2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW

Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

CAUSE OF ACTION

There can be no joinder of causes of action when one is a special civil action.

Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court prohibits the joinder of an ordinary action, such as an
action for collection of sum of money and a special civil action, such as an ejectment suit. The
former is an ordinary civil action requiring a full-blown trial, while an action for unlawful detainer
is a special civil action which requires a summary procedure. Therefore, this Court finds SVHFI
not guilty of forum shopping when it filed the Ejectment Case subsequent to the Collection Case,
while the latter is still pending. In both cases, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for, and that any judgment on any of these cases would not amount to res judicata on the
other. Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. vs. Mabalacat Institute, Inc., G.R. No. 211563,
September 29, 2021, J. Hernando

“Absence of Inconsistency Test” determines whether there is identity of causes of action.

This Court has previously employed various tests in determining whether or not there is identity
of causes of action as to warrant the application of the principle of res judicata. One test of
identity is the “absence of inconsistency test” where it is determined whether the judgment
sought will be inconsistent with the prior judgment. If no inconsistency is shown, the prior
judgment shall not constitute a bar to subsequent actions. Heirs of Aurio T. Casiño, Sr. vs.
Development Bank of the Philippines, Malaybalay Branch, G.R. Nos. 204052-53, March 11,
2020, J. Hernando

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

A juridical person must have a juridical personality before it can sue or be sued.

Sections 1 and 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court mandate that only natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action and every action must be prosecuted
and defended in the name of the real parties-in-interest. In connection thereto, in Litonjua Group
of Companies v. Vigan, this Court found that the Litonjua Group of Companies, which therein
respondent sought to hold solidarily liable for illegal dismissal, was not a legal entity with juridical
personality and hence could not be held a party to the suit. Similarly, the Center which
respondent seeks to hold liable has no juridical personality nor is it an entity authorized by law
to be a party to any action; it has no legal capacity to sue or be sued and should not have been

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

impleaded as defendant in the instant case. Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority vs. Abragar, G.R. No. 201022, March 17, 2021, J. Hernando

Non-inclusion of necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action.

At most, the petitioners Yu may only be considered necessary parties as they are not
indispensable, but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to
those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the
action. It must be stressed that the non-inclusion of necessary parties does not prevent the court
from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to
the rights of such necessary party. In fact, under the Rules of Court, the filing of a motion for
intervention was not even absolutely necessary and indispensable for the petitioners Yu to
question the inclusion of the subject properties in the coverage of the Writ of Preliminary
Attachment. Yu vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 225752, March 27, 2019

Non-joinder of indispensable party upon judgment renders the proceedings null and void.

The joinder of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non for the exercise of judicial
power. While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per se a ground for the dismissal
of an action, considering that said party may still be added by order of the court, on motion of
the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just, it remains
essential — as it is jurisdictional — that any indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings
before the court renders judgment. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties
but even as to those present. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority vs. Abragar,
G.R. No. 201022, March 17, 2021, J. Hernando

The People is the real party in interest in the criminal aspect of the case.

The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or file
a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case.
However, the private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for
certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the
right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG's conformity. The private complainant must
request the OSG's conformity within the reglementary period to appeal or file a petition for

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

certiorari. The private complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG's conformity as proof
in case the request is granted within the reglementary period. Otherwise, the private
complainant must allege in the appeal or petition for certiorari the fact of pendency of the
request. If the OSG denied the request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appeal or
petition for certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant. Austria vs. AAA,
G.R. No. 205275, June 28, 2022

VENUE

There can be no motu proprio dismissal of the complaint due to improper venue.

Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course
of action at this stage of the proceeding, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the
RTC, may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where defendant fails to challenge timely the venue
in a motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the
trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be
permitted to challenge belatedly the wrong venue, which is deemed waived. Thus, unless and
until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said
to have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though
technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue
had been devised. The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the
improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case. Dacoycoy vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. 74854, April 2, 1991

An action to cancel the mortgage is a personal action not a real action.

