UNIVERSITY OF STO.

TOMAS-LEGAZPI
College of Law

COURSE SYLLABUS

Course Title: CIVIL PROCEDURE II

Credit: 3 UNITS
Term: SECOND SEMESTER, SCHOOL YEAR 2022-2023
Faculty: JUDGE JOAN C MOSATALLA
Schedule: 2B, Th, 5:30PM – 8:30PM, P-205
2A, F, 5:30PM – 8:30PM, P-204

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This is an in-depth study of Rules 40 to 71 of the Revised Rules of Civil

Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, with focus on provisional remedies and
special civil actions and the judicial interpretation and application of these rules as embodied in
pertinent Supreme Court decisions. The course also develops familiarity with relevant forms.

ASSESSMENT

Class recitations
Quizzes
Written Examinations
Performance Tasks

GRADING SYSTEM
Class standing before midterms 20%
Midterm Exams 20%
Class standing after midterms 30%
Final Exams 30%
100%

COURSE OUTLINE

I. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES (before finality)

A. RULE 40 – 41: APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
1. Right to appeal
 Sps Lebin v Mirasol, G.R. No. 164255, September 7, 2011
 Gonzales, et. al. v Pe, G.R. No. 167398, August 9, 2011
2. Period to appeal
 Neypes v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005.
 Panolino v Tajala, G.R. No. 183616, June 29, 2010.
 Valencia v CA, 352 SCRA 72.
 Province of Camarines Sur v Heirs of Augustin Pato, G.R. No. 151084, July 2, 2010
 Barangay 24 of Legazpi City v Imperial, 393 Phil 357 (2000)
 Heirs of Albano v Spouses Ravanes, G.R. No. 183645, July 20, 2016.
 Mario Magat, Sr., et al. v Tantrade Corporation and Pablo S. Borja, Jr., G.R. No.
205483, August 23, 2017.
 San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. v Bayang, G.R. No. 194702,
April 20, 2010.
 Sumaway v Urban Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 142534, June 27, 2006.
 Sumiran v Sps Damaso, G.R. No. 162518, August 19, 2009.

3. Judgment/ final orders subject to appeal

 Republic v Ortigas and Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 171496, March 3, 2014.
 Tongonan Holdings & Dev’t Corp. v Escano, G.R. No. 190994, September 7, 2011.
Civil Procedure
Course Outline
Page 2 of 7

4. Matters not appealable

 Gupilan-Aguilar, et al. v Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 197307, February 26,
2014.
 Jose v Javellana, et. al. G.R. NO. 158239, January 25, 2012

5. Remedies when judgment/order not appealable

6. Modes of appeal
 Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co. Inc. v CA, G.R. No. 115104 October
12, 1998
 Land Bank v Ramos, et. al., G.R. No. 181664, November 14, 2012

7. Issues raised on appeal

 Custodio v CA, G.R. No. 116100, 9 February 1996
 Citytrust Banking Corp v CA, G.R. No. 92591, 30 April 1991

8. When appeal is deemed perfected

 Julian v DBP, G.R. No. 174193, December 7, 2011.

9. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC

 Manalang v Bacani, G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015.

10. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC

 Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v Villareal, et al., G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013.
 Darma Maslag v Elizabeth Monson, et al., G.R. No. 174908, June 17, 2013.
 MCA-MBF Countdown Cards, Phils. et. al. v MBF Card International Limited, et. al.
G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012

11. Residual jurisdiction

 Fernandez v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131094, May 16, 2005.

B. RULE 42: PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM REGIONAL TRIAL COURT TO

COURT OF APPEALS
 Anderson v Ho, G.R. No. 172590, January 7, 2013.
 Heirs of Garcia v Municipality of Iba, Zambales, G.R. No. 162217, July 22, 2015.
 Intramuros Administration v Offshore Construction Dev Co., G.R. No. 196795, March 7,
2018.
 LBP v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 190660, August 11, 2011.
 Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev Co, Inc. v CA, G.R. No. 115104, October 12, 1998.
 Sales v Ong, G.R. No. 132197, August 16, 2005.

C. RULE 43: APPEALS FROM COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND QUASI-

JUDICIAL AGENCIES
 Alcaraz v Gonzales, G.R. No. 164715, September 20, 2006.
 Contes v Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. Nos. 187896- 97, June 10, 2013.
 Fabian v Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998.
 Lanting v Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, May 6, 2005.
 Perez v Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131445, May 27, 2004.
 St. Martin Funeral Home v NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998.

