You are on page 1of 25

CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER 2nd Semester, AY 2006-2007 Based on the Syllabus of Prof. Victoria A. Avena Part I.

Introductory concepts Part II. Judicial Power Includes: 1. Settle actual controversies (1987 Consti Article VIII, sec. 1) 2. Judicial Review: GAD lack/excess of juris (1987 Consti Article VIII, sec. 1) a. Statutory Basis: NCC Art 7 3. Declaratory Relief (ROC Rule 63.1) 4. Judge contests relating to Election, Returns, Qualifications of Pres/VP + rules (1987 Consti Article VII, sec. 4) 5. Martial Law (1987 Consti Article VIII, sec. 18) 6. Judicial Legislation (NCC) a. Part of Legal System. (Article 8, Civil Code) b. Mandatory Judgment. (Article 9, Civil Code) Legal Basis: o Nature, scope a. 1987 Constitution o re actual controversies, judicial review Article VIII, sec. 1 (Where) The judicial power shall be vested in o one Supreme Court and o in such lower courts as may be established by law. (Scope) Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 1. To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 2. To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution) Class Notes: o courts of justice are referred to in Art VIII Sec 1 of the 1987 Consti o Courts vs Legislature: o Court part of the judiciary (budget, supervision) o Legislature congress, house, loc govt (e.g. municipal councilors, municipal board sangguniang bayan) b. re dec. relief 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 63, sec. 1 (as am. by SC Resol. of 2-17-98) (Elements) 1. Any person a. interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, (DCWI) b. or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, (SEoROGr) 2. before breach or violation thereof, (B4 B/V) 3. bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court (Purposes) 1. to determine any question of construction or validity arising, 2. and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. 3. An action for the reformation of an instrument, 4. to quite title to real property or remover cloud therefrom, 5. or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule. (Rule 63, Sec. 1) c. re presl./vice-presl. elections Art. VII.4

(Who: SC en banc: C-ERQ P/VP + rules) The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge (What) o of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, (ERQ-P/VP) o and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. (Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, 1987 Constitution) d. re martial law/suspension of writ of habeas corpus Art.VII.18

(Who) The Supreme Court may review, (Where) in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, (What) o the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law o or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus o or the extension thereof,

(When) and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. (Article VII, Section 18, Paragraph 3, 1987 Constitution) e. statutory base of judl. review Civil Code, Art. 7

3. 4. 5. 6.

(When) When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, (What) o the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. o Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (Article 7, Paragraph 2-3, Civil Code) judl. legislation Civil Code, Arts 8 & 9 (Part of Legal System) Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. (Article 8, Civil Code) (Mandatory Judgment) No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficnency of the law. (Article 9, Civil Code)

d. Crim cases w/ RP or higher e. ONLY error/Q of law Temp assignment of judges to lower courts Change of venue e.g. Ppl v Sola Promulgate rules consti rights, PPP in courts, AI, L appointment of judiciary officials)

Constitutional protections o constitutional status Art. VIII, secs. 2, 5 R 56.3 (Who) The Congress shall have (What) the power to define, prescribe, and apportion (DPA) the jurisdiction of the various courts (Limitation) o but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. o No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. (Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution) (Summary of Mandatory SC Jurisdiction: 1. Orig: APmC + CPMQH 2. Appeal/Cert by RRRMA a. Constitutionality/Validity (TALPdPOIOR) b. Legality: TIAT-P c. Jurisdiction of lower courts

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. (Article VIII, Section 5, 1987 Constitution) Section 3. Mode of appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken (GR) only by a petition for review on certiorari,

2 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

(X) except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. (ROC Rule 56.3) o re statutory increase of appellate juris. Art. VI.30 (Limitation in increasing SCs appellate jurisdiction: SC advice & concurrence) No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. (Article VII, Section 30, 1987 Constitution) PART III. Prescribed Jurisdiction i.e., over subject matter, by law What is Jurisdiction? o The power of the courts to hear and entertain action or proceedings o and to render a judgment therein that binds the parties to the action or proceedings. o the authority to decide cases submitted before a court of law.

Quasi-judicial bodies perform duties and decide cases similar to courts. They decide the rights and obligations of the persons and settle disputes submitted before them. Sindico v Diaz (G.R. No. 147444, October 1, 2004) [J of quasi-judl. agency] Facts: Pet Accion Reivindicatoria with preliminary Mandatory Injunction with the RTC; the complaint does not allege tenurial relationship Def Motion to Dismiss - RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter - involves agricultural land which is covered by CARP, hence DARAB has uesclusive original jurisdiction Pet Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss - not an agrarian dispute; no tenancy or leasehold relationship Issue: whether RTC or DARAB has jurisdiction Held: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas set-up by the defendant in his answer or in a motion to dismiss; otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent on his whims. Since allegations in the complaint show that the dispute involves an action for recovery of possession of land (accion reinvindicatoria) and does not involve an agrarian dispute, RTC has jurisdiction over it. There was no denial by the respondents that the controversy did not involve a tenancy or leasehold agreement, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the DARAB falling under agricultural disputes. KINDS of JURISDICTION 1. as to COVERAGE General Jurisdiction Power to adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from the plenary Special or Limited Jurisdiction Those which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction Delegated Jurisdiction a. Cadastral & land registration b. Special or Interlocutory Jurisdiction Where no RTC

How is jurisdiction created? o Jurisdiction is conferred by law. o Lower Courts: BP 129 or Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, effective August 14, 1981). o Supreme Court:1987 Constitution. (Article VIII, Section 5). o Jurisdiction may not be stipulated / agreed on by parties. What is judicial power? Is jurisdiction part of judicial power? Judicial power is the power to hear and settle disputes. Although the definition of judicial power is not clearly spelled out in the law, Prof. Avena is of the belief that the concept of judicial power was developed throughout the history of American and English laws, to which our legal system owes a lot through colonization by the US. In the US, jurisdiction was defined by experience, in that there must be a body or entity with the power to decide a case. Jurisdiction is part of judicial power. How about quasi-judicial bodies?