To clarify, the mortgage contract itself does not involve real property, but merely the right to
foreclose upon such real property should the necessary legal pre-conditions are met, such as a
breach in the principal contract to which the mortgage is merely an accessory of. In fact,
jurisprudence has already held that the action to cancel the mortgage is a personal action, as
compared to an action to foreclose such mortgage, which is a real action that involves real
property. In Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc, appellants therein contended that the action
of the Spouses Hernandez for the cancellation of the mortgage on their lots was a real action
affecting title to real property, which should have been filed in the place where the mortgaged
lots were situated. The Court ruled that with respect to mortgage, the rule on real actions only
mentions an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. It does not include an action for the
cancellation of a real estate mortgage. Using the legal maxim of exclusio unios est inclusio

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

alterius, it was concluded that the latter thus falls under the catch-all provision on personal
actions. PNB-Republic Bank vs. Sian-Limsiaco, G.R. No. 196323, February 8, 2021, J. Hernando

PLEADINGS

Certain officials of a corporation can sign the verification without a board resolution.

Certain officials or employees of a corporation can sign the verification and certification on its
behalf without need of a board resolution, such as but not limited to the chairperson of the board
of directors, the president of a corporation, the general manager or acting general manager,
personnel officer, and an employment specialist in a labor case. Moreover, the lack of authority
of a corporate officer to undertake an action on behalf of the corporation may be cured by
ratification through the subsequent issuance of a board resolution, recognizing the validity of the
action or the authority of the concerned officer. Given the foregoing, Mr. Jorge, as the
chairperson and president of petitioner, is sufficiently authorized to sign the verification and
certification on behalf of Jorgenetics. Any doubt on his authority to sign the verification and
certification is likewise obviated by the secretary's certificate it submitted upon the orders of this
Court, which ratified Mr. Jorge's authority to represent petitioner and file the Petition.
Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corp. vs. Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc., G.R. Nos. 201044 &
222691, May 5, 2021, J. Hernando

A party declared in default is still entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings.

Pursuant to Rule 9, Section 3, a court may proceed to render judgment as the pleading may
warrant should a defendant fail to timely file his or her answer. However, a court may decline
from immediately rendering judgment and instead require the plaintiff to present evidence. Per
Rule 9, Section 3(a), a party declared to be in default shall nevertheless be “entitled to notice of
subsequent proceedings,” although he or she may no longer take part in the trial. As explained
in Spouses Delos Santos v. Carpio, there are three requirements which must be complied with by
the claiming party before the court may declare the defending party in default: (1) the claiming
party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default; (2) the
defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default; and (3) the claiming
party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the
Rule. Manuel vs. Ong, G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Prescriptive period is not initially tolled when amended complaint contains new demands.

The settled rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the
filing of the original pleading; hence, the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the
amendment. It is true that as an exception, this Court has held that an amendment which merely
supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the
commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after
the service of the original complaint. Thus, when the amended complaint does not introduce new
issues, cause of action, or demands, the suit is deemed to have commenced on the date the
original complaint was filed. In the present case, the Court finds that the exception does not apply
to petitioner's case as to allow the period of prescription to run and for prescription to ultimately
set in. A perusal of petitioner's Complaint and Amended Complaint reveals that the latter
pleading introduced new demands that were not specified and averred expressly in the original
complaint. Alpha Plus International Enterprises Corp. vs. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp.,
G.R. No. 203756, February 10, 2021, J. Hernando

A lease contract is an actionable document, which must be set forth or recited in the pleading.

As provided in the Rules, a written instrument or document is “actionable” when an action or

defense is based upon such instrument or document. To illustrate, in an action to enforce a
written contract of lease, the lease contract is the basis of the action and therefore a copy thereof
must either be set forth in the complaint or its substance must be recited therein, attaching either
the original or a copy to the complaint. The lease contract is an actionable document. Any letter
or letters written by the lessee to the lessor or vice versa concerning the contract should not be
set forth in the complaint. While such letters might have some evidential value, evidence, even
in writing, does not necessarily have a proper place in the pleadings. Young Builders Corporation
vs. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 198998, June 19, 2019

A person not a party to the actionable document is not bound to make denial under oath.

Even where the written instrument or document copied in or attached to the pleading is the basis
of the claim or defense alleged therein, if the party against whom the written instrument or
document is sought to be enforced does not appear therein to have taken part in its execution,
such party is not bound to make a verified specific denial. For example, heirs who are sued upon
a written contract executed by their father, are not bound to make a verified specific denial; and
the defendant, in an action upon a note executed by him and endorsed by the payee to the
plaintiff, is not bound to make a verified specific denial of the genuineness and due execution of

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

the indorsement. Young Builders Corporation vs. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 198998, June
19, 2019

Averments, other than unliquidated damages, are deemed admitted if not specifically denied.