D. RULE 45: APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO SUPREME COURT

 Asian Terminals, Inc v Simon Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 177116, February 27, 2013.
 Mackay v Angeles, G.R. No. 144230, September 30, 2003.
 Maza v Turla, G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017.
 Philippine Bank of Communications v CA, G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017.
 Republic v Mercadera, G.R. No. 186027, December 8, 2010.

II. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES (after finality)

A. RULE 47: ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDERS AND
RESOLUTIONS
1. Period to file
2. Grounds
3. Effect of judgment of annulment
Civil Procedure
Course Outline
Page 3 of 7

 Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines v CA, G.R. No.80892, September 29, 1989.
 Sebastian v Spouses Cruz, et, al., G.R. No. 220940, March 20, 2017.
 Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas Blvd, Inc. v Far East Bank and Trust Co., et al., G.R.
No. 159926, January 20, 2014.
 Republic v De Castro, G.R. No. 189724, February 7, 2011.
 Victory Liner v Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007.

III. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

A. RULE 57: PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
1. Grounds
 Equitable v. Special Steel, G.R. No. 175 350, June 13, 2012

2. Requisites
3. Order of attachment
4. Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of summons
5. Manner of attaching real and personal property; when property attached is
claimed by third person
6. Discharge of attachment
 Peroxide Philippines Corp. v CA, G.R. No. 92813, July 31, 1991.

7. Purpose of counter-bond
 Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v Tri-Infante, 468 SCRA 526.

8. Satisfaction of judgment
 Davao Light&Power Co., Inc v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93262, November 29,
1991.
 Torres v Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759, November 25, 2009.
 Traders Royal Bank v IAC, G.R. No. 66321, October 31, 1984.
 Valmonte v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108538, January 22, 1996.

B. RULE 58: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1. Definition & differences: preliminary injunction/ temporary restraining
order/ status quo ante order
2. Requisites
3. Kinds of injunction/ TRO
4. When writ may/ may not be issued
 BPI v. Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014.
 Executive Secretary, et al. v Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 199324,
January 7, 2013.
 Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127930, December
15, 2000.
 Spouses Marquez v. Spouses Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014.
 TML Gasket Industries, Inc. v BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 188768,
January 7, 2013.

5. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction

6. Purpose of injunction
 Manila International Airport Authority v Rivera Village, 471 SCRA 358.

7. Grounds for dissolution of injunction or restraining order

8. When can a temporary restraining order issue

 Bacolod City Water District v Labayen, G.R. No. 157494, December 10, 2004.

9. Requisites of temporary restraining order

 Strategic Alliance Development Corp. v Star Infrastructure Corp., G.R. No. 187872,
April 11, 2011.

10. Period of effectivity of temporary restraining order

 Australian Professional, Inc. v Municipality of Padre Garcia, 668 SCRA 253.
Civil Procedure
Course Outline
Page 4 of 7

11. Limitations on the issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunction

12. When injunction is prohibited: PD 605, PD 1818, PD 385

 Antig v Antipuesto, G.R. No. 192396, January 17, 2018.
 Australian Professional Realty v Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas, G.R. No.
183367, March 14, 2012.
 City of Iloilo v Honrado, G.R. No. 160399, December 9, 2015.
 Dungog v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139767, August 5, 2003.
 Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Phils v Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
88384, July 14, 1995.
 Hernandez v NPC, G.R. No. 145328, March 23, 2006.
 Spouses Laus v Optimum Security Services Inc, G.R. No. 208343, February 3, 2016.
 Tay Chun Suy v CA, G.R. No. 93640, January 7, 1994.
 Versoza v CA, G.R. No. 119511-13, November 24, 1998.

C. RULE 59: RECEIVERSHIP

1. Cases when receiver may be appointed
2. Purpose of receivership
 Tantano, et al. v. ominalda Caboverde, et al., G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013.

3. Requisites
4. Requirements for issuance of order
5. General powers of a receiver
6. Kinds of bonds
7. Termination of receivership
 Normandy v Duque, G.R. No. L-25407, August 29, 1969.