3 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

powers court.

of

the

judges are present: o Habeas corpus / bail o Interlocut ory orders in respective territorial jurisdictions

judicial process

Other Classifications of Philippine Courts 1. as to RANK: Superior Courts Courts which have the power of review or supervision over another and lower court. Inferior Courts Those which, in relation to another court, are lower in rank and subject to review and supervision by the latter.

2. as to COGNIZANCE of a CASE Original Power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law Appellate Authority of a court higher in rank to reexamine the final order or judgment of a lower court which tried the case now elevated for review.

2. as to their CREATION; Constitutional Courts Those which owe their creation and existence to the Constitution and, therefore cannot be legislated out of existence or deprived by law of the jurisdiction and powers unqualifiedly vested in them by the constitution. Statutory Courts Those created, organized and with jurisdiction exclusively determined by law.

3. as to CONCURRENCE with OTHER COURTS Exclusive Power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage Concurrent Power conferred upon different courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the same or different judicial territories.

4. as to TERRITORY (Scope) Geographical area within which its powers can be exercised (important in criminal cases; in civil cases: pertains to venue only) Territorial a. National SC, CA b. Regional - RTC c. Territorial inferior courts 5. as to SCOPE Jurisdiction over the Person Jurisdiction acquired by the person becoming a party to the action or proceeding before the court either through voluntary appearance or upon service of summons or other Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter Jurisdiction which pertains to the classes or kinds of actions or proceedings which the court is authorized to entertain and adjudicate.

3. Record prior to RA 6031 (1969): GR inferior courts were not of record X criminal case w/ 6mos6yrs imposable penalty. Now, all courts are of record. Courts of Record o Proceedings are enrolled o Bound to keep written record of all trials & proceedings handled by them Courts Not of Record Not required to keep written record of all trials & proceedings held therein

definition/distinguished from exercise Definition: What is jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear or entertain an action or proceedings and to render a judgment thereon which will bind the parties to such action or proceeding.

4 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Distinguished from exercise of jurisdiction There is a distinction between the competence of the court to entertain an action (jurisdiction) and the power to render a judgment on the merits (exercise of jurisdiction). Where there is jurisdiction, the decision of all questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (But error in jurisdiction is the same as error in the exercise of jurisdiction) distinguished from venue Manila Railroad v Atty.General (20 Phil 523) Held: Jurisdiction is assured, whatever the place of its exercise. Jurisdiction is the thing; the place of its exercise is its incident. Venue simply grants to the defendant certain rights and privileges as against the plaintiff relative to the place of trial. NOTES: simply put, CFI had jurisdiction over the subject matter, i.e., expropriation. Venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

a.

b. c.

jurisdiction cannot be waived; judgment without jurisdiction w/o jurisdiction void (Legal Basis: Rule 9.1, Abbain v Chua) o EXCEPTION = Estoppel by laches (SEAFDEC v NLRC) cannot be the subject of compromise (CC 2035) GR: once attached cannot be ousted; X: subsequent statute provides o retroactivity of law expanding jurisdiction of courts (RA 7691 Sec 7) transfer of cases from MTC to RTC upon agreement of parties

Distinguished from venue Venue determines the question which of several courts in the Philippines having jurisdiction of a case shall take cognizance of it. JURISDICTION Authority to hear and determine a case Matter of substantive law Establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties = VENUE Place where the case is to be heard or tried Matter procedural law of

Rule 9, Section 1. (GR) Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. (X: no juris over SM; LP; RJ; presc) However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the (1) court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is (2) another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendiencia), or that the (3) action is barred by a prior judgment or by (4) statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. Abbain v. Chua (22 SCRA 748) Complaint alleges the existence of landlordtenant relationship. Judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court is void, because it has no jurisdiction over cases involving a landlord-tenant relationship. Jurisdiction is with the Court of Agrarian Relations. Since the judgment of the lower court is void, it can be attacked directly or collaterally even after the time for appeal or review has elapsed. Such a judgment is held to be a dead limb on the judicial tree, which should be lopped off or wholly disregarded as the circumstances may require. -- jurisdiction by estoppel = exception SEAFDEC v. NLRC (206 SCRA 283) A case of illegal dismissal was brought against SEAFDEC, an international organization, with the NLRC. One of the basic immunities of an

Nature

Law of which it is concerne d Relations hip establish ed Creation

Establishes a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent May be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties.

GENERAL RULES

5 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction. The invocation of estoppel is not meritorious in this case because estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over the cause of action. NOTE: why no estoppel? (1)Doctrine of Immunity from Suit (immunity derived from treaty) (2)Immunity was not waived; In their Answer pa lang, invoked lack of jurisdiction! In Soliven, acts implied waiver (pinagod ang court) Soliven v. Fastforms Phils. (G.R. No. 139031, October 18, 2004) Fastforms actively participated in all stages of the proceedings and invoked its authority by asking the court for affirmative relief. (Citing the case of PNOC Shipping v. CA)

Southern Food v. Salas (206 SCRA 333) Southern Foods v. Salas GEN. RULE: Once the court already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over the controversy to another tribunal. EXCEPTION: Unless the statute itself conferring new jurisdiction expressly provides for retroactive effect. Class Notes: o Error in the exercise of jurisdiction = error of jurisdiction o Error of jurisdiction Void judgment (not voidable :judgment voidable when in laches)

The rationale behind the exception of jurisdiction by estoppel is to prohibit parties from accepting judgments of court only if favorable to them.

