) Section 1 of Rule 66 applies only to actions speaking, not a contest where the parties strive for
of quo warranto against persons who usurp a public supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated
office, position or franchise; public officers who forfeit even if the respondent may be unseated.
their office; and associations which act as corporations
without being legally incorporated. It does not apply to ARATEA vs. COMELEC
persons who usurp an office in a private corporation G.R. No. 195229 October 9, 2012
which is now cognizable by the regular courts under CARPIO, J.:
R. A. No. 8799. Previously, such controversy was
cognizable by SEC. 1) A cancelled certificate of candidacy void ab
initio cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and
LOKIN, JR. vs. COMELEC much less to valid votes. Thus, when a candidate’s

certificate of candidacy is cancelled because he is enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has
ineligible or not qualified to run for an elective post, forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. Where the action
whether such cancellation is done before or after the is filed by a private person, he must prove that he is
elections, it means he was never a candidate from the entitled to the controverted position; otherwise,
very beginning, his certificate of candidacy being void ab respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of
initio. the office.
DE CASTRO vs. CARLOS 2) In this case, given the present factual

G.R. No. 194994 April 16, 2013 milieu, i.e., (i) the final and executory resolutions of this
SERENO, CJ.: Court in G.R. No. 207264; (ii) the final and executory
resolutions of the COMELEC in SPA No. 13-053 (DC)
1) A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to cancelling Reyes's Certificate of Candidacy; and (iii) the
determine the right of a person to use or exercise a final and executory resolution of the COMELEC in SPC
franchise or an office and to oust the holder from the No. 13-010 declaring null and void the proclamation of
enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if Reyes and proclaiming Velasco as the winning candidate
his right to enjoy the privilege has been forfeited. Where for the position of Representative for the Lone District of
the action is filed by a private person, in his own the Province of Marinduque - it cannot be claimed that
name, he must prove that he is entitled to the the present petition is one for the determination of
controverted position, otherwise, respondent has a the right of Velasco to the claimed office.
right to the undisturbed possession of the office.
VELASCO vs. BELMONTE

G.R. No. 211140 January 12, 2016
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
1) A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to

determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of
a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its

EXPROPRIATION (R67) 3) In an action for expropriation, a writ of

possession may be issued by the court (1) upon the
1. The right of eminent domain filing by the government of a complaint for
-- Constitutional provision – “Private expropriation sufficient in form and substance and
property shall not be taken for public use without (2) upon deposit made by the government of the
just compensation”. amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property
-- R.A. 7160 The Local Government Code, subject to expropriation. Upon compliance with these
Section 19. requirements, the issuance of the writ of possession
2. Who may expropriate becomes ministerial.
3. Two stages in expropriation
a) determination of public use and REPUBLIC vs. ANDAYA
plaintiff’s G.R. No. 160656 June 15, 2007
authority QUISUMBING, J.:
b) determination of just compensation
1) While the plaintiff in an action for
CITY OF MANILA vs. SERRANO expropriation may enforce against the owner’s
G.R. No. 142304 June 20, 2001 property the legal easement of right-of-way in its
Mendoza, J.: favor without paying for it, it is liable to pay the
owner consequential damages if in enforcing the legal
1) Since the order of the court in an action for easement on the owner’s property, the remaining area
expropriation granting the plaintiff a writ of would be rendered unusable and uninhabitable.
possession is an interlocutory order, such order is
not reviewable by petition for review on certiorari 2) "Taking," in the exercise of the power of
under Rule 45. Section 1 of Rule 45 applies only to eminent domain, occurs not only when the
judgments or final orders of the Court of Appeals, the government actually deprives or dispossesses the
Sandiganbayan, and the Regional Trial Court. On the owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also
other hand, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is when there is a practical destruction or material
the suitable remedy if grave abuse of discretion can impairment of the value of his property. Using this
be shown. standard, there was undoubtedly a taking of the
remaining area of Andaya’s property. While it is true
that the owner retained title and possession of the

remaining property, he would be entitled to just 2) The right of eminent domain extends to
compensation if the enforcement of the legal easement personal and real property, and the NAIA 3 structures,
on a portion of his property would deprive him of the adhered as they are to the soil, are considered as real
normal use of the remaining areas. In the instant case, property. The public purpose for the expropriation is
the enforcement of the legal easement on a portion also beyond dispute. It should also be noted
of the owner’s property prevented ingress and egress that Section 1 of Rule 67 recognizes the possibility that
to his remaining property and turn it into a catch the property sought to be expropriated may be titled in
basin for the floodwaters coming from the Agusan the name of the Republic of the Philippines, although
River. occupied by private individuals, and in such case an
averment to that effect should be made in the complaint.
ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORP. vs. DOTC The instant expropriation complaint did aver that the
G.R. No. 169914 April 18, 2008 NAIA 3 complex "stands on a parcel of land owned by
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: the Bases Conversion Development Authority, another
agency of the Republic of the Philippines.
1) The government’s resort to expropriation
proceedings to acquire possession and ownership of ABAD vs. FIL-HOMES REALTY
the NAIA 3 which was constructed by AEDC on a G.R. No. 189239 November 24, 2010
land already owned by it, while unusual, was proper. CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The 2004 Resolution, in requiring the payment of just
compensation prior to the takeover by the Government 1) In an expropriation proceeding, the mere
of NAIA 3, effectively precluded it from acquiring issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the
possession or ownership of the NAIA 3 through the plaintiff does not transfer ownership of the lot in
unilateral exercise of its rights as the owner of the favor of the plaintiff. Such issuance is only the first
ground on which the facilities stood. Thus, as things stage in expropriation. In the present case, the fact that
stood after the 2004 Resolution, the right of the a writ of possession had already been issued in favor of
Government to take over the NAIA 3 terminal was the plaintiff in an expropriation proceeding would not
preconditioned by lawful order on the payment of render moot a pending action for unlawful detainer
just compensation to PIATCO as builder of the between private parties involving the same lot.
structures.
2) Expropriation of lands consists of two stages:
The first is concerned with the determination of the

authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be
eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
the context of the facts involved in the suit. It ends substantial, full and ample. The constitutional
with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be a
condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful sum equivalent to the market value of the property,
right to take the property sought to be condemned, for broadly defined as the price fixed by the seller in open
the public use or purpose described in the complaint, market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action
upon the payment of just compensation to be and competition; or the fair value of the property; as
determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. between one who receives and one who desires to sell it,
fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.
The second phase of the eminent domain action
is concerned with the determination by the court of 2) The amount of just compensation is to be
"the just compensation for the property sought to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which
taken." This is done by the court with the assistance of usually coincides with the commencement of the
not more than three (3) commissioners. expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of the
action precedes entry into the property, the amount of just
It is only upon the completion of these two compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the
stages that expropriation is said to have been filing of the complaint.
completed. The process is not complete until
payment of just compensation. 3) In this case, in arriving at the amount of just
compensation, both the RTC and the CA relied heavily
NPC vs. YCLA SUGAR DEV. CORP. on the Board of Commissioners’ Report dated September
G.R. No. 193936 December 11, 2013 15, 2003, which, in turn, was arrived at after
REYES, J.: conducting an ocular inspection of the subject
properties on August 27, 2003. However, the Board of
1) In expropriation proceedings, just Commissioners’ recommendation as to the amount of
compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent just compensation was based on the prevailing market
of the property taken from its owner by the value of the subject properties in 2003. What escaped
expropriator. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the attention of the lower courts is that the prevailing
the owner’s loss. The word "just" is used to intensify market value of the subject properties in 2003 cannot be
the meaning of the word "compensation" and to used to determine the amount of just compensation

considering that the Complaint for expropriation was adjudicator's decision will attain finality. This rule is not
filed by NPC on December 2, 1997. only in accord with law and settled jurisprudence but
also with the principles of justice and equity.
4) Just compensation cannot be arrived at
arbitrarily; several factors must be considered such as, NOTE: This doctrine has been abandoned and
but not limited to, acquisition cost, current market superseded by the ruling in the succeeding case, LBP
value of like properties, tax value of the condemned vs. Dalauta.
property, its size, shape, and location. But before these
factors can be considered and given weight, the same LBP vs. DALAUTA
must be supported by documentary evidence.16 The G.R. No. 190004 August 8, 2017
amount of just compensation could only be attained by MENDOZA, J.:
using reliable and actual data as bases for fixing the
value of the condemned property. A commissioners’ 1) The RTC, acting as a Special Agrarian Court
report of land prices which is not based on any (SAC), may exercise its exclusive original jurisdiction
documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and under Section 57 of R. A. No. 6657 to determine just
should be disregarded by the court. compensation to landowners despite the lapse of 15
days from receipt by the landowner of the adjudicator's
LIMKAICHONG vs. LBP decision fixing the just compensation. To maintain the
G.R. No. 158464, August 02, 2016 rulings in the cases of Veterans Bank, Martinez, Soriano,
BERSAMIN, J.: and Limkaichong would be incompatible and
inconsistent with the legislative intent to vest on the
1) To resolve the conflict in the rulings of the SAC the original and exclusive jurisdiction in the
Court, we now declare herein, for the guidance of the determination of just compensation. Indeed, such
bench and the bar, that the better rule is that stated rulings judicially reduced the SAC to merely an
in Philippine Veterans Bank, reiterated in Lubrica and in appellate court to review the administrative decisions of
the August 14, 2007 Decision in this case. Thus, while a the DAR. This was never the intention of the Congress.
petition for the fixing of just compensation with the
Special Agrarian Court (SAC, an RTC) is not an appeal 2) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us
from the agrarian reform adjudicator's decision but an that courts cannot, and will not, resolve a controversy
original action, the same has to be filed within the 15-day involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of
period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the an administrative tribunal, especially where the

question demands the exercise of sound administrative

discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience
and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact. In agrarian
reform cases, primary jurisdiction is vested in the
DAR, more specifically, in the DARAB as provided for in
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657.

FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE (R68) proceeding in the case of property with Torrens title; and
upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the
RAMIREZ vs. MANILA BANKING CORP. corresponding bond, the law also in express terms
G.R. No. 198800 December 11, 2013 directs the court to issue the order for a writ of
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: possession as a ministerial duty. No discretion is left to
the court. And any question regarding the regularity and
1) While Section 3 of Act No. 3135 only requires validity of the sale (and the consequent cancellation of
the posting of the notice of sale in three public places the writ) is left to be determined in a subsequent
and the publication of that notice in a newspaper of proceeding as outlined in section 8. Such question is not
general circulation in case of a foreclosure sale, personal to be raised as a justification for opposing the issuance
notice to the mortgagor is required if the parties have of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the
stipulated that such notice shall be given by the proceeding for this is ex parte.
mortgagee to the mortgagor in case of a foreclosure sale.
Strictly, Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended,
MARQUEZ vs. ALINDOG refers to a situation wherein the purchaser seeks
G.R. No. 184045 January 22, 2014 possession of the foreclosed property during the 12-
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: month period for redemption. Upon the purchaser’s
filing of the ex parte petition and posting of the
1) The purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure appropriate bond, the RTC shall, as a matter of course,
sale is entitled to the possession of the property and can order the issuance of the writ of possession in the
demand that he be placed in possession of the same purchaser’s favor.
either during (with bond) or after the expiration (without
bond) of the redemption period therefor. A writ of ARDIENTE vs. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF
possession duly applied for by said purchaser should G.R. No. 148448 August 17, 2004
issue as a matter of course, and thus, merely CARPIO MORALES, J.:
constitutes a ministerial duty on the part of the court.
1) The mortgagor cannot raise the issue of lack of
2) The law expressly authorizes the purchaser to publication of the notice of foreclosure of the mortgage
petition for a writ of possession during the redemption for the first time on appeal. He must attack in his
period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that Complaint the validity of the foreclosure because of such
purpose in the corresponding registration or cadastral lack of notice.

LZK HOLDINGS vs. PLANTERS DEV. BANK redemption period commences from the date of
G.R. No. 187973 January 20, 2014 foreclosure sale, and expires upon registration of the
REYES, J.: certificate of sale or three months after foreclosure,
whichever is earlier. There is likewise no retroactive
1) After the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, the application of the new redemption period because
duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is Section 47 exempts from its operation those properties
ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course upon foreclosed prior to its effectivity and whose owners shall
the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the retain their redemption rights under Act No. 3135.
corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the trial
court. Any question regarding the regularity and validity SOLID BUILDERS, INC. vs. CBC
of the sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of the G.R. No. 179665 April 3, 2013
writ, is to be determined in a subsequent proceeding as LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135. Such question
cannot be raised to oppose the issuance of the writ, 1) A debtor-mortgagor does not have a right to
since the proceeding is ex parte. The recourse is prevent the creditor-mortgagee from foreclosing on the
available even before the expiration of the redemption mortgaged properties simply on the basis of alleged
period provided by law and the Rules of Court. "usurious, exorbitant and confiscatory rate of interest.
First, assuming that the interest rate agreed upon by
GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORP. the parties is usurious, the nullity of the stipulation of
vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK usurious interest does not affect the lender’s right to
G.R. No. 195540 March 13, 2013 recover the principal loan, nor affect the other terms
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: thereof. Thus, in a usurious loan with mortgage, the
right to foreclose the mortgage subsists, and this right
1) Section 47 of R.A. 8791 (The General Banking can be exercised by the creditor upon failure by the
Law of 2000) does not violate the constitutional debtor to pay the debt due.
proscription against impairment of the obligation of
contract as it does not divest juridical persons of the ROBLES vs. YAPCINCO
right to redeem their foreclosed properties but only G.R. No. 169568 October 22, 2014
modifies the time for the exercise of such right by BERSAMIN, J.:
reducing the one-year period originally provided in Act
No. 3135 (Real Estate Mortgage Law, 1924). The new

1) The failure of buyer in a judicial foreclosure G.R. No. 200567 June 22, 2015
sale to register the certificate of sale is of no VELASCO, JR., J.:
consequence. The registration of the sale is required
only in extra-judicial foreclosure sale because the date 1) In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, where
of the registration is the reckoning point for the exercise the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay the debt,
of the right of redemption. In contrast, the registration of the mortgagee has the right to recover in an action the
the sale is superfluous in judicial foreclosure because deficiency from the debtor. In ascertaining the deficit
only the equity of redemption is granted to the amount, Sec. 4, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court is
mortgagor, except in mortgages with banking elucidating, to wit:
institutions. The equity of redemption is the right of the
defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage and Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of
retain ownership of the property by paying the secured sale. – The amount realized from the
debt within the 90-day period after the judgment foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property
becomes final, or even after the foreclosure sale but shall, after deducting the costs of the sale,
prior to the confirmation of the sale. be paid to the person foreclosing the
mortgage, and when there shall be any
2) The effect of the failure of the buyer in he balance or residue, after paying off the
judicial foreclosure sale to obtain judicial confirmation mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid
of the sale is only to prevent the title to the property to junior encumbrancers in the order of
from being transferred to him. For sure, such failure did their priority, to be ascertained by the
not give rise to any right in favor of the mortgagor to court, or if there be no such
take back the property already validly sold through encumbrancers or there be a balance or
public auction. Nor did such failure invalidate the residue after payment to them, then to the
foreclosure proceedings. To maintain otherwise would mortgagor or his duly authorized agent, or
render nugatory the judicial foreclosure and foreclosure to the person entitled to it.
sale, thus unduly disturbing judicial stability. The non-
transfer of the title notwithstanding, the purchaser sale Thus, there can only be a deficit when the
should not be deprived of the property purchased at the proceeds of the sale is not sufficient to cover (1) the
foreclosure sale. costs of foreclosure proceedings; and (2) the amount due
to the creditor, inclusive of interests and penalties, if
MBTC vs. CPR PROMOTIONS any, at the time of foreclosure.

2) In the instant case, the mortgagee, having sought, the action is deemed as incapable of pecuniary
alleged the existence of a deficiency balance, should estimation.
have proved, at the very least, the amount due at the
date of foreclosure against which the proceeds from the 3) Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary
auction sale would be applied. Otherwise, there can be estimation are those for specific performance, support,
no basis for awarding the claimed deficiency balance. or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment;
also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage,
ROLDAN vs. BARRIOS annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover
G.R. No. 214803 APRIL 23, 2018 the price paid and for rescission, which is a counterpart
PERALTA, J.: of specific performance.
1) Although an action for foreclosure of real 4) Generally, a direct recourse to the SC is highly
estate mortgage is incapable of pecuniary estimation as improper, for it violates the established policy of strict
it is not for recovery of money, it also involves title to, observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts. Although
possession of or interest in real property, thereby the SC, the RTCs and the Court of Appeals have
making it a real action which is, for purposes of concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs
determining what court has jurisdiction, within the of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
coverage of Section 33(3) and Section 19(2) of B. P. Blg. habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does
129 as amended by R. A. No. 7691. not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom· of choice of
court forum. The SC is a court of last resort, and must
2) In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, it was held so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions
that in determining whether an action is one the subject assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial
matter of which capable or incapable of pecuniary tradition. However, the judicial hierarchy of courts is not
estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy an iron-clad rule. A strict application of the rule of
sought must first be determined. If it is primarily for the hierarchy of courts is not necessary when the cases
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered brought before the appellate courts do not involve
capable of pecuniary estimation claim. However, where factual but legal questions.
the basic issue in the action is something other than the
right to recover a sum of money, the same being merely
incidental or a consequence of the principal relief

PARTITION (R69) NACHURA, J.:
BALUS vs. BALUS 1) An action for partition implies that the property
G.R. No. 168970 January 15, 2010 is still owned in common. Considering that the heirs had
PERALTA, J.: already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and
waived their shares in favor of one heir, the properties
1) Partition calls for the segregation and are no longer under a state of co-ownership; there is
conveyance of a determinate portion of the property nothing more to be partitioned, as ownership had
owned in common. It seeks a severance of the already been merged in one person.
individual interests of each co-owner, vesting in each of
them a sole estate in a specific property and giving each VDA. DE FIGURACION vs. FIGURACION-GERILLA
one a right to enjoy his estate without supervision or G.R. No. 151334 February 13, 2013
interference from the other. Since the purpose of REYES, J.:
partition is to put an end to co-ownership, partition
would be unavailing if there is no co-ownership in 1) The first stage in an action for partition is the
the first place. settlement of the issue of ownership. Such an action will
not lie if the plaintiff has no rightful interest in the
FELICIANO vs. ANOZA subject property. In fact, the parties filing the action are
G.R. No. 161746 September 1, 2010 required by the Rules of Court to set forth in their
Villarama, Jr., J.: complaint the nature and the extent of their title to the
property. It would be premature to effect a partition
1) A deed of extrajudicial partition executed until and unless the question of ownership is first
without including some of the heirs, who had no definitely resolved.
knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and
vicious. Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of 2) Co-heirs or co-owners cannot acquire by
fraud could be instituted. Such action for the acquisitive prescription the share of the other co-heirs
annulment of said partition, however, must be brought or co-owners absent a clear repudiation of the co
within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. ownership. The act of repudiation, as a mode of
terminating co-ownership, is subject to certain
MANGAHAS vs. BROBIO conditions, to wit: (1) a co-owner repudiates the co-
G.R. No. 183852 October 20, 2010 ownership; (2) such an act of repudiation is clearly made

known to the other co-owners; (3) the evidence thereon

is clear and conclusive; and (4) he has been in
possession through open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession of the property for the period
required by law.
MA. ROSARIO AGARRADO vs. LIBRANDO-AGARRADO

G. R. No. 212413 June 6, 2018
REYES, JR., J:
1) An action for partition of real estate is at once

(a) an action for the determination of the co-owners of
the subject property and (b) an action for the eventual
conveyance of specific portions thereof to the co-owners.
While this subject matter is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, the proper court which would have
jurisdiction over the action would still depend on the
subject property's assessed values in accordance with
Secs. 19(2) and 33(3) of The Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980, as amended.
2) An action for partition is two-phased. It is at

once an action (1) for declaration of co-ownership and
(2) for segregation and conveyance of a determinate
portion of the properties involved. Thus, in a complaint
for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that
he/she is a co-owner of the subject properties, and
second, the conveyance of his/her lawful share.

FORCIBLE ENTRY / UNLAWFUL DETAINER (R70) 2) An action for unlawful detainer refers to a
situation where the current occupant of the property
PROV. OF CAMARINES SUR vs initially obtained possession lawfully. This possession
BODEGA GLASSWARE only became unlawful due to the expiration of the right
G.R. No. 194199 March 22, 2017 to possess which may be a contract, express or implied,
JARDELEZA, J.: or by mere tolerance.
1) Rule 70 of the Rules of Court covers the An action for unlawful detainer must allege and
ejectment cases of forcible entry and unlawful establish the following key jurisdictional facts:
detainer. These actions are summary proceedings
and are devised to provide for a particular remedy (a) initially, possession of property by the
for a very specific issue. Actions for unlawful detainer defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the
and forcible entry involve only the question of actual plaintiff;
possession.28 In these actions, courts are asked to
ascertain which between the parties has the right to (b) eventually, such possession became illegal
the possession de facto or physical possession of the upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination
property in question.29 Its purpose is to restore the of the latter's right of possession;
aggrieved party to possession if he or she successfully
establishes his or her right to possess the property. The (c) thereafter, the defendant remained in
essence of an ejectment suit is for the rightful possessor possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of
to lawfully recover the property through lawful means the enjoyment thereof; and
instead of unlawfully wresting possession of the
property from its current occupant. Thus, an action for (c) within one year from the last demand on
unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a summary defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted
proceeding and is an expeditious means to recover the complaint for ejectment.
possession. If the parties raise the issue of ownership,
courts may only pass upon that issue for the purpose of When in an unlawful detainer action, the party
ascertaining who has the better right of possession. Any seeking recovery of possession alleges that the opposing
ruling involving ownership is not final and binding. It is party occupied the subject property by mere tolerance,
merely provisional and does not bar an action between this must be alleged clearly and the acts of tolerance
the same parties regarding the title of the property. established. Further, the party seeking possession must

identify the source of his or her claim as well as Defendants, who are the actual occupants of said
satisfactorily present evidence establishing it. property, never paid rent but continued to possess the
property upon the plaintiff’s mere tolerance. Despite
3) A party seeking to eject another from a receipt of plaintiff’s demand letters to vacate, defendants
property for unlawful detainer must file the action for refused and continued to occupy the property.
ejectment within one year from the last demand to
vacate. This is the prescriptive period that the plaintiff is REGALADO vs. DE LA RAMA VDA. DE LA PENA
bound to comply with. G.R. No. 202448 December 13, 2017
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
SANTIAGO vs. NORTHBAY KNITTING, INC.
G.R. No. 217296 October 11, 2017 1) Pursuant to RA 7691, the MTC has exclusive
PERALTA, J.: original jurisdiction over ejectment cases. Moreover,
jurisdiction of the MTC shall include civil actions
1) In ejectment cases, the complaint should involving title to or possession of real property, or any
embody such statement of facts as to bring the party interest therein where the assessed value of the property
clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes does not exceed ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro
provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in Manila), On the other hand, the RTC has exclusive
nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or
give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol possession of real property, or any interest therein in
evidence. case the assessed value of the property exceeds
₱20,000.00(or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila).
2) A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of
action for unlawful detainer if it states the four facts 2) In accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria, the
enumerated above. In the instant case, the complaint assessed value of the real property is a jurisdictional
sufficiently showed all the allegations required to element to determine what court may take cognizance of
support a case for unlawful detainer, thereby vesting the action. As such, it is necessary that the assessed
jurisdiction in the MeTC over the case. The plaintiff value of the subject properties, or its adjacent lots (if the
stated that it is the absolute owner of the subject properties are not declared for taxation purposes) be
property, as evidenced by TCT No. M-38092, and alleged to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over
supported by Tax Declaration No. C-002-08822-C and the case. In the instant case, since the assessed value of
real property tax receipt for the tax due in 2008.

the subject property was not alleged in the complaint, FERRER vs. JUDGE RABACA
the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580 October 6, 2010
BERSAMIN, J.:
2) Under Section 1 of Rule 70, there are special
jurisdictional facts that must be set forth in the 1) It is basic rule in ejectment cases that the
complaint to make a case for ejectment, which, as execution of judgment in favor of the plaintiff is a matter
mentioned, may either be for forcible entry or unlawful of right and mandatory. Under Section 19 of Rule 70,
detainer. In particular, a complaint for forcible entry the perfection of an appeal by itself is not sufficient to
must allege the plaintiff's prior physical possession of stay the execution of the judgment in an ejectment case.
the property; the fact that plaintiff was deprived of its The losing party should likewise file a supersedeas bond
possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or executed in favor of the plaintiff to answer for rents,
stealth; and the action must be filed within one year damages and costs, and, if the judgment of the court
from the time the owner or the legal possessor learned of requires it, he should likewise deposit the amount of the
their dispossession. rent before the appellate court from the time during the
pendency of the appeal. Otherwise, execution becomes
On the other hand, a complaint for unlawful ministerial and imperative.
detainer must state that the defendant is unlawfully
withholding possession of the real property after the CGR CORP. vs. TREYES
expiration or termination of his or her right to possess G.R. No. 170916 April 27, 2007
it; and the complaint is filed within a year from the time CARPIO MORALES, J.:
such possession became unlawful.
1) The only form of damages that may be
3) In the instant case, the plaintiff only averred in recovered in an action for forcible entry is the fair rental
the Complaint that he is the registered owner of the value or the reasonable compensation for the use and
subject property, and defendant unlawfully deprived occupation of the property. Thus, in an action for
him of its possession. He did not assert therein that he forcible entry, there would be no basis for the MTC to
was dispossessed of the subject property under the award actual, moral, and exemplary damages in view of
circumstances necessary to make a case of either the foregoing rule. Considering that the only issue
forcible entry or unlawful detainer. In the absence of the raised in ejectment is that of rightful possession,
required jurisdictional facts, the action could not be damages which could be recovered are those which the
deemed one for ejectment. plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or

those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of after the expiration or termination of his right thereto
the property, and not the damages which he may have under any contract, express or implied.
suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of
material possession. 2) In the instant case, the complaint failed to
allege a cause of action for unlawful detainer as it does
2) If the plaintiff seeks to recover damages which not describe possession by the respondents being
have no direct relation to his loss of material possession, initially legal or tolerated by the petitioner and which
he has to file a separate ordinary action. Final judgment became illegal upon termination by the petitioner of
in the forcible entry case would not be res judicata to the such lawful possession. Plaintiff’s insistence that she
action for damages as the court in a forcible entry case actually tolerated the defendant’s continued occupation
has no jurisdiction over claims for damages other than after her discovery of their entry into the subject
those arising from the use and occupation of the premises is incorrect. As she had averred, she
premises and attorney’s fees. discovered respondents’ occupation in May 2007. Such
possession could not have been legal from the start as it
ZACARIAS vs. ANACAY was without her knowledge or consent, much less was it
G.R. No. 202354 September 24, 2014 based on any contract, express or implied. We stress
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: that the possession of the defendant in unlawful
detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the
1) What determines the nature of the action, as expiration or termination of the right to possess.
well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case,
are the allegations in the complaint. In ejectment cases, SUPAPO vs. DE JESUS
the complaint should embody such statement of facts as GR No. 198356 Apr 20, 2015
to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for BRION, J.:
which Section 1 of Rule 70 provides a summary remedy,
and must show enough on its face to give the court 1) Under Section 33(3) of BP Blg. 129, the MTC
jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence. Such exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over actions to
remedy is either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. In recover possession of real property or accion publiciana
forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical and actions to recover title to and possession of real
possession of his land or building by means of force, property or accion interdictal if the assessed value of the
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In illegal real property involved does not exceed P20,000 outside
detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession Metro Manila and does not exceed P50,000 in Metro

Manila. Under Section 19(2) of BP Blg. 129, if the 3) Acts of tolerance must be proved showing the
assessed value exceeds P20,000 and P50,000, the RTC overt acts indicative of the plaintiff’s tolerance or
exercises exclusive original jurisdiction. permission for defendant to occupy the disputed
property. There should be supporting evidence on record
2) Lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by that would show when the defendant entered the
prescription or adverse possession. A claim of subject property or who had granted him to enter the
acquisitive prescription is baseless when the land same and how the entry was effected. Without these
involved is a registered land because of Article 1126 of allegations and evidence, the bare claim regarding
the Civil Code in relation to Act 496 [now, Section 47 of "tolerance" cannot be upheld.
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.
YASAY vs. RECTO
DE GUZMAN-FUERTE vs. ESTOMO G.R. No. 129521 September 7, 1999
G.R. No. 223399 April 23, 2018 PARDO, J.:
PERALTA, J.:
1) The charge of contempt partakes of the nature
1) A requisite for a valid cause of action of of a criminal offense. The exoneration of the contemner
unlawful detainer is that the possession was originally from the charge amounts to an acquittal from which an
lawful, but turned unlawful only upon the expiration of appeal would not lie.
the right to possess. To show that the possession was
initially lawful, the basis of such lawful possession must 2) A distinction must, however, be made between
then be established. a civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is the
failure to do something ordered by a court to be done for
2) In the instant case, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the the benefit of a party. A criminal contempt is any
Complaint make it clear that the defendant's occupancy conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the
was illegal and without plaintiff's consent. Likewise, the court.
Complaint did not contain an allegation that the plaintiff
tolerated the defendant’s possession on account of an 3) Civil contempt proceedings are generally held
express or implied contract between them. Neither was to be remedial and civil in their nature; that is, they are
there any averment which shows any overt act on proceedings for the enforcement of some duty, and
plaintiff's part indicative of her permission to occupy the essentially a remedy for coercing a person to do the
land. thing required. In general, civil contempt proceedings

should be instituted by an aggrieved party, or his therein. While the power to punish in contempt is
successor, or someone who has a pecuniary interest in inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in judicial
the right to be protected. If the contempt is initiated by proceedings and to uphold due administration of justice,
the court or tribunal exercising the power to punish a judges, however, should exercise their contempt powers
given contempt, it is criminal in nature, and the judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and
proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers
principles and rules applicable to criminal cases. The for correction and preservation not for retaliation and
State is the real prosecutor. vindication.
4) The real character of the proceedings in 2) In the instant case, the respondent judge
contempt cases is to be determined by the relief sought should have refrained from ordering the arrest and
or by the dominant purpose. The proceedings are to be detention of the complainant, since the incident involved
regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily his own son, and the matter was very personal to him.
punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily The fact that the respondent judge insisted that the
compensatory or remedial. complainant personally file his comment (to the show
cause order) in court gives rise to doubts as to the
5) In the instant case, the contempt is not civil in motive behind it; the requirement of personal filing was
nature, but criminal, imposed to vindicate the dignity deliberately inserted so that the respondent could
and power of the Commission. Hence, as in criminal confront and harass the complainant.
proceedings, an appeal would not lie from the order of
dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of JUDGE ESPAÑOL vs. FORMOSO
contempt. G.R. No. 150949 June 21, 2007
SISON vs. JUDGE CAOIBES
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1771 May 27, 2004 1) Contempt of court is defined as "some act or
CALLEJO, SR., J.: conduct which tends to interfere with the business of
the court, by a refusal to obey some lawful order of the
1) A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court, or some act of disrespect to the dignity of the
court for expressing concern on the judge’s impartiality court which in some way tends to interfere with or
through a motion for voluntary inhibition or for other hamper the orderly proceedings of the court and thus
similar reason, even if the latter may have felt insulted lessens the general efficiency of the same." It has also

been described as "a defiance of the authority, justice or Indirect or constructive contempt, in turn, is
dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the one perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and
authority and administration of the law into disrespect may include misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their performance of his official duties or in his official
witnesses during litigation." Simply put, it is despising transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court. writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court,
or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse
2) The offense of contempt traces its origin to that or any unlawful interference with the process or
time in England when all courts in the realm were but proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt,
divisions of the Curia Regia, the supreme court of the or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to
monarch, and to scandalize a court was an affront to the impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
sovereign.6 This concept was adopted by the Americans justice.
and brought to our shores with modifications. In this
jurisdiction, it is now recognized that courts have 4) The use by a party in a case of falsified and
the inherent power to punish for contempt on the forged documents, as in the instant case, is a
ground that respect for the courts guarantees the contumacious act. However, it constitutes indirect
very stability of the judicial institution. Such contempt not direct contempt. Pursuant to the above
stability is essential to the preservation of order in provision, such act is an improper conduct which
judicial proceedings, to the enforcement of judgments, degrades the administration of justice. The imputed use
orders, and mandates of the courts, and, consequently, of a falsified document, more so where the falsity of the
to the very administration of justice. document is not apparent on its face, merely
constitutes indirect contempt, and as such is subject
3) Direct contempt is one done "in the presence to such defenses as the accused may raise in the proper
of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the proceedings.
administration of justice." It is a contumacious act
done facie curiae and may be punished summarily 5) Under Section 3 of Rule 71, a contemner may
without hearing. In other words, one may be summarily be punished only after a charge in writing has been
adjudged in direct contempt at the very moment or at filed, and an opportunity has been given to the accused
the very instance of the commission of the act of to be heard by himself and counsel. Moreover, settled is
contumely. the rule that a contempt proceeding is not a civil action,
but a separate proceeding of a criminal nature in which

the court exercises limited jurisdiction. Thus, the modes facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or
of procedure and the rules of evidence in contempt sympathies.
proceedings are assimilated as far as practicable to
those adapted to criminal prosecutions. 3) In the instant case, respondents’ comments
seem to be what the they claim to be an expression of
MARANTAN vs. DIOKNO their opinion that their loved ones were murdered by
G.R. No. 205956 February 12, 2014 Marantan. This is merely a reiteration of their position
MENDOZA, J.: in G.R. No. 199462, which precisely calls the Court to
upgrade the charges from homicide to murder. The
1) The sub judice rule restricts comments and Court detects no malice on the face of the said
disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in statements. The mere restatement of their argument in
order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the their petition cannot actually, or does not even tend to,
court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A influence the Court.
violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect
contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of 4) The "clear and present danger" rule means that
Court, which reads: “x x x a person guilty of any of the the evil consequence of the comment must be "extremely
following acts may be punished for indirect contempt: x serious and the degree of imminence extremely high"
x x (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or before an utterance can be punished. There must exist a
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the clear and present danger that the utterance will harm
administration of justice”. the administration of justice. Freedom of speech should
not be impaired through the exercise of the power of
2) For a comment to be considered as contempt of contempt of court unless there is no doubt that the
court "it must really appear" that such does impede, utterances in question make a serious and imminent
interfere with and embarrass the administration of threat to the administration of justice. It must constitute
justice. What is, thus, sought to be protected is the all- an imminent, not merely a likely, threat.
important duty of the court to administer justice in the
decision of a pending case. The specific rationale for the CAPITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. vs.
sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of SANCHEZ
fact and law should be immune from every extraneous G.R. No. 182738 February 24, 2014
influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence PERALTA, J.:
produced in court; and that the determination of such