D. RULE 60: REPLEVIN

1. When writ may be issued
2. Requisites
3. Affidavit and bond
4. Sheriff’s duty in the implementation of the writ
 Advent Capital and Finance Corp v Young, G.R. No. 183018, August 3, 2011.
 BA Finance Corp v CA, G.R. No. 102998, July 5, 1996.
 Rivera v Vargas, G.R. No. 165895, June 5, 2009.

E. RULE 61: SUPPORT PENDETE LITE

 Francisco v Zandueta, G.R. No. L-43794, 9 August 1935
 San Juan v Valenzuela, G.R. No. L-59906, 23 October 1982
 Ma. Carminia Calderon, etc. v. Jose Antonio F. Roxas, G.R. No. 185595, January 9,
2013

F. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS

1. Human Security Act
2. RA 9262: Anti-VAWC
3. Anti-Money Laundering Act
4. Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act
5. Precautionary Hold Departure Order

MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS

IV. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

A. RULE 62: INTERPLEADER
1. Requisites
 RCBC v Metro Container Corp., G.R. No. 127913, September 13, 2001.

2. Period to file
3. Limitations in filing of interpleader
 Ramos v Ramos, 399 SCRA 43.
 Wack-Wack Golf v Won, 70 SCRA 165.
Civil Procedure
Course Outline
Page 5 of 7

B. RULE 63: DECLARATORY RELIEF

 Allied Broadcasting Corporation v. Republic, G.R. No. 91500, October 18, 1990.
 Almeda v Bathala Marketing Industries, 542 SCRA 470.
 Bilag, et.al. v. Ay-ay, et.al., G.R. No. 189950, April 24, 2017.
 Province of Camarines Sur v Court of Appeals, 600 SCRA 569.

1. Requisites of action for declaratory relief

 Bayan Telecommunications v. Republic, 513 SCRA 560.
 Jumamil v. Café, G.R. No. 144570, September 21, 2005.

2. Who may file

C. RULE 64: REVIEW OF JUDGMENT/ FINAL ORDER OF COA/COMELEC

 Aratuc v COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251.
 Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, 621 SCRA 385.
 Reyna v. COA, 642 SCRA 210.

D. RULE 65: CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

1. Certiorari
 Requisites
 Tan v. Antazo, G.R. No. 187208, February 23, 2011.

 Grave abuse of discretion

 Spouses Marquez v Spouses Alindog, G.R.No. 184045, January 22, 2014.

 Purpose of writ
 Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc., et.al. v. Hon. Janette
Garin, et.al., G.R. No. 217872 and 221866, April 26, 2017.
 Angara v Fedman, G.R. NO. 156822, October 18, 2004.
 Cruz, et. al. v. People, G.R. No. 224974, July 3, 2017.
 Francisco v TRB, G.R. No. 166910, October 19, 2010.
 People v. Sandiganbayan and Juan Roberto L. Abling, G.R. No. 198119,
September 27, 2017.

 Period to file
 Adtel, Inc. v Valdez, G.R. No. 189942. August 9, 2017.
 Concejero v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 223262. September 11, 2017.

 Petition for certiorari v appeal by certiorari

 Alexis C. Almendras v South Davao Development Corporation, Inc, et. al.,
G.R. No. 198209, March 22, 2017.
 Land Bank of the Philippines v Court of Appeals, 456 Phil 755.

 Certiorari: not a remedy for lost appeal

 Magtoto, et. al. v CA, et al., G.R. No. 175792, November 21, 2012.
 Cuevas, vs. Atty. Macatangay, et al., G.R. No. 208506, February 22, 2017.

 Injunctive relief necessary to stop proceedings below

 Juliano-Llave v. Republic, 646 SCRA 637.

2. Prohibition
 Southern Luzon Drug Corporation v DSWD, et. al., G.R. No. 199669, April
25, 2017.
 Ongsuko v Malones, G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009.

3. Mandamus
 Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. v. Sec. Leila de Lima, et al., G.R. No. 197291,
April 3, 2013.
 Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes Inc., et.al., G.R. No. 213948, April 25,
2017.
 Laygo et. al., v Municipal Mayor of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, G.R. No.
188448, January 11, 2017.
Civil Procedure
Course Outline
Page 6 of 7

 Special People, Inc. Foundation, etc. v Canda, G.R. No. 160932, January
14, 2013.
 Spouses Dacudao v Secretary of Justice, G.R.No. 188056, January 8, 2013.