PART IV. Acquired jurisdiction Class Notes: o Types of Acquired Jurisdiction: 1. Person o Of the plaintiff o Of the defendant 2. Subject Matter 3. Issues 4. Res A. Over the person of the plaintiff Manila Railroad v. Atty.General (supra; see above) Of the Plaintiff Jurisdiction over the person (of the plaintiff) is conferred by consent and made to depend indirectly at least, on the partys own volition. (Manila Railroad v. Atty-General) of the defendant How is jurisdiction acquired over the person? a. when there is voluntary appearance (when defendant was not originally impleaded in the complaint) b. through the coercive power of legal process (summons) c. voluntary submission (when defendant is originally impleaded; cures defect in service of summons)

cannot be the subject of compromise Civil Code, Art. 2035 Jurisdiction cannot be the subject of Compromise Article 2035, Civil Code No compromise upon the following question shall be valid: XXX XXX XXX (5) The jurisdiction of courts. retroactivity R.A. 7691, sec. 7 Retroactivity of Law Expanding Jurisdiction of Courts The provisions of this Act shall apply to all civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. However, by agreement of all the parties, civil cases cognizable by the MTC by the provisions of this Act may be transferred from the RTC to the latter. The executive judge of the appropriate RTC shall define the administrative procedure of transferring the cases affected by the redefinition of jurisdiction of the MeTC, MTC, MCTC. (Sec.7, R.A. 7691 -> amending B.P.129) once attached, not ousted by subsequent statute unless so provided

6 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

1) by service of summons Rule 14, secs. 1, 2, & 3 By Service of Summons. (Rule 14) - Clerk to issue summons (Sec.1) - Form: directed to defendant, signed by clerk under seal Contents: (a) name of court and parties (b) direction that defendant answer within the time fixed by the Rules (c) notice that unless defendant answers, plaintiff will take judgment by default (Sec.2) - Served by sheriff, deputy, court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person (Sec.3) personal service sec. 6 Personal Service or Service in person on defendant. Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (Sec. 6, Rule 14) substituted service sec. 7 Substituted Service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. (Sec.7, Rule 14) service by publication sec. 14 Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. (When applicable) In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like,

or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, (Service by publication; How) service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order. (16a) Extraterritorial Service and Service by Publication. (Elements) 1. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, 2. and the action a. affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, b. or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, c. or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, d. or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, (Methods) (a) by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6 or (b) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, (c) or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. (Period) Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. (Sec. 15, Rule 14) extra-territorial service sec. 15

7 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Extraterritorial Service and Service by Publication. (Elements) 3. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, 4. and the action a. affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, b. or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, c. or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, d. or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, (Methods) (a) by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6 or (b) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, (c) or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. (Period) Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. (Sec. 15, Rule 14) 2) by voluntary appearance Rule 14, sec. 20 Voluntary appearance. (GR) The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. (X) The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Rule 14, Sec 20) Boticano v. Chu(148 SCRA 541)

Chu voluntarily submitted to the courts jurisdiction by (1) submitting pleadings to the court and (2) by appearing in person in court thru his counsel. The defects of the summons were cured by the voluntary appearance of the defendant. 3) by voluntary submission

Rodriguez v. Alikpala (57 SCRA 455) The Tolentino spouses, parents of Mrs. Rebollado, voluntarily submitted to the courts jurisdiction by assuming or participating in the defense as co-movants with the Mr. and Mrs. Rebollado, in the motion for judgment on a compromise. Class Notes: Voluntary Submission v Voluntary Appearance Voluntary Submission Voluntary Appearance (Rodriguez v Alikpala) (Boticano v Chu) Defendant not a Not really literal party to the case (not appearance (can be impleaded as party in via pleadings / the pleading) motions verbal or written participation) Jurisprudential (not in the rules) In this case, done by: entering into a compromise agreement o B. Over the res Rule 14, sec. 15 (supra) Extraterritorial Service and Service by Publication. (Elements) 1. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, 2. and the action e. affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, f. or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, g. or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, h. or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, (Methods)

8 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

(a) by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6 or (b) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, (c) or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. (Period) Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. (Sec. 15, Rule 14) Banco-Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil. 921) In the foreclosure of real estate mortgage, the court acquires jurisdiction over the property since it is found in the Philippines, but does not acquire jurisdiction over the person since mortgagor is a nonresident. After signing the real estate mortgage, Palanca, owner of the foreclosed real estate, lived thereafter in China and had died there without paying his debt.

Class Notes: o Q: Why post a notice or publicize in Rule 14.15 when it may be useless since theres no guaranty that the defendant could read the notice? A: A property owner will see to it that he knows goings-on re: his property by appointing someone who will admonish him of such proceedings o Rule 14.15 contemplates the following proceedings: o In Rem(in rem par excellance) binding on the whole world (constructive parties); e.g. De Midgely: probate proceeding (subjects may pertain to real property or chosen in action Rule 14.15 par 3) o Quasi in rem suit against a person w.r.t. a certain res o How is jurisdiction acquired over property? a. when there is actual seizure of the property by the court. b. when there is recognition of the power of the court over the property. C. Over the issues

Conditions for the Foreclosure of Property of Nonresident Mortgagors: 1. jurisdiction of the court is derived from the power which the court possesses over the property. 2. jurisdiction over the person is not acquired and is not essential. 3. that the relief granted by the court must be limited to such as can be enforced upon the property itself. De Midgely v. Ferandos. (64 SCRA 23) Jurisdiction over de Midgely, a resident of Spain, was acquired by her voluntary appearance in court. If the motion is for any other purpose than to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, extra-territorial service of summons was made through the Philippine embassy in Spain, The court held that service through the embassy can be encompassed under extraterritorial service by reasonably sufficient means. An action is one in rem where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them. (i.e. testamentary proceeding which is an action in rem par excellance)

Class Notes: o Q: Why post a notice or publicize in Rule 14.15 when it may be useless since theres no guaranty that the defendant could read the notice? A: A property owner will see to it that he knows goings-on re: his property by appointing someone who will admonish him of such proceedings o Rule 14.15 contemplates the following proceedings: o In Rem(in rem par excellance) binding on the whole world (constructive parties); e.g. De Midgely: probate proceeding (subjects may pertain to real property or chosen in action Rule 14.15 par 3) o Quasi in rem suit against a person w.r.t. a certain res o How is jurisdiction acquired over property? a. when there is actual seizure of the property by the court. b. when there is recognition of the power of the court over the property.