1) A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance claims or defenses; striking out pleadings or parts
to a lawful order of a court or commits any improper thereof; staying further proceedings.
conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice may 3) Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 71 provide the
be punished for indirect contempt. In particular, Section procedure to be followed in case of indirect contempt.
4, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules states that, in addition to First, there must be an order requiring the respondent
a possible treatment of a party as non-suited or as in to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt.
default, the sanctions prescribed in the Rules for failure Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity
to avail of, or refusal to comply with, the modes of to comment on the charge against him. Third, there
discovery shall apply. Under Section 3, Rule 29 of the must be a hearing and the court must investigate the
Rules, if a party or an officer or managing agent of a charge and consider respondent’s answer. Finally, only
party refuses to obey an order to produce any document if found guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.
or other things for inspection, copying, or photographing
or to permit it to be done, the court may make such 4) As to the second mode of initiating indirect
orders as are just. The enumeration of options given to contempt proceedings, the Rules prescribe that a
the court under Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules is not verified petition which has complied with the
exclusive, as shown by the phrase "among others." requirements of initiatory pleadings must be filed. Thus,
where there is a verified petition to cite someone in
2) Thus, to ensure that availment of the modes of contempt of court, courts have the duty to ensure that
discovery is otherwise untrammeled and efficacious, the all the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings have
law imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses been complied with. It behooves them too to docket the
to make discovery, such as dismissing the action or petition, and to hear and decide it separately from the
proceeding or part thereof, or rendering judgment by main case, unless the presiding judge orders the
default against the disobedient party; contempt of court, consolidation of the contempt proceedings and the main
or arrest of the party or agent of the party; payment of action.
the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in
obtaining a court order to compel discovery; taking the OCA vs. CUSTODIO
matters inquired into as established in accordance with G.R. No. 199825 July 26, 2017
the claim of the party seeking discovery; refusal to allow LEONEN, J.:
the disobedient party support or oppose designated

1) Contempt of court is willful disobedience to judiciously and sparingly, not for retaliation or
the court and disregard or defiance of its authority, vindictiveness.
justice, and dignity. It constitutes conduct which "tends
to bring the authority of the court and the 2) The power to punish for contempt of court is
administration of law into disrepute or in some manner exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive
to impede the due administration of justice" or "interfere principle, and only occasionally should a court invoke
with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses its inherent power in order to retain that respect without
during litigation." which the administration of justice must falter or fail.
Judges we ought to exercise their power to punish
2) All courts are given the inherent power to contempt judiciously and sparingly, with utmost
punish contempt. This power is an essential necessity to restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing the power
preserve order in judicial proceedings and to enforce the for the correction and preservation of the dignity of the
due administration of justice and the court's mandates, Court, not for retaliation or vindictiveness.
orders, and judgments. It safeguards the respect due to
the courts and, consequently, ensures the stability of SPS. PARTOZA vs. SANTAMARIA
the judicial institution. Re: CA-G.R. CV No. 96282 June 11, 2018
DEL CASTILLO, J.
CAUSING vs. JUDGE DELA ROSA
OCA IPI No. 17-4663-RTJ March 7, 2018 1) A lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with the
CAGUIOA, J.: court’s orders not only betrayed a recalcitrant flaw in his
character; it also underscored his disrespect towards
1) The Court finds no merit in Complainants' the court’s lawful orders for which he may be cited and
allegation that respondent should have first required punished for contempt. Lawyers are particularly called
Atty. Causing to show cause for his act of posting upon to obey court orders and processes, and this
matters pertaining to the pending criminal case on the deference is underscored by the fact that willful
internet. Respondent Judge Dela Rosa's act of referring disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to
the matter to the IBP, an independent tribunal who punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions
exercises disciplinary powers over lawyers, was a as well. In the instant case case, respondent lawyer
prudent and proper action to take for a trial court judge. deliberately ignored five CA Resolutions, thereby
Judges' power to punish contempt must be exercised violating his duty to observe and maintain the respect
due the courts.


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DOCTRINES 1) There is a distinction between "residence" for

purposes of election laws and "residence" for purposes of
A. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE fixing the venue of actions such as settlement of estate.
In election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are treated
1) Venue vs. Jurisdiction (R73) as synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent
2) Kinds of Settlement residence to which when absent, one has the intention
a. Extrajudicial of returning. For purposes of fixing venue under the
1. By agreement Rules of Court, however, the "residence" of a person is
2. By self-adjudication his personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual
b. Judicial residence or place of abode, which may not
1. Summary (R74) necessarily be his legal residence or domicile
2. By petition (R75 to R90) provided he resides therein with continuity and
a. Intestate consistency. Hence, it is possible that a person may
b. Testate have his residence in one place and domicile in another.
3. By partition (R69)
3) The administrator or executor GARCIA-QUIAZON vs. BELEN
a. Special and regular (R80) G.R. No. 189121 July 31, 2013
b. Bonds (R81) PEREZ, J.:
c. Powers and duties (R84)
d. Accountability (R85) 1) For purposes of fixing venue in actions,
4) Claims against the estate (86) including settlement of estate, "resides" should be
5. Actions by/against administrator/executor (R87) understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
6. Distribution and partition (R90) personal, actual or physical habitation of a person,
actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical
presence in a place and actual stay thereat. Venue for
ordinary civil actions and that for special proceedings
EDGAR SAN LUIS vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS have one and the same meaning. As thus defined,
G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 "residence," in the context of venue provisions, means
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: nothing more than a person’s actual residence or
place of abode, provided he resides therein with
continuity and consistency.

2) The foregoing rule is subject to the following

AGTARAP vs. AGTARAP exceptions, to wit:
G.R. No. 177099 June 8, 2011
NACHURA, J.: a) The probate court may provisionally pass
upon the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the
inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to
1) The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the the final determination of ownership in a separate
trial court, either as a probate or an intestate court, action.
relates only to matters having to do with the probate
of the will and/or settlement of the estate of b) If the interested parties are all heirs to the
deceased persons, but does not extend to the estate, or the question is one of collation or
determination of questions of ownership that arise advancement, or the parties consent to the
during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and
rule is that such court merely exercises special and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the
limited jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate probate court is competent to resolve issues on
court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether ownership.
testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title
to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and 3) The jurisdiction of the probate court, however,
which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by extends to matters incidental or collateral to the
virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the
by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. determination of the status of each heir and
All that the said court could do as regards said whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or
properties is to determine whether or not they exclusive property of the deceased spouse.
should be included in the inventory of properties to
be administered by the administrator. If there is no SUNTAY III vs. COJUANGCO-SUNTAY
dispute, there poses no problem, but if there is, then the G.R. No. 183053 October 10, 2012
parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties PEREZ, J.:
have to resort to an ordinary action before a court
exercising general jurisdiction for a final 1) The paramount consideration in the
determination of the conflicting claims of title. appointment of an administrator over the estate of a
decedent is the prospective administrator’s interest

in the estate. This is the same consideration which (d) To have all interested persons satisfied and
Section 6, Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the the representatives to work in harmony for the best
order of preference in the appointment of administrator interests of the estate; and
for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is that
those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and (e) When a person entitled to the administration
economical administration of the estate, or, in the of an estate desires to have another competent
alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, person associated with him in the office.
improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest
interest and most influential motive to administer 3) The "next of kin" is defined as, those
the estate correctly. Given that the rule speaks of an persons who are entitled, under the statute of
order of preference, the person to be appointed distribution, to the decedent’s property. The "the
administrator of a decedent’s estate must demonstrate nearest of kin, whose interest in the estate is more
not only an interest in the estate, but an interest preponderant, is preferred in the choice of
therein greater than any other candidate. administrator. ‘Among members of a class the strongest
ground for preference is the amount or preponderance of
2) The appointment of co-administrators is interest. As between next of kin, the nearest of kin is
justified for any of the following reasons: to be preferred.’"
(a) To have the benefits of their judgment and 4) In Sioca v. Garcia, it was held that
perhaps at all times to have different interests unsuitableness for appointment as administrator
represented; may consist in adverse interest of some kind or
hostility to those immediately interested in the
(b) Where justice and equity demand that estate.
opposing parties or factions be represented in the
management of the estate of the deceased; 5) The surviving spouse is preferred to be
appointed administrator than any other next of kin
(c) Where the estate is large or, from any cause, since she possesses not only the right of succession
an intricate and perplexing one to settle; over a portion of the exclusive property of the
decedent but also a share in the conjugal
partnership for which the good or bad administration of
the estate may affect not just the fruits but more

critically the naked ownership thereof. Given this special Article 188 of the Civil Code, provides that during the
status of a surviving spouse, there must be a very liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the deceased's
strong case to justify his/her exclusion from the legitimate spouse and children, regardless of their
administration. age, civil status or gainful employment, are entitled
to provisional support from the funds of the estate.
JOSE C. LEE vs. RTC OF QC The law is rooted on the fact that the right and duty to
G.R. No. 146006 February 23, 2004 support, especially the right to education, subsist
CORONA, J.: even beyond the age of majority.
1) An heir can sell his right, interest, or 2) Grandchildren are not entitled to
participation in the property under administration provisional support from the funds of the decedent's
under Art. 533 of the Civil Code which provides that estate. The law clearly limits the allowance to "widow
possession of hereditary property is deemed and children" and does not extend it to the deceased's
transmitted to the heir without interruption from grandchildren, regardless of their minority or incapacity.
the moment of death of the decedent. However, an
heir can only alienate such portion of the estate that 3) In settlement of estate proceedings, the
may be allotted to him in the division of the estate distribution of the estate properties can only be made:
by the probate or intestate court after final (1) after all the debts, funeral charges, expenses of
adjudication, that is, after all debtors shall have been administration, allowance to the widow, and estate
paid or the devisees or legatees shall have been given tax have been paid; or (2) before payment of said
their shares. This means that an heir may only sell obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives
his ideal or undivided share in the estate, not any a bond in a sum fixed by the court conditioned upon
specific property therein. the payment of said obligations within such time as
the court directs, or when provision is made to meet
ESTATE OF HILARIO RUIZ vs. CA those obligations.
G.R. No. 118671 January 29, 1996
PUNO, J.: UNION BANK vs. SANTIBAÑEZ
G.R. No. 149926 February 23, 2005
1) It is settled that allowances for support under CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Section 3 of Rule 83 should not be limited to the
"minor or incapacitated" children of the deceased.

1) In testate succession, there can be no valid 1) Section 7 of Rule 86 grants to the mortgage
partition among the heirs until after the will has creditor three distinct, independent and mutually
been probated. The law enjoins the probate of a will exclusive remedies that can be alternatively pursued
and the public requires it, because unless a will is by the mortgage creditor to recover his claim if the
probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, mortgage debtor dies, among them:
the right of a person to dispose of his property by will
may be rendered nugatory. The authentication of a (a) Waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt
will decides no other question than such as touch from the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim;
upon the capacity of the testator and the
compliance with those requirements or solemnities (b) Foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove
which the law prescribes for the validity of a will. any deficiency as an ordinary claim; and
2) The filing of a money claim against the (c) Rely on the mortgage exclusively,
decedent’s estate in the probate court is mandatory. foreclosing the same at any time before it is barred
This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the by prescription without right to file a claim for any
estate of the deceased by informing the executor or deficiency
administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling
him to examine each claim and to determine 2) The foregoing remedies are deemed
whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. alternative and not cumulative. Notably, an election of
The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For this
settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing
delivery of the property to the distributees, legatees, or of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the
heirs. `The law strictly requires the prompt complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage,
presentation and disposition of the claims against pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the 1997
the decedent's estate. Rules of Civil Procedure. As to extrajudicial
foreclosure, such remedy is deemed elected by the
HEIRS OF MAGLASANG vs. MBC mortgage creditor upon filing of the petition not
G.R. No. 171206 September 23, 2013 with any court of justice but with the Office of the
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made,
in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as
amended by Act No.4118.

1) Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code

3) The third remedy includes the option of extra- prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from
judicially foreclosing the mortgage under Act No. acquiring property involved in litigation within the
3135. If the last mode of foreclosure is adopted, the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. Said provision
creditor waives his right to recover any deficiency from reads:
the estate.
Article 1491. The following persons cannot
ERLINDA PILAPIL vs.HEIRS OF M. BRIONES acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
G.R. No. 150175 March 10, 2006 auction, either in person or through the mediation of
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: another: x x x x
1) The only instance where a party interested in a (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys,
probate proceeding may have an executed final clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
judgment in a settlement of estate proceeding be set officers and employees connected with the
aside is when such party has been left out by reason administration of justice, the property and rights in
of circumstances beyond his control or through litigation or levied upon an execution before the court
mistake or inadvertence not imputable to within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise
negligence. Even then, the better practice to secure their respective functions; this prohibition includes
relief is reopening of the same case by proper the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to
motion within the reglementary period, instead of an lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which
independent action the effect of which, if successful, may be the object of any litigation in which they may
would be for another court or judge to throw out a take part by virtue of their profession.
decision or order already final and executed and
reshuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed 2) The rationale advanced for the prohibition is
of. that public policy disallows the transactions in view
of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the
SABIDONG vs. SOLAS relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar
A.M. No. P-01-1448 June 25, 2013 control exercised by these persons. "In so providing,
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: the Code tends to prevent fraud, or more precisely, tends
not to give occasion for fraud, which is what can and
must be done."

For the prohibition to apply, the sale or interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or
assignment of the property must take place during the the question is one of collation or advancement, or
pendency of the litigation involving the property. the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction
Where the property is acquired after the termination by the probate court and the rights of third parties
of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article are not impaired. Its jurisdiction extends to matters
1491 of the Civil Code attaches. incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution
of the estate, such as the determination of the status
3) A thing is said to be in litigation not only if of each heir and whether property included in the
there is some contest or litigation over it in court, inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of
but also from the moment that it becomes subject to the deceased spouse.
the judicial action of the judge. A property forming
part of the estate under judicial settlement continues to 2) The determination of which properties
be subject of litigation until the probate court issues an should be excluded from or included in the
order declaring the estate proceedings closed and inventory of estate properties is well within the
terminated. The rule is that as long as the order for authority and discretion of the probate court. In
the distribution of the estate has not been complied making its determination, the probate court should act
with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed with circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding
closed and terminated. The probate court loses policy that it was best to include all properties in the
jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after possession of the administrator or were known to him to
the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate belong to the decedent rather than to exclude properties
delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. that could turn out in the end to be actually part of the
estate. As long as the probate court commits no patent
ARANAS vs. MERCADO grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected
G.R. No. 156407 January 15, 2014 as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty.
BERSAMIN, J.:
3) A transfer made in contemplation of death
1) The probate court is authorized to is one prompted by the thought that the transferor
determine the issue of ownership of properties for has not long to live and made in place of a
purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the testamentary disposition. The inventory to be made by
inventory to be submitted by the administrator, but its the administrator should include properties
determination shall only be provisional unless the transferred by the decedent in contemplation of

death. The fact that the properties that were dispose of the case but leaves something else to be
transferred in contemplation of death were already decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with
covered by Torrens titles in the name of the preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be
transferee could not be a valid basis for immediately held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain
excluding them from the inventory. The whether or not an order or a judgment is
circumstances surrounding the execution of the transfer interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment
document must be considered. leave something to be done in the trial court with
respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order
4) The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
the inventory and appraisal of the estate of the decedent
is "to aid the court in revising the accounts and SILVERIO, SR. vs. SILVERIO, JR.
determining the liabilities of the executor or the G.R. Nos. 208828-29 August 13, 2014
administrator, and in making a final and equitable VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to
facilitate the administration of the estate." Hence,
the probate court that presides over the 1) The probate court can declare null and void the
administration of an estate is vested with wide disposition of the property under administration if the
discretion on the question of what properties should same was effected without authority from said court.
be included in the inventory. In Peralta v. Peralta, it It is the probate court that has the power to
was held that the appellate court cannot impose its authorize and/or approve the sale (Section 4 and 7,
judgment in order to supplant that of the probate on the Rule 89), hence, a fortiori, it is said court that can
issue of which properties are to be included or excluded declare it null and void for as long as the proceedings
from the inventory in the absence of "positive abuse of had not been closed or terminated.
discretion".
2) Existing jurisprudence mandates that (1) any
5) The distinction between a final order and an disposition of estate property by an administrator or
interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes prospective heir pending final adjudication requires
of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a court approval and (2) any unauthorized disposition
particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to of estate property can be annulled by the probate
be done except to enforce by execution what the court court, there being no need for a separate action to
has determined, but the latter does not completely annul the unauthorized disposition.

SPS. BUTIONG vs. PLAZO recourse to an administration proceeding even if the

G.R. No. 187524 August 5, 2015 estate has no debts is sanctioned only if the heirs
PERALTA, J.: have good reasons for not resorting to an action for
partition. Where partition is possible, either in or out of
1) The general rule is that when a person dies court, the estate should not be burdened with an
intestate, or, if testate, failed to name an executor administration proceeding without good and compelling
in his will or the executor o named is incompetent, reasons.
or refuses the trust, or, fails to furnish the bond
required by the Rules of Court, then the decedent's
estate shall be judicially administered and the
competent court shall appoint a qualified
administrator the order established in Section 6 of Rule
78 of the Rules of Court. An exception to this rule,
however, is found in the aforequoted Section 1 of
Rule 4 wherein the heirs of a decedent, who left no
will and no debts due from the estate, may divide
the estate either extrajudicially or in an ordinary
action for partition without submitting the same for
judicial administration nor applying for the
appointment of an administrator by the court.
2) Section 1 of Rule 74, however, does not

preclude the heirs from instituting administration
proceedings, even if the estate has no· debts or
obligations, if they do not desire to resort for good
reasons to an ordinary action for partition. While
Section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among
themselves as they may see fit, or to resort to an
ordinary action for partition, the said provision does not
compel them to do so if they have good reasons to take a
different course of action. It should be noted that

ESCHEATS (R91) MALTOS v. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO

GR No. 172720 September 14, 2015
1. Definition LEONEN, J.:
2. Historical background and legal basis
3. Actions for reversion 1) The sale of a parcel of agricultural land
covered by a free patent during the five-year
ALVARICO vs. SOLA prohibitory period under the Public Land Act is null
G.R. No. 138953 June 6, 2002 and void. While reversion of the parcel of land under
QUISUMBING, J.: Section 101 of the Public Land Act is proper, it is not
automatic. The Office of the Solicitor General must
1) Only the State can institute reversion first file an action for reversion.
proceedings under Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act.
Thus: 2) Under Section 101 of the Public Land Act, a
private individual may not bring an action for reversion
Sec. 101. - All actions for reversion to the or any action which would have the effect of canceling a
Government of lands of the public domain or free patent and the corresponding certificate of title
improvements thereon shall be instituted by the issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered
Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, thereby will again form part of the public domain. Only
in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead
of the Philippines. may do so. Since the title originated from a grant by the
government, its cancellation is a matter between the
In other words, a private individual may not grantor and the grantee.
bring an action for reversion or any action which
would have the effect of canceling a free patent and GURDIANSHIP (R92 TO R97) as amended by A. M.
the corresponding certificate of title issued on the No. 03-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003
basis thereof, such that the land covered thereby
will again form part of the public domain. Only the 1) Venue and jurisdiction (R92)
Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may 2) Appointment, kinds, qualifications (93)
do so. Where a person’s title originated from a grant by 3) Requirement (R94)
the government, its cancellation is a matter between the 4) Power and duties (R96)
grantor and the grantee. 5) Termination (R97)

possession of, and exercise control over the ward’s

property, both real and personal, it being recognized
GOYENA vs. LEDESMA-GUSTILO principle that the ward has no right to possession or
G.R. No. 147148 January 13, 2003 control of his property during the ward’s
CARPIO MORALES, J.: incompetency. That right to manage the ward's
estate carries with it the right to take possession
thereof and recover it from anyone who retains
1) As a rule, when it appears that the trial court it, and bring and defend such actions as may be
has exercised care and diligence in selecting the needful for this purpose. Thus, in bringing an action
guardian, and has given due consideration to the for unlawful detainer against persons occupying a
reasons for and against his action which are urged by property of the ward, the guardian was merely
the interested parties, his action should not be discharging the duty to attend to "the comfortable and
disturbed unless it is made very clear that he has suitable maintenance of the ward" explicitly imposed on
fallen into grievous error. her by Section 4 of Rule 96.
2) The rule is well-established that the

relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily
CANIZA vs. CA terminated by the death of either the guardian or
G.R. No. 110427 February 24, 1997 the ward.
NARVASA, C.J.:
NERI vs. HEIRS OF HADJI YUSOP UY
1) A general guardian of both the person and G.R. No. 194366 October 10, 2012
the estate of the ward appointed by a competent PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
court has full authority to take possession of the
ward’s property and to perform all other acts 1) A sale entered into by the father, acting as
necessary for the management thereof. By such a legal guardian, in behalf of his minor children
appointment, it becomes the guardian’s duty to care for without the proper judicial authority, unless
the ward's person, to attend to her physical and ratified by them upon reaching the age of majority,
spiritual needs, to assure her well-being, with right to is unenforceable in accordance with Articles 1317 and
custody of her person in preference to relatives and 1403(1) of the Civil Code which provide:
friends. It also becomes her right and duty to get

ART. 1317. No one may contract in the name of well-being, not that of the guardian. It is intended to
another without being authorized by the latter or unless preserve the ward’s property, as well as to render
he has by law a right to represent him. any assistance that the ward may personally require.
It has been stated that while custody involves
A contract entered into in the name of immediate care and control, guardianship
another by one who has no authority or legal indicates not only those responsibilities, but those
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, of one in loco parentis as well.
shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly
or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been 2) In a guardianship proceeding, the court may
executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting appoint a qualified guardian if the prospective ward is
party. proven to be a minor or an incompetent. A finding that
a person is incompetent, however, should be
ART. 1403. The following contracts are anchored on clear, positive and definite evidence.
unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
ABAD vs. BIASON
(1) Those entered into the name of another person G.R. No. 191993 December 5, 2012
by one who has been given no authority or legal REYES, J.:
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers; x x
x. 1) It is a well-established rule that the
relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily
terminated by the death of either the guardian or the
NILO OROPESA vs. CIRILO OROPESA ward. The death of the guardian during the pendency
G.R. No. 184528 April 25, 2012 of an appeal by certiorari in the SC assailing his
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: appointment as guardian by the trial court renders
the appeal moot and academic. It would be pointless
1) In Francisco v. Court of Appeals, it was held to delve into the propriety of the guardian’s appointment
that “guardianship is a trust relation of the most since the juridical tie between him and the ward has
sacred character, in which one person, called a already been dissolved. The appeal, regardless of its
"guardian" acts for another called the "ward" whom disposition, will not afford the petitioner, or anyone else
the law regards as incapable of managing his own for that matter, any substantial relief.
affairs. A guardianship is designed to further the ward’s

2) An issue or a case becomes moot and

academic when it ceases to present a justiciable
controversy, so that a determination of the issue would
be without practical use and value. In such cases, there
is no actual substantial relief to which a party would
be entitled and which would be negated by the
dismissal of the case.

TRUSTEES (R98) against Advent Capital and Belson for misuse of its
funds.
1. Parties
3) Advent Capital must file a separate action
2. Kinds/Classes for collection to recover the trust fees that it
allegedly earned and, with the trial court's
authorization if warranted, put the money in escrow
ADVENT CAP. & FIN. CORP. vs. ALCANTARA for payment to whoever it rightly belongs. Having
G.R. No. 183050 January 25, 2012 failed to collect the trust fees at the end of each calendar
ABAD, J.: quarter as stated in the contract, all it had against the
Alcantaras was a claim for payment which is a proper
1) The practice in the case of banks is that subject for an ordinary action for collection. It cannot
they automatically collect their management fees enforce its money claim by simply filing a motion in the
from the funds that their clients entrust to them for rehabilitation case for delivery of money belonging to the
investment or lending to others. Banks can freely do Alcantaras but in the possession of a third party.
this since it holds or has control of their clients' money
and since their trust agreement authorized the LANDBANK vs. PEREZ
automatic collection. If the depositor contests the G.R. No. 166884 June 13, 2012
deduction, his remedy is to bring an action to BRION, J.:
recover the amount he claims to have been illegally
deducted from his account. 1) Section 4 of P.D. 115 defines a trust receipt
transaction in this manner:
2) Advent Capital does not allege that Belson had
already deducted the management fees owing to it from Section 4. What constitutes a trust receipt
the Alcantaras' portfolio at the end of each calendar transaction. A trust receipt transaction, within the
quarter. Had this been done, it may be said that the meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and
money in Belson's possession would technically be that between a person referred to in this Decree as the
of Advent Capital. Belson would be holding such entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree
amount in trust for the latter. And it would be for the as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or
Alcantaras to institute an action in the proper court holds absolute title or security interests over certain
specified goods, documents or instruments, releases

the same to the possession of the entrustee upon refers to money under the obligation to deliver it
the latter's execution and delivery to the entruster (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold.
of a signed document called a "trust receipt" wherein The second is covered by the provision referring to
the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated merchandise received under the obligation to return
goods, documents or instruments in trust for the it (devolvera) to the owner.
entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the
goods, documents or instruments with the obligation 3) Under the Trust Receipts Law, intent to
to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to defraud is presumed when (1) the entrustee fails to
the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods covered
as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents by the trust receipt to the entruster; or (2) when the
or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not entrustee fails to return the goods under trust, if
otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and they are not disposed of in accordance with the
conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other terms of the trust receipts.
purposes substantially equivalent to any of the
following: 4) In all trust receipt transactions, both
obligations on the part of the trustee exist in the
1. In the case of goods or documents, (a) to sell alternative – the return of the proceeds of the sale or the
the goods or procure their sale; or (b) to manufacture or return or recovery of the goods, whether raw or
process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale: processed. When both parties enter into an
Provided, That, in the case of goods delivered under agreement knowing that the return of the goods
trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or subject of the trust receipt is not possible even
processing before its ultimate sale, the entruster without any fault on the part of the trustee, it is not
shall retain its title over the goods whether in its a trust receipt transaction penalized under Section
original or processed form until the entrustee has 13 of P.D. 115;In a transaction where the borrower is
complied fully with his obligation under the trust obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for the
receipt; or (c) to load, unload, ship or tranship or purchase of goods, the transaction is not a trust receipt
otherwise deal with them in a manner preliminary or transaction but a mere loan.
necessary to their sale.
2) There are two obligations in a trust receipt

transaction. The first is covered by the provision that

ADOPTION AND CUSTODY OF MINORS (R99 T0 not abandon his child may the petition for adoption
R100) be considered on its merits.
1. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA 8552) 2) The word "abandon'' means to forsake
2. Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 (RA 8043) entirely, to forsake or renounce utterly. The
3. Rule of Adoption (A. M. No. 02-6-02-SC dated July dictionaries trace this word to the root idea of "putting
31, 2002, effective August 22, 2002 under a ban." The emphasis is on the finality and
a. Who may adopt (S4) publicity with which a thing or body is thus put in the
b. Who may be adopted (S5) control of another, hence, the meaning of giving up
c. Venue and Jurisdiction (S20) absolutely, with intent never to resume or claim one's
rights or interests. In reference to abandonment of a
HERBERT CANG vs. COURT OF APPEALS child by his parent, the act of abandonment imports
G.R. No. 105308 September 25, 1998 "any conduct of the parent which evinces a settled
ROMERO, J.: purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish
all parental claims to the child." It means "neglect or
1) The allegation of abandonment by the father refusal to perform the natural and legal obligations
of his child in the petition for adoption, even absent the of care and support which parents owe their
written consent of father, sufficiently vests the trial children."
court with jurisdiction since abandonment of the
child by his natural parents is one of the VDA. DE JACOB vs. CA
circumstances under which our statutes and G.R. No. 135216 August 19, 1999
jurisprudence dispense with the requirement of PANGANIBAN, J.:
written consent to the adoption of their minor
children. However, in cases where the father opposes
the adoption primarily because his consent thereto 1) The testimony of the judge who purportedly
was not sought, the matter of whether he had issued the Order of Adoption that he does not remember
abandoned his child becomes a proper issue for having issued the order and that the signature
determination. The issue of abandonment by the father appearing thereon is not his, concurred in by a
is a preliminary issue that an adoption court must first disinterested handwriting expert, is sufficient
confront. Only upon, failure of the father/oppositor evidence to disprove the adoption.
to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he did

REPUBLIC vs. HON. HERNANDEZ until the court orders otherwise. Changing the given or
G.R. No. 117209 February 9, 1996 proper name of a person as recorded in the civil
REGALADO, J.: register is a substantial change in one's official or
legal name and cannot be authorized without a
1) Clearly, the law allows the adoptee, as a judicial order.
matter of right and obligation, to bear the surname
of the adopter, upon issuance of the decree of IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE
adoption. It is the change of the NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA
adoptee's surname to follow that of the adopter HONORATO B. CATINDIG, petitioner.
which is the natural and necessary consequence of a G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005
grant of adoption and must specifically be contained SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
in the order of the court, in fact, even if not prayed for
by petitioner. 1) An illegitimate child, upon adoption by her
natural father, may use the surname of her natural
2) However, the given or proper name, also mother as her middle name.
known as the first or Christian name, of the adoptee
must remain as it was originally registered in the Adoption is defined as the process of making a
civil register. The creation of an adoptive relationship child, whether related or not to the adopter, possess in
does not confer upon the adopter a license to change the general, the rights accorded to a legitimate child. It is a
adoptee's registered Christian or first name. The juridical act, a proceeding in rem which creates
automatic change thereof, premised solely upon the between two persons a relationship similar to that
adoption thus granted, is beyond the purview of a which results from legitimate paternity and filiation.
decree of adoption. Neither is it a mere incident in nor The modern trend is to consider adoption not merely as
an adjunct of an adoption proceeding, such that a an act to establish a relationship of paternity and
prayer therefor furtively inserted in a petition for filiation, but also as an act which endows the child
adoption, as in this case, cannot properly be granted. with a legitimate status.
3) The name of the adoptee as recorded in the 2) One of the effects of adoption is that the
civil register should be used in the adoption proceedings adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopter
in order to vest the court with jurisdiction to hear and for all intents and purposes pursuant to Article 189 of
determine the same, and shall continue to be so used the Family Code and Section 17, Article V of RA 8552.

Being a legitimate child by virtue of her adoption, it no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by
follows that the adoptee is entitled to all the rights her natural father to use, as middle name her
provided by law to a legitimate child without mother’s surname, there is no reason why she
discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear should not be allowed to do so.
the surname of her father and her mother, as discussed
above. This is consistent with the intention of the IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE AND
members of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM,
as earlier discussed. In fact, it is a Filipino custom that MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.
the initial or surname of the mother should immediately G.R. Nos. 168992-93 May 21, 2009
precede the surname of the father. Additionally, the CARPIO, J.:
adoptee’s continued use of her mother’s surname as her
middle name will maintain her maternal lineage. It is to 1) The husband and wife shall jointly adopt,
be noted that Article 189(3) of the Family Code and except in the following cases: (i) if one spouse seeks to
Section 18, Article V of RA 8552 provide that the adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or (ii)
adoptee remains an intestate heir of his/her if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate
biological parent. Hence, Stephanie can well assert or son/daughter: Provided, however, That the other spouse
claim her hereditary rights from her natural mother in has signified his/her consent thereto; or (iii) if the
the future. spouses are legally separated from each other.
3) Adoption statutes, being humane and The use of the word "shall" in the above-
salutary, should be liberally construed to carry out quoted provision means that joint adoption by the
the beneficent purposes of adoption. The interests husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in
and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and consonance with the concept of joint parental authority
paramount consideration, hence, every reasonable over the child which is the ideal situation. As the child
intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate
these noble and compassionate objectives of the law. child, it is but natural to require the spouses to
adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony
4) Article 10 of the New Civil Code provides that: between the spouses.
"In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of
laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity.
right and justice to prevail." Hence, since there is Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions for

adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the G.R. No. 188801 October 15, 2014
petitions for adoption were filed only by petitioner LEONEN, J.:
herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial
court was correct in denying the petitions for adoption 1) Under Article III, Section 7 of Republic Act No.
on this ground. 8552, a spouse must first obtain the consent of the
other spouse if he/she seeks to adopt his/her own
2) The fact that the husband who did not join the illegitimate child. The provision is mandatory. As a
adoption gave his consent to the adoption as shown in general rule, the husband and wife must file a joint
his Affidavit of Consent does not suffice. There are petition for adoption. The rationale for this is stated
certain requirements that the husband must comply in In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim:
being an American citizen. He must meet the
qualifications set forth in Section 7 of RA 8552 such The use of the word "shall" in the above-
as: (1) he must prove that his country has diplomatic quoted provision means that joint adoption
relations with the Republic of the Philippines; (2) he by the husband and the wife is mandatory.
must have been living in the Philippines for at least This is in consonance with the concept of
three continuous years prior to the filing of the joint parental authority over the child which
application for adoption; (3) he must maintain such is the ideal situation. As the child to be
residency until the adoption decree is entered; (4) he adopted is elevated to the level of a
has legal capacity to adopt in his own country; and legitimate child, it is but natural to require
(5) the adoptee is allowed to enter the adopter’s the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also
country as the latter’s adopted child. None of these insures harmony between the spouses.
qualifications were shown and proved during the trial.
The law provides for several exceptions to the
The requirements on residency and certification general rule, as in a situation where a spouse seeks to
of the alien’s qualification to adopt cannot likewise be adopt his or her own children born out of wedlock. In
waived pursuant to Section 7. The adoptees are not this instance, joint adoption is not necessary. However,
relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity the spouse seeking to adopt must first obtain the
or affinity of any of the spouses. Neither are the consent of his or her spouse.
adoptees the legitimate children of the wife.
2) Article III, Section 9 of Republic Act No.
CASTRO vs. GREGORIO 8552 also requires the written consent of the

adopter’s children if they are 10 years old or older.