The Court also observes that petitioner PAFC, in its Answer to Amended Complaint, did not make
any specific denial as to the allegations made by respondent NGCP in its Amended Complaint that
the Mariveles-Limay 230 kV Transmission Line Project is necessary and urgent to ensure the
stability and reliability of power supply in the provinces of Bataan and Zambales, and that the
alternative route proposed by petitioner PAFC to respondent NGCP was not found to be
technically feasible. It is an elementary rule in remedial law that material averments in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed
admitted when not specifically denied. PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation vs. National Grid
Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224936, September 4, 2019

FILING AND SERVICE

Government instrumentality with corporate powers is exempt from payment of legal fees.

The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) is a government instrumentality

because it falls under the definition of an instrumentality under the Administrative Code of 1987,
i.e., "any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework,
vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate
powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a
charter." It is vested with corporate powers under Section 3 of RA No. 7227. Despite having such
powers, however, the BCDA is considered neither a stock corporation because its capital is not
divided into shares of stocks, nor a non-stock corporation because it is not organized for any of
the purposes mentioned under Section 88 of the Corporation Code. Instead, the BCDA is a
government instrumentality organized for the specific purpose of owning, holding and/or
administering the military reservations in the country and implementing their conversion to
other productive uses. Being a government instrumentality, the BCDA is exempt from payment
of legal fees including docket fees pursuant to Section 22, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as
amended. Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 205466, January 11, 2021, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

SUMMONS

Filing an opposition is considered voluntary appearance and vests the court with jurisdiction.

Granting arguendo that Jay knew of the pending Temporary Protection Order (TPO) case against
him, whether through Atty. Palmero or another person, the requirement of summons cannot be
dispensed with. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant cannot be acquired
notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him, unless he was validly
served with summons. Thus, serving the order and TPO to Atty. Palmero cannot be considered
a valid service of summons. However, the Court notes that Jay voluntarily submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed the Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the
Issuance of the Permanent Protection Order on January 17, 2013. By seeking affirmative relief in
his opposition without objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court, he thereby voluntarily
submitted to its jurisdiction. In effect, this cured the invalid service of summons. In a catena of
cases, this Court has ruled that voluntary appearance by the defendant results to his submission
to the court's jurisdiction. Sabado vs. Sabado, G.R. No. 214270, May 12, 2021, J. Hernando

Extraterritorial service of summons cannot be availed of in an action in personam.

Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem but
not if an action is in personam as in this case; hence, jurisdiction over CyberOne AU cannot be
acquired unless it voluntarily appears in court. Without a valid service of summons and without
CyberOne AU voluntarily appearing in court, jurisdiction over CyberOne AU was not validly
acquired. Consequently, no judgment can be issued against it, if any. Any such judgment will only
bind respondents CyberOne PH, Mikrut, and Juson. Gesolgon vs. CyberOne PH., Inc., G.R. No.
210741, October 14, 2020, J. Hernando

MOTIONS

Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action

Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation wherein
another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the
second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. The underlying principle of litis pendentia is
the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject
matter and for the same cause of action. This theory is founded on the public policy that the
same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and
status of persons. Pfleider vs. Court of Appeals-Cebu City, G.R. No. 19605, 8 November 12, 2018

Res Judicata as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action

Res judicata is commonly understood as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the
same claim, demand or cause of action. The principle of res judicata precludes the re-litigation of
a conclusively settled fact or question in any future or other action between the same parties or
their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent
jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. For the principle to apply: (i)
the issue or fact sought to be precluded must be identical to the issue or fact actually determined
in a former suit; (ii) the party to be precluded must be party to or was in privity with a party to
the former proceeding; (iii) there was final judgment on the merits in the former proceedings;
and (iv) in compliance with the basic tenet of due process, that the party against whom the
principle is asserted must have had full and fair opportunity to litigate issues in the prior
proceedings. Republic vs. Roguza Development Corporation, G.R. No. 199705, April 3, 2019

Complaint against a deceased person is dismissible for failure to state cause of action.