9 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Pre-trial Order. The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the court shall issue an order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements or admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly define and limit the issues to be tried. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice. (Sec. 7, Rule 18) Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. (Sec. 5, Rule 10) Gonzaga v. CA (G.R. No. 142037, October 18, 2004)

If the court has no jurisdiction over the issues in a case, judgment is void (Gonzaga v. CA):

Jurisdiction over the subject matter v over the res Subject Matter Res = Thing LRA Registration Case e.g. 1. collection of the 1. property Banco loan 2. jurisdiction Espanol 2. foreclosure over the 3. collect then person is not foreclosure necessary; service of summons, notices only necessary for due process o PART V. Specific Jurisdiction of Courts A. Supreme Court 1987 Constitution Art. VIII, sec. 1, 2, 5 (supra Part II) (Where) The judicial power shall be vested in o one Supreme Court and o in such lower courts as may be established by law. (Scope) Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 1. To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 2. To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution) (Who) The Congress shall have (What) the power to define, prescribe, and apportion (DPA) the jurisdiction of the various courts (Limitation) o but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. o No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. (Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution) (Summary of Mandatory SC Jurisdiction: 7. Orig: APmC + CPMQH

A party is entitled to such relief consistent with and limited to that sought by the pleadings or incidental thereto. Gonzaga spouses did not include in their prayer that a refund be granted to them of P90,000 as against the third party defendants, Gregorio spouses. Class Notes: o How will you know the issues of the case? 1. Via the pre-trial order (Rule 18.7) explicitly defines & limits issues & controls subsequent course of the action 2. Trial Technique (Rule 10.5) Express/implied consent to try issues not raised in the pleading

10 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

8.

Appeal/Cert by RRRMA a. Constitutionality/Validity (TALPdPOIOR) b. Legality: TIAT-P c. Jurisdiction of lower courts d. Crim cases w/ RP or higher e. ONLY error/Q of law 9. Temp assignment of judges to lower courts 10. Change of venue e.g. Ppl v Sola 11. Promulgate rules consti rights, PPP in courts, AI, L 12. appointment of judiciary officials) The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. (Article VIII, Section 5, 1987 Constitution)

Art. IX, A, sec. 7 Constitutional Commissions Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. (Sec. 7, Article IX A, 1987 Constitution) R. A. 7902; Rule 43

RULE 43. Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (n) Section 2. Cases not covered. This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines. (n)

11 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

RA 7902 amended Sec 9 of BP 129, which further vested appellate jurisdiction in the CA over judgments, final orders, awards or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission and the CBAA. question of law Urbano v. Chavez (183 SCRA 347) question of law This involves the participation of the Solicitor General in two cases involving government officials. The issues presented by both the cases are purely questions of law. Whether or not the conclusions of the trial court are in consonance with law and jurisprudence is a question of law.

7. the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record. 8. the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. 9. the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 10. the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case. 11. such findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties. (case of Josefa v. Zhandong) Class notes: o Summary of 1-11: where there was a grave contradiction between conclusion & evidence in the CA vs conclusions & evidence in the lower courts o Difference between question of fact & question of law Question of Fact Question of Law When there are no Evidence necessary to evidentiary matters prove it (all the court needs to do is look at the law) Example: Negligence 1. intoxication at the time 2. defendants vehicle badly maintained 3. driving on the wrong side of the road change of venue People v. Sola (103 SCRA 393) (illustration of change in venue to prevent miscarriage of justice (only SC can do this)) This was a petition for a change of venue filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is granted the constitutional power to order a change of venue to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the witnesses to the criminal case against Pablo Sola were not at liberty to reveal what they know.

Ortigas v. CA (106 SCRA 121) (exclusive jurisdiction of the SC in a case involving purely legal questions) The Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction over the case presented because the appellate jurisdiction over cases involving purely legal questions is exclusively vested with the Supreme Court. Questions of jurisdiction are purely legal questions.

Class notes: o Issue in this case was not limited to possession, it also included an issue on ownership that depended on a contract (interpretation of a lease contract). It was thus, incapable of pecuniary estimateion. Josefa v. Zhandong Trading Corp. (G.R. No. 150903, December 8, 2003) GENERAL RULE: In a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, only questions of law may be raised. EXCEPTIONS: 1. conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures 2. the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible 3. there is grave abuse of discretion 4. the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts 5. the findings of fact are conflicting 6. there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based

Class notes: o Legal Basis of change in venue: Art VIII Sec 5 of the 1987 Consti Art VIII Sec 2 of the 1987 Consti Congress has the power to define, prescribe & apportion the jurisdiction of all courts B.P. 129, sec. 9

12 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) SECTION 9. Jurisdiction. The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Edmployees Compensation Commision, and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Phils. under P.D. No.442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials and hearings must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. [These provisions shall not apply to decisions and interlocutory orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.]* *text in bold and [ ] are amendments inserted and removed by RA7902 P.D. 1606, sec. 7 REVISING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1486 CREATING A SPECIAL COURT TO BE KNOWN AS "SANDIGANBAYAN" AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (PD 1606) SECTION 7. Form, finality and enforcement of decisions. Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings of facts on all issues properly raised before it. A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within (15) days from

promulgation or notice of the final order or judgment, and such petition for reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon. Decisions and final orders shall be subject to review on certiorari by the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court shall decide any case on appeal promptly and without the necessity of placing it upon the regular calendar. Whenever, in any case decided, the death penalty shall have been imposed, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court, whether the accused shall have appealed or not, for review and judgment, as law and justice shall dictate. Final judgments and orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and enforced in the manner provided by law. Class Notes: o Appeal v Certiorari Appeal Continuation of the original action Error of fact / law / both (review by certiorari rule 45)

Certiorari rule 65 Not a continuation (new action) Review because theres GAD

B. Court of Appeals B.P. 129, sec. 9 (as am. By R.A. 7902) BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) SECTION 9. Jurisdiction. The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Edmployees Compensation Commision, and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Phils. under P.D. No.442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and