The consent of the adopter’s other children is
necessary as it ensures harmony among the
prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other
children on notice that they will have to share their
parent’s love and care, as well as their future legitimes,
with another person.
3) In an adoption proceeding, if the trial court

fails to personally serve notice on the petitioner’s
spouse and legitimate child of the proceedings, it
never validly acquires jurisdiction.
BARTOLOME vs. SSS

G.R. No. 192531 November 12, 2014
VELASCO, JR., J.:
1) When a child is adopted, his biological

parent’s parental authority over him is severed.
However, if the adopter dies at the time when the
adopted child is a minor, parental authority over
him reverts to his biological parents. This is
consistent with case law that adoption is a personal
relationship and that there are no collateral relatives by
virtue of adoption. Such being the case, no one is left
to care for the minor adopted child except the
biological parents.

It is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of

HABEAS CORPUS (R102) ancient origin, the great object of which is the liberation
of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient
ILUSORIO vs. BILDNER cause. It is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is
G.R. No. 139789 May 12, 2000 wrongfully prevented from exercising legal custody over
PARDO, J.: another person.
1) No court is empowered as a judicial authority The essential object and purpose of the writ of
to compel a husband to live with his wife. Coverture habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom
corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other mesne if such restraint is illegal.
process. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and
is best left to the man and woman’s free choice. SERAPIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 148468 January 28, 2003
The husband, although 86 years of age, was of CALLEJO, SR., J.:
sound mind and was therefore possessed with the
capacity to make choices, such the choice of his 1) The general rule is that habeas corpus does not
residence and the people he opts to see or live with. The lie where the person alleged to be restrained of his
choices he made may not appeal to some of his family liberty is in the custody of an officer under process
members but these are choices which exclusively belong issued by a court which had jurisdiction to issue the
to him. The husband made it clear to the court that he same, specially if the person is under detention
was not prevented from leaving his house or seeing pursuant to the order of arrest issued by the court after
people. Since there was no true restraint on his liberty, the filing of information and after he voluntarily
the writ of habeas corpuz is not a proper remedy. surrendered to the authorities upon learning that a
warrant for his arrest had been issued. The general rule
2) Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person applies because the delay in the hearing of accused’s
detaining another, commanding him to produce the petition for bail was not due to the fault of the
body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, prosecution or the court.
with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to
do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge The ruling in Moncupa vs. Enrile that habeas
awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. corpus will lie where the deprivation of liberty which was

initially valid has become arbitrary in view of deprived of his liberty, or in which the rightful custody
subsequent developments that were not due the of any person is withheld from the person entitled to it.
accused’s fault. Its essential object and purpose is to inquire into all
manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person
2) The arraignment of an accused is not a from it if such restraint is illegal. The singular function
prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on a petition for of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure
bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as the basic freedom of physical liberty.
he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or
voluntary surrender. In view of the foregoing, if the person being
detained has been released upon order of the court, the
3) The filing by the accused of an application for pending petition for writ of habeas corpus should be
bail and a motion to quash can go hand-in-hand, the dismissed for having moot.
two reliefs not being necessarily antithetical to each
other. MANGILA vs. PANGILINAN
G.R. No. 160739 July 17, 2013
4) When the appellation of the crime charged in BERSAMIN, J.:
the information does not exactly correspond to the
actual crime constituted by the criminal acts described 1) When a person has been arrested and detained
in the information to have been committed by the by virtue of the order lawfully issued by the court, the
accused, the description of the said criminal acts and writ of habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy to
not the technical name of the crime supplied by the relieve him from the restraint on his liberty. This is
public prosecutor prevails. because the restraint, being lawful and pursuant to a
court process, could not be inquired into through
habeas corpus.
SANGCA vs. CITY PROSEC. OF CEBU 2) The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to
G.R. No. 175864 June 8, 2007 inquire into the legality of the detention, and, if the
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: detention is found to be illegal, to require the release of
the detainee. Equally well-settled however, is that the
1) A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the
illegal confinement or detention in which any person is writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an

officer under process issued by a court or judge with G.R. No. 210636 July 28, 2014
jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court VELASCO, JR., J.:
of record.
1) 1) A petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be
3) As a general rule, a writ of habeas corpus will filed in the RTC or Family Court of any province or city
not be granted where relief may be had or could have of the judicial region where the writ is sought to be
been procured by resort to another general remedy. If a enforced. On the other hand, a petition for custody of
person is detained by virtue of a warrant of arrest, minors under Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC shall
which is allegedly invalid, the remedy available to the be filed with the Family Court of the province or city
detained person is not a petition for habeas corpus but where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be
a petition to quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for found.
a reinvestigation of the case.
4) Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of

error; nor intended as substitute for the trial court’s
function. It cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or
writ of error. The writ cannot be used to investigate and 2) Service of summons, to begin with, is not
consider questions of error that might be raised relating required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under Rule
to procedure or on the merits. The inquiry in a habeas 102 of the Rules of Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. The
corpus proceeding is addressed to the question of writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable
whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for to a summons in ordinary civil actions, in that, by
any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily service of said writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over
granted where the law provides for other remedies in the the person of the respondent.
regular course, and in the absence of exceptional
circumstances. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO v. WARDEN
granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial GR No. 197597, Apr 08, 2015
must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted LEONEN, J.:
before resorting to the writ where exceptional
circumstances are extant. 1) If the person arrested and detained is not the
person charged in the information and named in the
TUJANMILITANTE vs. CADA-EAPERA warrant of arrest, he was in effect arrested without a

warrant and detained without a lawful process or an

order of the court. He may, therefore, properly avail Between the issuance of the writ and the final
himself of the writ of habeas corpus. decision on the petition for its issuance, it is the
issuance of the writ that is essential. The issuance of the
2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may writ sets in motion the speedy judicial inquiry on the
be made through a petition filed SC or any of its legality of any deprivation of liberty. Courts shall
members, the Court of Appeals or any of its members in liberally issue writs of habeas corpus even if the petition
instances authorized by law, or the Regional Trial Court for its issuance "on its face is devoid of merit." Although
or any of its presiding judges. The court or judge grants the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be
the writ and requires the officer or person having suspended in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when the
custody of the person allegedly restrained of liberty to public safety requires it, the writ itself may not be
file a return of the writ. A hearing on the return of the suspended.
writ is then conducted.
5) The rule is, that if a person alleged to be
The return of the writ may be heard by a court restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
apart from that which issued the writ. Should the court under process issued by a court or judge, and that the
issuing the writ designate a lower court to which the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or
writ is made returnable, the lower court shall proceed to make the order, or if such person is charged before any
decide the petition of habeas corpus. By virtue of the court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed. In
designation, the lower court "acquires the power and such cases, persons restrained under a lawful process
authority to determine the merits of the petition for or order of the court must pursue the orderly course of
habeas corpus”. Therefore, the decision on the petition trial and exhaust the usual remedies. This ordinary
is a decision appealable to the court that has appellate remedy is to file a motion to quash the information or
jurisdiction over decisions of the lower court. the warrant of arrest.
3) The writ of habeas corpus is different from the

final decision on the petition for the issuance of the writ. LEOSIDA vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR
It is the writ that commands the production of the body G.R. No. 130277 May 9, 2002
of the person allegedly restrained of his or her liberty. PUNO, J.:
On the other hand, it is in the final decision where a
court determines the legality of the restraint.

1) Even substantial errors in a civil registry may are, first, that notice by publication shall be made under
be corrected and the true facts established under Rule Section 4 and, second, that all persons who have or
108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall
themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. be made parties to the proceeding under Section 3. The
failure to implead an indispensable party, however, may
The proceedings under Rule 108 may either be be cured by notice by publication under Section 4 of
summary or adversary in nature. If the correction Rule 108.
sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then
the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the 2) A petition for correction under Rule 108 is an
rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or action in rem, an action against a thing and not against
nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the
procedure to be adopted is adversarial. parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem
proceeding is validated essentially through publication.
An appropriate adversary proceeding is one where Publication is notice to the whole world that the
the trial court conducts a trial where all relevant facts proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who
are fully and properly developed, where opposing are might be minded to make an objection of any sort
given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case, against the right sought to be established. It is the
and where the evidence are thoroughly weighed and publication of such notice that brings in the whole world
considered. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 108 are the as a party in the case and vests the court with
pertinent provisions that govern adversary proceedings. jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
In Re: Petition for Change of Name of

Julian Lim Carulasan Wang
REPUBLIC vs. KHO GR No 159966 30 March 2005
G.R. No. 170340 June 29, 2007 TINGA, J.:
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
a) The State has an interest in the names borne
1) Substantial errors, such as those pertaining to by individuals for purposes of identification. For this
civil status, citizenship and dates of birth of a person reason, a change of name is a privilege and not a right.
may be corrected in an adversary proceeding under Rule Before a person can be authorized to change his name
108. Two of the requisites for an adversary proceeding given him either in his certificate of birth or civil

registry, he must show proper and reasonable cause, 6) When the surname causes embarrassment and
or any compelling reason which may justify such there is no showing that the desired change of name
change. The question of proper and reasonable cause is was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name
left to the sound discretion of the court. would prejudice public interest.
In the instant case, the petitioner, a minor, BRAZA vs. CIVIL REG. NEG. OCC.
prayed that his middle name be dropped because in G.R. No. 181174 December 4, 2009
Singapore where he and his parents intend to live CARPIO MORALES, J.:
persons don’t carry middle names, asserting that this
change would spare him possible discrimination. The SC 1) In Rule 108 proceeding, the court may not
ruled this was not a proper and reasonable cause for nullify marriage on the ground that it is bigamous, nor
change of name. The following were considered by the may it impugn the filiation of a person. The validity of a
SC as valid grounds for change of name: marriage as well as legitimacy and filiation can be
questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the
1) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or proper party, and not through collateral attack such as
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; a petition for correction of entry under Rule 108.
SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC

2) When the change results as a legal
G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007
consequence, as in legitimation;
CORONA, J.:
3) When the change will avoid confusion;

1) The statutes define who may file petitions for
change of first name and for correction or change of
4) When one has continuously used and been entries in the civil registry, where they may be filed,
known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be
unaware of alien parentage; presented and what procedures shall be observed. If the
legislature intends to confer on a person who has
5) A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his
erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and name and sex to conform with his reassigned sex, it has
without prejudicing anybody; and to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turn
governing the conferment of that privilege.

Since there is as of now no law allowing a person surgical excision of the testes; penile skin inversion
to change his name and sex to conform with sex vaginoplasty is the plastic surgery of the vagina, clitoral
reassignment he has undergone, a petition for this hood reconstruction and augmentation; mammoplasty
purpose filed under Rule 103 or Rule 108 or under R. A. is the surgical enhancement of the size and shape of the
No. 9048 must be denied. breasts.
2) Before a person can legally change his given REPUBLIC vs. CAGANDAHAN
name, he must satisfy two requisites, to wit: GR No. 166676 Sep 12, 2008
QUISUMBING, J.:
(1) he must have proper or reasonable cause or
any compelling reason justifying the change of 1) Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) or
name; and “intersexuality” is the condition of a person who cannot
be classified as either male or female because he has sex
(2) he must show that he will be prejudiced by chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex
the use of his true and official name. characteristics that are both male and female. In other
words, a person with intersex has biological
3) A petition for cancellation or correction of entry characteristics of both male and female sexes.
in the civil registry shall be filed in the RTC of the city or 3) A person with intersex anatomy deserves to be
province where the corresponding civil registry is given the choice of what path to take with regards to his
located. sexual development and maturation. In the absence of
evidence that he is an "incompetent", or that classifying
3) There are people whose preferences and him as a male or female will harm other members of
orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly society, his petition that his sex in his record of birth be
recognized parameters of social convention and that, at changed from female to male and for his name to be
least for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the changed from that of a female to that of a male should
remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public be granted.
policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by
the courts.
REPUBLIC vs. UY
4) Penectomy is the surgical removal of the G.R. No. 198010 August 12, 2013
penis; bilateral oschiectomy or orchiectomy is the PERALTA, J.:

notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by

petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested
1) A person who files a petition under Rule 108 parties. Such failure was likewise excused where the
for the correction of his name and surname, his status interested parties themselves initiated the corrections
from “legitimate” to “illegitimate” and his citizenship proceedings; when there is no actual or presumptive
from “Chinese” to “Filipino” should implead not only the awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or
Local Civil Registrar but also his parents and siblings as when a party is inadvertently left out.
the persons who have interest and are bound to affected
by the changes or corrections sought.
REPUBLIC vs. OLAYBAR
The fact that the notice of hearing is published in G.R. No. 189538 February 10, 2014
a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof is PERALTA, J.:
served upon the State will not change the nature of the
proceedings from summary to the required adversarial 1) A woman who was made to appear to have
proceeding. married a man whom she did not know may file a
petition under Rule 108 for the correction of the entries
A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the in the marriage contract pertaining to the wife provided
Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of the proceeding is adversary under Sections 3 and 4 and
notices to different potential oppositors: (1) one given to that she impleads not only the civil registrar but also
the persons named in the petition and (2) another given her putative husband.
to other persons who are not named in the petition but
nonetheless may be considered interested or affected While Rule 108 cannot be availed of to determine
parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the the validity of marriage, the correction of the certificate
purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof for the
comply with the requirements of fair play and due reason that she never contracted the marriage and her
process to afford the person concerned the opportunity signature in the marriage contract is shown to have
to protect his interest if he so chooses. been forged may be allowed as the court would not be
declaring the marriage void as there was no marriage to
While there may be cases where the Court held speak of.
that the failure to implead and notify the affected or
interested parties may be cured by the publication of the

2) There is a question of law when the doubt or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial alterations.
arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected
which does not call for the examination of the probative and the true facts established provided the parties
value of the evidence of the parties. aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary proceedings.
TAPUZ vs. DEL ROSARIO

ONDE vs. CR OF LAS PIÑAS CITY G.R. No. 182484 June 17, 2008
G.R. No. 197174 September 10, 2014 BRION, J.:
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
1) The writ of amparo is intended to respond to

1) Under R.A. No. 9048, applications for change the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and
of first name as well as the correction of clerical or enforced disappearances as well as to address violations
typographical may now be made with administrative of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security. It is
officers. The intent and effect of said law is to exclude an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those
the change of first name and the correction of clerical or available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy
typographical errors from the coverage of Rules 103 supplemental to these Rules.
(Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns
and unless an administrative petition for change of that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it
name is first filed and subsequently denied. a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and
uncertain grounds.
2) Correcting the entry on a person’s birth
certificate that his parents were married on a certain 2) For an application for Writ of Habeas Data to
date at a certain place to "not married" is a substantial be granted, there must be concrete allegations of
correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Said unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy
correction is substantial as it will affect his legitimacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. Moreover,
and convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate there must be a showing of the need for information
one. Corrections of entries in the civil register including under the control of the authorities and the necessity or
those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation,

justification for the issuance of the writ, previous efforts person by a government official or organized groups or
made to secure information having failed. private individuals acting with the direct or indirect
acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State
CANLAS vs. NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASSO. to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person
G.R. No. 182795 June 5, 2008 concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
REYES, R.T., J.: liberty which places such persons outside the protection
of law.
1) The threatened demolition of a dwelling by
virtue of a final judgment of the court, which in this For a person to be covered by the privilege of the
case was affirmed with finality by the SC, is not writ of amparo, he must meet the threshold requirement
included among the enumeration of rights as stated in that his right to life, liberty and security is violated or
Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is threatened with an unlawful act or omission. If what is
made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming allegedly being violated or threatened with violation are
they still have any despite the final and executory the person’s property rights and not his right to life,
judgment adverse to them, does not constitute right to liberty and security, the writ of amparo is unavailing.
life, liberty and security. There is, therefore, no legal
basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo. RAZON vs. TAGITIS
G.R. No. 182498 December 3, 2009
CASTILLO vs. CRUZ BRION, J.:
G.R. No. 182165 November 25, 2009
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
1) The Writ of Amparo is a protective remedy
1) The writ of amparo is intended to address the against violations or threats of violation against the
intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced rights to life, liberty and security. It embodies, as a
disappearances,". Its coverage, in its present form, is remedy, the court’s directive to police agencies to
confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. undertake specified courses of action to address the
"Extralegal killings" are "killings committed without due disappearance of an individual. It does not determine
process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the
proceedings." On the other hand, "enforced disappearance; rather, it determines responsibility, or at
disappearances" are "attended by the following least accountability, for the enforced disappearance for
characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to

address the disappearance. Responsibility refers to the situation wherein the very police or military officers
extent the actors have been established by substantial alleged to be involved in an enforced disappearance or
evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action extralegal killing are, at the same time, the very ones
or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a tasked by law to investigate the matter. This is a unique
measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among characteristic of these proceedings and is the main
them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and source of the "evidentiary difficulties" faced by
civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper petitioners in amparo cases.
courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the
measure of remedies that should be addressed to those In view of the foregoing, the Amparo Rule placed a
who exhibited involvement in the enforced potent safeguard—requiring the "respondent who is a
disappearance without bringing the level of their public official or employee" to prove that no less than
complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or "extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws,
who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced rules and regulations is observed in the performance of
disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; duty." Thus, unless and until any of the public
or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the respondents is able to show to the satisfaction of the
burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of amparo court that extraordinary diligence has been
the enforced disappearance. In all these cases, the observed in their investigations, they cannot shed the
issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our allegations of responsibility for the enforced
primary goal of addressing the disappearance, so that disappearance and extra-legal killing despite the
the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and prevailing scarcity of evidence to that effect.
security are restored.
2) If extraordinary diligence, as required by the
ROXAS vs. GMA Amparo Rule, was not fully observed in the conduct of
G.R. No. 189155 September 7, 2010 the police and military investigations, further
PEREZ, J.: investigation under the norm of extraordinary diligence
should be ordered. This is required for the reason that
1) Ironic as it seems, part and parcel of the the right to security of the petitioner is continuously put
reason why a petitioner for a writ of amparo may find in jeopardy due to the deficient investigation that
difficulty in adducing substantial evidence proving her directly contributes to the delay in bringing the real
allegations of government complicity in her abduction perpetrators before the bar of justice.
and torture, may be attributed to the "awkward"

BURGOS vs. ESPERON

G.R. No. 178497 February 4, 2014
BRION, J.: 1) A petition for writ of amparo is not the proper
remedy of a mother to recover the custody of her
1) The role of the court in a writ of Amparo biological child from the DSWD to which she had
proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced voluntarily committed the child.
disappearance has taken place; to determine who is
responsible or accountable; and to define and impose The privilege of the writ of amparo is a remedy
the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. available to victims of extra-judicial killings and
It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature,
culpability for the disappearance. The amparo court regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act
may only determine responsibility, or at least or omission is a public official or employee or a private
accountability, for the enforced disappearance for individual. It is envisioned basically to protect and
purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to guarantee the right to life, liberty and security of
address the disappearance. Having determined the persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the
person or persons responsible for the enforced quality of life.
disappearance, the amparo court may recommend to the
proper authorities the filing of criminal cases against 2) The elements constituting "enforced
those found to be criminally liable. disappearances" as the term is statutorily defined in
Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851 are:
2) While the Rule on the Writ of Amparo accords
the court a wide latitude in crafting remedies to address (a) that there be an arrest, detention,
an enforced disappearance, it cannot, without violating abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
the nature of the writ of Amparo as a summary remedy
that provides rapid judicial relief, grant remedies that (b) that it be carried out by, or with the
would complicate and prolong rather than expedite the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the
investigations already ongoing. State or a political organization;
CARAM vs. SEGUI (c) that it be followed by the State or

G.R. No. 193652 August 5, 2014 political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

give information on the fate or whereabouts of the 2) The writ of habeas data is aimed at protecting
person subject of the amparo petition; and, an individual’s right to informational privacy. It is a
procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to abuse in the information age. The writ, however, will not
remove subject person from the protection of the issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized
law for a prolonged period of time. access to information about a person. Availment of the
writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right
to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or
security on the other. Without an actionable entitlement
VIVARES vs. ST. THERESE COLLEGE to the right to informational privacy, a habeas data
G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014 petition will not prosper.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
3) The phrase “engaged in gathering, collecting, or
storing data or information” does not necessarily mean
1) If there is no showing that a girl used privacy that the activity is done in pursuit of a business. It is
settings when she posted on Facebook photos of herself enough that the respondent is shown to have gathered,
while scantily clad, she does not have the right to collected or stored data or information about the
informational privacy the which may be protected from aggrieved party or his or her family. The respondent need
violation or threatened violation by the writ of habeas not be in the business of gathering, collecting or storing
data. If another person is able to access said photos from data. Whether the activity is done with regularity, as
the internet, said person cannot be held liable for when one pursues a business or just a personal endeavor
violating the girl’s right to privacy. for any other reason, is immaterial and such will not
prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity.
It is, thus, incumbent upon internet users to
exercise due diligence in their online dealings and MERALCO vs. LIM
activities and must not be negligent in protecting their G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010
rights. Equity serves the vigilant. Demanding relief from CARPIO MORALES, J.:
the courts requires that claimants themselves take
utmost care in safeguarding a right which they allege to 1) The writ of habeas data is not the proper
have been violated. These are indispensable. remedy of an employee who was complaining about her
transfer to another place of work effected by her

employee after an anonymous letter was circulated in video footage showing him having sex with another
her office denouncing her for lack of loyalty to the woman and fearing that the video may somehow find its
company. way to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public
consumption. For the writ to be granted, the petitioner
The habeas data will not issue to protect must show the connection between his privacy interest
purely property or commercial concerns nor when the and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security.
grounds invoked are vague or doubtful. Employment is The petitioner must also prove that respondent has
a property right under the due process clause of the committed some overt acts towards the end of violating
Constitution. If it was the petitioner’s concerns his right to privacy in life, liberty or security.
respecting the terms and conditions of employment
which prompted her to file the petition for habeas data DOLOT vs. PAJE
with the RTC, the same should be dismissed. G.R. No. 199199 August 27, 2013
Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably lodged by REYES, J.:
law with the NLRC and the labor arbiters.
1) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a
2) The habeas data rule is designed to protect the court in an environmental case directing any agency or
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
information of an individual. It is meant to provide a perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is
informational privacy, thus safeguarding the fully satisfied.
constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life,
liberty and security against abuse in this age of 2) Read Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for
information technology. Environmental Cases (A. M. No. 09-6-8-SC).
LEE vs. ILAGAN

G.R. No. 203254 October 8, 2014 PAJE vs. CASIÑO
PERLAS-BERNABE, G.R. No. 207257 February 3, 2015
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
1) The writ of habeas data is not availing to a
person whose complaint is that his estranged paramour 1) After complying with the proper administrative
took the digital memory from his camera containing a appeal process, recourse may be made to the courts in

accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of and experts in assessing the extent of the damage the
administrative remedies. However, as earlier discussed, cost of which it is willing to pay.
in exceptional cases, a writ of kalikasan may be availed
of to challenge defects in the ECC provided that (1) the RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED
defects are causally linked or reasonably connected to SEASCAPE TANON
an environmental damage of the nature and magnitude STRAIT vs. ANGELO REYES
contemplated under the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan, and G.R. No. 180771 April 21, 2015
(2) the case does not violate, or falls under an exception LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
to, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
and/or primary jurisdiction. 1) Even before the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases became effective, this Court had
ARIGO vs. SWIFT already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus
G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014 standi in environmental cases. In Oposa, we allowed the
VILLARAMA, JR, J.: suit to be brought in the name of generations yet
unborn "based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
1) This petition has become moot in the sense healthful ecology is concerned. Furthermore, we said
that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a
restrained had already been accomplished when right that does not even need to be stated in our
petitioners sought recourse from this Court. But insofar Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception
as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect of humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to
and rehabilitate the coral reef structure and marine refrain from impairing the environment.
habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident are
concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs In light of the foregoing, the need to give the
notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been
USS Guardian from the coral reef. However, we are eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino
mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce
governments both expressed readiness to negotiate and our environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the
discuss the matter of compensation for the damage Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition and
caused by the USS Guardian. The US Embassy has also not just in representation of the named cetacean
declared it is closely coordinating with local scientists species. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having

shown in their petition that there may be possible petitioners against respondents are the proper
violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident proceedings to ventilate and determine the individual
Marine Mammals, are therefore declared to possess the liability of respondents, if any, on their exercise of
legal standing to file this petition. corporate powers and the management of FPIC relative
to the dire environmental impact of the dumping of
2) Moreover, the reason cited by the petitioners petroleum products stemming from the leak in the
Stewards for including former President Macapagal- WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.
Arroyo in their petition, is not sufficient to implead her
as an unwilling co-petitioner. Impleading the former
President as an unwilling co-petitioner, for an act she
made in the performance of the functions of her office, is
contrary to the public policy against embroiling the
President in suits, "to assure the exercise of Presidential
duties and functions free from any hindrance or
distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of
the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of
the office holder's time, also demands undivided
WEST TOWER CONDO. vs. PHIL. IND. CORP.

G.R. No. 194239 June 16, 2015
VELASCO, JR., J.:
1) The Court will refrain from ruling on the

finding of the CA that the individual directors and
officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable due to the
explicit rule in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
cases that in a petition for a writ of kalikasan, the Court
cannot grant the award of damages to individual
petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases. As duly noted by
the CA, the civil case and criminal complaint filed by

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in
court, as when the public officer dies before he could be
CASE DOCTRINES ON CRIMINAL charged, the private person may be indicted alone.
PROCEDURE (Rules 110 to 127)
2) By posting bail and filing a motion for consolidation
PEOPLE vs. HENRY T. GO of the cases against him, an accused is deemed to have
G.R. No. 168539 March 25, 2014 submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The rule is
well settled that the act of an accused in posting bail or in
filing motions seeking affirmative relief from the court is
1) Once it is shown by probable cause after PI that a tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of
private person and a public officer have conspired to commit the court.
a crime (e. g. violation of R. A, No. 3019) the private person
may be properly charged, tried and convicted in the LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Sandiganbayan even if the public officer is not charged with G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999
him by reason of his death or some other reason.
1) For the SB to assume jurisdiction over the case, it is
Although the public officer has died and could no not enough that it be alleged in the Information that the
longer be charged with the private person, it does not mean accused public officer “committed the crime in relation to his
that the allegation of conspiracy between them could no office”. The Information must contain specific allegation of
longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already facts showing that the crime is “intimately connected” with
expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of the the office of the accused such as (1) that he committed the
public officer is his criminal liability. His death did not crime while in the performance of his official functions; (2)
extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge that he had no personal motives and would not have
of conspiracy between him and private person. committed crime if not for his office; (3) that he used the
powers of his office to commit the crime or (4) that he could
The requirement before a private person may be not have committed the crime if not for his office.
indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among
others, is that such private person must be alleged to have 2) The use of the phrase in the Information “the
acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, accused committed the crime in relation to his public office”,
does not require that such person must, in all instances, be which is a mere conclusion of law, is not what determines the
indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the

specific factual allegations in the information that would P. student regent, is included among those the SB exercises
indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the jurisdiction.
accused's official duties and the commission of the offense
charged. Thus, even if the phrase does not appear in the 2) The SB has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa if
Information, the SB may exercise jurisdiction if there are there are specific allegations of facts in the information
specific factual allegations showing close intimacy between showing that the accused public officer committed the crime
the discharge of the accused's official duties and the in relation to his office. The following allegations in the
commission of the crime charged. information is considered sufficient to vest jurisdiction on the
SB over the crime, to wit: "while in the performance of her
SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office
G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993 and taking advantage of her position.”
1) The SB is without jurisdiction over the case because

there is no allegation in the information showing that that 3) A U. P. Student Regent was considered a public
there is an "intimate connection" between the offense of rape officer based on the following definition of a public office, to
with homicide and the accused’s official functions as wit:
municipal mayor. It follows that the said crime, being an
ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the "A public office is the right, authority and duty,
Sandiganbayan. created and conferred by law, by which, for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure
HANNAH SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN of the creating power, an individual is invested with
G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of
1) Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 provides that the the public. The individual so invested is a public
SB has jurisdiction over “presidents, directors or trustees, or officer."
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities or educational institutions or foundations”. The fact that accused was not receiving salary as
Although she is not a public officer with salary of at least 27, student regent is of no moment because salary is not an
by express provision of P. D. No. 1606, accused Serana, a U. essential element of public office.