E. RULE 66: QUO WARRANTO

 Republic v Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428. May 11, 2018.
 Divinagracia v Consolidated Broadcasting System, G.R. No. 162272, April 7, 2009.
 Tecson v COMELEC, 424 SCRA 277

1. Quo warranto under Rule 66 v under the Omnibus Election Code

 Fermin v COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, December 18, 2008.

2. Who may file petition

3. Judgment in quo warranto action

F. RULE 67: EXPROPRIATION

 Ato v Gopuco, Jr. 462 SCRA 544.
 National Power Corporation v Marasigan, et. al. G.R. No. 220367, November 20,
2017.

1. Stages in action for expropriation

 City of Manila v Alegar Corporation, G.R. No. 187604, June 25, 2012.
 National Power Corporation v Joson, 206 SCRA 520.

2. Defenses and objections

3. Just compensation
 City of Iloilo v Contreras Besana, 612 SCRA 458.
 Republic v Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc. , 664 SCRA 223.

4. Remedy of unpaid owner

 Yujuico v Atienza, Jr. 472 SCRA 463.

G. RULE 68: FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

1. Manner of foreclosure
2. Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale
3. Effect of sale of mortgaged property
4. Equity of redemption
 Spouses Rosales v Spouses Alfonso, G.R. No. 137792, August 12, 2003.

5. Deficiency judgment
6. Judicial v extrajudicial foreclosure

H. RULE 69: PARTITION

 Cano Vda. De Viray v. Spouses Usi, G.R. No. 192486, November 21, 2012

1. Modes of partition
 Figuracion-Gerilla v. Vda. De Figuracion, 499 SCRA 484.

2. Indispensable parties
 Sepulveda v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195, January 31, 2005.

3. Matters to allege in the complaint for partition

4. Stages in action for partition
 Lacbayan v. Samoy, 645 SCRA 677.

5. Order of partition and partition by agreement

6. Partition by commissioners
7. Action for partition imprescriptible; exceptions
 Heirs of Restar v. Heirs of Cichon, 475 SCRA 731.

8. Effects of judgment of partition

Civil Procedure
Course Outline
Page 7 of 7

I. RULE 70: FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

 Spouses Gaela v Spouses Tan Tian Heang, et. al., G.R. No. 185627 March 15, 2017.

1. Forcible entry v unlawful detainer

 Province of Camarines Sur v Bodega Glassware, G.R. No. 194199, March 22, 2017.
 Nunez v SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, G.R.No. 180542, April 12, 2010.
 Dela Cruz v CA, G.R. No. 139442, December 6, 2006.
 Sarmiento v Manalite Home Owners Association, G.R. No. 182953, October 11,
2010.
 Ermiano, etc. v Paglas, G.R.No. 174436, January 23, 2013.

2. Who may file

3. What to allege
4. When demand is necessary
 Velia J. Cruz v Spouses Christensen, G.R. No. 205539, October 4, 2017.

5. Nature of proceedings
 Delos Reyes v Spouses Odenes, G.R. No. 178096, March 23, 2011.

6. Issue of ownership
 Mendiola v Sangalang, G.R. No. 205283, June 7, 2017.
 Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia v Dimatulac, G.R. No. 142015, April 29, 2003.

7. How to stay immediate execution of judgment

 Acbang v Hon. Luczon, Jr. et al., G.R. No. 164246, January 15, 2014

J. RULE 71: CONTEMPT

 Harry L. Roque, Jr., v AFP Chief of Staff, et. al., G.R. No. 214986, February 15,
2017.
 Lorenzo Shipping v Distribution Association, 656 SCRA 331.
 P/Supt. Hansel Marantan v Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 205956,
February 12, 2014.
 Regalado v Go, 514 SCRA 616.
 Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corporation v Anthony Parungao, et al., G.R. No. 197507,
January 14, 2013.
 Siy v NLRC, G.R. No. 158971, August 25, 2005.

1. Direct v indirect contempt

 Encinas v National Bookstore, G.R. No. 162704, July 28, 2005.
 Cruz v Gigoyon, 658 SCRA 254.
 SBMA v Rodriguez, 619 SCRA 176.
 RCBC v Serra, et. al. G.R. No. 216124, July 19, 2017.

2. How commenced
 Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc., et al. v Sanchez, G.R. No. 182738, February
24, 2014.

3. Where to file
4. Penalties and remedies

FINAL EXAMINATION
END OF TERM