13 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The Court of Appeals shall have the power: a. to try cases and conduct hearings, b. to receive evidence and c. to perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials and hearings must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. Class Notes: o Meaning of WON in aid of CAs appellate jurisdiction after the CA takes cognizance of a case, the interlocutory orders are already in aid of the CAs appellate jurisdiction, depending on the action filed Rule 43 in aid of appellate jurisdiction Rule 47/65 not in aid of original jurisdiction (original actions) o Examples of writs in aid of CAs appellate jurisdiction: Writ of mandamus not as an auxiliary writ Subpoena auxiliary writ of process Pendente lite in an appeal for legal sepn TRO/injunction not permanent but preliminary in Rule 58 Rule 43 o RULE 43. Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board,

National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (n) Section 2. Cases not covered. This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines. (n)

P.D. 442, as am. By R.A. 6715

St. Martins Funeral Home v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, Sept 16, 1998) Under Rule 65 (petitions for certiorari), appeals from the decisions of the NLRC must first be brought to the CA before SC hears it.

SC Resol. A.M. No. 99-2-01 (dismissal for noncompliance w/ St. Martins case) [A.M. NO. 99-2-01-SC. February 9, 1999.] IN RE: DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS IN NLRC CASES: National Labor Relations Commission, Dismissal of Special Civil Action In light of the decision in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, 16 September 1998), all special civil actions arising out of any decision or final resolution or order of the National Labor Relations Commission filed with the Court after 01 June 1999 shall no longer be referred to the Court of Appeals, but shall forthwith be DISMISSED. Let this resolution be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines and copies thereof furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the National Labor Relations Commission.

14 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

SC Resolution A.M. No. 00-2-03 (amending Rule 65, Sec.4) [A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC. September 1, 2000.] FURTHER AMENDING SECTION 4, RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, to further amend Section 4, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Resolution of July 21, 1998, so as to read as follows: SECTION 4. When and where petition filed. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court, or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (4a) This resolution shall take effect on September 1, 2000, following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

6. 7. 8.

Catch-all Juvenile & Domestic Relations + CAR Pecuniarily estimable (P100/200T200/400-300/400)

C. Regional Trial Courts B.P. 129 (as am. By R.A. 7691) -- in ordinary civil actions sec. 19; R.A. 7691, secs. 1, 5

summary: IRAPMCJP 1. Incapable of pecuniary estimation 2. TPI: Real property (X: FE/UD) (P20/50T) 3. Admiralty & maritime (P100/200T200/400-300/400) 4. Probate (P100/200T-200/400-300/400) 5. Marriage/marital relations

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691 (AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA, BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980") SECTION 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction. "(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; "(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; "(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00); "(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00); "(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations; "(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; "(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the

Bold text represents the changes from the prior law. Emphasis is my own. 15

Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and "(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)."

be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and (2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.

-- exclusive appellate jurisdiction sec. 22 SECTION 22. Appellate jurisdiction.

New Jurisdictional Amounts based on RA 7691: Based on Section 5, RA 7691 which became effective in April 1994, the jurisdictional amounts are the following: Period Upon enactment of RA 7691 April 99 April 04 (five years after effectivity of RA 7691) April 04 to present Outside of Metro Manila P 100,000.00 P 200,000.00 P 300,000.00 In Metro Manila P 200,000.00 P 400,000.00

Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the Intermediate Appellate Court which may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed. -- special jurisdiction sec. 23; Rule 1, sec. 4; Rule 143 SECTION 23. cases. Special jurisdiction to try special

P 400,000.00

But these adjusted jurisdictional amounts shall only apply to the following instances delineating the jurisdictional amounts for the RTC and MTC. 1. admiralty and maritime actions. 2. probate proceedings 3. in all other cases not involving real property. The jurisdictional amount with respect to all actions which involve title to, or possession of property and any interest therein still remains same (P50,000 for civil actions in Metro Manila P20,000 outside of Metro Manila.) civil real the and

The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasijudicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice. Rule 1, Sec.4 (NICEL) These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. Rule 143 Applicability of the Rules

-- in special civil actions and the special proceeding of habeas corpus sec.21 SECTION 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction: (1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may

16 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

These Rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral, and election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.

683] CB v. CA

par. 677, par. after quote; 679-

This was the case of the P102 docket fee. Even if the amount of damages is not in the prayer, the docket fees shall be assessed if the amount prayed for is in the body of the complaint. Place amount of damages in the prayer & in the body of the complaint. 1991) Ascue v. CA Where the thing sought to be deposited or consigned is a sum of money, the amount of the debt due is determinable and capable of pecuniary estimation. Negre v. Cabahug Shipping (16 SCRA 655) Negre v. Cabahug Shipping All admiralty and maritime cases fall under the jurisdiction of the CFI, irrespective of the amount or value of the goods involved. (Judiciary Act, Sec. 44) C/f BP 129 Sec.19 (3), as amended by RA 7691 The present law places a peso limit under which the RTC can exercise jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases. Ascue v. CA (G.R. No. 84330, May 8,

-- SC Admin. Circular 09-94 (June 14, 1994); R.A. 7691 SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 09-94 SUBJECT: Guidelines in the Implementation of Republic Act No. 7691, Entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980" TO: The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, All Members of the Government Prosecution Service and All Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court. Class Notes: R.A. 7691 for computation of docket fees based on award in cases of BP 129 Sec 19 3,4,8 the jurisdictional amounts apply -- SC Cir. No. 11-99 (transfer to RTC from MTC of cases w/in jurisdiction of family courts under R.A. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) Transfer to RTC from MTC of cases within the jurisdiction of Family Courts under RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) -- CB v CA (208 SCRA 652) [read specially pp. 654-656; 661-665; 673, last

Baito v. Sarmiento (109 Phil. 148) An action for support falls under the jurisdiction of the CFI for being incapable of pecuniary estimation. The following are factors that determine support: amount to be given, relation of the parties, right to support created by that relation, needs of the claimant and financial resources of the person from whom support is sought.