4) Presented here is a brief legislative history of the office and regardless of the imposable penalty. Section 60 of
statute creating the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan was R. A. No. 9165 provides, as follows:
created by P.D. No. 1486, promulgated by then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 11, 1978. It was promulgated Section 90. Jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court
to attain the highest norms of official conduct required of shall designate special courts from among the existing
public officers and employees, based on the concept that Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to
public officers and employees shall serve with the highest exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of
degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and this Act. The number of courts designated in each
shall remain at all times accountable to the people. judicial region shall be based on the population and
the number of cases pending in their respective
P.D. No. 1486 was amended by P.D. No. 1606 which jurisdiction.
was promulgated on December 10, 1978. P.D. No. 1606 The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to
expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. exclusively handle cases involving violations of this
Act.
P.D. No. 1606 was later amended by P.D. No. 1861 on
March 23, 1983, further altering the Sandiganbayan No other trial court is mentioned in R. A. No. 9165 as
jurisdiction. R.A. No. 7975 approved on March 30, 1995 having the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases.
made succeeding amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was Thus, even if the violation of R. A. No. 9165 is punishable by
again amended on February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. imprisonment of not more than six years, the crime is still
Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 further modified the jurisdiction of exclusively cognizable by the RTC. The only exception to this
the Sandiganbayan. rule is that when the violation of R. A. No. 9165 is committed
by a minor, or in conspiracy with a minor, then the crime
DE LIMA vs. HON. GUERRERO falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family
G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017 Court.
1) Under Section 90 of R. A. No. 9165, the RTC 2) R. A. No. 9165 specifies the RTC as the only court
exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of with jurisdiction to exclusively try and hear cases involving
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act regardless of any violation thereto. This is an exception, couched in the
whether the accused is a public officer with a salary grade of special law on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under
at least 27 and he committed the crime in relation to his Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660. It is a
canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails

over a general law and the latter is to be considered as an evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that a crime has
exception to the general. been committed and that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty thereof'.
3) The exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of
courts are (1) xxxxx, (2) when the case involves At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet
transcendental importance; (3) when the case is novel; (4) tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the
when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he personally
this Court; (5) when time is of the essence; (6) when the evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause. The
subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ; (7) judge needs only to determine the probability, not the
when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the certainty, of guilt of the accused and, in doing so, he need
ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition includes not conduct a de novo hearing.
questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or
demanded by the broader interest of justice; (9) when the DUNCANO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
order complained of was a patent nullity; and (10) when the G. R. No. 191894 July 15, 2015
appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy.
4) As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an 1) Under Section 4(A)(1) of R. A. No. 8249, the
interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over a Regional Director
interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1 (b), Rule of the BIR classified as Salary Grade 26. The relevant
41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of provision reads, as follow:
a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence
of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. "SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.– The
The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original
order is to proceed to trial. jurisdiction in all cases involving:
5) Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of xxx

arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to (1) Officials of the executive branch
believe that an offense has been committed by the person occupying the positions of regional director
sought to be arrested. Hence, the judge, before issuing a and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’
warrant of arrest, 'must satisfy himself that based on the and higher, of the Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. the "larger fish" and leave the "small fry" to the lower courts.
6758), specifically including: This law became effective on May 6, 1995 and it provided a
two-pronged solution to the clogging of the dockets of that
Based on the afore-quoted, the phrase "otherwise court, to wit:
classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher" qualifies "regional
director and higher". Thus, for a Regional Director to fall It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, his position public officials whose salary grades were at Grade "26" or
must be classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher”. In the lower, devolving thereby these cases to the lower courts, and
instant case, the accused’s position of Regional Director is retaining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only over
classified as Salary Grade 26, placing him outside the public officials whose salary grades were at Grade "27" or
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. higher and over other specific public officials holding
important positions in government regardless of salary grade,
2) The creation of the Sandiganbayan was mandated
by Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution. By virtue Enumerated below are some of the public officers
of the powers vested in him by the Constitution and whose positions may be lower than SG 27 but, by express
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, provision of law, are placed under the jurisdiction of the
1972, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued P.D. No. Sandiganbayan: (1) a member of the Sangguniang
1486. The decree was later amended by P.D. No. Panlungsod, (2) a department manager of the Philippine
1606, Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, P.D. No. Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth), (3) a student
1860, and P.D. No. 1861. regent of the University of the Philippines, and (6) a Head of
the Legal Department and Chief of the Documentation with
With the advent of the 1987 Constitution, the special corresponding ranks of Vice-Presidents and Assistant Vice-
court was retained as provided for in Section 4, Article XI President of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement
thereof. Aside from Executive Order Nos. 1425 and 14-a, and and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).
R.A. 7080, which expanded the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606 was further modified by R.A. INOCENTES vs. PEOPLE
No. 7975, R.A. No. 8249, and just this year, 2015, R.A. No. G.R. No. 205963-64 July 7, 2016
10660.
1) Under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of
3) To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic P.D. No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan exercises jurisdiction over
Act No. 7975 was enacted for that Court to concentrate on the accused, a Branch Manager of the GSIS Tarlac City field

office, although his position is classified as Salary Grade 26. should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has
The applicable law provides that violations of R.A. No. 3019 the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a
committed by presidents, directors or trustees, or managers criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that
of government-owned or -controlled corporations (such as function has been correctly discharged by the public
GSIS), and state universities shall be within the exclusive prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct
original jurisdiction of the Sandganbayan. ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is
a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be
The Sandiganbayan exercises jurisdiction over public compelled to pass upon.
officers specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of
P.D. No. 1606, as amended, regardless of their salary The judicial determination of probable cause, on the
grades. Simply put, public officers with Salary Grade 26 and other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a
below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The
Sandiganbayan, provided they hold the positions enumerated judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence
under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of P.D. No. submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under
1606, as amended. In this category, it is the position held, custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the
not the salary grade, which determines the jurisdiction of the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to
Sandiganbayan. issue the arrest warrant.
2) An accused who has posted bail is deemed to have 4) The case should be dismissed for inordinate delay if
voluntarily surrendered his person to the jurisdiction of the it took the Ombudsman seven (7) years to conduct the PI
court and may no longer question the court’s finding of before filing the information with the Sandiganbayan. There
probable cause which led to the issuance of the warrant for is inordinate delay if the delay in the PI unreasonable,
his arrest. oppressive, and vexatious. This kind of delay violates the
accused’s constitutional right to the speedy disposition of his
3) There are two kinds of determination of probable case. A person’s right to a speedy disposition of his case is
cause: executive and judicial. The executive determination of guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution:
probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation.
It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor All persons shall have the right to a
who is given a broad discretion to determine whether speedy disposition of their cases before all
probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus

This constitutional right is not limited to the accused The SC ruled that the allegations in the foregoing
in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, information sufficed to vest on the Sandiganbayan
be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as in all jurisdiction over the case.
proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord,
any party to a case may demand expeditious action of all 2) Section 11(a) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court
officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. provides that "[a]n appeal taken by one or more [of] several
accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
CRISOSTOMO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable
G.R. No. 152398. April 14, 2005 and applicable to the latter." In this case, only Crisostomo
questioned the jurisdiction and decision of the
1) Republic Act No. 7975, which limited the Sandiganbayan. However, the evidence against Crisostomo
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to public officers with SG and his co-conspirator, Calingayan, are inextricably linked as
27 or higher, took effect on May 6, 1995. Before the effectivity their conviction hinged on the prosecution’s unproven theory
of this law, the Sandiganbayan exercised jurisdiction over all of conspiracy. Thus, Crisostomo’s acquittal, which is
public officers regardless of his SG. Since the crime charged favorable and applicable to Calingayan, should benefit
was allegedly committed by the accused police officer, a jail Calingayan.
guard, in 1989, the SB assumed jurisdiction over him
without objection. The issue was whether there were specific 3) An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case
allegations of facts in the information showing that he for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though
committed the crime of killing an inmate in relation to his unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the lower court’s
office as a jail guard. decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as
errors.
The Information alleged that Crisostomo "a public
officer, being then a member of the Philippine National Police ESTEBAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
(PNP) stationed at Solano Police Station and a jailer thereat, G.R. Nos. 146646-49. March 11, 2005
taking advantage of his public position and thus committing
the offense in relation to his office" conspired, confederated
and connived with his co-accused who are inmates of the 1) The Sandiganbayan may exercise jurisdiction over
Solano Municipal Jail to kill Renato, "a detention prisoner." the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed against a court
employee by the presiding judge provided there are specific
allegations of facts in the information showing that the judge

committed the crime in relation to his office. The SC found that the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual
the following information sufficient: recital of the facts in the information. Hence, where the
information is wanting in specific factual averments to show
"That on or about the 5th day of August the intimate relationship/connection between the offense
1997 in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, charged and the discharge of official functions, the
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the case.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
JUDGE ROGELIO M. ESTEBAN, a public BONIFACIO vs. RTC OF MAKATI
officer, being then the Presiding Judge of G.R. No. 184800 May 5, 2010
Branch 1 of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cabanatuan City, who after having been 1) Under Article 360 of the RPC as amended by
rejected by the private complainant, Ana May V. Republic Act No. 4363, the criminal action for libel or written
Simbajon, of his sexual demands or solicitations defamation shall be instituted either in the proper court of
to be his girlfriend and to enter his room daily the place where the libelous article was printed and first
for a kiss as a condition for the signing of published or in the proper court of the place where the
complainant’s permanent appointment as a private complainant resides.
bookbinder in his Court, thus in relation to his
office or position as such, with lewd design and If the place where the libelous article was printed and
malicious desire, did then and there willfully, first published is made the basis for the venue, the
unlawfully and feloniously grab private Information must allege with particularity where the
complainant, kiss her all over her face and defamatory article was printed and first published, as
touch her right breast against her will and evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their
consent, to her damage and detriment. editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers,
magazines or serial publications. inclination to harass.
2) In People v. Montejo, it was ruled that an offense is
said to have been committed in relation to the office if the The foregoing, however, cannot be done if the
offense is "intimately connected" with the office of the defamatory material appeared on a website on the internet. If
offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance such is the case, there would be no way of determining the
of his official functions. This intimate relation between the situs of its printing and first publication. In the instant case,
offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be since the libelous material appeared on a website on the
alleged in the Information. This is in accordance with the rule internet, the SC ruled that only the residence of the offended

party may be made the basis of the venue of the criminal In view of the foregoing, when the offender is
action. Certainly, the place where the offended party would charged with libel twice, the first under Section 4(c)(4) of
allege to have accessed the libelous material could not be Republic Act 10175 and second under Article 353 of the
used in lieu of the place where the libelous material was Revised Penal Code, his right against double jeopardy
printed and first published. This would give the offended would be violate. So would an offender right against
party the undue opportunity to harass the accused by filing double jeopardy be violated if charged with child
the case in remote, out-of-town venues. pornography twice, first under Section 4(c)(2) of Republic
Act 10175 and, second, under Republic Act 9775 or the
DISINI, JR. vs. SEC. OF JUSTICE Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009..
G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014
2) Online libel is different from libel defined
under the RPC. There should be no question that if the
1) In the instant case, the Supreme Court ruled, published material on print, said to be libelous, is again
as follows: posted online or vice versa, that identical material
cannot be the subject of two separate libels. The two
a. Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised
online libel is declared valid and Penal Code and the other a violation of Section 4(c)(4) of
constitutional with respect to the original R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and
author of the post but void and are in fact one and the same offense. Indeed, the OSG
unconstitutional with respect to others itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c)(4) is not
who simply receive the post and react to it; a new crime but is one already punished under Article
and 353. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer
system as another means of publication. Charging the
b. Section 5 that penalizes aiding or offender under both laws would be a blatant violation of
abetting and attempt in the commission of the proscription against double jeopardy.
cybercrimes is valid and constitutional
only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal The same is true with child pornography
Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal committed online. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the
Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data ACPA’s scope so as to include identical activities in
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System cyberspace. As previously discussed, ACPA’s definition
of child pornography in fact already covers the use of

"electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any interest as an offended party of the crime, but to cause
other means." Thus, charging the offender under both the reinstatement of the criminal action against the
Section 4(c)(2) and ACPA would likewise be tantamount respondents, then he is without legal personality.
to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy. PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ
G.R. No. 175602 January 18, 2012
JIMENEZ vs. SORONGON
G.R. No. 178607 December 5, 2012
1) The real nature of the criminal charge is
1) Every action must be prosecuted or defended determined not from the caption or preamble of the
in the name of the real party in interest. A real party in information, or from the specification of the provision of
interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by law alleged to have been violated, which are mere
the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts
avails of the suit. By real interest is meant a present in the complaint or information. In the instant case, the
substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere SC did not consider the aggravating circumstance of
expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or treachery in imposing the penalty on the accused
consequential interest. because, although the word treachery was alleged, there
was no allegation of specific facts constituting the
Procedural law mandates that "all criminal treachery. The rule is that, even if the aggravating
actions commenced by complaint or by information shall circumstance was alleged and established by proof
be prosecuted under the direction and control of a beyond reasonable doubt, if the specific facts
public prosecutor." In appeals of criminal cases before constituting the aggravating circumstance were not
the CA and the Supreme Court, the People is the real alleged in the information, such aggravating
party in interest represented by OSG. circumstance cannot be considered by the court.
A private complainant, therefore, has no legal The allegation in the information that “then and
personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case, there shooting [them] with a gun, hitting [them]" on
either by appeal or petition for certiorari, if the main various parts of their bodies "which [were] the direct and
issue raised pertains to the criminal aspect of the case immediate cause of [their] death[s]" did not sufficiently
such as the existence of probable cause. If the private set forth the facts and circumstances describing how
complainant is not appealing to protect his pecuniary treachery attended each of the killings.

In People v. Dimaano, it was held that “what is charged. Additionally, the Rules requires that these acts
controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the or omissions and its attendant circumstances "must be
designation of the offense charged or the particular law stated in ordinary and concise language" and "in terms
or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere sufficient to enable a person of common understanding
conclusions of law, but the allegation of specific facts to know what offense is being.
describing how the crime was committed including the
attending aggravating circumstances, if any. The test of the information’s sufficiency is
whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and
2) To discharge its burden of informing the with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that
accused of the charge against him, the State must the accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In
specify in the information the details of the crime and particular, whether an information validly charges an
any circumstance that aggravates his liability for the offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in
crime. The requirement of sufficient factual averments is the complaint or information shall establish the
meant to inform the accused of the nature and cause of essential elements of the offense charged as defined in
the charge against him in order to enable him to prepare the law. The raison d’etre of the requirement in the
his defense. It emanates from the presumption of Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
innocence in his favor, pursuant to which he is always defense.
presumed to have no independent knowledge of the
details of the crime he is being charged with. In the instant case, the SC disputed petitioner’s
argument that since the phrase “acting with evident bad
faith and manifest partiality” immediately followed the
MIGUEL vs. SANDIGANBAYAN phrase “conspiring and confederating with the private
G.R. No. 172035 July 4, 2012 [individuals”, it means that the phrase “acting with
evident bad faith and manifest partiality” pertained only
to petitioner’s co-conspirators/private individuals only
1) In deference to the constitutional right of an and not to him.
accused to be informed of the nature and the cause of
the accusation against him, Section 6 of Rule 110 The SC said the information clearly reveals that
requires, inter alia, that the information shall state the the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and manifest
designation of the offense given by the statute and the partiality" was merely a continuation of the prior
acts or omissions imputed which constitute the offense allegation of the acts of the petitioner, and that he

ultimately acted with evident bad faith and manifest statute. The allegation in the information of the various
partiality in giving unwarranted benefits and advantages ways of committing the offense should be regarded as a
to his co-accused private individuals. This is what a description of only one offense and the information is
plain and non-legalistic reading of the information not thereby rendered defective on the ground of
would yield. multifariousness.
PEOPLE vs. SORIA In the instant case, the SC convicted the accused
G.R. No. 179031 November 14, 2012 of rape by sexual assault because that was the
accused’s mode of committing rape that was proved
1) The SC found the Information sufficient and beyond reasonable doubt.
valid although it did not specify with certainty whether
the accused committed the rape through sexual
intercourse under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, or rape
by sexual assault as described in paragraph 2 thereof. UNION BANK vs. PEOPLE
The Information stated that accused inserted his penis G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012
into the genital of "AAA," which constituted rape by
sexual intercourse under the first paragraph of Article 1) Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in
266-A, at the same time, it also alleged that accusd used criminal cases. It determines not only the place where
force and intimidation to commit an act of sexual the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court
assault. While these allegations cause ambiguity, they that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The
only pertain to the mode or manner of how the rape was reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of
committed and the same do not invalidate the trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that
Information or result in the automatic dismissal of the a trial court can only hear and try cases involving
case. crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is
Where an offense may be committed in any of the grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
different modes and the offense is alleged in the accused on trial in the municipality of province where
Information to have been committed in two or more witnesses and other facilities for his defense are
modes, the Information is sufficient, notwithstanding available.
the fact that the different means of committing the same
offense are prohibited by separate sections of the

Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules sufficient, the place where the affidavit was subscribed
of Criminal Procedure provides: and sworn to must be alleged.
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal On the other hand, when the crime is committed
action shall be instituted and tried in the court or through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that
municipality or territory where the offense was is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where
committed or where any of its essential the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as
ingredients occurred. supplement to the actual testimony made in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written
The above provision should be read in light of sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at
Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of the place where the sworn statement is submitted or
Criminal Procedure which states: where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and
the submission are both essential ingredients of the
Place of commission of the offense. – The crime of perjury. In all cases, determination of venue
complaint or information is sufficient if it can be shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to
understood from its allegations that the offense was be constitutive of the crime committed.
committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred
at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless TEEHANKEE vs. MADAYAG
the particular place where it was committed constitutes G.R. No. 103102 March 6, 1992
an essential element of the offense charged or is REGALADO, J.:
necessary for its identification.
1) Now, an objective appraisal of the amended
2) The crime of perjury committed through the information for murder filed against herein petitioner
making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC will readily show that the nature of the offense originally
is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and charged was not actually changed. Instead, an
swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time that additional allegation, that is, the supervening fact of the
all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. In death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the trial
this instance, the proper venue of the criminal action court in determining the proper penalty for the crime.
would be the proper court of the place where the That the accused committed a felonious act with intent
affidavit was subscribed and sworn to. For the to kill the victim continues to be the prosecution's
information charging a crime under Article 183 to be theory. There is no question that whatever defense

herein petitioner may adduce under the original matters are merely of form. 11 Thus, the following have
information for frustrated murder equally applies to the been held to be merely formal amendments, viz: (1) new
amended information for murder. Under the allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty
circumstances thus obtaining, it is irremissible that the that the court might impose in the event of
amended information for murder is, at most, an conviction; 12 (2) an amendment which does not charge
amendment as to form which is allowed even during the another offense different or distinct from that charged in
trial of the case. the original one; 13 (3) additional allegations which do
not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to
It consequently follows that since only a formal cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of
amendment was involved and introduced in the second defense he has or will assume; and (4) an amendment
information, a preliminary investigation is unnecessary which does not adversely affect any substantial right of
and cannot be demanded by the accused. The filing of the accused, such as his right to invoke prescription.
the amended information without the requisite
preliminary investigation does not violate petitioner's
right to be secured against hasty, malicious and SOLIDUM vs. PEOPLE
oppressive prosecutions, and to be protected from an G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014
open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from BERSAMIN, J.:
the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial. The
amended information could not conceivably have come 1) In criminal prosecutions, the civil action for the
as a surprise to petitioner for the simple and obvious recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with
reason that it charges essentially the same offense as the criminal action refers only to that arising from the
that charged under the original information. offense charged. Since the civil liability that may be
Furthermore, as we have heretofore held, if the crime determine could arise only from the crime charged, only
originally charged is related to the amended charge such the accused may be held liable for such civil liability. No
that an inquiry into one would elicit substantially the person who has not been charged with the accused may
same facts that an inquiry into the other would reveal, a be held jointly and severally liable with the accused for
new preliminary investigation is not necessary. the damages arising from the delict. This is specially
with regards to a juridical entity which could not be
2) A substantial amendment consists of the charged with the accused. A person or entity not
recital of facts constituting the offense charged and charged with the accused may, however be held to have
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other subsidiary liability provided the requirements of Article

103 of the Civil Code are satisfied. Article 103 reads, as other than the delict complained of. The second instance
follows: is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of
the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused
“Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt
persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the from civil liability which may be proved by
next preceding article shall also apply to employers, preponderance of evidence only.
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind
of industry for felonies committed by their servants, Thus, although the accused’s acquittal was based
pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the on reasonable doubt, if the prosecution failed to prove
discharge of their duties.” the civil liability of the accused by preponderance of
evidence, the accused could not be held civilly liable.
Since a hospital is not engaged in any industry, it
cannot be held to have subsidiary liability for its doctor’s
civil liability arising from reckless imprudence resulting JOHN DY vs. PEOPLE
in serious physical injuries of his patient. G.R. No. 158312 November 14, 2008
QUISUMBING, Acting C.J.:
CASTILLO vs. SALVADOR 1) An accused may be held civilly liable where the
G.R. No. 191240 July 30, 2014 facts established by the evidence so warrant. The
PERALTA, J.: rationale for this is simple. The criminal and civil
liabilities of an accused are separate and distinct from
1) There are two kinds of acquittal, with different each other. One is meant to punish the offender while
effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an the other is intended to repair the damage suffered by
acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the the aggrieved party. So, for the purpose of indemnifying
author of the actor omission complained of. This the latter, the offense need not be proved beyond
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of
who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act evidence.
or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such
act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex Thus, even if the accused was acquitted of estafa
delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, and Violation of B. P. Blg. 22, if his civil liability has
which may be instituted must be based on grounds

been established by preponderance of evidence, the declares that "the act or omission from which the civil
accused may be held civilly liable. liability may arise did not exist."
LILY LIM vs. KOU CO PING On the other hand, the independent civil
G.R. No. 175256 August 23, 2012 liabilities are separate from the criminal action and may
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO be pursued independently, as provided in Articles 31
and 33 of the Civil Code, which state that:
1) A single act or omission that causes damage to
an offended party may give rise to two separate civil ART. 31. When the civil action is based on an
liabilities on the part of the offender - (1) civil liability ex obligation not arising from the act or omission
delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed
offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and independently of the criminal proceedings and
(2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that regardless of the result of the latter.
may be pursued independently of the criminal
proceedings. The independent civil liability may be ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and
based on "an obligation not arising from the act or physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
omission complained of as a felony," as provided in separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be
Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
contract or for tort). It may also be based on an act or proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and
omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
treated independently from the criminal action by (Emphasis supplied.)
specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code ("in
cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries"). Because of the distinct and independent nature of
the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex the offended party may pursue the two types of civil
delicto is based on the acts or omissions that constitute liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without
the criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia,
intertwined with the criminal action. For this reason, the or res judicata. They present different causes of action,
civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the which under the law, are considered "separate, distinct,
criminal offense. The civil liability based on delict is and independent" from each other. Both cases can
extinguished when the court hearing the criminal action proceed to their final adjudication, subject to the

prohibition on double recovery under Article 2177 of the negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Civil Code. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties,
CASUPANAN vs. LAROYA is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002 provisions of this Chapter.
CARPIO, J.:
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or
negligence under the preceding article is entirely
1) In a case of collision between two motor separate and distinct from the civil liability
vehicles, driver #1 may file against driver #2 a criminal arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for
property based on the Revised Penal Code. Deemed the same act or omission of the defendant."
instituted with this criminal action is the civil action to
recover damages arising from the crime. Simultaneously Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1 of Rule 111
or successively with the criminal action, driver #1 may expressly requires the accused to litigate his
also file against driver #2 an independent civil action for counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit:
damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. On the
other hand, driver #2 may file against driver #1 a civil "SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and
action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil civil actions. – (a) x x x.
Code.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
Although the two foregoing civil actions arose complaint may be filed by the accused in the
from the same act or omission, they have different criminal case, but any cause of action which
causes of action. The first civil action is based on the could have been the subject thereof may be
crime charged in the criminal action while the second litigated in a separate civil action." (Emphasis
civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under supplied)
Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. These articles
on culpa aquiliana read: Since the present Rules require the accused in a
criminal action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil
"Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission action, there can be no forum-shopping if the accused
causes damage to another, there being fault or files such separate civil action. The essence of forum-

shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly
same parties for the same cause of action, either allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule
simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused
judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two "may be litigated in a separate civil action." This is
or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights only fair for two reasons. First, the accused is prohibited
of action and reliefs sought. from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that
is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is
2) Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim
independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 against the offended party. If the accused does not file a
of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive
criminal action but may be filed separately by the period may set in since the period continues to run until
offended party even without reservation. the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.
Thus, the offended party can file two separate Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent,
suits for the same act or omission. The first a criminal has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in
case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex- the same way that the offended party can avail of this
delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case remedy which is independent of the criminal action. To
for quasi-delict - without violating the rule on non-forum disallow the accused from filing a separate civil action
shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his
and independently of each other. The only limitation is counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due
that the offended party cannot recover damages twice process of law, access to the courts, and equal
for the same act or omission of the defendant. In most protection of the law.
cases, the offended party will have no reason to file a
second civil action since he cannot recover damages CATERPILLAR, INC. vs. SAMSON
twice for the same act or omission of the accused. In November 9, 2016 G.R. No. 205972
some instances, the accused may be insolvent, BERSAMIN, J.:
necessitating the filing of another case against his
employer or guardians.
1) A civil action for unfair competition, damages
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action and cancellation of trademark and a criminal action for
for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is unfair competition filed against the same person may

co-exist. A common element in the two cases is petitioner and respondent were married. The
fraud. Under Article 33 of the Civil Code, a civil action subsequent dissolution of their marriage in case the
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action petition for nullity of marriage is granted, will have no
may be brought by the injured party in cases of fraud, effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the
and such civil action shall proceed independently of the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if
criminal prosecution. Being an independent civil action, the marriage between the spouses is annulled, the
it cannot operate as a prejudicial question that that husband could still be held criminally liable since at the
would justify the suspension of the proceedings in time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still
criminal action. married to respondent.
PIMENTEL vs. PIMENTEL JM DOMINGUEZ. INC. vs. LICLICAN

G.R. No. 172060 September 13, 2010 G.R. No. 208587 July 29, 2015
CARPIO, J.: VELASCO, JR., J.:
1) Does a civil action for annulment of marriage 1) The pendency in the RTC of an intra-corporate
under Article 36 of the Family Code filed by the wife dispute questioning the validity of the election of a set of
against her husband constitute a prejudicial question corporate officers and their subsequent acts of
that would warrant the suspension of the proceeding in disbursing corporate money constitutes a prejudicial
the criminal action for frustrated parricide filed against question to a criminal action charging said corporate
the husband? The issue in the civil case for annulment officers with qualified theft for the said act of disbursing
of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is corporate money.
whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations. The issue 2) Grave abuse of discretion may arise when a
in parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the
this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave
parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the acts abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and
of execution which would have killed respondent as a whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as
by reason of causes independent of petitioner’s will. At where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
the time of the commission of the alleged crime, manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and

must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held
of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the for trial. It does not call for the application of rules and
duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. standards of proof that a judgment of conviction
The word "capricious," usually used in tandem with the requires after trial on the merits. The complainant need
term "arbitrary," conveys the notion of willful and not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt.
unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective A preliminary investigation does not require a full and
hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence.
arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative. Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception of
evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective
FENEQUITO vs. VERGARA, JR. claims.
G.R. No. 172829 July 18, 2012
PERALTA, J.: 2) To reiterate, probable cause has been defined
as the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on
1) An order issued by the RTC in the exercise of the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
its appellate jurisdiction setting aside the order of the the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he
MTC dismissing the criminal case for lack of probable was prosecuted. Probable cause is a reasonable ground
cause and directing the court a quo to proceed to trial by of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded
allowing the prosecution to present its evidence is an on such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as
interlocutory order and cannot be appealed to the Court would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence
of Appeals by petition for review. to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion,
that a thing is so.
BURGUNDY REALTY CORP. vs. REYES
G.R. No. 181021 December 10, 2012 The term does not mean "actual or positive cause"
PERALTA, J.: nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based
on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of
probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
1) In a preliminary investigation, the public there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is
prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable enough that it is believed that the act or omission
cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded complained of constitutes the offense charged.
belief that a crime has been committed, and that the

ABANADO vs. BA YONA of preliminary investigation, subject to review by the

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804 July 30, 2012 Secretary of Justice. The duty of the Court in
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: appropriate cases is merely to determine whether the
executive determination was done without or in excess
1) An information that is filed in court shall, as of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
far as practicable, be accompanied by a copy of the Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to
resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the review unless made with grave abuse.
complainant’s affidavit, the sworn statements of the
prosecution’s witnesses, the respondent’s counter- 2) In Crespo it was held that after the information
affidavit and the sworn statements of his witnesses and has been filed in court, the court’s permission must be
such other evidence as may have been taken into secured should the fiscal find it proper that
account in arriving at a determination of the existence of reinvestigation be made. Thereafter, the court shall
probable cause. If the resolution of the investigating consider and act upon the findings and
prosecutor recommending the dismissal of the recommendations of the fiscal.
complaint is reversed by the city or provincial
prosecutor, the latter’s resolution finding probable cause In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, it was clarified
shall replace the resolution of the investigating that the justice secretary is not precluded from
prosecutor. The reversed resolution of the investigating exercising his power of review over the investigating
prosecutor need not be attached to the information and prosecutor even after the information has already been
the judge cannot insist that the same be submitted to filed in court. However, the justice secretary’s
him. subsequent resolution withdrawing the information or
dismissing the case does not cause the court to lose
HEIRS OF NESTOR TRIA vs. OBIAS jurisdiction over the case. In fact, the court is duty-
G.R. No. 175887 November 24, 2010 bound to exercise judicial discretion and its own
independent judgment in assessing the merits of the
1) Preliminary investigation is executive in resulting motion to dismiss filed by the prosecution, to
character. It does not contemplate a judicial function. It wit:
is essentially an inquisitorial proceeding, and often, the
only means of ascertaining who may be reasonably When confronted with a motion to withdraw an
charged with a crime. Prosecutors control and direct the information on the ground of lack of probable cause
prosecution of criminal offenses, including the conduct based on a resolution of the secretary of justice, the

bounded duty of the trial court is to make an outright for being patently without basis or merit and
independent assessment of the merits of such order the release of the accused if in custody.
motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the
trial court is not bound by such resolution but is If commenced by information, the court shall
required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the issue an order which, together with copies of the
trial. While the secretary’s ruling is persuasive, it is not affidavits and other evidence submitted by the
binding on courts. A trial court, however, commits prosecution, shall require the accused to submit his
reversible error or even grave abuse of discretion if it counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as
refuses/neglects to evaluate such recommendation and well as any evidence in his behalf, serving copies thereof
simply insists on proceeding with the trial on the mere on the complainant or prosecutor not later than ten (10)
pretext of having already acquired jurisdiction over the days from receipt of said order. The prosecution may file
criminal action. reply affidavits within ten (10) days after receipt of the
counter-affidavits of the defense.
UY vs. JUDGE JAVELLANA
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 September 5, 2012 Should the court, upon a consideration of the
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: complaint or information and the affidavits submitted by
both parties, find no cause or ground to hold the
accused for trial, it shall order the dismissal of the case;
1) Criminal cases falling within the scope of the otherwise, the court shall set the case for arraignment
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure shall be and trial. If the accused is in custody for the crime
commenced either by complaint or by information, charged, he shall be immediately arraigned and if he
except that, in Metropolitan Manila and in chartered enters a plea of guilty, he shall forthwith be sentenced.
cities, such cases shall be commenced only by
information, except when the offense cannot be 2) Under Section 18 of the Revised Rule on
prosecuted de oficio. The complaint or information shall Summary Procedure, cases requiring referral to the
be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of
of his witnesses. Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there is no showing
of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed
If commenced by complaint, on the basis of the without prejudice, and may be revived only after such
complaint and the affidavits and other evidence requirement shall have been complied with. This
accompanying the same, the court may dismiss the case

provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers
accused was arrested without a warrant. granted by the Constitution to the Office of the
Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
PEOPLE vs. VALENCIA The conduct of preliminary investigation

G.R. Nos. 94511-13 September 18, 1992 proceedings is geared only to determine whether or not
probable cause exists to hold a respondent for trial for
1) A person who is lawfully arrested, without a the supposed crime that he committed.
warrant pursuant to paragraph 1(b), Section 5 of Rule
113 shall be subjected to an inquest in accordance with Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a
Rule 112, Section 6, after which Information may be criminal information, has been defined as such facts as
filed against him without a preliminary investigation. are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that respondent is
PCGG vs. NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean "actual
G.R. No. 194159 October 21, 2015 or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.
It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry
1) The Supreme Court has consistently refrained whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
from interfering with the discretion of the Ombudsman conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or
to determine the existence of probable cause and to omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
decide whether or not an Information should be filed.
Nonetheless, the Court is not precluded from reviewing A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
the Ombudsman’s action when there is a charge of evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has
grave abuse of discretion. The Court’s pronouncement been committed by the suspects. It need not be based
in Ciron v. Gutierrez is instructive on this matter, to wit: on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
x x x this Court’s consistent policy has been to and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute
maintain noninterference in the determination of the certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the
Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, average man weighs facts and circumstances without
provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of
discretion. This observed policy is based not only on which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on

common sense. What is determined is whether there is submitted by the complainant after the first panel has
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that submitted its resolution dismissing the complaint.
a crime has been committed, and that the accused is Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It questioning the regularity of preliminary investigation
does not require an inquiry as to whether there is becomes moot after the trial court completes its
sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. determination of probable cause and issues a warrant of
arrest.
2) Hearsay may be the bases for issuance of the
warrant "so long as there … [is] a substantial basis for 2) The public prosecutor’s power to conduct
crediting the hearsay." x x x And, in Aguilar, we preliminary investigation appears to be quasi-judicial in
recognized that "an affidavit may be based on hearsay nature only to the extent that, like quasi-judicial bodies,
information and need not reflect the direct personal the prosecutor is an officer of the executive department
observations of the affiant," so long as the magistrate is exercising powers akin to those of a court. A quasi-
"informed of some of the underlying circumstances" judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such
supporting the affiant’s conclusions and his belief that that its awards, determine the rights of parties, and
any informant involved "whose identity need not be their decisions have the same effect as judgments of a
disclosed…" was "credible" or his information court. Such is not the case when a public prosecutor
"reliable." x x x. conducts a preliminary investigation or when the
Secretary of Justice reviews the former’s resolution.
DE LIMA vs. REYES
G.R. No. 209330 January 11, 2016 3) Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are
LEONEN, J.: directed only to tribunals that exercise judicial or quasi-
judicial functions. The issuance by the Secretary of
Justice of a department order is a purely administrative
or executive function. It is not a quasi-judicial function.
1) The Secretary of Justice has the discretion, The DOJ is not a quasi-judicial office or agency. Its
upon motion or motu proprio, to act on any matter that preliminary investigation of cases is not a quasi-judicial
may cause a probable miscarriage of justice in the proceeding. Nor does the DOJ exercise a quasi-judicial
conduct of a preliminary investigation. This action may function when it reviews the findings of a public
include, but is not limited to, the creation of a second prosecutor on the finding of probable cause in any case.
panel of investigators to look into new evidence

4) A petition for review under Rule 43 cannot be LUZ vs. PEOPLE

brought to assail the Secretary of Justice's resolution G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012
dismissing a complaint for lack of probable cause SERENO, J.:
because by issuing such resolution, the Secretary of
Justice did not perform a quasi-judicial but an 1) A person who was flagged down for a traffic
essentially executive function. violation under a city ordinance and was brought to a
nearby police station to be issued a traffic citation ticket
5) A writ of prohibition is directed against the cannot be considered to have been arrested for the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer purpose of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful
or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or arrest. A person caught committing a traffic violation
ministerial functions. The Department of Justice is not a should not be arrested but issued only traffic citation
court of law and its officers do not perform quasi- ticket. The shabu recovered from the person by the
judicial functions. The Secretary of Justice's review of police officers is therefore inadmissible in evidence.
the resolutions of prosecutors is also not a ministerial
function. 2) The following are the instances when a
warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search
6) If the trial court refuses to grant the motion to incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in
dismiss filed by the prosecutor upon the directive of the "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv)
Secretary of Justice, will there not be a vacuum in the consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a
prosecution? The answer is simple. The role of the "stop and frisk" search; and (vii) exigent and emergency
prosecutor is to see that justice is done and not circumstances. None of the above-mentioned instances,
necessarily to secure the conviction of the person especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are
accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion applicable to this case.
to the contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed
with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to 3) The "stop and frisk" rule normally applies when
the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct,
independent judgment as to whether the accused which may lead him to believe that a criminal act may
should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not be afoot. The rule is, however, a limited protective
shirk from the responsibility of appearing for the People search of outer clothing for weapons.
of the Philippines even under such circumstances.