There can be no doubt that a deceased person or his estate may not be impleaded as defendant
in a civil action as they lack legal personality. Thus, when Anthony died, his legal personality
ceased and he could no longer be impleaded as respondent in the present ordinary civil suit for
collection. As such, the complaint against him should be dismissed on the ground that the
pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action or for failure to state a cause of action
pursuant to Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, because a complaint cannot possibly state
a cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action. Gaffney vs. Butler, G.R. No.
219408, November 8, 2017

DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

The second dismissal caused by the plaintiff operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

As a general rule, dismissals under Section 1 of Rule 17 are without prejudice except when it is
the second time that the plaintiff caused its dismissal. Accordingly, for a dismissal to operate as
an adjudication upon the merits, i.e., with prejudice to the re-filing of the same claim, the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

following requisites must be present: (1) There was a previous case that was dismissed by a
competent court; (2) Both cases were based on or include the same claim; (3) Both notices for
dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; and (4) When the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff was
consented to by the defendant on the ground that the latter paid and satisfied all the claims of
the former. The purpose of the “two-dismissal rule” is “to avoid vexatious litigation.” When a
complaint is dismissed a second time, the plaintiff is now barred from seeking relief on the same
claim. Ching vs. Cheng, G.R. No. 175507, October 8, 2014

Failure to comply with the rules or with the order of the court is a ground to dismiss the action.

Specifically on the appellant’s failure to file a memorandum with the Court of Appeals, Rule 44,
Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto and habeas corpus cases, the parties shall file, in lieu of briefs, their respective
memoranda within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice issued
by the clerk that all evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record.” The
failure of the appellant to file his memorandum within the period therefor may be a ground for
dismissal of the appeal. Rule 50, Section 1 reiterates that the appellant’s failure to file the
required memorandum within the reglementary period is a ground for the Court of Appeals to
dismiss the appeal: “An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its motion or on
that of the appellee, on the following grounds: (e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the
required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules.”
Buena, Jr. vs. Benito, G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014

PRE-TRIAL

The effects of non-appearance only applies when both party and counsel are absent.

With the advent of AM 19-10-20-SC, Section 5, Rule 18 has been clarified by already including the
word counsel and putting the conjunctive word “and”, to the effect that it is only when both the
party-litigant (plaintiff or defendant) and his counsel fail to appear in pre-trial that there be the
concomitant consequence of either a dismissal (plaintiff and counsel were absent), or
presentation of evidence ex parte (defendant and counsel were absent). In this case, Espejo's ex
parte presentation of evidence following the non-appearance of Gemina's counsel was
unwarranted. Other remedies are available instead of ordering the ex parte presentation of
plaintiff's evidence when the defendants' counsel had not appeared during pre-trial. A show
cause order to counsel would have been the more cautious and reasonable course of action to

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

take under the circumstances then prevailing. Gemina vs. Heirs of Espejo, Jr., G.R. No. 232682,
September 13, 2021, J. Hernando

INTERVENTION

Legal interest means that the party must have something to gain or lose in the outcome.

Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court requires that: (1) the movant must have a legal interest
in the matter being litigated; (2) the intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the parties; and (3) the claim of the intervenor must not be capable
of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. The right to intervene, however, is not an
absolute right as the granting of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of
the court and may only be allowed if the movant is able to satisfy all the requirements. In this
case, Pasang Masda's allegation that its members consume petroleum products is not sufficient
to show that they have legal interest in the matter being litigated considering; that there are
other oil players in the market aside from the Big 3. Jurisprudence mandates that legal interest
must be actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or
expectant. Such is not the situation in this case. In fact, there is no showing that Pasang Masda
has something to gain or lose in the outcome of the case. Thus, it was grave abuse of discretion
on the part of public respondent RTC in allowing Pasang Masda to intervene despite its failure to
comply with the first requirement. Commission on Audit vs. Pampilo, Jr., G.R. Nos. 188760,
189060 & 189333, June 30, 2020, J. Hernando

MODES OF DISCOVERY

Modes of discovery may be applied suppletorily in criminal cases if there is compelling reason.