R.47 RULE 47

17 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders and Resolutions Section 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. (n) Section 2. Grounds for annulment. The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. (n) Section 3. Period for filing action. If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (n) Section 4. Filing and contents of petition. The action shall be commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies, together with sufficient copies corresponding to the number of respondents. A certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or defense and a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same, and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (n)

Section 5. Action by the court. Should the court find no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal. Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent. (n) Section 6. Procedure. The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed. Should trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court. (n) Section 7. Effect of judgment. A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. (n) Section 8. Suspension prescriptive period. The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsicfraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action. (n) Section 9. Relief available. The judgment of annulment may include the award of damages, attorney's fees and other relief. If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had already been executed the court may issue such orders of restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant under the circumstances. (n) Section 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts. An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto. (n)

18 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

D. Metropolitan, Municipal, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Rule 5, Sec. 2 The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. B.P. 129, secs. 28, 29, 30, 31, as am. SECTION 28. Other Metropolitan Trial Courts. The Supreme Court shall constitute Metropolitan Trial Courts in such other metropolitan areas as may be established by law whose territorial jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the cities and municipalities comprising the metropolitan area. Every Metropolitan Trial Judge shall be appointed to a metropolitan area which shall be his permanent station and his appointment shall state branch of the court and the seat thereof to which he shall be originally assigned. A Metropolitan Trial Judge may be assigned by the Supreme Court to any branch within said metropolitan area as the interest of justice may require, and such assignment shall not be deemed an assignment to another station within the meaning of this section. SECTION 29. Municipal Trial Courts in cities. In every city which does not form part of a metropolitan area, there shall be a Municipal Trial Court with one branch, except as hereunder provided: (list of branches omitted) SECTION 31. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. There shall be a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in each area defined as a municipal circuit, comprising one or more cities and/or one or more municipalities. The municipalities comprising municipal circuits as organized under Administrative Order No. 33, issued on June 13, 1978 by the Supreme Court pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 537, are hereby constituted as municipal circuits for purposes of the establishment of the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the appointments thereto of Municipal Circuit Trial Judges: Provided, however, That the Supreme Court may, as the interests of justice may require, further reorganize the said courts taking into account workload, geographical location, and such other factors as will contribute to a rational allocation thereof, pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 537 which shall be applicable insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Act.

Every Municipal Circuit Trial Judge shall be appointed to a municipal circuit which shall be his official station. The Supreme Court shall determine the city or municipality where the Municipal Circuit Trial Court shall hold sessions.

By R.A. 7691; A.O. 33; P.D. 537 exclusive original jurisdiction in civil and estate settlement proceedings/over provisional remedies - B.P. 129, sec. 33 (1); R.A. 7691, secs. 3 & 5 - SC Admin. Circular 09-94 (June 4, 1994) - in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases - B.P. 129, sec. 33 (2); R.A. 7691, sec. 3 Lim v. CA (G.R. No. 93451, March 18, 1991) - in civil actions involving title to or possession of real property - B.P. 129, sec. 33 (3) as am.; R.A. 7691, sec. 3 Russel v. Vestil (304 SCRA 738) - delegated jurisdiction B.P. 129, sec. 34; R.A. 7691, sec. 4; SC Circular 38-97 - special jurisdiction B.P. 129, sec. 35 E. Special Rules

Manufacturers Distributors v. Yu Siu Liong (11 SCRA 680) Cruz v. Tan (87 Phil. 627) Lapitan v. Scandia (24 SCRA 477) Good Development v. Tutaan (73 SCRA 189)

Part VI. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure A. Scope and Construction Rule 1, secs. 2,3,4,6 B. Uniform procedure Rule 5, sec. 1 C. Actions Kinds Rule 1, sec. 3 Nature

19 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

real/personal/mixed Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena (81 SCRA 75) in personam/ in rem/ quasi in rem De Midgely v. Fernandos (64 SCRA 23; supra, Part IV, B) Rule 1, sec. 5 commencement CB v. CA (supra, Part V, C. [emphasis on pp.682-683] Go v. Tong (G.R. No. 151942, November 27, 2003) Heirs of Hinog v. Hon. Melicor (G.R. No. 140954, Apr. 12, 2005) Rule 2 cause of action sec. 1 basis sec. 2 definition Felipe v. Leuterio (91 Phil. 482) Santiago v. Bautista ( 32 SCRA 188) Sagrada Orden de Precadores del Santisimo Rosario de Filipinas v. National Coconut Corporation (92 Phil. 503) Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios (79 Phil. 666) Danfoss v. Continental Cement (G.R. No. 143788, Sep. 9, 2005) sec. 3 one suit for a single cause of action sec. 4 effect of splitting Rule 16, sec. 1 (e), (f) sec. 5 joinder of causes of action Rule 3, sec. 6 Rule 3.13 Rule 8.2 B.P. 129.33.1 sec. 6 misjoinder Union Glass v. SEC (G.R. No. L-64013, Nov. 28, 1983) D. Parties Rule 3

Joya v. PCGG (225 SCRA 568) Oposa v. Factoran (224 SCRA 792) kinds sec. 3 representatives sec. 4 spouses E.O. 209 (Family Code) Arts. 145, 111 sec. 5 minor or incompetent sec. 15 defendants w/o juridical personality R.A. 6809; Family Code Art. 5; Rule 14.8; Rule 36.6 sec. 14 unknown name or identity sec. 10 unwilling co-plaintiff sec. 21 indigent party sec. 7 compulsory joinder of indispensable parties Arcelona v. CA (G.R. No. 102900, Oct. 2, 1997) Cerezo v. Tuazon (G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004) sec. 8 necessary party sec. 6 permissive joinder Flores v. Mallare-Phillips (144 SCRA 377) sec. 9 non-joinder to be pleaded sec. 13 alternative defendants sec. 12 class suit Newsweek v. IAC (142 SCRA 171) Manila Intl. Airport Authority v. Rivera Village (G.R. No. 143870, Sep. 30, 2005) sec. 22 wen Solicitor General required to be party effects sec. sec. sec. sec. 629) 11 18 16 20 misjoinder and non-joinder incompetency/ incapacity death re contractual money claim Del Castillo v. Jaymalin (112 SCRA