ANTIQUERA vs. PEOPLE file a motion to quash before his arraignment, he will be
G.R. No. 180661 December 11, 2013 estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. Any
ABAD, J.: irregularity is cured upon the accused’s voluntary
submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
1) Since the police officers had to push open the 2) Since the accused was caught in flagrante
slightly ajar door of the house of the accused before they delicto of selling illegal drugs to an undercover police
purportedly saw him using shabu, there could be no officer in a buy-bust operation, his warrantless arrest
valid arrest in flagrante delicto. Considering that the was valid Section 5(a) of Rule 113. If the warrantless
arrest of the accused was illegal, the search and seizure arrest was valid, the warrantless seizure of the illegal
that resulted from it was likewise illegal. Consequently, drugs from the accused is likewise valid.
the various drug paraphernalia that the police officers
allegedly found in the house and seized are ZUÑO vs. JUDGE CABEBE
inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid search A.M. OCA No. 03-1800-RTJ November 26, 2004
and seizure. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
2) The alleged failure of the accused to object to

the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to 1) Under the present Rules, a hearing is
sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of
arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the right or discretion. The grant or the denial of bail in
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal cases where bail is a matter of discretion, hinges on the
warrantless arrest. issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong, and the determination of whether or
PEOPLE vs. DONALD VASQUEZ not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial
G.R. No. 200304 January 15, 2014 discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: latter to properly exercise his discretion, he must first
conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of
guilt is strong. In fact, even in cases where there is no
1) Any objection to a defect or irregularity petition for bail, a hearing should still be held.
attending an arrest must be made before the accused
enters his plea on arraignment. If the accused fails to

2) The failure of the prosecution to raise an conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. An
objection to the accused’s application for bail does not extradite should not therefore be deprived of his right to
dispense with the requirement of a bail hearing. Even if apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the
the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to grant is satisfactorily met.
interpose any objection to the motion for bail, it is still
mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the
searching and clarificatory questions from which it may standard of proof required in granting or denying bail
infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or lack of it, can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in
against the accused. Where the prosecutor refuses to criminal cases nor the standard of proof of
adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While
and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such administrative in character, the standard of substantial
questions as would ascertain the strength of the State's evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise
evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount of bail. apply given the object of extradition law which is to
Irrespective of respondent judge's opinion that the prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our
evidence of guilt against the accused is not strong, the jurisdiction. The potential extraditee must prove by
law and settled jurisprudence demand that a hearing be "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight
conducted before bail may be fixed for the temporary risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of
release of the accused, if bail is at all justified. the extradition court. “Clear and convincing evidence" is
a quantum of evidence that is lower than proof beyond
GOVT. HK SPEC. ADM. REGION vs. OLALIA reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007 evidence.
LEVISTE vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 189122 March 17, 2010
1) A potential extraditee who has been arrested PERALTA, J.:
and detained is entitled to bail. While the Philippines
must honor its extradition treaties with other countries, 1) The rules authorize the court to exercise
it does not necessarily mean that it should diminish a discretion in the grant of bail pending appeal to those
potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due convicted by the Regional Trial Court of an offense
process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years but
only by our Constitution, but also by international not death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In

the exercise of that discretion, the proper courts are to community arising from the national commitment under
be guided by the fundamental principle that the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to:
allowance of bail pending appeal should be exercised not
with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as
reasons, considering that the accused has been in fact well as value the worth and dignity of every person. This
convicted by the trial court. The “tough on bail pending” commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our
policy must be observed. Constitution which provides: "The State values the
dignity of every human person and guarantees full
2) The 3rd paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 respect for human rights." In other words, the Philippine
applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on authorities are under obligation to make available to
the appellant applying for bail is imprisonment every person under detention such remedies which
exceeding six years but not death, reclusion perpetua or safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These
life imprisonment. If it is shown during the bail hearing remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.
that at least one of the bail-negating circumstances
enumerated in the 3rd paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 2) Bail is not granted to prevent the accused from
exist, the court has no option but to deny bail. If it is committing additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to
shown during the bail hearing that none of the bail- guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or
negating circumstances exist, the court, in the exercise whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of
of its discretion, may grant or deny bail. bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the
accused when so required, but it should be no higher
ENRILE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this
G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015 purpose. Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to
BERSAMIN, J.: accommodate both the accused’s interest in his
provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the
1) In granting bail to an accused charged with an society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life trial.
imprisonment, the court may consider the principal
purpose of bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of 3) In deciding whether to grant bail or not to an
the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the accused charged with an offense punishable by death,
court. The court may also take guidance from the reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court
Philippines’ responsibility in the international should not consider the presence of mitigating

circumstances that may reduce the penalty that may be 1) The court may deny bail to an accused charged
imposed on the accused to less than reclusion perpetua with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. The relevant clause in Section 13 or life imprisonment by evidence less than that required
of Article III is "charged with an offense punishable by." for his conviction. At the bail hearing, the court does not
It is, therefore, the maximum penalty provided by the sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as
offense that has bearing and not the possibility of to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for
mitigating circumstances being appreciated in the or against accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome
accused’s favor. of the trial or on what further evidence may be therein
offered and admitted. It should not be forgotten that the
4) Enrile’s social and political standing and his purpose of the bail hearing is to determine whether the
having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon accused is entitled to provisional liberty before
his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his conviction. To require more from the prosecution, as
flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. well as from the trial court, effectively defeats the
His personal disposition from the onset of his indictment purpose of the proceeding.
for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his
utter respect for the legal processes of this country. We 2) Even though there is a reasonable doubt as to
also do not ignore that at an earlier time many years ago the guilt of accused, if on an examination of the entire
when he had been charged with rebellion with murder record the presumption is great that accused is guilty of
and multiple frustrated murder, he already evinced a a capital offense, bail should be refused.
similar personal disposition of respect for the legal
processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of 3) The purpose of the bail hearing is for the court
his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk. With to determine whether there is a strong presumption of
his solid reputation in both his public and his private the guilt of the accused. It is merely a preliminary
lives, his long years of public service, and history’s determination, and the court may deny admission to
judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail even when there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt
bail. of the accused. Thus, the prosecution can discharge its
burden by proving that the evidence against the accused
NAPOLES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN shows evident proof of guilt or a great presumption of
G.R. No. 224162 November 7, 2017 guilt. “Evident proof of guilt” or a “great presumption of
REYES, JR., J.: guilt’ means “clear, strong evidence which leads a well-
guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that

the offense has been committed as charged, that G.R. No. 185128 January 30, 2012
accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be PERALTA, J.:
punished capitally if the law is administered."
Presumption great" exists when the circumstances 1) When prohibited and regulated drugs are
testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally found in a house or other building belonging to and
to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to occupied by the accused, the presumption arises that he
an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable is in possession of such drugs in violation of law. For
probability of any other conclusion. the presumption to apply, however, the prosecution
must prove that the accused had knowledge of the
ALTOBANO-RUIZ vs. PICHAY existence and presence of the drugs in the place under
A.M. No. MTJ-17-1893 February 19, 2018 his control and dominion and the character of the
PERALTA, J.: drugs. If the prosecution fails to prove that the house
was under the control and dominion of the accused,
1) Under Section 17 (a) of Rule 114, if the there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In
accused is arrested in the same province, city or considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the
municipality where his case is pending, he may file bail law's own starting perspective on the status of the
in the court where his case is pending or, in the absence accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed
or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven
branch of the same court within the province or city. If beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
the accused is arrested in a province, city or doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a
municipality other than where his case is pending, he moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the
has two (2) options. First, he may file bail in the court conscience of those who act in judgment, is
where his case is pending or, second, he may file bail indispensable to overcome the constitutional
with any regional trial court in the province, city or presumption of innocence.
municipality where he was arrested. When no regional
trial court judge is available, he may file bail with any MIGUEL vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or G.R. No. 172035 July 4, 2012
municipal circuit trial judge therein. BRION, J.:
DEL CASTILLO vs. PEOPLE 1) Before an accused is suspended under Section

13 of R.A. No. 3019, a pre-suspension hearing is

required. While a pre-suspension hearing is aimed at either through oral arguments or pleadings, has been
securing for the accused fair and adequate opportunity accorded, no denial of procedural due process exists.
to challenge the validity of the information or the
regularity of the proceedings against him, jurisprudence 2) Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 which provides for
has not established a hard and fast rule in regulating its the suspension of the accused pendente lite is not a
conduct. With the purpose of a pre-suspension hearing penal provision that would call for a liberal
in mind, the absence of an actual hearing alone cannot interpretation in favor of the accused and a strict
be determinative of the validity of a suspension order. In construction against the State. The suspension required
one case, the Court considered the opposition of the under this provision is not a penalty, as it is not
accused (to the prosecution’s motion to suspend imposed as a result of judicial proceedings; in fact, if
pendente lite) as sufficient to dispense with the need to acquitted, the accused official shall be entitled to
actually set the prosecution’s motion for hearing. In reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he
another case, the Court ruled that while there was no failed to receive during his suspension.
pre-suspension hearing held to determine the validity of
the Informations that had been filed against the PEOPLE vs. LARA
accused, the numerous pleadings filed for and against G.R. No. 199877 August 13, 2012
them have achieved the goal of this procedure. The right REYES, J.:
to due process is satisfied not just by an oral hearing
but by the filing and the consideration by the court of 1) The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen
the parties' pleadings, memoranda and other position at the precise moment custodial investigation begins
papers. and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the
starting point or a part of custodial investigation.
Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a due
process requirement, when an accused public official is The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987
given an adequate opportunity to be heard on his Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be
possible defenses against the mandatory suspension invoked only by a person while he is under custodial
under R.A. No. 3019, then an accused would have no investigation. Custodial investigation starts when the
reason to complain that no actual hearing was police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
conducted. It is well settled that "to be heard" does not unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the
also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, interrogation and propounds questions to the person to

elicit incriminating statements. Police line-up is not part 1) Since the dismissal of a criminal case on the
of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel ground that the accused’s right to a speedy trial has
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at been violated amounts to an acquittal, any appeal or
this stage. This is because during a police line-up, the reconsideration thereof would result in a violation of the
process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accused’s right against double jeopardy. The acquittal of
accusatory and it is usually the witness or the the accused may, however be challenged by petition for
complainant who is interrogated and who gives a certiorari under Rule 65 where there has been a grave
statement in the course of the line-up. abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The prosecution mut convincingly establish
that the court’s decision dismissing the case was
attended by a whimsical or capricious exercise of
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be
G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989 shown that the assailed judgment constitutes "a patent
NARVASA, J.: and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion
of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a
duty imposed by law or to act in contemplation of law.
1) A person who is being investigated by his
employer for having misappropriated company funds is 2) A felony committed by means of culpa is legally
not in any sense under custodial interrogation. The inconsistent with one committed by means of dolo.
constitutional rights of a person under custodial Culpable felonies involve those wrongs done as a result
interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 of an act performed without malice or criminal design.
Constitution are therefore not applicable. Neither may Regardless of how the crime was committed, if is shown
he invoke his right against self-incrimination during that it was committed by means of culpa, it cannot be
such investigation. given the penalty as it was committed by means of dolo.
VILLAREAL vs. PEOPLE 3) An accused who has been sentenced by the

G.R. No. 151258 December 1, 2014 trial court to a non-probationable penalty but on appeal
SERENO, CJ: is sentenced to a probationable penalty is allowed by law
and jurisprudence to avail himself of probation.
PEOPLE vs. ESTOMACA

G.R. Nos. 117485-86 April 22, 1996 1) The fact that the accused was arraigned only
REGALADO, J.: after the case was submitted for decision did not
prejudice him. This procedural defect was cured when
1) If the accused enters a plea of guilty to a his counsel participated in the trial without raising any
capital offence, the trial court shall conduct a searching objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. In fact,
inquiry to determine: (1) the voluntariness of the plea; his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution
and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of witnesses. His counsel’s active participation in the
the plea. The questions of the trial court must show the hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of
voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the accused and the the charges against him; otherwise, his counsel would
questions must demonstrate accused full have objected and informed the court of this blunder.
comprehension of the consequences of the plea of guilty. Moreover, no protest was made when the accuse was
The court must inquire into the personality profile of the subsequently arraigned. The parties did not question
accused can serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity the procedure undertaken by the trial court. It was only
to give a free and informed plea of guilt. The age, socio- after being convicted and sentenced to two death
economic status, and educational background of the sentences, that accused complained that his
accused must also be determined. The failure of the trial constitutional right has been violated.
court to comply with the foregoing requirements would
render the arraignment of the accused null and void. 2) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. The
2) No valid judgment can be rendered upon an accused’s arrest, not his arraignment, confers on the
invalid arraignment. If the arraignment of the accused trial court jurisdiction over his person.
was void, the judgment of conviction rendered against
him would likewise be void. If such is the finding of the DAAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
appellate court, it shall order the case be remanded to G.R. Nos. 163972-77 March 28, 2008
the trial court for further proceedings. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
PEOPLE vs. PANGILINAN

G.R. No. 171020 March 14, 2007 1)The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a
matter of right but is a matter that is addressed entirely
to the sound discretion of the trial court. The court

should accept such plea of guilty to a lesser offense only the conviction must be sustained, because then it is
when it is shown that the prosecution does not have predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused
sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime but on evidence proving his commission of the offense
charged. Thus, if the offer to plead guilty to a lesser charged.
offense is made by the accused after the prosecution has
already rested its case, the only basis on which the G. R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
fiscal and the court could rightfully allow the accused to
ENRILE vs. PEOPLE
change his former plea of not guilty to guilty to a lesser
BERSAMIN, J.:
offense should be the evidence already in the record.
The reason for this being that Section 2, Rule 116 under
which a plea for a lesser offense is allowed was not and
could not have been intended as a procedure for 1) During the preliminary investigation, a
compromise, much less bargaining. respondent is not entitled to copies of the affidavit of his
co-respondents. His motion for bill of particulars
2) The court may correctly accept the accused’s
demanding to be furnished such affidavits should
offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense even if
therefore be denied.
made after the prosecution has rested its by reason of
equity case provided the requirements for plea 2) Under procedural law, a respondent under
bargaining under Section 2 or Rule 116 are complied preliminary investigation has the right to examine the
with and such offer would redound to the benefit of the evidence submitted by the complainant, but he does not
state, as for instance the accused can help in the have a similar right over the evidence submitted by his
prosecution of the other more guilty accused. or her co-respondents. There is no law or rule which
states that it is a compulsory requirement of due
PEOPLE vs. JANJALANI
process in a preliminary investigation that the
G.R. No. 188314 January 10, 2011
investigating prosecutor furnish a respondent with the
SERENO, J.:
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents. Neither Section
3 (b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
1) Convictions based on an improvident plea of
Procedure nor Section 4 (c), Rule II of the Rules of
guilt should be set aside only if such plea is the sole
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman supports
basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on
Sen. Estrada's claim.
sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused,

Although Section 4 (c), Rule II of the Rules of SORIANO vs. PEOPLE

Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman provides that G.R. No. 162336 February 1, 2010
a respondent "shall have access to the evidence on DEL CASTILLO, J.:
record," this provision should be construed in relation
to Section 4 (a) and (b) of the same Rule, as well as to 1) A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the
the Rules of Criminal Procedure. First, Section 4 (a) proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash
states that "the investigating officer shall require the an information, there being a plain, speedy and
complainant or supporting witnesses to execute adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the
affidavits to substantiate the complaint." The aggrieved party. The proper remedy for the accused is to
"supporting witnesses" are the witnesses of the enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to
complainant, and do not refer to the co-respondents. present the special defenses he had invoked in his
motion to quash and if after trial on the merits, an
PEOPLE vs. DUMLAO adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the
G.R. No. 168918 March 2, 2009 manner authorized by law. The case of Macapagal-
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Arroyo, however, provides for an exception to the rule
established in this case.
1) If the ground raised in the accused’s motion to
quash is that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, the fundamental test in determining the
sufficiency of the material averments of the information CO vs. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS
is whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically G. R. No. 183994 June 30, 2014
admitted as true, would establish the essentials PERALTA, J.:
elements of the crime as defined by law. Evidence
aliunde, or matters extrinsic of the Information, are not 1) In determining whether the criminal case was
to be considered. properly dismissed on the ground that the accused's
right to speedy trial was violated, the delay should be
2) Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. The
grounds of a Motion to Quash. Insufficiency of evidence factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the
is a ground for dismissal of an action only after the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or
prosecution rests its case. failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such
delay. Surely, mere mathematical reckoning of the time

involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday life PEOPLE vs. MA. CRISTINA SERGIO
must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after G. R. No. 240053 October 9, 2019
all, do not exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard Hernando, J.:
must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to
each case. While the accused's right to speedy trial 1) The fact that the prosecution witness is in
should be recognized, the Sta could not be deprived of a prison in Indonesia awaiting her execution justifies a
reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. resort to Rule 23 so her deposition can be taken by
Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an written interrogatories to be used in the prosecution for
unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of human trafficking of the persons who sent her to
the accused to speedy trial. Indonesia with sever kilos of prohibited drug without her
knowledge. Courts should always be guided by the
IMPERIAL vs. JOSON principle that rules shall be liberally construed in order
G.R. No. 160067 November 17, 2010 to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
PEREZ, J.: inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
Simply put, rules of procedure should facilitate an
orderly administration of justice. They should not be
1) Although the Revised Rules of Criminal strictly applied causing injury to a substantive right of a
Procedure mandates commencement of the trial within party to case. The rules of procedure should be viewed
30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order and the as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
continuous conduct thereof for a period not exceeding justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would
180 days, Section 3 a (1), Rule 119 provides that delays result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
resulting from extraordinary remedies against promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.
interlocutory orders shall be excluded in computing the
time within which trial must commence. In determining
the right of an accused to speedy trial, moreover, courts JIMENEZ vs. PEOPLE
are "required to do more than a mathematical G.R. No. 209195 September 17, 2014
computation of the number of postponements of the BRION, J.:
scheduled hearings of the case" and to give particular
regard to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each 1) For the purpose of the discharge of an accused
case. to be a state witness, absolute necessity exists for his
testimony when he or she alone has knowledge of the

crime. In more concrete terms, necessity is not there of the accused. If that were practicable or possible, there
when the testimony would simply corroborate or would be little need for the formality of a trial.
otherwise strengthen the prosecution’s evidence.The
requirement of absolute necessity for the testimony of a 5) By jurisprudence, "most guilty" refers to the
state witness depends on the circumstances of each highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in
case regardless of the number of the participating the commission of the offense and does not necessarily
conspirators. mean the severity of the penalty imposed. While all the
accused may be given the same penalty by reason of
2) That the prosecution could use the voluntary conspiracy, yet one may be considered to have lesser or
statements of the accused his discharge as a state the least guilt taking into account his degree of
witness is not an important and relevant consideration. participation in the commission of the offense. What the
To the prosecution belongs the control of its case and rule avoids is the possibility that the most guilty would
the court cannot dictate on its choice in the discharge of be set free while his co-accused who are less guilty in
a state witness, save only when the legal requirements terms of participation would be penalized.
have not been complied with.
6) For purposes of discharging an accused to be a
3) The testimony of the state witness may be state witness, the principal by inducement is not
substantially corroborated in its material points not only automatically the most guilty in a conspiracy. If one
by the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses but induces another to commit a crime, the influence is the
also by pieces of object evidence that were discovered determining cause of the crime. Without the
through information furnished by the state witness. inducement, the crime would not have been committed;
it is the inducer who sets into motion the execution of
4) In resolving a motion to discharge an accused the criminal act. Neither is the principal by direct
to be a state witness under Section 17 of Rule 119, the participation more guilty than the principal by
rules only require that that the testimony of the accused inducement as the Revised Penal Code penalizes the
be substantially corroborated in its material points, not principal by inducement only when the principal by
on all points. A trial judge cannot be expected or direct participation has executed the crime.
required, at the start of the trial, to inform himself with
absolute certainty of everything that may develop in the 7) In determining whether to discharge an
course of the trial with respect to the guilty participation accused to be a state witness, the trial court is not a
mere "rubber stamp" of the prosecution. It is still the

trial court that determines whether the prosecution’s qualifies as a state witness, his noncompliance
preliminary assessment of the accused-witness’ therewith would only prevent the order of discharge
qualifications to be a state witness satisfies the from operating as an acquittal. It does not speak of any
procedural norms. This relationship is in reality a penalty to the effect of rendering all the testimonies of
symbiotic one as the trial court, by the very nature of its the state witness during the discharge proceeding
role in the administration of justice, largely exercises its inadmissible. On the contrary, the testimonies and
prerogative based on the prosecutor’s findings and admissions of a state witness during the discharge
evaluation. proceedings may be admitted as evidence to impute
criminal liability against him should he fail or refuse to
PEOPLE vs. DOMINGUEZ testify in accordance with his sworn statement
constituting the basis for the discharge, militating
G.R. No. 229420 February 19, 2018 against the claim of inadmissibility.
1) The death of the state witness prior to trial That the testimony of the accused was offered for
proper will not automatically render his testimony the limited purpose of qualifying him as a state witness
during the discharge proceeding inadmissible. Section does not automatically render his statements as to the
17 of Rule 119 provides that evidence adduced in specifics on the commission of the offense inadmissible.
support of the discharge shall automatically form part of One of the requirements under Section 17, Rule 119 is
the trial. It is only when the court denies the motion for to establish that the erstwhile respondent does not
discharge of the accused as state witness that his sworn appear to be the most guilty among him and his
statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. Upon the cohorts. Thus, it is quite understandable that, during
grant of the motion for discharge, whatever transpired the discharge proceeding, the accused would narrate in
during the hearing, including the sworn affidavit of the graphic detail his entire knowledge of the crime and the
state witness, is already automatically deemed part of extent of the participation of each of the accused.
the records of the criminal case. The subsequent death
of the state witness before he could testify in the trial of
the case will not render his testimony during the CABADOR vs. PEOPLE
hearing of the motion for discharge inadmissible. G.R. No. 186001 October 2, 2009
ABAD, J.:
While Section 17 of Rule 119 requires the
accused to testify again during trial proper after he

1) A motion to dismiss filed by the accused before LLAMAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS
the prosecution has rested its case alleging that G.R. No. 149588 September 29, 2009
unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delays due to NACHURA, J.:
the fault of the prosecution have attended the trial of his
case should be treated as a motion to dismiss on the 1) The remedy of annulment of judgment under
ground of denial of his right to speedy trial and not a Rule 47 cannot be availed of in criminal cases. The
demurrer to evidence even if he also mentioned in the remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment
motion that trial court "has no evidence to consider," being questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The
"the charge has no leg to stand on," and that "the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not
witnesses had no knowledge of his connection with or permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the
any participation in the incident." The fact that the enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules
accused filed the motion before the prosecution has of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to
rested his case and that he did not even mention the criminal cases. Section 18, Rule 124 thereof, provides:
evidence adduced by the prosecution that proved to be
insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt Sec. 18. Application of certain rules
disqualifies it from being a demurrer to evidence. The in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The
denial of the motion which was filed without leave of provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to
court should not, therefore, be a ground to deprive the 56 relating to procedure in the Court of
accused of his right to adduce evidence. Appeals and in the Supreme Court in
original and appealed civil cases shall be
REPUBLIC VS. DE BORJA applied to criminal cases insofar as they
are applicable and not inconsistent with
1) In a demurrer to evidence, however, it is the provisions of this Rule.
premature to speak of "preponderance of evidence"
because it is filed prior to the defendant's presentation of There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to
evidence; it is precisely the office of a demurrer to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. When
evidence to expeditiously terminate the case without the there is no law or rule providing for a remedy, recourse
need of the defendant's evidence. Hence, what is crucial to it cannot be allowed.
is the determination as to whether the plaintiffs
evidence entitles it to the relief sought. HIPOS, SR. vs. JUDGE BAY
G.R. Nos. 174813-15 March 17, 2009

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: 1) It is an established rule in criminal procedure

that a judgment of acquittal shall state whether the
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the
1) A court cannot be compelled through a writ of guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt
mandamus to dismiss a criminal case by virtue of a beyond reasonable doubt.20 In either case, the judgment
motion to withdraw information filed by the prosecutor’s shall determine if the act or omission from which the
office on the ground of lack of probable cause. As an civil liability might arise did not exist.21 When the
extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to exoneration is merely due to the failure to prove the
compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court
discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control should award the civil liability in favor of the offended
the exercise of discretion by a public officer where the party in the same criminal action. In other words, the
law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment "extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
in reference to any manner in which he is required to extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds
act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
and not that of the court. which the civil liability might arise did not exist."
In Crespo v. Mogul, it was held that once a While an act or omission is felonious because it is
criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any punishable by law, it may also give rise to civil liability
disposition of the case or dismissal or acquittal or not so much because it is a crime but because it caused
conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive damage to another. What gives rise to the civil liability is
jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial really the obligation and moral duty of the accused to
court. The trial court is the best and sole judge on what repair or make whole the damage caused to offended
to do with the case before it. A motion to dismiss the party by reason of his own act or omission, done
case filed by the public prosecutor should be addressed intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be
to the court who has the option to grant or deny the punishable by law. Simply stated, civil liability arises
same. when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done
intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another.
ABELLANA vs. PEOPLE Hence, for the accused to be civilly liable, it must be
G.R. No. 174654 August 17, 2011 proven that the acts he committed had caused damage
DEL CASTILLO, J.: to the offended party.

G.R. No. 173089 August 25, 2010 G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015
PEOPLE vs. Hon. ENRIQUE C. ASIS PERALTA, J.:
Mendoza, J.:
1) A motion for execution of a judgment of
1) A petition for certiorari under Rule conviction filed more than 20 years from the time it
65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of became final and executory may properly be granted by
acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate the court provided the penalty has not prescribed. The
level. In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of- prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of the RPC
acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is applies only to those who are convicted by final
final and unappealable. The rule, however, is not judgment and are serving sentence which consists in
without exception. A petition for certiorari questioning deprivation of liberty, and that the period for
the acquittal of the accused in, or the dismissals of, prescription of penalties begins only when the convict
criminal cases may be entertained if there a clear evades service of sentence by escaping during the term
showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, of his sentence. Thus, if the accused was never brought
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but to prison or placed in confinement despite being
also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or sentenced to imprisonment by final judgment, the
excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus prescription of penalty of imprisonment would not have
rendering the assailed judgment void. ran in his favor.
An order of the trial court granting an accused’s 2) Once a judgment of conviction becomes final
demurrer to evidence may be assailed via a special civil and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to
action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground immediately execute the penalty of imprisonment
of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess and/or pecuniary penalty (fine). A motion to execute
of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered judgment of conviction is not necessary. With respect to
void judgment, does not result in jeopardy. Thus, when the penalty of imprisonment, the trial court should
the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an cancel the bail bond and issue a warrant of arrest, if the
appellate court in an original special civil action via accused is not yet under detention. If the convicted
certiorari, the right of the accused against double accused is already under detention by virtue of the
jeopardy is not violated. warrant of arrest issued, the trial court should
immediately issue the corresponding mittimus or
BASILONIA vs. HON. VLLLARUZ commitment order for the immediate transfer of the

accused to the National Penitentiary to serve his does not show that the offense was committed within
sentence, if the penalty imposed requires the service of the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint
sentence in the National Penitentiary. The commitment or information is not valid or sufficient in form and
order should state that an appeal had been filed, but the substance, etc.
same had been withdrawn, dismissed or decided with
finality. 2) The only instance when the word dismissal
amounts to an acquittal is where the court grants the
2) The motion for execution of the judgment of accused’s demurrer to evidence. In this case the
conviction with regards to the civil liability filed after 20 dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the case is
years from its entry should be denied as it is in violation decided on the merits.
of Section 6 of Rule 39.
3) If the prosecution fails to prove that the offense
xxxxxxxxxxxx was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an
acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the accused could
1) The dismissal of a criminal action on the not be again prosecuted before the court of competent
ground that the lacks jurisdiction over the case is not an jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, the
acquittal of the accused. Basic is the rule that a defendant may again be prosecuted for the same offense
dismissal of a case is different from an acquittal of the before the court of competent jurisdiction.
accused therein. Except in a dismissal based on a
Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused, or for BRIONES vs. PEOPLE
violation of the right of the accused to a speedy trial, the G.R. No. 156009 June 5, 2009
dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of the court’s BRION, J.:
lack of jurisdiction will not result in the acquittal of the
accused. Acquittal is always based on the merits, that 1) For new trial to be granted on the ground of
is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of the
not show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable following conditions must obtain: (a) the evidence must
doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the have been discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could
merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal not have been discovered at the trial even with the
terminates the proceeding, either because the court is exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is
not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or

impeaching; and (d) the evidence must affect the merits information does not contain substantial amendments
of the case and produce a different result if admitted. warranting a new preliminary investigation.
2) An accused charged in the information with

robbery may be convicted of simple theft. The failure of PAYUMO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
the information to specify the correct crime committed G.R. No. 151911 July 25, 2011
will not bar the accused’s conviction for the crime of MENDOZA, J.:
theft. The character of the crime is not determined by
the caption or preamble of the information, or by the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been 1) The erroneous admission or rejection of
violated. The crime committed is determined by the evidence by the trial court is not a ground for a new trial
recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the or reversal of the decision if there are other independent
complaint or information. Robbery, which is the crime evidence to sustain the decision, or if the rejected
charged in the information necessarily includes the evidence, if it had been admitted would not have
crime of simple theft, which was the crime established changed the decision.
beyond reasonable doubt.
CORAZON MACAPAGAL vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 193217 February 26, 2014
SALUDAGA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.:
G.R. NO. 184537 April 23, 2010
MENDOZA, J.:
1) An order of the trial court denying the
accused’s notice of appeal is not a decision or final order
1) The failure to conduct a new preliminary from which an appeal may be taken. The Rules of Court
investigation does necessarily amount to a violation of specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken from
the accused right to due process. While it is true that an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather,
preliminary investigation is a statutory and substantive the aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a
right accorded to the accused before trial, the denial of special civil action under Rule 65.
the accused’s claim for a new investigation would not
deprive him of his right to due process if the new ROSIE QUIDET vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 170289 April 8, 2010

DEL CASTILLO, J.:
1) Section 11 or Rule 122 provides that an appeal PEOPLE vs. OLIVO

taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect G.R. No. 177768 July 27, 2009
those who did not appeal except insofar as the judgment QUISUMBING, J.:
of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the
latter. Since the judgment of the appellate court reduced
the penalty imposed the accused-appellant, such 1) The present rule is that an appeal taken by one
judgment shall apply to his co-accused who did not or more of several accused shall not affect those who did
appeal the judgment of the trial court. not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
If the judgment of the appellate court, therefore,
BALABA vs. PEOPLE acquitted the accused-appellant for insufficiency of the
G.R. No. 169519 July 17, 2009 prosecution evidence to convict him beyond reasonable
CARPIO, J.: doubt, such judgment, being definitely favorable and
applicable to the accused who did appeal, shall be
applicable to him.
1) An error in designating the appellate court in
the notice of appeal is not fatal to the appeal. However,
the correction in designating the proper appellate court PEOPLE vs. TARUC
(Sandiganbayan) should be made within the 15-day G.R. No. 185202 February 18, 2009
period to appeal. Once made within the said period, the Chico-Nazario, J.:
designation of the correct appellate court may be
allowed even if the records of the case have been
forwarded to the court without appellate jurisdiction 1) If accused fails without justifiable cause to
(Court of Appeals). Otherwise, the second paragraph of appear at the promulgation of judgment despite notice,
Section 2 of Rule 50 would apply, to wit: "An appeal and the judgment is one of conviction, he shall lose the
erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be remedies available in these Rules against the judgment
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be and the court shall order his arrest.
dismissed outright."

2) If the accused-appellant escapes from prison G.R. No. 162370 April 21, 2009
or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country TIU vs. COURT OF APPEALS
during the pendency of the appeal, the Court of appeals CARPIO, J.:
shall dismiss the appeal. Once an accused escapes from
prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country, he loses his standing in court and unless he 1) The private complainant has no legal
surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he personality to file with the Supreme Court a petition for
is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of
the court. Appeals. Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor
General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Although Section 8 of Rule 124 particularly Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or
applies to the Court of Appeals, it has been extended to State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court
the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the and the Court of Appeals.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:
COLINARES vs. PEOPLE
SECTION 1. Uniform procedure. - G.R. No. 182748 December 13, 2011
Unless otherwise provided by the ABAD, J.:
Constitution or by law, the procedure in
the Supreme Court in original and in
appealed cases shall be the same as in the 1) An accused who appealed a judgment
Court of Appeals. sentencing him to a non-probationable penalty may
avail himself of probation if the appellate court
There are certain fundamental rights which sentences him to a probationable penalty. The Probation
cannot be waived even by the accused himself, but the Law never intended to deny an accused his right to
right of appeal is not one of them. This right is granted probation through no fault of his. The underlying
solely for the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or philosophy of probation is one of liberality towards the
not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly or accused. Such philosophy is not served by a harsh and
by implication. When the accused flees after the case stringent interpretation of the statutory provisions. The
has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be Probation Law must not be regarded as a mere privilege
deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the to be given to the accused only where it clearly appears
judgment rendered against him. he comes within its letter; to do so would be to disregard

the teaching in many cases that the Probation Law 1) Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of
should be applied in favor of the accused not because it Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03,
is a criminal law but to achieve its beneficent purpose. dated October 15, 2004, governs the procedure on the
appeal from the CA to the Court when the penalty
VILLAREAL vs. PEOPLE imposed is either reclusion perpetua or life
G.R. No. 151258 December 1, 2014 imprisonment. According to the said provision, "[i]n
Sereno, SJ,: cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall
render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The
1) The ruling in Colinares v. People, which judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by
modified the ruling in Francisco insofar as the eligibility notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
for probation of those who appeal their conviction is
concerned, was applied in this case. In Francisco, the An accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in
accused who appeals for whatever reason a judgment of resorting to an appeal by certiorari to the Court via Rule
conviction is disqualified from availing himself of the 45 under the Rules of Court. An appeal to this Court by
benefits of probation even if the appellate court petition for review on certiorari shall raise only
sentences him to a probationable penalty. In Colinares, questions of law. Moreover, such review is not a matter
if the accused appeals a judgment of conviction of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be
imposing on him a non-probationable penalty but the granted only when there are special and important
same is modified by the appellate court to a reasons.
probationable penalty, he may avail himself of
probation. Of course, if the accused appeals a judgment
of conviction imposing on him a probationable penalty,
he is disqualified from applying for probation even if the In other words, when the CA imposed a penalty of
appellate court sentences him to a probationable reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an accused
penalty. may: (1) file a notice of appeal under Section 13( c ),
Rule 124 to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before
G.R. No. 209464 July 1, 2015 the Court and open the entire case for review on any
DUNGO vs. PEOPLEO N question; or (2) file a petition for review on certiorari
MENDOZA, J.: under Rule 45 to resort to an appeal as a matter of
discretion and raise only questions of law.