The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take a testimony of a witness who is unable to
testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country. Depositions, however, are
recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although the rule on deposition by
written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, the Court holds that it may be applied
suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason. Verily, in light of the
unusual circumstances surrounding the instant case, the Court sees no reason not to apply
suppletorily the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure in the interest of substantial
justice and fairness. Hence, the taking of testimony of Mary Jane Veloso through a deposition by
written interrogatories is in order. People vs. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October 9, 2019, J.
Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

TRIAL

Motion to postpone trial due to the absence of evidence can be granted upon affidavit.

Pursuant to Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 30 of the Rules of Court, although a court may adjourn a trial
from day to day, a motion to postpone trial on the ground of absence of evidence can be granted
only upon affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and that due diligence
has been used to procure it. Rules governing postponements serve a clear purpose — to avert
the erosion of people’s confidence in the judiciary. Consequently, in granting or denying motions
for postponements, courts must exercise their discretion constantly mindful of the Constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases. In other words, while it is true
that cases must be adjudicated in a manner that is in accordance with the established rules of
procedure, so is it crucial that cases be promptly disposed to better serve the ends of justice.
After all, justice delayed is justice denied. Park vs. Choi, G.R. No. 220826, March 27, 2019

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

It is premature to speak of “preponderance of evidence” in demurrer to evidence.

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is a

remedy available to the defendant, to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain an issue. The
question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his evidence in chief, had been
able to establish a prima facie case. In a demurrer to evidence, however, it is premature to speak
of “preponderance of evidence” because it is filed prior to the defendant’s presentation of
evidence; it is precisely the office of a demurrer to evidence to expeditiously terminate the case
without the need of the defendant’s evidence. Hence, what is crucial is the determination as to
whether the plaintiff’s evidence entitles it to the relief sought. Republic vs. De Borja, G.R. No.
187448, January 9, 2017

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defenses of equitable mortgage and pactum commissorium are genuine issues of fact.

As regards petitioner's contention that the spouses Bautista's defenses of equitable mortgage
and pactum commissorium are legal issues and not factual, the Court holds that the question of
whether a contract is an equitable mortgage is a question of fact. There is a need for the trial

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

court to review evidence, including the assailed document itself, and the intent of the parties, to
determine if there is an equitable mortgage, considering that the law provides for instances when
a contract can be presumed to be an equitable mortgage. The same goes with the existence of
pactum commissorium: it is a question of fact as the trial court needs to look into the contractual
stipulations, and the intent of the parties to determine, if there is such. Based on the foregoing,
it is clear that there are still genuine issues of fact that need to be resolved in the trial. Hence,
this Court holds that the denial of petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is proper. Aljem's
Credit Investors Corp. vs. Spouses Bautista, G.R. No. 215175, April 25, 2022, J. Hernando

When all are admitted, except the amount of damages, a summary judgment is proper.

In a collection case, where the obligation and the fact of non-fulfillment of the obligation, as well
as the execution of the debt instrument, are admitted by the debtor, with the rate of interest
and/or amount of damages being the only remaining issue, there is no genuine issue and a
summary judgment may be rendered upon proper motion. Trade and Investment Development
Corporation of the Philippines also known as Philippine Export-Import Credit Agency vs.
Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 233850, July 1, 2019

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

Newly discovered evidence supported by affidavits of witnesses or authenticated documents.

Section 2 of Rule 37 requires that a motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (b) (newly
discovered evidence) shall be supported by affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is
expected to be given, or by duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be introduced
in evidence. The affidavit required is an affidavit of merit which states the facts constituting the
movant’s good and substantial defense, which he may prove if the motion is granted. The
requisites for the introduction of newly discovered evidence are: (1) the evidence was discovered
after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment
if admitted. If the alleged evidence could have very well been presented during the trial with the
exercise of reasonable diligence, the same could not be considered newly discovered evidence.
Mandin-Trotin vs. Bongo, G.R. No. 212840, August 28, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Courts should not suspend resolution of a motion for reconsideration on account of co-party’s
appeal to higher court.