Gojo v. Goyala (35 SCRA 557) sec. 19 transfer of interest sec. 17 death/ separation of public officerparty E. Venue Rule 4 People v. Sola (supra, Part V, A) Time, Inc. v. Reyes (39 SCRA 303) Pilipino Telephone v. Tecson (G.R. No. 156966, May 7, 2004) Pleadings 1. In general Rule 6 kinds of pleadings

requisites sec. 1 who may be parties; Rule 3.15 Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115 SCRA 783) sec. 2 parties in interest; Rule 16.1.g Carillo v. Dabon (G.R. No. 121165, Sep. 26, 2006)

F.

20 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

sec. 1 pleadings defined

sec. 2 pleadings allowed Rule 8 manner of making allegations in pleadings sec. 1 form in general sec. 7 actionable document Santiago v. De Los Santos (61 SCRA 146) Rule 8.1 2. Rule 6 The claim

Chavez v. Sandiganbayan (193 SCRA 282) Cojuangco v. Villegas (184 SCRA 374) Carpena v. Manalo (12 SCRA 1060) Cabaero v. Cantos (G.R. No. 102942, Apr. 18, 1997) Chan v. CA (G.R. No. 109020) Mar. 3, 1994) 3. The answer Rule 6 sec. 2 pleadings allowed

sec. 2 where asserted Rule 8.2 sec. 3 complaint sec. 6 counterclaim sec. 8 cross-claim sec. 9 counter-counterclaim and counter-cross-claim sec. 10, par. 2 reply Rule 11 when to file responsive pleadings sec. 9 counterclaim/ cross-claim after answer Namarco v. Federacion (49 SCRA 238) Rule 6, sec. 12 bringing in new parties; Rule 1.5 Rule 10, sec. 6 amended and supplemental pleadings Young v Sy (G.R. No. 157745, Sep. 26, 2006) Rule 6, sec. 11 third-party complaint, etc. Republic v. Central Surety (26 SCRA 741) Asian Construction v CA (G.R. No. 160242, May 17, 2005) Rule 16, sec. 6, par. 2 counterclaim where claim dismissed thru Defendant Rule 17, sec. 2 dismissal of actions Compulsory counterclaim/ cross-claim counterclaim 996) SCRA 557) Rule 6, sec. 7 compulsory Calo v. Ajax (22 SCRA Gojo v. Goyala (35

sec. 4 answer sec. 13 answer to third-party complaint, etc. sec. 5 defenses Gojo v. Goyala (supra) Rule 16, sec. 6 grounds for dismissal as affirmative defenses Rule 8 sec. 10 specific denial sec. 11 allegations deemed admitted Tec Bi v. Chartered Bank of India (41 Phil. 596) Phil. Advertising v. Revilla (52 SCRA 246) Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill (129 SCRA 439) CB Circular 905 sec. 7 based on document sec. 8 how to contest document PBC v. CA (G.R. No. 133710, Jan 13, 2004) sec. 2 alternative defenses; Rule 3.12 Rule 9, sec. 1 defense/ objection waived Katon v. Palanca (G.R. No. 151149, Sep. 7, 2004) 4. The reply

Rule 6 secs. 2 and 10 5. Common Provisions a) re parts of pleading Rule 7 Rule 7.4; SC Circular No. 48-2000 Fil-Estate Golf v. CA (G.R. No. 120958, Dec. 16, 1996)

Rule 11, sec. 8 existing compulsory counterclaim/ cross-claim Rule 9, sec. 2 barred if not set up

21 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

2004)

DBP v. CA (G.R. No. 147217, Oct. 7,

Wee v. Galvez (G.R. No. 147394, Aug. 11, 2004) Baguioro v. Barrios (G.R. No. L-277, Aug. 30, 1946) relief entitled to based on facts, not based on what is stated determines nature of action. & other relief prayed for valid; China Bank v. Mondragon (G.R. 164798, Nov. 17, 2005) subseq ratif of auth of person who signed cert of NFS valid Cruz-Agana v. Hon. Santiago Lagman (G.R. No. 139018, Apr. 11, 2005) b) re manner of making allegations Rule 8, secs. 1 to 11 Perpetual Savings v. Fajardo (223 SCRA 720) Wee v. Galvez (supra) c) re effect of failure to plead Rule 9; Rule 30.9 Cerezo v. Tuazon (supra) Sps. Delos Santos v. RTC (G.R. No.153696, Sep. 11, 2006) Martinez v. Republic (G.R. No. 160895, Oct. 30, 2006) d) striking out pleadings Rule 8, sec. 12 6. Amended/ supplemental pleadings Rule 10; Rule 1.5 Dauden-Hernaez v. de los Angeles (27 SCRA 1276) Phil. Export v. Phil. Infrastructures (G.R. No. 120384, Jan 13, 2004) Surigao Mining v. Harris (69

10. G.

A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC Luz v. National Amnesty Commission (G.R. No. 159708, Sep. 24, 2004) Bill of Particulars Rule 12

Summons Rule 14 - contents, when issued, by whom issued secs. 2, 1, 3, 5 modes of service 1. voluntary appearance sec. 20; Rule 16.1.a 2. voluntary submission Rodriguez v. Alikpala (supra) 3. service in person sec. 6 Toyota Cubao v. CA (G.R. No. 126321, Oct. 23, 1997) 4. substituted service sec. 7 Andy Quelnan v. VHF Phil. (G.R. No. 138500, Sep. 16, 2005) 5. extra-territorial service sec. 15 Guiguinto Credit v. Torres (G.R. 170926, Sep.15, 2006) Bonnevie v. CA (125 SCRA 124) Dial Corp. v. Soriano (161 SCRA 737) Montalban v. Maximo (22 SCRA 1070) D. Midgley v. Ferandos (supra) Sahagun v. CA (G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991) R.A. 4883; P.D. 1079 6. by publication secs. 14, 15, 16 mode of service upon certain defendants 1. upon domestic private juridical entity sec. 11 Paluwagan ng Bayan v. King (172 SCRA 62) 2. upon foreign private juridical entity sec. 12; see Rule 11.2, Rule 14.14 of 1964 Revised Rules of Court Facilities Management v. De la Osa (89 SCRA 131) 3. upon resident temporarily abroad sec. 16 Montalban v. Maximo (supra) 4. upon defendant whose identity/ whereabouts unknown sec. 14