G.R. No. 158467 October 16, 2009 illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well
MARIMLA vs. PEOPLE as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs
Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may
1) A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides that the hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein
guidelines on the enforceability of search warrants by the Supreme Court.
provided therein shall continue until further orders from
this Court. In fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09- The applications shall be personally endorsed by
SC are reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC entitled the heads of such agencies and shall particularly
Guidelines On The Selection And Designation Of describe therein the places to be searched and/or the
Executive Judges And Defining Their Powers, property or things to be seized as prescribed in the
Prerogatives And Duties, which explicitly stated that the Rules of Court. The Executive Judges and Vice-
guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in special Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if
criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City justified, which may be served in places outside the
shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.
Rules of Court, to wit:
PEOPLE vs. NUEVAS
Chapter V. Specific Powers, Prerogatives and G.R. No. 170233 February 22, 2007
Duties of Executive Judges in Judicial Supervision TINGA, J.:
Sec. 12. Issuance of search warrants in special 1) The Constitution states that a search and
criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial
Quezon City. – The Executive Judges and, whenever warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes
they are on official leave of absence or are not physically "unreasonable" and any evidence obtained therefrom is
present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges of the inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The
RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to constitutional proscription, however, is not absolute but
act on applications filed by the National Bureau of admits of exceptions, namely:
Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP)
and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), for search 1. Warrantless search incidental to a
warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, lawful arrest. (Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the

Rules of Court and prevailing 7. Exigent and emergency

jurisprudence); circumstances.
2. Search of evidence in "plain 2) For a search incidental to a lawful arrest to be

view." The elements are: (a) a prior valid valid, the arrest must precede the search; the process
intrusion based on the valid warrantless cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially
arrest in which the police are legally contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest
present in the pursuit of their official if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently the outset of the search. It is also required that the
discovered by the police who have the right person to be arrested must be committing or has
to be where they are; (c) the evidence must committed a crime in the presence of the police officers.
be immediately apparent; (d) "plain view" Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a
justified mere seizure of evidence without warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113. The
further search; rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform
some overt act that would indicate that he "has
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
regulated by the government, the vehicle’s commit an offense."
inherent mobility reduces expectation of
privacy especially when its transit in public 3) For purposes of a valid search under the plain
thoroughfares furnishes a highly view doctrine, an object is in plain view if it is plainly
reasonable suspicion amounting to exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a
probable cause that the occupant closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and
committed a criminal activity; therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However,
if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its
4. Consented warrantless search; distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents
5. Customs search; are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if
the package is such that an experienced observer could
6. Stop and Frisk; and infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited
article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must
be immediately apparent to the police that the items

that they observe may be evidence of a crime, consenting. It is the State which has the burden of
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. If the dried proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the
marijuana leaves were inside a plastic bag, packed in necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely
newspaper and wrapped therein. that the person to be and voluntarily given.
arrested is carrying and were not readily apparent or
transparent to the police officers, the dried marijuana
leaves could not be considered in plain view.
VERIDIANO vs. PEOPLE
4) While the constitutional immunity against G.R. No. 200370 June 7, 2017
unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right LEONEN, J.:
which may be waived, it must be seen that the consent
to the search was voluntary in order to validate an 1) There is no valid arrest in flagrante delicto and
otherwise illegal detention and search. For consent to be search incident thereto under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of
valid, it must be unequivocal, specific, and intelligently the Rules of Court if the person arrested at a checkpoint
given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The was not committing a crime but was merely a passenger
consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but who did not exhibit any unusual conduct in the
must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The presence of the law enforcers that would incite
question whether a consent to a search was in fact suspicion. The police officers effecting the warrantless
voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the arrest and search cannot rely solely on the tip they
totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this received. Reliable information alone is insufficient to
determination are the following characteristics of the support a warrantless arrest absent any overt act from
person giving consent and the environment in which the person to be arrested indicating that a crime has
consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant; (2) just been committed, was being committed, or is about
whether he was in a public or secluded location; (3) to be committed.
whether he objected to the search or passively looked
on; (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; 2) A warrantless arrest and search cannot
(5) the presence of coercive police procedures; (6) the likewise be justified under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 if the
defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be law enforcers effecting the arrest had no personal
found; (7) the nature of the police questioning; (8) the knowledge of any fact or circumstance indicating that
environment in which the questioning took place; and petitioner had just committed an offense. A hearsay tip
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest. Law

enforcers must have personal knowledge of facts, based criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest; and
on their observation, that the person sought to be (c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid
arrested has just committed a crime. This is what gives thus rendering the evidence acquired as constitutionally
rise to probable cause that would justify a warrantless inadmissible.
search under Section 5(b) of Rule 113.
Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused
3) For warrantless search to be valid under the as a result of an invalid arrest must be raised through a
"stop and frisk" doctrine, the law enforcer must have a motion to quash before an accused enters his or her
genuine reason to believe, based on his experience and plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an
the particular circumstances of each case, that criminal accused is "estopped from questioning the legality of his
activity may be afoot. Reliance on one suspicious [or her] arrest."
activity alone, or none at all, cannot produce a
reasonable search. The voluntary submission of an accused to the
jurisdiction of the court and his or her active
A "stop and frisk" search is defined as "the act of participation during trial cures any defect or irregularity
a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate that may have attended an arrest. The reason for this
him, and pat him for weapons or contraband." The rule is that "the legality of an arrest affects only the
allowable scope of a "stop and frisk" search is limited to jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused."
a "protective search of outer clothing for weapons."
Although a "stop and frisk" search is a necessary law Failure to timely object to the illegality of an
enforcement measure specifically directed towards crime arrest, however, does not preclude an accused from
prevention, there is a need to safeguard the right of questioning the admissibility of evidence seized. The
individuals against unreasonable searches and inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an
seizures. Law enforcers do not have unbridled discretion accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his
in conducting "stop and frisk" searches. While probable or her person in a timely manner. Jurisdiction over the
cause is not required, a "stop and frisk" search cannot person of an accused and the constitutional
be validated on the basis of a suspicion or hunch. inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually
exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.
4) The invalidity of an arrest leads to several
consequences among which are: (a) the failure to MIGUEL vs. PEOPLE
acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused; (b) G.R. No. 227038 July 31, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: searches and seizure would not apply. In other words, a
private person could not conduct an unreasonable
search that would render the evidence inadmissible. If
1) There was no valid arrest in flagrante delicto the search is, however, made upon the request of law
by Bantay Bayan operatives of a man caught urinating enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it
on a fence along the road and allegedly showing his is to pass the test of constitutionality.
private parts who, after being searched, yielded two
sticks of marijuana in a pack of cigarette and was later 3) Under existing jurisprudence, barangay
charged not with displaying his private parts but tanods, Barangay Chairmen, and bantay bayan
possession of a dangerous drug. The marijuana operatives are deemed as law enforcement officers for
recovered was inadmissible for being the fruit of an purposes of applying Article III of the Constitution. A
unreasonable search. Clearly, the circumstances did not bantav bayan operative has the color of a state-related
justify the conduct of an in flagrante delicto arrest, function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a
considering that there was no overt act constituting a suspect to his constitutional rights in relation to the
crime committed in the presence or within the view of authority to conduct a custodial investigation under
the arresting officer. Neither did the circumstances Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution.
necessitate a "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest as the
arresting Bantay Bayan operatives did not have any 4) A Port Authority (Manila, Cebu etc.) is clothed
personal knowledge of facts that petitioner had just with authority by the state to oversee the security of
committed an offense. More importantly, there could be persons and vehicles within its ports. While there is a
no valid warrantless arrest of the accused on account of distinction between port personnel and port police
the alleged public display of his private parts because he officers in this case, considering that port personnel are
was not charged for said crime but for illegal possession not necessarily law enforcers, both should be considered
of dangerous drugs. agents of government under Article III of the
Constitution. The actions of port personnel during
2) With regard to searches and seizures, the routine security checks at ports have the color of a
standard imposed on private persons is different from state-related function.
that imposed on state agents or authorized government
authorities. If the search that yielded the evidence was DIMAL vs. PEOPLE
conducted by a private person and not on behalf of the G.R. No. 216922 APRIL 18, 2018
State, the constitutional provision on unreasonable PERALTA, J.:

extend a general exploratory search from one object to

another until something incriminating at last emerges.
1) It is well settled that objects falling in plain
view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to 2) A description of a place to be searched is
have that view are subject to seizure even without a sufficient if the officer with the warrant can ascertain
search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. For and identify with reasonable effort the place intended,
the "plain view doctrine" to apply, however, it is required and distinguish it from other places in the
that the following requisites are present: (a) the law community. A designation that points out the place to
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the constitutional requirement of definiteness.
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he Technical precision of description is not required.
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or "It is sufficient that there be reasonable particularity
otherwise subject to seizure. and certainty as to the identity of the property to be
searched for and seized, so that the warrant shall not be
What the 'plain view' cases have in common is a mere roving commission. Indeed, the law does not
that the police officer in each of them had a prior require that the things to be seized must be described in
justification for an intrusion in the course of which he precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt
came inadvertently across a piece of evidence on the part of the searching authorities. If this were the
incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to rule, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants
supplement the prior justification-whether it be a to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident what kind of things to look for.
to a lawful-arrest, or some other legitimate reason for
being present unconnected with a search directed 3) A search warrant may be said to particularly
against the accused-and permits the warrantless describe the things to be seized (1) when the description
seizure. Of course, the extension of the original therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately allow; or (2) when the description expresses a
apparent to the police that they have evidence before conclusion of fact - not of law by which the warrant
them; the 'plain view' doctrine may not be used to officer may be guided in making the search and seizure;
(3) and when the things to be described are limited to

those which bear direct relation to the offenses for which search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the
the warrant is being issued. The purpose for this law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a
requirement is to limit the articles to be seized only to search can be made – the process cannot be reversed.
those particularly described in the search warrant in
order to leave the officers of the law with no discretion HILARIO vs. PEOPLE
regarding what items they shall seize, to the end that no G.R. No. 161070 April 14, 2008
unreasonable searches and seizures will be committed. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
1) In criminal cases, the accused may file a

petition for relief from denial of appeal if, despite his
LENIZA REYES vs. PEOPLE express instruction, his counsel failed to file a notice of
G.R. No. 229380 June 06, 2018 appeal of the judgment of conviction. In all criminal
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appeal
in the manner prescribed by law. An appeal is an
essential part of the judicial system and trial courts are
1) There was no lawful arrest of the accused advised to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a
because she was just passing by the police officers party of the right to appeal and instructed that every
without acting suspiciously or doing anything wrong, party-litigant should be afforded the amplest
except that she smelled of liquor. As no other overt act opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his
could be properly attributed to the accused as to rouse cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities. While
suspicion in the mind of the police officers that she had this right is statutory, once it is granted by law,
just committed, was committing, or was about to however, its suppression would be a violation of due
commit a crime, the arrest is bereft of any legal basis. process, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, if
The act of walking while reeking of liquor per se cannot the accused’s loss of the right to appeal was due to his
be considered a criminal act. Since the arrest was counsel’s negligence and not at all attributed to him, his
unlawful, the search that followed it is also unlawful petition for relief from denial of appeal should be
rendering the dangerous drug recovered inadmissible in granted.
evidence.
2) One of the recognized exceptions to the need of

a warrant before a valid search may be effected is a

EVIDENCE not preclude the State from later on moving for a

revocation of the grant of naturalization on the basis of
(Rule 128 to Rule 133 as amended by A. M. No. 19- the such documents.
08-15-SC)
CECILIA ZULUETA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996
(Rule 128: General Provisions) MENDOZA, J.:
1) The private papers, including letters between

ONG CHIA vs. REPUBLIC the husband and his paramours, forcibly taken by the
G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000 wife from the drawer of her husband are inadmissible in
MENDOZA, J.: evidence in the case for legal separation and for
disqualification from the practice of medicine filed by the
1) In a naturalization proceeding, the appellant wife against her husband. The constitutional injunction
Republic may present for the first time on appeal in the declaring "the privacy of communication and
CA documentary evidence which was not presented and correspondence to be inviolable" is no less applicable
formally offered in the trial court. Under Section 4 of simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
Rule 1, the rule on formal offer of evidence under aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party
Section 34 of Rule 132 is not applicable to against whom the constitutional provision is to be
naturalization proceedings. The only instance when said enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the
rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in a Constitution is if there is a "lawful order from a court or
naturalization proceeding is when it is "practicable and when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
convenient." prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision
renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any
That is not true in the instant case. Reliance purpose in any proceeding."
upon the documents presented by the appellant
Republic for the first time on appeal, in fact, appears to The intimacies between husband and wife do not
be the more practical and convenient course of action justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and
considering that decisions in naturalization proceedings cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
are not covered by the rule on res telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
judicata. Consequently, a final favorable judgment does contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or

his right to privacy as an individual and the 2) Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to

constitutional protection is ever available to him or to warrant a conviction, must form an unbroken chain
her. which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the
accused, to the exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of
PEOPLE vs. YATAR, appellant. the crime. To determine whether there is sufficient
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004 circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur:
PER CURIAM: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) facts on
which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
1) The taking of blood sample from the accused combination of all the circumstances is such as to
and using the same in conducting DNA tests does not produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
violate the right of the accused against self-
incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the TATING vs. MARCELLA
Constitution. The right of an accused against self- G.R. No. 155208 March 27, 2007
incrimination is not against all compulsion, but against AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
testimonial compulsion. The right against self-
incrimination is simply against the legal process of 1) While the sworn affidavit of a person long dead
extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of is admissible in evidence, its weight is a different
guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be matter. The admissibility of evidence depends on its
excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object relevance and competence while the weight of evidence
evidence. pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency
to convince and persuade. Thus, a particular item of
2) In People v. Rondero, although the accused evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight
insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from him depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines
and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation provided by the rules of evidence. It is settled that
for forensic examination, the hair samples may be affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they
admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another
is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence who uses his own language in writing the affiant’s
communicative in nature acquired from the accused statements, which may thus be either omitted or
under duress. misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the
adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-
examine the affiant. For this reason, affidavits are

generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify which the declarant is a victim.
thereon.
In the instant case, all the requisites for the
2) In the instant case, the trial court committed admissibility of a dying declaration were satisfied. The
error in giving the sworn statement probative weight. declarant communicated his ante-mortem statement to
Since the affiant has long been dead and is no longer the witness, identifying the accused as the person who
available to take the witness stand, the trial court had stabbed him. At the time of his statement, the
should not have given probative value on the affiant’s declarant was conscious of his impending death, having
sworn statement for purposes of proving that the sustained a stab wound in the chest and, according to
contract of sale between her and another person was the witness, was then experiencing great difficulty in
simulated. breathing. The declarant succumbed in the hospital
emergency room a few minutes from admission, which
PEOPLE vs. SALAFRANCA occurred under three hours after the stabbing.
G.R. No. 173476 February 22, 2012
BERSAMIN, J.: The declarant’s belief in the imminence of his
death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements
1) A piece of evidence may have multiple or from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of
admissibility. A person’s declaration, for instance, may his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by the
be admitted in evidence both as a dying declaration and opinion of his physician. The declarant would have been
as part of the res gestae. competent to testify on the subject of the declaration
had he survived. Lastly, the dying declaration was
2) A dying declaration, although generally offered in this criminal prosecution for murder in which
inadmissible due to its hearsay character, may the declarant was the victim.
nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites
concur, namely: (a) that the declaration must concern 3) A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part
the cause and surrounding circumstances of the of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an
declarant’s death; (b) that at the time the declaration is exception to the hearsay rule when the following
made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res
impending death; (c) that the declarant is competent as gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are
a witness; and (d) that the declaration is offered in a made before the declarant had time to contrive or

devise; and (c) the statements must concern the that the matters testified to by a witness are hearsay.
occurrence in question and its immediately attending Since the right to cross-examine may be waived, the
circumstances. repeated failure of a party to cross-examine the witness
is an implied waiver of such right.
In the instant case, the requisites for
admissibility of a declaration as part of the res gestae 2) A party's admission of the execution of the
also concur. Surely, when he gave the identity of the promissory note at the pre-trial settles the question of
assailant to the witness, the declarant was referring to a the genuineness of the signatures thereon. The
startling occurrence, i.e., his stabbing by the accused. admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at
The declarant was then on board the taxicab that would pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated as a judicial
bring him to the hospital, and thus had no time to admission. Under Section 4 of Rule 129, a judicial
contrive his identification of the accused as the admission requires no proof.
assailant. His utterance about the accused as having
stabbed him was made in spontaneity and only in The party’s admission of the execution of the
reaction to the startling occurrence. The statement was promissory note also precludes him from invoking the
relevant because it identified the accused as the "best evidence rule". The adverse party need not present
perpetrator. the original of the promissory note as there was already
a judicial admission of its execution at pre-trial.
SCC CHEMICALS CORP. vs. CA
G.R. No. 128538 February 28, 2001 B. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED (RULE 129)
QUISUMBING, J.:
LBP vs. BANAL
1) Under Section 36 of Rule 130, hearsay G.R. No. 143276 July 20, 2004
evidence is, as a rule, excluded and carries no probative SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
value. Where the adverse party, however, fails to object
to hearsay evidence, then the same is, by way of an 1) Courts are not authorized to take judicial
exception, admissible. notice of the contents of the records of other cases even
when said cases have been tried or are pending in the
The rationale for the exception is to be found in same court or before the same judge. They may only do
the right of a litigant to cross-examine. It is the so "in the absence of objection" and "with the knowledge
opportunity to cross-examine which negates the claim of the opposing party”.

2) The Rules of Court shall apply to all same judge. This is especially true in criminal cases,
proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. In this where the accused has the constitutional right to
regard, Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.
Evidence is explicit on the necessity of a hearing before In the instant case, however, although the court a
a court takes judicial notice of a certain matter, thus: quo did take judicial notice of the testimony of a witness
in another case, since it did not use such testimony in
"SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. deciding the case, no error was committed. Accused
– During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, could not argue that he was denied due process.
or on request of a party, may announce its
intention to take judicial notice of any LAUREANO vs. CA & SINGAPORE AIRLINES
matter and allow the parties to be heard G.R. No. 114776 February 2, 2000
thereon. QUISUMBING, J.:
"After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, 1) In an action for damages, the party seeking the
the proper court, on its own initiative or on application of a foreign law must prove it like any factual
request of a party, may take judicial notice of any allegation. Failing in that, the court shall apply
matter and allow the parties to be heard Philippine. Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material of foreign laws. The party that claims the applicability of
issue in the case." (emphasis added) a foreign law to the case has the burden of proof.
The RTC failed to observe the above provisions in MAQUILING vs. COMELEC
the instant case. G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013
SERENO, CJ.:
PEOPLE vs. KULAIS
G.R. No. 100901 July 16, 1998 1) By performing all the acts necessary to re-
PANGANIBAN, J. acquire Filipino citizenship, including renouncing his
foreign citizenship, under the Citizenship Retention and
1) As a rule, courts cannot not take judicial notice Re-acquisition Act of 2003, a person is deemed to be
of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect of such
these have been tried or are pending in the same court, renunciation under the laws of the foreign country. The
or have been heard and are actually pending before the

court should apply the Philippine law regardless of the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving
contrary provisions that a foreign law may provide. his commission of the offense charged.
PEOPLE vs. BAHARA REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 188314 January 10, 2011 G.R. No. 152375 December 16, 2011
SERENO, J.: BRION, J.:
1) Since prior to entering a plea of guilt to the 1) Before a party can use the deposition taken at
crime charged, the accused had already entered a plea the trial of a pending action, Section 4, Rule 23 of the
of guilt to another crime based on the same facts, had Rules of Court does not only require due observance of
made an extrajudicial admission of the crime charged in its sub-paragraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a
a TV interview and a judicial admission of the same in condition for admissibility, compliance with "the rules
the pre-trial stipulation, determining whether the trial on evidence." Thus, even Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules
court conducted “searching inquiry” before the accused of Court makes an implied reference to Section 47, Rule
entered a plea of guilt is no longer necessary. 130 of the Rules of Court before the deposition may
be used in evidence.
2) It was ruled in the case of People v. Oden that
even if the requirement of conducting a searching 2) Section 4 of Rule 23 provides that “at the trial
inquiry was not complied with, "the manner by which x x x, any part or all of a deposition, so far as
the plea of guilt is made … loses much of great admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used
significance where the conviction can be based on against any party who was present or represented at the
independent evidence proving the commission by the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof,
person accused of the offense charged." in accordance with any one of the following provisions:
3) In People v. Nadera, the Court ruled that xxxx

convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set
aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. (c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a
If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the
evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that the
sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on witness resides at a distance more than one hundred
(100) kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is

out of the Philippines, unless it appears that his G.R. No. 200751 August 17, 2015
absence was procured by the party offering the LEONEN, J.:
deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to attend or
testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the 1) To prove that he did not commit theft when he
deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of harvested and sold abaca in an abaca plantation owned
the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application and by the complainant, the accused may present in
notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to evidence the final and executory resolution of DARAB
make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due declaring that there is tenancy relationship between him
regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of and the complainant.
witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to
be used. 2) A DARAB decision on the existence of a
tenancy relationship is conclusive and binding on courts
On the other hand, Section 47 of Rule 130 if supported by substantial evidence. Findings of fact of
provides that “the testimony or deposition of a witness administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi-
deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or judicial powers are entitled to respect if supported by
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the substantial evidence. Trial courts cannot be expected to
same parties and subject matter, may be given in again weigh "the evidence submitted before the
evidence against the adverse party who had the administrative body and to substitute its own judgment
opportunity to cross-examine him. as to the sufficiency of evidence. This doctrine on
conclusiveness of judgment applies even in criminal
3) A final order is one that disposes of the action cases.
or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular
stage of the same action; in such case, the remedy C. RULES ON ADMISSION (RULE 130)
available to an aggrieved party is appeal. If the order,
however, merely resolves incidental matters and leaves 1. OBJECT/REAL EVIDENCE (S1)
something more to be done to resolve the merits of the
case, the order is interlocutory and the aggrieved party’s SALAS vs. MATUSALEM
remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. G.R. No. 180284 September 11, 2013
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
LIGTAS vs. PEOPLE

1) A certificate of live birth identifying the putative 2) An illegitimate child is also allowed to establish
father is not competent evidence of paternity when there his claimed filiation by "any other means allowed by the
is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the Rules of Court and special laws," like his baptismal
preparation of the certificate. Thus, if the father did not certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which
sign in the birth certificate, the placing of his name by his name has been entered, common reputation
the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the
incompetent evidence of paternity. Neither can such testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof
birth certificate be taken as a recognition in a public admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
instrument and it has no probative value to establish
filiation to the alleged father. 3) Under Article 175 (2) of the Family Code, the
death of the putative father is not a bar to the action
While baptismal certificates may be considered commenced during his lifetime by one claiming to be his
public documents, they can only serve as evidence of the illegitimate child. The rule on substitution of parties
administration of the sacraments on the dates so provided in Section 16 o Rule 3 applies.
specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence
of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the PEOPLE vs. MERCURY DELA CRUZ
child’s paternity. G.R. No. 212171 September 07, 2016
PEREZ, J.:
Pictures taken of the mother and her child
together with the alleged father are inconclusive 1) Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
evidence to prove paternity. Pictures showing the alleged Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the
father and the mother inside the rented apartment unit procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of
allegedly paid for by him have scant evidentiary value. the seized dangerous drugs, to wit:
The handwritten notes of the alleged father and (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
mother showing their exchange of affectionate words custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
and romantic trysts are not sufficient to establish the seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
child’s filiation to the putative father as they were not photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
signed by him and contained no statement of admission the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
that he is the father of said child. and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of

Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be prosecution must be able to present through records or
given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the the time these were seized from the accused by the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in their composition; and up to the time these are offered
case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains
non-compliance with these requirements under unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly were not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not be affected.
not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items. PEOPLE vs. MANUEL DELA ROSA
G.R. No. 230228 December 13, 2017
2) The last part of the aforequoted issuance GESMUNDO, J.:
provides for the exception to its strict compliance.
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect 1) Chain of custody means the duly recorded
chain of custody in the handling of evidence, authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
"substantial compliance with the legal requirements on controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
the handling of the seized item" is sufficient. Even if the drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the destruction. Such record of movements and custody of
items seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost seized item shall include the identity and signature of
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the person who held temporary custody of the seized
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court
of the accused. as evidence, and the final disposition.

2) Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was amended Notably, in the amendment of R.A. No. 10640, the
recently by R.A’. No. 10640, which became effective on apprehending team is now required to conduct a
July 15, 2014, and it essentially added the provisions physical inventory. of the seized items and photograph
contained in the IRR with a few modifications, to wit: the same in (1) the presence of the accused or the
persons from whom such items were confiscated
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
and control of. the dangerous drugs, controlled (2) with an elected public official and (3) a
precursors and essential chemicals, representative of the National Prosecution Service or
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory the media who shall be required to sign the copies of
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and the inventory and be given a copy thereof. In the present
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized case, as the alleged crime was committed on March 29,
items and photograph the same in the presence of the 2009, then the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
accused or the persons from whom such items were and its IRR shall apply.
confiscated and/ or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a PEOPLE vs. JOEY SANCHEZ
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the G.R. No. 231383, March 07, 2018
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That
the physical inventory and photograph shall be 1) Case law states that it is essential that the
conducted at the place where the search warrant is identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the
finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly account for each link in the chain of custody from the
preserved by the apprehending officer /team, shall not moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in
render void and invalid such seizures and custody over court as evidence of the crime.28
said items.
PEOPLE vs. EMMANUEL OLIVA
G.R. No. 234156 January 7, 2019

PERALTA, J.:
1) The prosecution bears the burden of proof to

show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure
laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It
has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto
in such a way that, during the proceedings before the
trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and
justifying any perceived deviations from the
requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the
mandated procedure must be adequately explained and
must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules
on evidence. The rules require that the apprehending
officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but
also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit,
coupled with a statement on the steps they took to
preserve the integrity of the seized item. A stricter
adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity
of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since ·it is highly
susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (S2 TO S10) PEOPLE vs. VIBAR

G.R. No. 215790 March 12, 2018
ST. MARTIN POLYCLINIC, INC. vs. LWV CONS. CORP. MARTIRES, J.:
G.R. No. 217426 December 04, 2017 1) A purported letter of the rape victim to the
accused saying that she was coerced to file the
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: complaint for rape against him is not admissible in
evidence if its due execution and authenticity were not
1) In an action for damages filed by a foreign proved in accordance with Section 20 of Rule 132 which
employer against the clinic which certified that an provides that “in order for any private document offered
applicant was fit for work for which reason the employer as authentic to be admitted as evidence, its due
hired him, a certification based on a medical execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by
examination conducted more than three months later anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
showing that the employee was HCV positive for which (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
reason he had to be expatriated does not necessarily handwriting of the maker”. The authentication of private
prove that the defendant clinic was negligent and document before it is received in evidence is vital
therefore liable for damages. because during such process, a witness positively
identifies that the document is genuine and has been
Even assuming that the employee's diagnosis for duly executed or that the document is neither spurious
HCV was correct, the fact that he later tested positive for nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under
the same does not convincingly prove that he was duress.
already under the same medical state at the time the
defendant clinic certified more than three months earlier 2) In the instant case, the accused did not
that he was fit for employment. The plaintiff employer present any witness who testified that the alleged letter
must prove that there was already negligence at the time was voluntarily and personally made by the victim nor
the certification was issued, may it be through evidence did he present any document from which her
that show that standard medical procedures were not handwriting could have been compared. The person who
carefully observed or that there were already palpable purportedly handed to the accused the victim’s letter
signs that exhibits the employee's unfitness for was not presented in court to testify as to the
deployment at that time. genuineness of the document.

The Best Evidence Rule deprived the adverse party of the opportunity to examine
and controvert the alleged spurious evidence.
MCMP CONST. vs. MONARK EQUIP’NT
G.R. No. 201001 November 10, 2014
VELASCO, JR., J.:
DIMAGUILA vs. MONTEIRO
1) Before a party may present secondary evidence G. R. No. 201011 January 27, 2014
to prove the contents of the original document whenever MENDOZA, J.:
the original copy has been lost, he must prove the
following: (1) the existence or due execution of the 1) Section 3(d) of Rule 130 provides that when the
original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
the reason for its non-production in court; and (3) the evidence shall be admissible other than the original
absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which document itself, except when the original is a public
the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in
correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, a public office. Section 7 of the same Rule provides that
loss, and contents. when the original of a document is in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
WILGEN LOON vs. POWER MASTER, INC. contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the
G.R. No. 189404 December 11, 2013 public officer in custody thereof. Section 24 of Rule 132
BRION, J.: provides that the record of public documents may be
evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the
1) While photocopied documents are generally legal custody or the record.
admitted in evidence and given probative value in
administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and 2) In the instant case, certified true copies of the
fabrication should prompt the offeror to present the cadastral map of Liliw and the corresponding list of
original documents for inspection. It is incumbent upon claimants of the area covered by the map were
the offeror to present the originals, especially when the presented and testified to by two public officers. The
alleged signatories claim that their signatures were cadastral maps and the list of claimants, as certified
forged and they submitted their specimen signatures. By true copies of original public records, fall under the
not adducing the originals, the offeror effectively exception to the best evidence rule.

ROBIÑOL vs. BASSIG Secondary Evidence

A.C. No. 11836 November 21, 2017
TIJAM, J.: Parol Evidence Rule
1) In disbarment proceedings, the burden of LEOVERAS vs. VALDEZ

proof rests upon the complainant and the proper G.R. No. 169985 June 15, 2011
evidentiary threshold is substantial evidence. To BRION, J.:
produce substantial evidence, the best evidence rule
must be complied with. If the complainant intends to 1) The parol evidence rule provides that when the
present a photocopy of a document, a secondary terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the
evidence, he must show that the original is unavailable written agreement is deemed to contain all the terms
as required by Section 5 of Rule 130. agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be
admitted other than what is contained in the written
2) Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is
evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror understood to have been waived and abandoned.
must prove the following: (1) the existence or due
execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule,
the original or the reason for its non-production in the Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence
court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the
bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading the
be attributed. failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the
written agreement to express the true intention of the
3) Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable
are sui generis-neither purely civil nor purely criminal. conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not prevent
They do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but a meeting of the minds of the parties.
rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its
officers. While these proceedings are sui PARAS vs. KIMWA CONST. & DEV. CORP.
generis, compliance with the basic rules on evidence G.R. No. 171601 April 8, 2015
such as the best evidence rule may not be altogether LEONEN, J.:
dispensed with.