There is nothing in the Rules of Court that mandates, or even allows, the appellate courts to
suspend the resolution of a party’s motion for reconsideration on account of a co-party’s appeal
before the Supreme Court. Otherwise stated, when the trial court or appellate court issues a
judgment or final resolution in a case involving several parties, the right of one party to file a
motion for reconsideration or appeal is not hinged on the motion for reconsideration or appeal
of the other party. Effectively, by failing to resolve their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners
Prescilla, et al. were prevented from exercising their right to appeal. Subjecting petitioners
Prescilla, et al. to a judgment that they had no opportunity to appeal from due to no fault of their
own smacks of violation of due process. The present problem could have been avoided if only
the CA, Eighth Division expediently resolved petitioners Precilla, et al.’s Motion for
Reconsideration, which has already been languishing for decades. This would have allowed
petitioners Prescilla, et al., to appeal before the Court. Then, the Court could have consolidated
the appeals of petitioners Prescilla, et al., and respondents Lasquite and Andrade and the
question of ownership could have been settled comprehensively and definitively. Prescilla vs.
Lasquite, G.R. No. 205805, September 25, 2019

APPEALS

Application of the Fresh Period Rule

When Applicable When Not Applicable

a. Rule 40 - Appeals from the MTC to RTC
b. Rule 41 - Appeals from the RTC to CA
c. Rule 42 - Petitions for Review from RTC (exercising
appellate jurisdiction) to CA
d. Rule 43 - Appeals from Quasi-judicial agencies, CSC,
Ombudsman (administrative case - penalty imposed is
other than light penalty) to the CA
e. Rule 45 - Appeals by Certiorari from RTC (exercising
original jurisdiction), CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA to the SC
f. Appeals in criminal cases
a. Rule 64 – Petition for Certiorari as to
COMELEC and Commission on Audit
to the SC
b. Rule 65 – Petition for Certiorari from
lower court to higher court observing
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts;
from NLRC to CA; from Ombudsman
(criminal case) to SC
c. Administrative Appeals (e.g., HLURB
to the Office of President)

Note: Under Section 4 of Rule 65, the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari,
prohibition, or mandamus will be counted from the date of notice of denial of the motion for
reconsideration, if one had been filed, whether said motion is required or not.

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Notice of appeal and record on appeal are required for appealing orders in special proceedings.

Under Section 3 of Rule 41, a party who wants to appeal a judgment or final order in special
proceedings has 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order within which to perfect an
appeal because he will be filing not only a notice of appeal but also a record on appeal that will
require the approval of the trial court with notice to the adverse party. While it is not necessary
that a notice of appeal and a record on appeal be filed simultaneously, the rule is unequivocal
that the notice of appeal and record of appeal shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the
judgment or final order. Here, considering that the respondents intended to appeal the final
order of the denial of their motion for intervention in the special proceedings case, they should
have filed both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within the period prescribed by the
rules. Brual vs. Contreras, G.R. No. 205451, March 7, 2022, J. Hernando

Decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases may be appealed to the Court of Appeals
via Rule 43.

It is well-settled that appeals from the decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43. As held by the
Court in Fabian v. Desierto, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of
Rule 43. Monterde vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 214102, February 14, 2022, J. Hernando

Decisions of the Board for Professional Teachers may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via
Rule 43.

A Rule 43 petition to the CA includes all awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, except those
under the Labor Code of the Philippines. Pertinently, this Court has ruled that the list of quasi-
judicial entities found in Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is not exclusive. With this in
mind, the question now is whether the Board for Professional Teachers is considered a quasi-
judicial agency that exercised quasi-judicial powers when it issued its Decision dated September
11, 2012. The Board, by virtue of the power vested in it, clearly exercised its quasi-judicial
functions when it investigated the case, held a hearing, and issued a decision that affected the
rights of a private party. Given this, there is no question that the September 11, 2012 Decision of
the Board is covered by the jurisdiction of the CA and can be subject of a Rule 43 petition.
Professional Regulation Commission vs. Alo, G.R. No. 214435, February 14, 2022, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Questions of fact, such as amount of refund, cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition.

The Court had previously ruled that “the sufficiency of a claimant’s evidence and the
determination of the amount of refund, as called for in this case, are questions of fact, which are
for the judicious determination by the CTA of the evidence on record.” It is already an established
rule in this jurisdiction that only questions of law may be raised under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. It is not this Court’s function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already
considered in the proceedings below, as its jurisdiction under Section 1, Rule 45 is limited to
reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. The resolution
of factual issues is the function of the lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received
with respect. The rule finds greater significance with respect to the findings of specialized courts
such as the CTA because of the very nature of its functions, which is dedicated exclusively to the
resolution of tax problems and has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject, and
consequently, its conclusions are not lightly set aside unless there has been an abuse or
improvident exercise of authority, circumstances which this Court does not find extant herein.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 180740, G.R. No.
180910 November 11, 2019, J. Hernando

The propriety of substituted service is a question of law within the purview of Rule 45.

The determination of the propriety of substituted service effected on the Gos is a question of
law. It is a question of what and how the law should be applied. Hence, the petition is within the
purview of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Deputy Sheriff Bienvenido Liboro (Sheriff
Liboro) did not exert serious efforts to personally serve the summons to the Gos before resorting
to substituted service. Neither did he prove that he tried to personally serve the summons to
them on, at least, three separate instances, nor did he offer any justification why personal service
was ineffectual. Moreover, it must be stressed that Sheriff Liboro did not even validate that
"Patricio Alampay [Alampay] is a person of suitable age with full legal capacity, and is considered
to have enough discernment to comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the
need to deliver the same to the Gos at the earliest possible time for the person to take
appropriate action." Clearly, the substituted service of summons on the persons of the Gos is
improper; hence, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. Ramos-Yeo vs. Spouses
Chua, G.R. Nos. 236075 & 236076 (Resolution), April 18, 2022, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 15 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

A question of law does not require the review or evaluation of the evidence presented.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while
there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For
a question to be one of law, the question must not involve an examination of the probative value
of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest
solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once the issue invites a review
of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question
is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same;
rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.
Caranto vs. Caranto, G.R. No. 202889 March 2, 2020, J. Hernando

Recognized exceptions wherein the Court may review a question of fact in a Rule 45 petition.

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a
grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,
went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant
and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8)
When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals
is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.
Social Security System vs. Seno, Jr., G.R. No. 183478, February 10, 2020, J. Hernando

Mistake in legal strategy is not a ground for petition for relief from judgment.

Mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake of law. A wrong choice in legal
strategy or mode of procedure will not be considered a mistake for purposes of granting a
petition for relief from judgment. Mistake as a ground also does not apply and was never
intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial since such
error may be corrected by means of an appeal. Mistake can be of such nature as to cause
substantial injustice to one of the parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic fraud.
City of Dagupan vs. Maramba, G.R. No. 174411, July 2, 2014

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 16 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Annulment of judgment can be availed only if there is extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as

where there is no available or other adequate remedy. In addition, it may be invoked only on two
grounds, namely, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It does not involve the merits of the final
order of the trial court. The issues of whether the subsequent mortgage of the subject property
by Oliver to petitioner Calubad and the indefeasibility of a Torrens title give petitioner a right of
ownership over the subject property superior to that of Aceron are outside its scope. To resolve
such issues requires a review of evidence which this Court obviously cannot do in this petition.
An action for annulment of judgment is an independent action where the judgment or resolution
sought to be annulled is rendered and is not an appeal of the judgment or resolution therein.
Thus, the issue of petitioner Calubad’s alleged interest on or ownership of the subject property
cannot be addressed in this petition. Calubad vs. Aceron, G.R. No. 188029, September 2, 2020,
J. Hernando

EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS

Examination of judgment obligor to disclose the properties is a remedy under Rule 39.

Rule 39 of the Rules of Court lays down available remedies and guidelines for the satisfaction of
a judgment, including enforcement of a writ of execution, which the winning party may avail of
before the judgment court. Among the remedies available to such party to fully enforce the writ
of execution is the examination of a judgment obligor. In the case at bench, the writ of execution
was returned unserved, as shown in the Sheriff's Return dated June 18, 2010. It was therefore
imperative for the judgment court to issue an order for examination of respondent after the writ
of execution was returned unsatisfied. Such order would have ensured the satisfaction of its
judgment, all the more so if it has already attained finality. In other words, the RTC, pursuant to
its residual authority, should have issued auxiliary writs and employed processes and other
means necessary to execute its final judgment. Linden Suites, Inc. vs. Meridien Far East
Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 211969, October 4, 2021, J. Hernando

Res Judicata is the rule that a final judgment is conclusive of the rights of parties or privies.

Res judicata literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing
or matter settled by judgment.” Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or
decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 17 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent
jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. The elements of res judicata are:
(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition
or the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and
second action identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Heirs of Aurio T. Casiño,
Sr. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, Malaybalay Branch, G.R. Nos. 204052-53, March
11, 2020, J. Hernando

Old age is not one of the “good reasons” to justify an execution pending appeal.