1) The parol evidence rule "forbids any addition possible objections to the admission of evidence, a
to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement party’s failure to timely object is deemed a waiver, and
by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that parol evidence may then be entertained.
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying
the purport of the written contract." Apart from pleading these exceptions, it is equally
imperative that the parol evidence sought to be
This rule is animated by a perceived wisdom in introduced points to the conclusion proposed by the
deferring to the contracting parties’ articulated intent. In party presenting it, such as the existence of the flaw,
choosing to reduce their agreement into writing, they are true intent, or subsequent extraneous terms averred by
deemed to have done so meticulously and carefully, the party seeking to introduce parol evidence.
employing specific — frequently, even technical —
language as are appropriate to their context. From an In sum, two (2) things must be established for
evidentiary standpoint, this is also because "oral parol evidence to be admitted: first, that the existence of
testimony . . . coming from a party who has an interest any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a
in the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on party’s pleading or has not been objected to by the
human memory, is not as reliable as written or adverse party; and second, that the parol evidence
documentary evidence. Spoken words could be sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the
notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which conclusion proposed by the presenting party.
speaks of a uniform language."
PNB vs. PAS IMIO
2) The parol evidence rule, however, admits of an G.R. No. 205590 September 02, 2015
exception. Provided that a party puts in issue in its VELASCO JR., J.:
pleading any of the four (4) items enumerated in the
second paragraph of Rule 130, Section 9, "a party may 1) Under the parol evidence rule, parol evidence
present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms or oral evidence cannot be given to contradict, change or
of the agreement. The exception applies to both the vary a written document, except if a party presents
plaintiff and the defendant. If the defendant set up the evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of a
affirmative defense that the contract mentioned in the written agreement and puts in issue in his pleadings: (a)
complaint does not express the true agreement of the an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the
parties, then parol evidence is admissible to prove the written agreement; (b) the failure of the written
true agreement of the parties. Moreover, as with all agreement to express the true intent and agreement of

the parties; (c) the validity of the written agreement; and be considered at all, while probative value refers to the
(d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties question of whether the admitted evidence proves an
or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be
written agreement. admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the
Such evidence, however, must be clear and rules of evidence.
convincing and of such sufficient credibility as to
overturn the written agreement. Since no evidence of 2) While in summary proceedings such as an
such nature is before the Court, the documents action for unlawful detainer affidavits are admissible as
embodying the loan agreement of the parties should be the witnesses' respective testimonies, the failure of the
upheld. adverse party to reply does not ipso facto render the
facts, set forth therein, duly proven. Petitioners still bear
2) The rule that the appellate court must give the burden of proving their cause of action, because
weight on the factual findings of the trial court is hinged they are the ones asserting an affirmative relief.
on the latter's firsthand opportunity to hear the
witnesses and to observe their demeanor during the TORRES vs. PAGCOR
trial. However, when such findings are not anchored on G.R. No. 193531 December 14, 2011
their credibility and their testimonies, but on the PERALTA, J.:
assessment of documents that are available to appellate
magistrates and subject to their scrutiny, reliance on
the trial court’s factual findings finds no application. 1) A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic
pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the
Electronic Evidence marks of an original. Without the original, there is no
way of determining on its face whether the facsimile
HEIRS OF SABANPAN vs. COMORPOSA pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally
G.R. No. 152807 August 12, 2003 signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a
PANGANIBAN, J.: sham pleading.
1) The admissibility of evidence should not be Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not

confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to considered as an electronic evidence under the
the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to Electronic Commerce Act. The terms "electronic data

message" and "electronic document," as defined under G. R. No. 204894 March 10, 2014
the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a ABAD, J.:
facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile
transmission cannot be considered as electronic 1) Under the SC’s Resolution applying the Rules
evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions, text
original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not messages are admissible in evidence provided they are
admissible as electronic evidence. testified to by a person who was a party to the same or
has personal knowledge of them. The recipient of the
2) Pleadings filed through fax machines are subject text messages would have personal knowledge of
inadmissible in evidence. In the instant case, the such messages and is competent to testify on them.
petitioner, after receiving notice of dismissal from his
employer, PAGCOR, filed a motion for reconsideration by SYHUNLIONG vs. RIVERA
fax (facsimile transmission) within the period to appeal G.R. No. 200148 June 4, 2014
the dismissal to CSC. The SC ruled that filing by fax is REYES, J.:
improper and therefore did not toll the period for filing
an appeal to the CSC.
1) For purposes of determining if there is
3) A facsimile or fax transmission is a process publication in libel, the general rule is that “writing or
involving the transmission and reproduction of printed texting to a person other than the person defamed is
and graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one sufficient to constitute publication. The person to whom
elemental area at a time, and representing the shade or the letter or text message is addressed is a third person
tone of each area by a specified amount of electric in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein.
current. The current is transmitted as a signal over The rule applies even if the letter or text message is sent
regular telephone lines or via microwave relay and is to the wife of the complainant.
used by the receiver to reproduce an image of the
elemental area in the proper position and the correct 2) The foregoing rule does not apply if the letter or
shade. The receiver is equipped with a stylus or other text message is considered "privileged communication”.
device that produces a printed record on paper referred Privileged communication is one made in good faith on
to as a facsimile. any subject matter in which the communicator has an
interest, or concerning which he has a duty, to a person
PEOPLE vs. ENOJAS having a corresponding duty.

In order to prove that a statement falls within the BARTOLOME vs. MARANAN
purview of a qualified privileged communication under A.M. No. P-11-2979 November 18, 2014
Article 354, No. 1, the following requisites must concur: PER CURIAM:
(1) the person who made the communication had a legal,
moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at
least, had an interest to protect, which interest may 1) Ephemeral electronic communications are now
either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) admissible evidence, subject to certain conditions.
the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to
or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
and (3) the statements in the communication are made electronic forms of communication the evidence of which
in good faith and without malice. is not recorded or retained. It may be proven by the
testimony of a person who was a party to the
3) In the case at bar, the accused sent the subject communications or has personal knowledge thereof.
text message to his former co-employee who earlier told
her of either the delay or denial by her former employer 2) In the present case, the text messages sent by
of her claims for payment of salaries, benefits and the respondent to the complainant were properly
incentives. The accused expressed through the subject admitted in evidence and accorded probative value. The
text message her grievances to her former co-employee. complainant, who was the recipient of the text messages
At that time, the accused’s former co-employee was the and who therefore has personal knowledge of these text
best person, who could help her expedite the release of messages, identified the respondent as the sender
her claims. through the latter’s cellphone numbr. The respondent
herself admitted that her conversations with the
The accused’s text message falls within the ambit complainant had been thru SMS messaging and that the
of a qualified privileged communication since she "was cellphone number reflected in the complainant’s
speaking in response to duty to protect her own interest cellphone from which the text messages originated was
and not out of an intent to injure the reputation of her hers.
former employer. Besides, "here was no unnecessary
publicity of the message beyond that of conveying it to BBB vs. AAA
the party concerned.” G.R. No. 193225 February 9, 2015
REYES, J.:

received. He submitted respondent’s calling card that

1) Any question as to the admissibility of text contained the same phone number seen in the text
messages as evidence is rendered moot and academic if messages. Through this calling card, he was able to
the party raising such issue admits authorship of the prove that respondent was the source of the text
subject messages. More so if he also admits ownership messages. Respondent never denied sending the text
of the cellphone number from which the text messages messages to the complainant.
were sent.
ASTORGA & REPOL LAW OFFICES vs. SHERIFF

VILLANUEVA
A.M. No. P-09-2668 February 24, 2015
ER CURIAM:
1) The content of the text messages sent by the

respondent, a sheriff, to the complainant and the
circumstances within which they were made constitute
substantial evidence that would justify the finding of
administrative liability against the respondent. The
presentation of text messages sent by the complainant
to respondent is not necessary. Respondent’s text
messages sent to the complainant show an actual
evasion of duty to implement the Writ of Execution. The
contents of the text messages sufficiently prove his
manifest refusal to properly implement the Writ of
Execution.
2) In the instant case, the complainant was able

to present the text messages he received in his cellular
phone. He attached photographs of the screen of his
cellular phone, showing the messages as they were

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (R21-R54) 1) A mental retardate or a feebleminded person is

not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her
a. Qualifications. mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility.
It is now universally accepted that intellectual
b. Disqualifications weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a
valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as
MARCOS vs. HEIRS OF ANDRES NAVARRO the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable
G.R. No. 198240 July 3, 2013 narrative of the matter testified to. This is the ruling in
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: the case of People v. Trelles where the trial court relied
heavily on the testimony of the private complainant, a
1) Since there is nothing in Sections 19 and 20 of mental retardate, regardless of her "monosyllabic
Rule 130 that disqualifies a handwriting expert from responses and vacillations between lucidity and
testifying on his opinion, the court may not disqualify ambiguity. The SC said a mental retardate can be a
her from testifying. The specific enumeration of witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what
disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes he or she knows. If his or her testimony is coherent, the
of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. It same is admissible in court.
is an established rule in statutory construction that an
express exception, exemption, or saving clause excludes 2) Modern rules on evidence have downgraded
other exceptions. mental incapacity as a ground to disqualify a witness.
As observed by McCormick, the remedy of excluding
2) Since PO2 Alvarez, a handwriting expert of the such a witness who may be the only person available
PNP, can perceive and make known her perception to who knows the facts, seems inept and primitive. Our
others, she is qualified as a witness. She cannot be rules follow the modern trend of evidence. In a long line
disqualified as a witness since she possesses none of the of cases, the SC has upheld the conviction of the
disqualifications specified under the Rules. accused based mainly on statements given in court by
the victim who was a mental retardate.
PEOPLE vs. GOLIMLIM
G.R. No. 145225 April 2, 2004 NOTE: Disqualification by reason of mental
CARPIO MORALES, J.: incapacity or immaturity under Section 21 of Rule
130 has been deleted under the 2019 Amendments.

Marital Disqualification consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is

non-existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security
ALVAREZ vs. RAMIREZ and confidences of private life, which the law aims at
G.R. No. 143439 October 14, 2005 protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which through
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.
1) The reasons given for the rule on marital 3) When the offense directly attacks, or directly
disqualification under Section 22 of Rule 130 are, as and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, the marital
follows: disqualification rule no longer applies. Obviously, the
offense of arson committed by the accused by setting on
a. There is identity of interests between husband fire the house belonging to the wife’s sister where they
and wife; both lived in, directly impairs the conjugal relation
between him and his wife. His act, as embodied in the
b. If one were to testify for or against the other, Information for arson filed against him, eradicates all
there is consequent danger of perjury; the major aspects of marital life such as trust,
confidence, respect and love by which virtues the
c. The policy of the law is to guard the security conjugal relationship survives and flourishes.
and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic PEOPLE vs. HON. CASTAÑEDA
disunion and unhappiness; and G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979
SANTOS, J.:
d. Where there is want of domestic tranquility
there is danger of punishing one spouse through the 1) As an exception to the marital disqualification
hostile testimony of the other.11 rule, the wife may testify against her husband charged
with Falsification of Public Document when he allegedly
2) l disqualification rule was not applied. It was forged the signature of his wife in a deed of sale, thereby
shown that the marital and domestic relations between making it appear that the latter gave her marital
the accused and the witness/wife are so strained that consent to the sale of a house and lot belonging to their
there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth she did
tranquility which may be disturbed. Such being the not. The crime charged may be considered as a criminal
case, identity of interests disappears and the case for a crime committed by a husband against his

wife and, therefore, an exception to the rule on marital promptly on complaints in any form or manner against
disqualification. public officials or employees of the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
2) When an offense directly attacks, or directly government-owned or controlled corporation.
and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes
within the exception. 2) The Ombudsman’s need for the documents
thus outweighs the claim of confidentiality of EIIB
Privileged Communication (S24) officials. What is more, while there might have been
compelling reasons for the claim of privilege in 1988
JUDGE LACUROM vs. ATTY. JACOBA when it was asserted by, now, seven years later, these
A.C. No. 5921 March 10, 2006 reasons may have been attenuated, if they have not in
CARPIO, J.: fact ceased. The agents whose identities could not then
be revealed may have ceased from the service of the
1) The marital privilege rule, being a rule of EIIB, while the covert missions to which they might have
evidence, may be waived by failure of the claimant to been deployed might either have been accomplished or
object timely to its presentation or by any conduct that abandoned. On the other hand, the Ombudsman's duty
may be construed as implied consent. to investigate the complaint that there were in 1988
unfilled positions in the EIIB for which continued
ALMONTE vs. HON. VASQUEZ funding was received by its officials and put to illegal
G.R. No. 95367 May 23, 1995 use, remains.
MENDOZA, J.:
SYHUNLIONG vs. RIVERA
1) In the Ombudsman’s investigation of an G.R. No. 200148 June 4, 2014
unsigned letter of complaint that several items in the REYES, J.:
EIIB were filled by fictitious persons and that the
allotments for these items in 1988 were used for illegal 1) For purposes of determining if there is
purposes, the Ombudsman may properly subpoena the publication in libel, the general rule is that “writing or
plantilla and other personnel records as they are texting to a person other than the person defamed is
relevant to the investigation. The Ombudsman and his sufficient to constitute publication. The person to whom
deputies are designated by the Constitution "protectors the letter or text message is addressed is a third person
of the people" and as such they are required by it "to act in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein.

The rule applies even if the letter or text message is sent The accused’s text message falls within the ambit
to the wife of the complainant. of a qualified privileged communication since she "was
2) The foregoing rule, however, does not apply if speaking in response to duty to protect her own interest
the letter or text message is considered "privileged and not out of an intent to injure the reputation of her
communication”. Privileged communication is one made former employer. Besides, "here was no unnecessary
in good faith on any subject matter in which the publicity of the message beyond that of conveying it to
communicator has an interest, or concerning which he the party concerned.”
has a duty, to a person having a corresponding duty.
Death or Insanity/Dead Man’s Statute (S39)
In order to prove that a statement falls within the
purview of a qualified privileged communication under RAZON vs. IAC
Article 354, No. 1, the following requisites must concur: G.R. No. 74306 March 16, 1992
(1) the person who made the communication had a legal, GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at
least, had an interest to protect, which interest may 1) The dead man’s statute applies only to the
either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) testimony of the plaintiff in a case he filed against the
the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, administrator or representative of the estate of a
or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, deceased person for a claim he has against the estate of
and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; such deceased person as to any matter occurring before
and (3) the statements in the communication are made the death of such deceased person.
in good faith and without malice.
2) The dead man’s statute is not applicable in the
3) In the case at bar, the accused sent the subject instant case because the subject testimony was given by
text message to his former co-employee who earlier told the defendant in a cased filed against him by the
her of either the delay or denial by her former employer son/administrator of a deceased person whose property
of her claims for payment of salaries, benefits and allegedly in the possession of the defendant was being
incentives. The accused expressed through the subject claimed by the son/administrator.
text message her grievances to her former co-employee.
At that time, the accused’s former co-employee was the 3) A testimony covered by the dead man’s statute
best person, who could help her expedite the release of must be seasonably objected to by the adverse party
her claims. otherwise the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may

admit the same. The court cannot disregard evidence representatives of the estates that sets up the
which would ordinarily be incompetent under the rules counterclaim, the plaintiff may testify to occurrences
but has been rendered admissible by the failure of a before the death of the deceased to defeat the
party to object thereto. counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the
counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from
Thus, the acceptance of an incompetent witness testifying as to matters of facts occurring before the
to testify in a civil suit, as well as the allowance of death of the deceased, said action not having been
improper questions that may be put to him while on the brought against but by the estate or representatives of
stand is a matter resting in the discretion of the litigant. the deceased.
He may assert his right by timely objection or he may
waive it, expressly or by silence. In any case the option Second, the testimony of the witness is not
rests with him. Once admitted, the testimony is in the covered by the "Dead Man's Statute" because she is not
case for what it is worth and the judge has no power to "a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in
disregard it for the sole reason that it could have been whose behalf a case is prosecuted." Records show that
excluded, if it had been objected to, nor to strike it out the plaintiff offered the testimony of the witness to
on its own motion. establish the existence of the partnership between the
defendant and the deceased. insistence that Josephine
is the alter ego of respondent does not make her an
assignor because the term "assignor" of a party means
SUNGA-CHAN vs. CHUA "assignor of a cause of action which has arisen, and not
G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: action has arisen." Plainly then, Josephine is merely a
witness of the plaintiff, not the plaintiff himself.
1) Two reasons forestall the application of the
"Dead Man's Statute" to the instant case. First, BORDALBA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim against G.R. No. 112443 January 25, 2002
respondents in their answer before the trial court, and YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
with the filing of their counterclaim, petitioners
themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit 1) The dead man’s statute does not prohibit the
of the "Dead Man's Statute". Well entrenched is the rule testimony of a witness as to any matter of fact which did
that when the executor or administrator or not come to his knowledge through his personal

dealings with the deceased person or communication presumption in favor of publicity, based on the doctrine
made to him by the deceased person. In the instant of popular sovereignty”.
case, since the testimony of the witness is based on
documents and not on his dealings and Resort to any means then by which officials of the
communications with the deceased person, his executive branch could refuse to divulge information
testimony was properly admitted by the trial court. cannot be presumed valid. Otherwise, we shall not have
merely nullified the power of our legislature to inquire
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE into the operations of government, but we shall have
given up something of much greater value – our right as
SENATE OF THE PHIL. vs. ERMITA a people to take part in government.
G.R. No. 169777 April 20, 2006
CARPIO MORALES, J.: NERI vs. SENATE COMMITTEE
G.R. No. 180643 September 4, 2008
1) Congress undoubtedly has a right to LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
information from the executive branch whenever it is
sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch 1) On September 26, 2007, petitioner appeared
withholds such information on the ground that it is before respondent Committees and testified for about
privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason eleven (11) hours on matters concerning the National
therefor and why it must be respected. Broadband Project (the "NBN Project"), a project
awarded by the Department of Transportation and
The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow Communications ("DOTC") to Zhong Xing
the executive branch to evade congressional requests for Telecommunications Equipment ("ZTE"). Petitioner
information without need of clearly asserting a right to disclosed that then Commission on Elections
do so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By the mere ("COMELEC") Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered
expedient of invoking said provisions, the power of him P200 Million in exchange for his approval of the
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is NBN Project. He further narrated that he informed
frustrated. That is impermissible. For “what republican President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ("President Arroyo")
theory did accomplish…was to reverse the old of the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not
presumption in favor of secrecy, based on the divine to accept the bribe. However, when probed further on
right of kings and nobles, and replace it with a President Arroyo and petitioner’s discussions relating to
the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking

"executive privilege." To be specific, petitioner refused to advisors on the pretext that said questions serve some
answer questions on: (a) whether or not President vague legislative need. Regardless of who is in office, this
Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (b) whether or not Court can easily foresee unwanted consequences of
she directed him to prioritize it, and (c) whether or not subjecting a Chief Executive to unrestricted
she directed him to approve it. congressional inquiries done with increased frequency
and great publicity. No Executive can effectively
2) Executive privilege is not a personal privilege, discharge constitutional functions in the face of intense
but one that adheres to the Office of the President. It and unchecked legislative incursion into the core of the
exists to protect public interest, not to benefit a President’s decision-making process, which inevitably
particular public official. Its purpose, among others, is would involve her conversations with a member of her
to assure that the nation will receive the benefit of Cabinet.
candid, objective and untrammeled communication and
exchange of information between the President and Testimonial Privilege
his/her advisers in the process of shaping or forming
policies and arriving at decisions in the exercise of the Admission of a Party (S27)
functions of the Presidency under the Constitution. The
confidentiality of the President’s conversations and CONSTANTINO vs. HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO
correspondence is not unique. It is akin to the G.R. No. 181508 October 2, 2013
confidentiality of judicial deliberations. It possesses the PEREZ, J.:
same value as the right to privacy of all citizens and
more, because it is dictated by public interest and the 1) "Privies" are those between whom an action is
constitutionally ordained separation of governmental deemed binding although they are not literally parties to
powers. the said action. "Privity in estate denotes the privity
between assignor and assignee, donor and donee,
3) Considering that the information sought grantor and grantee, joint tenant for life and
through the three (3) questions subject of this Petition remainderman or reversioner and their respective
involves the President’s dealings with a foreign nation, assignees, vendor by deed of warranty and a remote
with more reason, this Court is wary of approving the vendee or assignee. A privy in estate is one who derives
view that Congress may peremptorily inquire into not his title to the property in question by purchase; one
only official, documented acts of the President but even who takes by conveyance." A successor-in-interest who
her confidential and informal discussions with her close derives his right from and is in the same position as his

predecessor in whose shoes he now stands. As such 1) For purposes of determining probable cause,
successor, the privy’s situation is analogous to that of a the testimonies of the whistleblowers who are shown to
transferee pendente lite illustrated in Santiago Land be co-conspirators of the accused which the prosecution
Development Corporation v. Court of submitted before the Ombudsman - are, in fact, the
Appeals, reiterating Fetalino v. Sanz where this Court most integral evidence against the accused since they
held: provide a detailed account on the inner workings of the
conspiracy in the commission of the crime based on
A privy stands exactly in the shoes of his their personal knowledge. Whistleblower testimonies,
predecessor in interest and is bound by the proceedings especially in corruption cases, should not be
had in the case before the property was transferred to condemned, but rather, be welcomed as these
him. He is a proper, but not an indispensable, party as whistleblowers risk incriminating themselves in order to
he would, in any event, have been bound by the expose the perpetrators and bring them to justice.
judgment against his predecessor.
Even if it is assumed that the rule on res inter
2) Latin for "in equal fault," in pari delicto alios acta were to apply during preliminary investigation,
connotes that two or more people are at fault or are the treatment of the whistleblowers' statements as
guilty of a crime. Neither of the parties will be granted hearsay is bound by the exception on independently
relief when an illegal agreement has been made, and relevant statements. "Under the doctrine of
both parties stand in pari delicto. Under the pari delicto independently relevant statements, regardless of their
doctrine, the parties to a controversy are equally truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been
culpable or guilty, they shall have no action against made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and
each other, and it shall leave the parties where it finds the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as
them. This doctrine finds expression in the maxims "ex to the making of such statement is not secondary but
dolo malo nonoritur actio" and "in pari delicto potior est primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in
conditio defendentis." issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence
of such a fact."
CAMBE vs. OMBUDSMAN
G.R. Nos. 212014-15 December 6, 2016 2) Probable cause can be established with
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis
for crediting the hearsay. The substantial basis for
crediting the whistleblowers' testimonies, even if so

regarded as hearsay, rests on their key functions in JLN Constitutional rights, but he was never asked whether
Corporation as above-mentioned, as well as the he understood what he was told or whether he wanted
collective evidence gathered by the prosecution tending to exercise or avail himself of such rights.
to support the same conclusion that Sen. Revilla and his
alleged co-conspirators acted in concert to pillage his g. Previous Conduct (S35)
PDAF funds.
h. Hearsay Evidence Rule (S37 to S49)
Offer of Compromise (S28)
PATULA vs. PEOPLE
Confessions (S34) G.R. No. 164457 April 11, 2012
BERSAMIN, J.:
- Judicial vs. Extra-judicial
1) In a case for estafa filed by the company
PEOPLE vs. OPINIANO against the accused, one of its saleswomen, the
G.R. No. 181474 July 26, 2017 testimony of the company’s auditor on the amounts
LEONEN, J.: actually received by the accused from the customers
and remitted by her to the company is inadmissible for
1) An accused’s extrajudicial confession without being hearsay evidence because, by the witness’s own
counsel at the police station without a valid waiver of admission, she did not have personal knowledge of the
the right to counsel - that is, in writing and in the amounts actually received by the accused from the
presence of counsel - is inadmissible in evidence. In the customers. This means that persons other than the
instant case, the accused was neither assisted by a witness based her testimony on the entries found in the
lawyer nor was his confession reduced into receipts supposedly issued by the accused and in the
writing. Further, when the police officers informed the ledgers held by the company corresponding to each
accused of his right to a lawyer, the latter did not say customer, as well as on the unsworn statements of some
anything. Even so, such silence did not constitute a of the customers. Accordingly, her being the only
valid waiver of his right to remain silent and to have a witness who testified on the entries effectively deprived
competent and independent counsel. Article III, Section the trial court of the reasonable opportunity to validate
12 of the Constitution states that "these rights cannot and test the veracity and reliability of the entries as
be waived except in writing and in the presence of evidence of accused’s misappropriation or conversion
counsel." The accused was merely told of his through cross-examination of the accused. The denial of

that opportunity rendered the entire proof of Independently Relevant Statement

misappropriation or conversion hearsay, and thus
unreliable and untrustworthy for purposes of PEOPLE vs. AGUIRRE
determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. G.R. No. 219952 November 20, 2017
TIJAM, J.:
2) Section 36 of Rule 130 states that a witness
can testify only to those facts that she knows of her 1) To prove the charge of Qualified Trafficking in
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from her Persons under Sections 3(a), 4(a) and 6 of Republic Act
own perception. The personal knowledge of a witness is No. (RA) 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial 2003, in relation to violation of RA 7610, the testimony
evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A of the minor private complainants as to what the
witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact accused told them (they will be introduced to foreigners
cannot be called upon for that purpose because her who will pay and give them shabu for sex) is not hearsay
testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded and therefore admissible. While it is true that a witness
to her as a witness presently testifying but from the can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own
veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of personal knowledge, a witness may testify as to the fact
her information. that the accused made to her a statement of a certain
tenor, not to prove that the statement is true but that it
If a witness is permitted to testify based on what was made. In effect, the witness will be testifying as a
she has heard another person say about the facts in fact of her own personal knowledge, the fact that the
dispute, the person from whom the witness derived the accused made to her a certain statement. If credible, it
information on the facts in dispute is not in court and may form part of the circumstantial evidence necessary
under oath to be examined and cross-examined. The to convict the accused. This is what is referred to as
weight of such testimony then depends not upon the independently relevant statement.
veracity of the witness but upon the veracity of the other
person giving the information to the witness without Exceptions:
oath. The information cannot be tested because the
declarant is not standing in court as a witness and Dying Declaration
cannot, therefore, be cross-examined.
PEOPLE vs. CALINAWAN
G.R. No. 226145 February 13, 2017

MENDOZA, J.: accused because she immediately identified him as her

attacker when the witness saw her shortly after the
1) For a dying declaration to be deemed an assault took place. Lastly, the declarant’s statement
exception to the hearsay rule, the following conditions concerned the circumstances surrounding her stabbing.
must concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause
and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's Declaration Against Interest
death; (b) that at the time the declaration was made, the
declarant was conscious of his impending death; (c) the THE PEOPLE vs. BERNAL
declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997
declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, ROMERO, J.:
Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim.
In the instant case, the declarant stated in her 1) In a case for kidnapping, the witness’s
affidavit that she thought she could survive the attack. testimony that victim told him that he was having an
She never thought that she was dying. In fact, she was illicit relationship with the accused's wife is admissible
optimistic of her recovery. In view of this, there seems to in evidence as an admission against interest to prove
be a doubt whether she was aware of her impending that the accused had a motive for the kidnapping of the
death. Granting there is such doubt, declarant’s victim. This is in accordance with Section 38 of Rule
statement, nevertheless, is admissible as an exception to 130.
the hearsay rule for being part of res gestae. In order for
a statement to be considered part of res gestae, the With the deletion of the phrase "pecuniary or
following elements must concur: (a) the principal act, moral interest" from the present provision, it is safe to
the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the assume that "declaration against interest" has been
statement was made before the declarant had time to expanded to include all kinds of interest, that is,
contrive or devise; and (c) the statement concerns the pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal.
occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances. 2) A statement may be admissible when it
complies with the following requisites, to wit: "(1) that
First, the stabbing incident constituted the the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that it
startling occurrence. Second, declarant never had the relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant; (3)
opportunity to fabricate a statement implicating the that at the time he made said declaration the declarant

was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid by evidence other than the declaration; and (4) that the
interest; and (4) that the declarant had no motive to declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only
falsify and believed such declaration to be true."12 before the commencement of the suit involving the
subject matter of the declaration, but before any
In the instant case, the victim remained missing controversy has arisen thereon.
since his abduction and was unable to testify. His
confession to the witness, definitely a declaration There is no dispute with respect to the first,
against his own interest, since his affair with the wife of second and fourth elements. What remains for analysis
the accused was a crime, is admissible in is the third element, that is, whether or not the other
evidence because no sane person will be presumed to documents offered in evidence sufficiently corroborated
tell a falsehood to his own detriment. the declaration made by aunt/decedent in her lifetime
regarding the pedigree of witness/plaintiff or, if at all, it
Declaration About Pedigree is necessary to present evidence other than such
declaration.
TISON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 2) American jurisdiction has it that a distinction
REGALADO, J.: must be made as to when the relationship of the
declarant may be proved by the very declaration itself,
1) The testimony of the witness/plaintiff that, or by other declarations of said declarant, and when it
during her aunt/decedent’s lifetime, she categorically must be supported by evidence aliunde.
declared that she (witness) was her (aunt/decedent)
niece is admissible in evidence as a declaration about The general rule is that where the party claiming
pedigree to prove the relationship between the seeks recovery against a relative common to both
witness/plaintiff and the aunt/decedent/declarant. claimant and declarant, but not from the declarant
himself or the declarant's estate, the relationship of the
A declaration about pedigree is admissible as an declarant to the common relative may not be proved by
exception to the hearsay rule under Section 39 of Rule the declaration itself. There must be some independent
130 subject to the following conditions: (1) that the proof of this fact. Such rule does not apply, however,
declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the where recovery is sought to reach the estate of the
declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right
subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown

through his declarations to the property of some other consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant
member of the family. is competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is
offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or
3) There is no presumption of the law more firmly parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.
established and founded on sounder morality and more
convincing reason than the presumption that children All of the above requisites are present in this
born in wedlock are legitimate.8 And well settled is the case. The victim communicated his ante-mortem
rule that the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked statement to the daughter/witness, identifying accused
collaterally. as the person who stabbed him. At the time of his
statement, the victim was conscious of his impending
Res Gestae death, having sustained multiple incise and stab
wounds, one of which being fatal, piercing deeply into
PEOPLE vs. SANTILLAN the middle lobe of his right lung, trachea and
G.R. No. 227878 August 09, 2017 esophagus. Ernesto even vomited blood, collapsed, and
eventually died.
1) In the prosecution for murder, the victim’s
daughter testified that when she saw her father who had The victim/declarant would have been competent
been stabbed in the back several times, she asked her to testify on the subject of the declaration had he
father who stabbed him and he answered that it was the survived. Lastly, the dying declaration was offered in
accused. The victim then vomited blood and fell to the this criminal prosecution for murder in which the
ground. The victim’s daughter and son tried to bring declarant was the victim.
him to the hospital but he died.
2) The victim’s statement may also be admitted as
The victim’s post-mortem statement to his part of the res gestae. A declaration or an utterance is
daughter is admissible as a dying declaration. Although deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in
generally inadmissible due to its hearsay character, a evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the
dying declaration may nonetheless be admitted when following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act,
the following requisites concur, namely: (a) the the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the
declaration must concern the cause and surrounding statements are made before the declarant had time to
circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) at the time contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern
the declaration is made, the declarant is under a

the occurrence in question and its immediately recruitment was the previous decision in the estafa
attending circumstances. case.
The victim’s statement referred to a startling A previous decision or judgment, while admissible
occurrence, that is, him being stabbed by the accused. in evidence, may only prove that an accused was
At the time he relayed his statement to his previously convicted of a crime. It may not be used to
daughter/witness, he was wounded and blood oozed prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a
from his chest. Given his condition, it is clear that he subsequent case, in lieu of the requisite evidence
had no time to contrive the identification of his proving the commission of the crime, as said previous
assailants. Hence, his utterance was made in decision is hearsay. To sanction its being used as a
spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling basis for conviction in a subsequent case would
occurrence. Definitely, such statement is relevant constitute a violation of the right of the accused to
because it identified the authors of the crime. confront the witnesses against him.
Testimony or Deposition at a Child Witness Rule

Former Proceeding
PEOPLE vs. IBANEZ
PEOPLE vs. ORTIZ-MIYAKE G.R. No. 197813 September 25, 2013
G.R. Nos. 115338-39 September 16, 1997 PEREZ, J.:
REGALADO, J.:
1) The testimony of a 12-year old girl regarding
1) Under the rule on testimony or deposition at a the murder of her father two years earlier should not be
previous proceeding, the facts stated in the decision of taken lightly if there is no showing that her mental
the MTC convicting the accused of estafa may not be maturity rendered her incapable of testifying and of
adopted and used in a subsequent case filed by the relating the incident truthfully. Under the Rules, all
same complainant in the RTC to prove the guilt of the persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
same accused for illegal recruitment. In the subsequent known their perception to others, may be witnesses. The
illegal recruitment case, the prosecution did not offer the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness also provides
testimony of its witness in the previous estafa case. that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
What was offered, admitted in evidence, and utilized as To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on
a basis for the conviction in the case for illegal the party challenging the child's competence. Only when

substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial
to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth court to decide, considering the ability and character of
from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the
court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a weight and process of the reasoning by which he has
party, conduct a competency examination of a child. supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the
side for whom he testifies, the fact that he might be a
2) In the instant case, the testimony of the 12- paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and
year old witness was clear and convincing. The observation of the matters about which he testifies, and
testimony flows from a person who was present in the any other matters which deserve to illuminate his
place where the killing occurred. They are replete with statements. The opinion of the expert may not be
details sufficient to shift the burden of evidence to arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in
appellants. Her candid account of the incident, standing view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and
alone, clearly established the components of the crime of when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert
murder. opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of
the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of
Opinion Rule (S51 to S53) his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court
whose ruling on such is not reviewable in the absence of
Expert Witness abuse of discretion.
LAVAREZ vs. GUEVARRA 2 Findings of fact made by a trial court are

G.R. No. 206103 March 29, 2017 accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate
PERALTA, J.: tribunal and, without a clear disregard of the evidence
before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case,
1) The testimony of expert witnesses must be those findings should not be ignored. Absent any clear
construed to have been presented not to sway the court showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness
in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in committed by the lower court, its findings of facts are
the determination of the issue before it. Although. binding and conclusive upon the Court.18 Settled is the
courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, the
they may place whatever weight they may choose upon Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial
such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the court for it had the unique, opportunity to observe the
case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the

witness stand, an opportunity that is unavailable to the conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed
appellate courts, which simply rely on the cold records facts, as the basis for his opinion.
of the case. The assessment by the trial court is even
conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness Character Evidence (S54)
or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence. PEOPLE vs. DIOPITA
G. R. No. 130601 December 4, 2000
PEOPLE vs. DURANAN BELLOSILLO, J.:
G.R. No. 134074-75 January 16, 2001
MENDOZA, J.: 1) In a prosecution for robbery with rape, the
defense evidence that the accused is a person of good
moral character, holding as he does the position of
1) Under Section 50 of Rule 130 (Opinion of an "Ministerial Servant" in the congregation of Jehovah’s
Ordinary Witness), the testimony of the mother of the Witnesses, and that he is a godly man, a righteous
rape victim, although not a psychiatrist, as to the person, a responsible family man and a good Christian
mental retardation of her daughter, is admissible. An who preaches the word of God, does not justify the
ordinary witness may testify on his/her opinion as to conclusion that he is innocent of the crime of rape.
the sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the Similarly, his having attained the position of "Ministerial
witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against any sexual
speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part.
question. Generally, it is required that the witness Indeed, religiosity is not always an emblem of good
details the factors and reasons upon which he/she conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who
bases his/her opinion before he/she can testify as to succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is
what it is. As the Supreme Court of Vermont said: "A not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his
non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the sanity previous good moral character and exemplary conduct.
or insanity of another, when based upon conversations The basic issue is whether the prosecution had
or dealings which he has had with such person, or upon discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond any
his appearance, or upon any fact bearing upon his peradventure of doubt. Since the evidence of the crime
mental condition, with the witness' own knowledge and in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the
observation, he having first testified to such evidence of good moral character of the accused is
unavailing.

BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND fact is not evidence of it. Verily, the party who asserts,
PRESUMPTION (RULE 131) not he who denies, must prove.
Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party
who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either
FEBTC vs. CHANTE side. This is because our system frees the trier of facts
G.R. No. 170598 October 9, 2013 from the responsibility of investigating and presenting
BERSAMIN, J.: the facts and arguments, placing that responsibility
entirely upon the respective parties. The burden of
1) Burden of proof refers to two separate and proof, which may either be on the plaintiff or the
quite different concepts, namely: (a) the risk of non- defendant, is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the
persuasion, or the burden of persuasion, or simply factual allegations of the complaint in the manner
persuasion burden; and (b) the duty of producing required by the Rules of Court; or on the defendant if he
evidence, or the burden of going forward with the admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations
evidence, or simply the production burden or the but raises an affirmative defense or defenses, that, if
burden of evidence. proved, would exculpate him from liability.
In its first concept, it is the duty to establish the 3) In civil cases, the quantum of evidence
truth of a given proposition or issue by such a quantum required of the party having the burden of proof is
of evidence as the law demands in the case at which the preponderance of evidence. Preponderant evidence
issue arises. In its other concept, it is the duty of refers to evidence that is of greater weight, or more
producing evidence at the beginning or at any convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to it.
subsequent stage of trial in order to make or meet a It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the
prima facie case. Generally speaking, burden of proof in existence of the contested fact is more probable than its
its second concept passes from party to party as the nonexistence.
case progresses, while in its first concept it rests
throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative of 4) The instant case involved the fraudulent ATM
the issue. withdrawals from the defendant’s current account which
far exceeded the latter’s balance. To recover from the
2) The party who alleges an affirmative fact has defendant the amounts unlawfully withdrawn, plaintiff
the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the FEBTC should have relied on the strength of its own

evidence instead of upon the weakness of defendant’s registration of the certificate of sale within which to
evidence. Its burden of proof required it to redeem the mortgaged property, the sheriff unilaterally
preponderantly demonstrate two facts: first, that the indicated in the certificate of sale, a copy of which was
defendant’s ATM card had been used to make the furnished to the petitioner /mortgagee bank, that the
withdrawals, and second, that he had used the ATM redemption period expires two (2) years from the
card and PIN by himself or by another person to make registration of the sale. The respondent/mortgagor
the fraudulent withdrawals. offered to redeem the property within the two-year
period.
Having failed to prove these two aforecited facts,
the plaintiff bank could not recover from the defendant When petitioner/mortgagee bank was furnished
any funds supposedly improperly withdrawn from the the copy of the Certificate of Sale, it received actual and
ATM account. As a banking institution, plaintiff FEBTC constructive knowledge of the certificate and its
had the duty and responsibility to ensure the safety of contents. For two years, it did not object to the two-year
the funds it held in trust for its depositors. It could not redemption period provided in the certificate. Thus, it
avoid the duty or evade the responsibility because it could be said that petitioner consented to the two-year
alone should bear the price for the fraud resulting from redemption period specially since it had time to object
the system bug on account of its exclusive control of its and did not. When circumstances imply a duty to speak
computer system. on the part of the person for whom an obligation is
proposed, his silence can be construed as consent. By
Presumptions: its silence and inaction, petitioner misled private
respondents to believe that they had two years within
Conclusive Presumptions which to redeem the mortgage. After the lapse of two
years, petitioner is estopped from asserting that the
IBAAN RURAL BANK vs. CA period for redemption was only one year and that the
G.R. No. 123817 December 17, 1999 period had already lapsed.
QUISUMBING, J.:
Estoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts,
1) One of the issues in the instant case is whether representations or admissions, or by his own silence
respondent/mortgagor has two years or one year within when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through
which to redeem the mortgaged property. While Act culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain
3135 provides that the mortgagor has one year from the facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on

such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is that the respondents lost ownership of the house after
permitted to deny the existence of such facts. Virgilio acquired title over the lot.
ALCARAZ vs. PEDRO M. TANGGA-AN UNIV. OF MINDANAO vs. BSP

G.R. No. 128568 April 9, 2003 G.R. No. 194964-65 January 11, 2016
CORONA, J.: LEONEN, J.:
1) Under Section 2(a) of Rule 131 (Conclusive 1) The act of an unauthorized officer (not
Presumptions), the lessees who signed a Contract of authorized by a board resolution) of the petitioner
Lease involving the house owned by the lessor knowing university in mortgaging lots belonging to the school to
full well that the lot on which the house was build secure the personal obligations of the Chairman of the
belonged to a third party cannot unilaterally rescind or Board of Trustees was ultra vires and did not bind the
cancel the Contract of Lease and stop paying rentals on petitioner university.
the ground that the ownership of the lot on which the
house was built was transferred to another third party. 2) Corporate acts are presumed to be valid if, on
their face, the acts were within the corporation’s powers
At the signing of the Contract of Lease, both or purposes. The question, therefore, is always whether
parties knew that their contract pertained only to the there is a logical relation of the act to the corporate
lease of the house, without including the land. The purpose expressed in the charter. If that act is one which
contract states: "1. That the lessor is the owner of a is lawful in itself, and not otherwise prohibited, is done
building of mixed materials situated at xxx. At the time for the purpose of serving corporate ends, and is
of the perfection of the contract, the lessees, were aware reasonably tributary to the promotion of those ends, in a
that the NHA, and not the lessor, owned the land on substantial, and not in a remote and fanciful, sense, it
which the rented house stood yet they signed the same, may fairly be considered within charter powers. The test
obliged themselves to comply with the terms thereof for to be applied is whether the act in question is in direct
five years and performed their obligations as lessees for and immediate furtherance of the corporation’s business,
two years. fairly incident to the express powers and reasonably
necessary to their exercise. If so, the corporation has the
After recognizing the validity of the lease contract power to do it; otherwise, not.
for two years, the lessees are barred from alleging the
automatic cancellation of the contract on the ground

3) Petitioner university did not have the power to Under Section 3 of Rule 131, the following are
mortgage its properties in order to secure loans of other disputable presumptions: (1) private transactions have
persons. As an educational institution, it is limited to been fair and regular; (2) the ordinary course of
developing human capital through formal instruction. It business has been followed; and (3) there was sufficient
is not a corporation engaged in the business of securing consideration for a contract. These presumptions
loans of others. operate against an adversary who has not introduced
proof to rebut them. They create the necessity of
4) Conclusive presumptions are presumptions presenting evidence to rebut the prima facie case they
that may not be overturned by evidence, however strong created, and which, if no proof to the contrary is
the evidence is. They are made conclusive not because presented and offered, will prevail. The burden of proof
there is an established uniformity in behavior whenever remains where it is but, by the presumption, the one
identified circumstances arise. They are conclusive who has that burden is relieved for the time being from
because they are declared as such under Section 2 of introducing evidence in support of the averment,
Rule 131. because the presumption stands in the place of evidence
unless rebutted.
On the other hand, disputable presumptions are
presumptions that may be overcome by contrary 2) In the instant case, the respondents failed to
evidence. Presumptions are not always true. If a trounce the said presumption. Aside from their bare
presumption is shown to be wrong by contrary evidence, allegation that the sale was made without a
courts should not apply them. consideration, they failed to supply clear and convincing
evidence to back up this claim. It is elementary in
Disputable Presumptions procedural law that bare allegations, unsubstantiated
by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules
ROSAROSO vs. SORIA of Court.
G.R. No. 194846 June 19, 2013
MENDOZA, J.: HEIRS OF TRAZONA vs. HEIRS OF CANADA
G.R. No. 175874 December 11, 2013
1) The sale of a parcel of land which was SERENO, CJ.:
purportedly without consideration is presumed valid
and with consideration until it is shown by sufficient 1) While notarized documents enjoy the
evidence that it was, indeed, without consideration. presumption of regularity, including the genuineness of

the signatures therein, this presumption is disputable suppressed would be adverse if produced". Such
and may be contradicted by evidence that is clear, presumption, however, does not apply if (a) the evidence
convincing, and more than merely preponderant. In the is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression
instant case, clear and convincing evidence was was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or
presented that was enough to overturn the presumption cumulative; and (d) the suppression is an exercise of a
of regularity of the assailed deed. privilege.
LUIS UY vs. LACSAMANA 2) There was no suppression of evidence in the

G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015 instant. First, the defense had the opportunity to
CARPIO, J.: subpoena the rape victim even if the prosecution did not
present her as a witness. Instead, the defense failed to
1) Persons living together in apparent matrimony call her to the witness stand. Second, the rape victim
are presumed, absent any counter presumption or was certified to be suffering from "Acute Psychotic
evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. If the Depressive Condition" and thus "cannot stand judicial
adverse party, however, is able to present sufficient proceedings yet." The rape victim’s non-presentation,
evidence to overcome the presumption of marriage, therefore, not willful. Third, the rape victim was not the
the onus probandi is shifted to the party claiming the only witness to the crime because her younger sister
presumption. It becomes the latter’s burden to prove the was also present and in fact witnessed the violation
existence of the marriage. committed on her sister.
Suppression of Testimony 3) Well-settled is the rule that the findings of facts

and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter
PEOPLE vs. PADRIGONE best left to the trial court because of its unique position
G.R. No. 137664 May 9, 2002 of having observed that elusive and incommunicable
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand
while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the
1) The non-presentation on the witness stand by appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the
the prosecution of the rape victim who became insane "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation,
after the rape cannot be considered as suppression of flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or
evidence. Under Section 3(e) of Rule 131, there is full realization of an oath," all of which are useful aids
disputable presumption that "evidence willfully for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and

sincerity. The trial court's findings are accorded finality, performance of official duties no longer applies and the
unless there appears in the record some fact or prosecution must credibly explain such noncompliance.
circumstance of weight which the lower court may have Failing in this, the proof of the corpus delicti is doubtful,
overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and and the accused should be acquitted for failure to
which, if properly considered, would alter the results of establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
the case.
2) Courts are cognizant of the presumption of
Official Duty regularity in the performance of duties of public officers.
This presumption can be overturned if evidence is
DE LOS SANTOS vs. COA presented to prove either of two things, namely: (1) that
G.R. No. 198457 August 13, 2013 they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: they were inspired by any improper motive.
1) Absent any showing of bad faith and malice, 3) It is a matter of judicial notice that buy-bust
there is a presumption of regularity in the performance operations are "susceptible to police abuse, the most
of official duties. However, this presumption must fail in notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion." The
the presence of an explicit rule that was violated. For high possibility of abuse was precisely the reason why
instance, in Reyna v. CoA, the Court affirmed the the procedural safeguards embodied in Section 21 of
liability of the public officers therein, notwithstanding R.A. No. 9165 have been put up as a means to
their proffered claims of good faith, since their actions minimize, if not eradicate such abuse. The procedural
violated an explicit rule in the Landbank’s Manual on safeguards not only protect the innocent from abuse
Lending Operations. and violation of their rights but also guide the law
enforcers on ensuring the integrity of the evidence to be
PEOPLE vs. BARTE presented in court.
G.R. No. 179749 March 1, 2017
BERSAMIN, J.: 4) In the prosecution of the crime of selling a
dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven,
1) When there is failure to comply with the to wit: (1) the identities of the buyer, seller, the object,
requirements for proving the chain of custody in the and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
confiscation of contraband in a drug buy-bust sold and the payment therefor. On the other hand, the
operation, the presumption of regularity in the essential requisites of illegal possession of dangerous

drugs that must be established are the following, is evidence to the contrary. Further, the evaluation of
namely: (1) the accused was in possession of the the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound
dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously deserves much weight and respect because the judge
possessed the dangerous drug. has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on
the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or
Inasmuch as the dangerous drug itself not.
constitutes the very corpus delicti of both offenses, its
identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have
been preserved. This means that on top of the elements
of possession or · illegal sale, the fact that the substance
possessed or illegally sold was the very substance
presented in court must be established with the same
exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining
a conviction. The prosecution must account for each
link in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug, from
the moment of seizure from the accused until it was
presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. In short,
the chain of custody requirement ensures that
unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the
evidence are minimized if not altogether removed.
PEOPLE vs. CADIDIA

G.R. No. 191263 October 16, 2013
PEREZ, J.:
1) In cases involving violations of Dangerous

Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of
the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially
when they are police officers who are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (R132) for such child to state facts without prompting or
suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax the
Examination of Witnesses (S1 to S18) truth out of their reluctant lips. In the case at bar, the
trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to
PEOPLE vs. FABRE the 6-year old rape victim as she was evidently young
G.R. No. 146697 July 23, 2002 and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if
VITUG, J.: not uncertain.
1) The cross-examination of a witness is a 2) As explained in People v. Rodito Dagamos:

prerogative of the party against whom the witness is "The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to
called. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the the courts in exercising control over the questioning of a
truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness made child witness. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule
on direct examination. The party against whom the on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on
witness testifies may deem any further examination December 15, 2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the
unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence ascertainment of the truth, (2) to ensure that questions
theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental
what would be believed is the perception of the court level of the child, (3) to protect children from
thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid
full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct waste of time. Leading questions in all stages of
examination merely because he is not cross-examined examination of a child are allowed if the same will
by the other party. further the interests of justice."
Leading and Misleading Questions Impeachment
PEOPLE vs. PEREZ PEOPLE vs. CASTILLANO

G.R. No. 142556 February 5, 2003 G.R. No. 139412 April 2, 2003
PER CURIAM: CALLEJO, SR., J.:
1) As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. 1) The credibility of the testimony of the
However, the rules provide for exceptions when the prosecution’s principal witness cannot be
witness is a child of tender years as it is usually difficult impeached via her testimony during the preliminary

examination nor by her sworn statement given to the CANQUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS
police investigators if the transcripts and sworn G.R. No. 96202 April 13, 1999
statement were neither marked and offered in evidence MENDOZA, J
by the accused nor admitted in evidence by the trial
court. If the transcripts and sworn statement were 1) Under Section 10 of Rule 132, the
offered and admitted by the court, the accused should memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness
then confront the prosecution witness with her does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted
testimony during the preliminary examination and her as such, for the simple reason that the witness has just
sworn statement to the police investigators. The witness the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In
should always be accorded a chance to explain the other words, where the witness has testified
purported inconsistencies as mandated by Section 13 of independently of or after his testimony has been
Rule 132. refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute,
such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative
Reference to Memorandum evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be
corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly
a. Present Memory Revived by him. He cannot be more credible just because he
supports his open-court declaration with written
PEOPLE vs. PLASENCIA statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them
G.R. No. 90198 November 7, 1995 during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper
VITUG, J.: predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down.
1) Under Section 16 of Rule 132, The use What is more, even where this requirement has
of memory aids during an examination of a witness is been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is
not altogether proscribed. Allowing a witness to refer to that such evidence must be received with caution, if
her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial only because it is not very difficult to conceive and
court. In the instant case, the exercise of that discretion fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true
has not been abused; the witness herself has explained when the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise
that she merely wanted to be accurate on dates and like from the admission of such evidence.
details.
2) In the instant case, since the witness testified
b. Past Recollection Recorded that she was the one who made the entries in the

memorandum but did not have personal knowledge of

facts stated in the entries, the entries may only be
offered to prove not the facts stated in the entries but to
corroborate her testimony that she made the entries as
she received the bills on which the entries were based.

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

(S19 – S33) 1) The nature of documents as either public or
private determines how the documents may be
Classes of Documents presented as evidence in court. Public documents, as
enumerated under Section 19 of Rule 132, are self-
Public Documents authenticating and require no further authentication in
order to be presented as evidence in court.
IWASAWA vs. GANGAN
G.R. No. 204169 September 11, 2013 2) In contrast, a private document is any other
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: writing, deed or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person
1) Under Article 410 of the Civil Code, the books legally authorized by which some disposition or
making up the civil register and all documents relating agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or
thereto shall be considered public documents and shall sovereign character of a public document, or the
be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. solemnities prescribed by law, a private document
requires authentication.
As public documents, they are admissible in
evidence even without further proof of their due Section 20 of Rule 132 provides that before any
execution and genuineness. The NSO custodian of the private document offered as authentic is received in
records need not testify in court for the records to be evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
admissible. Proof of their authenticity and due execution proved either:
is not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only are said
documents admissible, they deserve to be given (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie written; or
evidence of the facts stated therein. The facts stated in
public records are deemed established unless sufficient (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
contrary evidence is presented. signature or handwriting of the maker.
ASIAN TERMINALS vs. PHILAM INSURANCE Any other private document need only be identified as
G.R. No. 181163 July 24, 2013 that which it is claimed to be.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

The requirement of authentication of a private findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon
document is excused only in four instances, specifically: the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or
context of Section 21 of Rule 132; (b) when the purposes for which such document is offered, the same
genuineness and authenticity of the actionable is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight.
document have not been specifically denied under oath
by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and Even if a document was mentioned in the
authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) defendant’s answer and marked as an Exhibit in his
when the document is not being offered as genuine. pre-trial brief but if it was not attached thereto and it
was not formally offered, the document cannot be
3) In the instant case, Marine Certificate No. 708- considered by the court.
8006717-4 and the Subrogation Receipt are private
documents which Philam and the consignee, WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORP. vs. FRANCIA
respectively, issue in the pursuit of their business. Since G.R. No. 194128 December 7, 2011
none of the exceptions to the requirement of MENDOZA, J.:
authentication of a private document obtains in these
cases, said documents may not be admitted in evidence 1) A formal offer is necessary because judges are
for Philam without being properly authenticated. mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by
Private Documents the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial
judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the
Offer of Evidence proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other
hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the
ALUDOS vs. SUERTE evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it
G.R. No. 165285 June 18, 2012 facilitates review as the appellate court will not be
BRION, J.: required to review documents not previously scrutinized
by the trial court. Evidence not formally offered during
1) Under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of the trial cannot be used for or against a party litigant.
Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has Neither may it be taken into account on appeal.
not been formally offered. The offer of evidence is
necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its 3. Offer and Objection (S34 to S40)

Tender of Excluded Evidence precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if

the modification is meant to correct erroneous
FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP. vs COM. OF INTERNAL conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds
REVENUE true whether the modification is made by the court that
G.R. No. 192576 September 11, 2013 rendered it or by the highest court in the land. The
VELASCO, JR., J.: orderly administration of justice requires that, at the
risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a
1) The office of a judgment nunc pro tunc is to court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The
record some act of the court done at a former time noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for
which was not then carried into the record, and the all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice
power of a court to make such entries is restricted to system, without which there would be no end to
placing upon the record evidence of judicial action litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this
which has actually been taken. The object of a judgment principle must always be maintained by those who
nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment exercise the power of adjudication. Any act, which
and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, violates such principle, must immediately be struck
but is one placing in proper form on the record, that has down. Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior
been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so adjudications is not confined in its operation to the
as to make it show what the judicial action really was, judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but
not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had
judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in been conferred.
place of the one it did erroneously render, not to supply
non-action by the court, however erroneous the The only exceptions to the ruleon the
judgment may have been. The Court would thus have immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of
the record reflect the deliberations and discussions had clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
on the issue. In this particular case it is a correction of a which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void
clerical, not a judicial error. The body of the decision in judgments. Nunc pro tunc judgments have been defined
question is clear proof that the fallo must be corrected, and characterized by the Court in the following manner:
to properly convey the ruling of this Court.
The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the
2) A decision that has acquired finality becomes rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment and
immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper

form on the record, the judgment that had been

previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to
make it show what the judicial action really was, not to
correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment
which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the
one it did erroneously render, nor to supply nonaction
by the court, however erroneous the judgment may have
been.
A entry in practice is an entry made now of

something which was actually previously done, to have
effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply
omitted action by the court, but to supply an omission
in the record of action really had, but omitted through
inadvertence or mistake.

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (R133) wit: (a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to
the very commission of the act; and (b) that by
The Hierarchy of Evidence circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is
last seen with the victim immediately before or after the
Overwhelming Evidence crime. The Court said:
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt . There are two types of positive identification. A
witness may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal
PEOPLE vs. CALISO case as the perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to
G.R. No. 183830 October 19, 2011 the very act of the commission of the crime. This
BERSAMIN, J.: constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be
instances where, although a witness may not have
actually seen the very act of commission of a crime,
1) In every criminal prosecution, the identity of he may still be able to positively identify a suspect
the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of instance when the latter is the person or one of the
the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove persons last seen with the victim immediately before
the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of and right after the commission of the crime. This is
the crime can be established, there can be no conviction the second type of positive identification, which forms
without proof of identity of the criminal beyond part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken
reasonable doubt.19 together with other pieces of evidence constituting an
unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable
The identification of a malefactor, to be positive conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of
and sufficient for conviction, does not always require the crime to the exclusion of all others.
direct evidence from an eyewitness; otherwise, no
conviction will be possible in crimes where there are no 2) A witness’ familiarity with the accused,
eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy circumstantial although accepted as basis for a positive identification,
evidence can equally confirm the identification and does not always pass the test of moral certainty due to
overcome the constitutionally presumed innocence of the possibility of mistake. No matter how honest the
the accused. Thus, the Court has distinguished two witness’s testimony might have been, her identification
types of positive identification in People v. Gallarde, to of the accused by a sheer look at his back for a few

minutes could not be regarded as positive enough to punishment for the abuser. While they ought to be
generate that moral certainty about the accused being cognizant of the anguish and humiliation the rape
the perpetrator of the killing, absent other reliable victim goes through as she demands justice, judges
circumstances showing him to be the killer. Her should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is
identification of him in that manner lacked the qualities to render justice according to law.1
of exclusivity and uniqueness, even as it did not rule out
her being mistaken. 2) A conviction in a criminal case must be
supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which
PEOPLE vs. PATENTES means a moral certainty that the accused is guilty; the
G.R. No. 190178 February 12, 2014 burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. In the case
PEREZ, J.: at bar, the prosecution has failed to discharge its
burden of establishing with moral certainty the
1) The peculiar nature of rape is that conviction truthfulness of the charge that appellant had carnal
or acquittal depends almost entirely upon the word of knowledge of AAA against her will using threats, force or
the private complainant because it is essentially intimidation.
committed in relative isolation or even in secrecy, and it
is usually only the victim who can testify of the The testimony of the offended party in crimes against
unconsented coitus. Thus, the long standing rule is that chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity
when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, for the charge can easily be concocted. Courts should be
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape,
has indeed been committed. Since the participants are especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged
usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature and victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose
the accused's conviction or acquittal virtually depends conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting
on the private complainant's testimony, it must be interpretations. While judges ought to be cognizant of
received with utmost caution. the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim
undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear
It is then incumbent upon the trial court to be in mind that their responsibility is to render justice
very scrupulous in ascertaining the credibility of the based on the law.
victim's testimony. Judges must free themselves of the
natural tendency to be overprotective of every woman Clear and Convincing Evidence
claiming to have been sexually abused and demanding

SUPREME COURT vs. DELGADO doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The
A.M. No. 2011-07-SC October 4, 2011 potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing
PER CURIAM: evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with
all the orders and processes of the extradition court.
1) In an administrative case vs. several Supreme
Court personnel, the unsubstantiated denial of PEOPLE vs. FONTANILLA
respondents falters in light of the direct and positive G.R. No. 177743 January 25, 2012
statements of their co-respondent accusing them of BERSAMIN, J.:
participation in the wrongful deed. The basic principle in
Evidence is that denials, unless supported by clear and
convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the 1) In order for self-defense to be appreciated in a
affirmative testimony of truthful witnesses. prosecution for murder, the accused has to prove by
clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a)
GOVT. OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN. REG, vs. unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
HON. OLALIA reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007 or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: part of the person defending himself. Unlawful
aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense,
1) An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is
standard of proof required in granting or denying bail established, self-defense is unavailing, for there is
can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in nothing to repel.
criminal cases nor the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is
administrative in character, the standard of substantial the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of
evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be
apply given the object of extradition law which is to no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the
prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our presence of unlawful aggression under the
jurisdiction. Former Chief Justice Puno proposed a new circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim
standard which he termed "clear and convincing put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person
evidence" for granting bail in extradition cases. This defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or
standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must

establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one that is
aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or not merely a denial of an essential ingredient in the
material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must plaintiff's cause of action, but one which, if established,
be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or will constitute an "avoidance" of the claim.
assault must be unlawful.
DELA LLANO vs. BIONG
Preponderance of Evidence G.R. No. 182356 December 4, 2013
BRION, J.:
PCIB vs. BALMACEDA
G.R. No. 158143 September 21, 2011 1) In an action for damages where the plaintiff
BRION, J.: was diagnosed to have suffered a debilitating injury
called “whiplash” a month after the car where she was a
1) In civil cases, the party carrying the burden of passenger was rammed by a dump truck driven by the
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of defendant, the burden of proving by preponderance of
evidence, or evidence which, to the court, is more evidence the proximate causation between the
worthy of belief than the evidence offered in opposition. driver/defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s whiplash
"Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and injury rests on the plaintiff. She must establish by
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is preponderance of evidence that defendant’s negligence,
usually considered to be synonymous with the term in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
"greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the any efficient intervening cause, produced her whiplash
credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a injury, and without which her whiplash injury would
phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of not have occurred. Failing in this, the plaintiff is not
the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the entitled to her claim for damages.
court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto. Equipoise Doctrine
The party, whether the plaintiff or the defendant, Substantial Evidence

who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the onus to
prove his assertion in order to obtain a favorable OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. REYES
judgment, subject to the overriding rule that the burden G.R. No. 170512 October 5, 2011
to prove his cause of action never leaves the plaintiff. LEONARDO – DE CASTRO, J.:

assessment", and retained the balance of P 500 basing

1) The charge of misconduct against a public on the complaint-affidavit filed by Acero.
officer is a serious charge, a "capital offense" in a
manner of speaking, which may cause the forfeiture of The testimony of respondent Peñaloza who
one’s right to hold a public office. Therefore, said charge implicated Reyes was a self-serving declaration
must be proven and substantiated by clear and considering that he is the co-respondent in the
convincing evidence. Mere allegation will not suffice. It Ombudsman case filed by the complainant. Such a
should be supported by competent evidence, by declaration which was obviously made principally to
substantial evidence. save his own neck should have been received with
caution. This vital objection to the admission of this
2) In the instant case, the evidence against the kind of evidence is its hearsay character and to permit
respondent Reyes, the head of an LTO office, is its unqualified introduction in evidence would open the
insufficient. In the complaint-affidavit filed by the door to frauds and perjuries.
complainant, it was alleged that it was only co-
repondent Peñaloza who received the money and the RAMOS vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK
balance of P 500.00 which was without O.R. was G.R. No. 203186 December 4, 2013
retained by him. Nowhere in the complaint-affidavit PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
could one find the name of respondent Reyes nor is it
alleged there that he was around when the complainant 1) Judgments, final orders or resolutions of the
handed to respondent Peñaloza the P1000.00. From the NLRC are reviewable by the CA not by petition for review
evidence on record, it was, clearly, only respondent under Rule 43 but by petition for certiorari under Rule
Peñaloza all along. Nowhere in the record is Reyes’ 65. The NLRC’s findings are said to be tainted with
complicity suggested or even slightly hinted. grave abuse of discretion when its conclusions are not
supported by substantial evidence. 2) As held in the
xxxx case of Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque
City, Inc., citing Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co., the
It does not appear on record that [Reyes] was the one CA only examines the factual findings of the NLRC to
who ordered and received the "additional assessment". determine whether or not the conclusions are supported
Rather, it was Peñaloza alone who approached the by substantial evidence whose absence points to grave
complainant, discussed about the "additional abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

The requirement that the NLRC’s findings should example, consider whether there is absolute necessity
be supported by substantial evidence is clearly for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of
expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result
which provides that "in cases filed before administrative would only be corroborative, the court may, in its
or quasi- judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed discretion, disallow a DNA testing.
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable 2) The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." guide the Bench and the Bar for the introduction and
use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides
Prima Facie Evidence the "prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for
reliability and validity (i.e., the proper procedures,
JESSE LUCAS vs. JESUS S. LUCAS protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the
G.R. No. 190710 June 6, 2011 possible sources of error, the available objections to the
NACHURA, J.: admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as the
probative value of DNA evidence." It seeks "to ensure
1) Although a paternity action is civil, not that the evidence gathered, using various methods of
criminal, the constitutional prohibition against DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly, [and]
unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, shall not be misused and/or abused and, more
and a proper showing of sufficient justification under importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis
the particular factual circumstances of the case must be serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice the
made before a court may order a compulsory DNA test. public."
In cases in which paternity is contested and a party to
the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a Probable Cause
show cause hearing must be held in which the court can
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to PNB vs. TRIA
establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of G.R. No. 193250 April 25, 2012
a court order for DNA testing. VELASCO, JR., J.:
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that 1) It must be emphasized at the outset that what
the issuance of a DNA testing order remains is necessary for the filing of a criminal information is not
discretionary upon the court. The court may, for proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person accused

is guilty of the acts imputed on him, but only that there probable cause must be determined personally by the
is probable cause to believe that he is guilty of the crime judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under
charged. oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses
he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them;
information, are such facts as are sufficient to engender and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be
a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed searched and the things to be seized.
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the
existence of such facts and circumstances as would 2) Probable cause for a search warrant is defined
excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he is to offense has been committed and that the objects sought
be prosecuted. A finding of probable cause needs only to in connection with the offense are in the place sought to
rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a be searched. A finding of probable cause needs only to
crime has been committed and that it was committed by rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a
the accused. crime has been committed and that it was committed by
the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare
2) While discretionary authority to determine suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would
probable cause in a preliminary investigation to justify conviction.
ascertain sufficient ground for the filing of an
information rests with the executive branch, such The judge, in determining probable cause, is to
authority is far from absolute. It may be subject to consider the totality of the circumstances made known
review when it has been clearly used with grave abuse of to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula and must
discretion. employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.
The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding
DEL CASTILLO vs. PEOPLE or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. A
G.R. No. 185128 January 30, 2012 magistrate's determination of probable cause for the
PERALTA, J.: issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by
a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis
1) The requisites for the issuance of a search for that determination. Substantial basis means that the
warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such questions of the examining judge brought out such facts

and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet 1) Jurisprudence tells us that direct evidence of
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court
committed, and the objects in connection with the may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules
offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be on evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial
searched. evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. The lack of
direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of
Circumstantial Evidence guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution
establishes the accused-appellant’s participation in the
PEOPLE vs. ANTICAMARA crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial
G.R. No. 178771 June 8, 2011 evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that
PERALTA, J.: he committed the imputed crime, the latter should be
convicted.
1) Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of
collateral facts and circumstances from which the Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
existence of the main fact may be inferred according to conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2)
reason and common experience. Circumstantial the facts from which the inferences are derived are
evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the doubt.
combination of all circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of ***
conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
sustained when the circumstances proved form an
unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
all others, as the perpetrator.
CELEDONIO vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 209137 July 1, 2015
MENDOZA, J.:

Remedial Law Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J.

REMEDIAL LAW DOCTRINES 2) A public official may be charged in the

I. JURISDICTION 3) Well-established is the rule that when a

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 1

1) A superior court exercising exclusive

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 2

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 3

jurisdiction. Considering, however, that the Shari’a

MUN. OF TANGKAL vs. HON. BALINDONG

G.R. No. 193340 January 11, 2017

1) While the Code of Muslim Personal Laws vests

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 4

1. Delegated Jurisdiction 2) The IPRA's intent is neither to grant the NCIP

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 5

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 6

compromises; (3) to permit appeals by indigent

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 7

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 8

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 9

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 10

1) The defendant who actively participated in the

BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC. vs. CA

1) The principle of estoppel by laches applies

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 11

Hierarchy of Courts shown in the petition. The SC has consistently

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 12

determination of the constitutionality of such

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 13

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 14

Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation

FIRST SARMIENTO vs. PBCOM

G.R. No. 20283 June 19, 2018

1) To determine the nature of an action, whether

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 15

RULES 1 – 5 2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on

ALDAY vs. FGU INSURANCE

1) The failure of the plaintiff to pay the correct

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 16

of the Clerk of Court which turned out to be incorrect is

G.R. No.177425 June 18, 2014

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 17

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 18

qualified by the following: first, failure to pay the

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 19

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 20

temporary restraining order is issued, grave

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 21

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 22

DE CASTRO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

2) In Operators Incorporated vs. American Biscuit

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 23

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 24

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 25

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 26

representatives. This requirement is necessitated by dueadjudged, judicially acted upon, or settled by

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 27

DIVINAGRACIA vs. PARILLA 1) The joinder of indispensable parties is

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 28

VENUE OF ACTIONS OF REAL convenience of the parties and the interest of

2) “Forum non conveniens” (forum is not 1) An action in personam is an action against

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 29

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 30

Remedial Law Doctrines Page 31