The sufficiency of “good reasons” depends upon the circumstances of the case and the parties
thereto. Conditions that are personal to one party, for example, may be insufficient to justify an
execution pending appeal that would affect all parties to the case and the property that is the
subject thereof. Thus, in Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., the Court ruled that the
execution pending appeal, which was supposedly justified by the old age and life-threatening
ailments of merely one of several parties to the case, was unsupported by special reasons. Here,
even assuming that Patricia was indeed of advanced age, such will not be considered as a good
reason by itself, since it must be supported by special reasons, which were not provided in this
case. Verily, the RTC Br. 10 committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed execution
pending appeal not based on good reasons. Heirs of Aurio T. Casiño, Sr. vs. Development Bank
of the Philippines, Malaybalay Branch, G.R. Nos. 204052-53, March 11, 2020, J. Hernando

Judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action.

The petitioners Yu bemoans that there is supposedly no other remedy available on their part to
protect their interests over the subject properties. Such supposition is incorrect. As already
explained, under Rule 3, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, while the non-inclusion of necessary
parties does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, the judgment rendered therein
shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. It is elementary that a judgment
cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action. To [sic] once more, Civil Case No. B-8623
did not deal whatsoever as to who has the right of ownership over the subject properties. The
said case only concerned itself with the action for recovery of sum of money instituted by
respondent Medina against respondents Morning Star, Timmy, and Lilibeth. Hence, any action
by the petitioners Yu questioning the registration of the TCTs in the name of respondent Morning
Star in another proceeding will not interfere nor intrude whatsoever with the RTC’s final and
executory Decision in Civil Case No. B-8623. Yu vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 225752, March 27, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 18 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

A judicially approved compromise agreement has the force of res judicata.

A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions in order
to resolve their differences and thus avoid litigation or to put an end to one already commenced.
Once stamped with judicial imprimatur, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the
parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it
has the force and effect of any other judgment. It has the effect and authority of res judicata,
although no execution may issue until it would have received the corresponding approval of the
court where the litigation pends and its compliance with the terms of the agreement is thereupon
decreed. A compromise agreement once approved by final order of the court has the force of res
judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery.
Hence, a decision on a compromise agreement is final and executory; it has the force of law and
is conclusive between the parties. It transcends its identity as a mere contract binding only upon
the parties thereto, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the
Rules. The foregoing principles apply with equal force to agreements approved by the SEC in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial powers, inasmuch as it stands on equal footing with the RTC with
respect to matters over which it has jurisdiction. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs.
Plast-Print Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 199308, June 19, 2019

A third party who challenges the levy of the property must establish ownership thereof.

It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only against property
incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor, and certainly, a person other than the
judgment debtor who claims ownership over the levied properties is not precluded from
challenging the levy through any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court. In the
pursuit of such remedies, however, the third party must, to reiterate, unmistakably establish
ownership over the levied property, which Tee Ling Kiat failed to do. Tee Ling Kiat vs. Ayala
Corporation, G.R. No. 192530, March 7, 2018

Judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law.

The finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if
no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. The court need not
even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by operation of law. Thus,
since the December 14, 2009 Resolution of the CTA First Division has already attained finality, it
now becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if
the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 19 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE

made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Although there are
recognized exceptions to this rule, petitioner failed to prove that the case falls under any of the
instances. People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 197164, December 4, 2019, J. Hernando

Four (4) Exceptions to the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment

Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and
whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act
which violates this principle must immediately be struck down. But like any other rule, it has
exceptions, namely: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances
transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. FGU
Insurance Corp. vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, G.R. No. 161282, February
23, 2011, 659 PHIL 117-125

An action for revival of judgment is a new action based on a final and executory judgment.

An action for revival of judgment is an action with the exclusive purpose of enforcing a judgment
which could no longer be enforced by a motion. The revival action is a new action altogether; it
is different and distinct from the original judgment sought to be revived or enforced. It is a new
and independent action, wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of
the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered. The Court agrees with
the CA in citing Saligumba v. Palanog, especially when it ruled that revival of judgment is premised
on the assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by independent action, is
already final and executory. Pineda vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 204997, August 4, 2021, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 20 of 20