Phil. 113)

7. When to file responsive pleadings Rule 11 8. Filing/Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers Rule 13 Rule 13.3 icow Rule 51.9 SC Resolution of February 17, 1998 Bautista v. Maya-Maya (G.R. 148361, Nov. 29, 2005) GCP-Manny v. Principe (G.R. 141484, Nov. 11, 2005) 9. Computation of Time Rule 22 Spouses Romero v. CA (G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005)

22 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Baltazar v. CA (168 SCRA 354) - leave of court sec. 17 5. upon others secs. 8, 9, 10, 13 18, 19 H. I. return/proof of service secs. 4,

Motions in general Rule 15 Motion to Dismiss under Rule 16

Held: The action was reinstated; the action was improperly dismissed. Rule 16.1(j) was wrongly relied on. Dante, the RPI, is a non-resident, thus the LGC is not applicable to him. The local lupon has no jurisdiction over their dispute, hence prior referral to it for conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing in court. Philville v. Javier (G.R. No.147738, Dec. 13, 2005) Facts: Javier sued Philville for damages in the RTC for giving them 2 separate lots of 1000m2 instead of 1 lot of 2000m2 as disturbance compensation for conversion of land into a housing subdivision. Philville filed an ANSWER, alleging affirmative & special defenses (the complaint failed to state a COA; it did not allege resort to conciliation proceedings before the barangay; estoppel from filing the complaint). Philville moved to dismiss the original complaint, alleging Javiers request for revocation of the free patent with the Land Management Bureau. RTC dismissed the MTD. CA affirmed, hence petition for review on certiorari. Held: Dismissal of the MTD was proper. An MTD cannot be filed after filing an answer. (Court used jurisprudence as legal basis when it shouldve used Rule 16.1, instead. Rule 9.1 re: prescription also applicable Period of filing MTD already prescribed.) Diu v. CA (G.R. No.115213, Dec. 19, 1995) This was the case where the Baranggay Chairman did not constitute the Pangkat ng Tagapamayapa to settle the issue, but instead wrote a letter submitting the issue for court intervention. A motion to dismiss was failed saying that the court did not have jurisdiction because the process of the Katrungang Pambaranggay was not resorted to fully. The ground for dismissing the action is not the lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, but failure to comply with the condition precedent. But even then, from the facts of the case there was no genuine resolve by the parties to settle amicably the issue. So it is best that they go directly to the court. Besides, the participation of the Baranggay Chairman was substantial compliance with the law. Berba v. Pablo (G.R. No.160032, Nov. 11, 2005) Facts: Berba filed a complaint for eviction & collection of rentals against Pablo in the Office of the Punong Barangay, after which both executed an

U.S. v Ruiz (136 SCRA 487); SEAFDEC v. NLRC (supra) Rule 9, sec. 1 Rule 6, sec. 5 (b) Rule 7, sec. 5 Rule 39, sec.47 National Union Fire Ins. v. Stolt-Nielsen (184 SCRA 682) Balo v. CA (G.R. No. 129704, Sep 30, 2005) Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. CA (G.R. 126212, Mar. 2, 2000) Swagman Hotel v. CA (G.R. 161135, Apr. 8, 2005) Goodyear v. Sy (G.R. 154554, Nov. 9, 2005) Morcal v. Lavia (G.R. 166753, Nov. 29, 2005) Facts: Morcal filed a civil action at the RTC to annul 2 DENR orders, which denied his Free Patent Application. The TC upon motion of Spouses Lavina, dismissed Morcals action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Motion for Recon in RTC denied. CA affirmed. Morcal filed a petition for certiorari in the SC. Held: The dismissal of the action was proper for nonexhaustion of administrative remedies, which is a condition precedent for filing of suits. Though not fully explained by the court, the dismissal was based on Rule 16.1(j). Pascual v. Pascual (G.R. No. 157830, Nov. 17, 2005) Facts: Brother, Dante, a non-resident immigrant was represented by Sagario in a suit against his sister, Marilou, at the Isabela RTC for Annulment of TCT and Deed of Absolute Sale and/or Reconveyance with Damages. Marilou filed an MTD due to noncompliance with the requirement in Loc Gov Code Sec 412 re: conciliatory proceedings in the barangay court. RTC granted the MTD. Motion for Recon at the RTC denied, hence the present Petition for Review on Certiorari of the RTC decision.

23 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Agreement approved by the pangkat. Despite agreement, Pablo still failed to pay arrears in lease rentals. Berba filed an FE/UD + damages suit, (but failed to append a certification to File Action from the Lupon) with the MTC against Pablo & the heirs of Carlos (lessees din sila, but not included in the agreement before the Pangkat). Pablo filed an answer averring that Berba had no COA for failure to secure a Certificate to File Action from the Lupon. Diu v CA Held: Action wrongly dismissed. Substantial compliance of conciliation/confrontation requirement at the Lupong Tagapamayapa Level Berba v Pablo Held: Action with the MTC dismissed. No substantial compliance of conciliation requirement at the LT level. Confrontation before the Lupon (Punong Brgy different from Lupon) Rule 417A of LGC: Agreement before Lupon is in effect a final judgment, in need of enforcement by execution 6 mos from date of settlement. MTC case shouldve been barred by Res Judicata Proper action in the RTC v Pablo: Action to execute judgment (Rule 39). Alternatively, sue Pablo based on document (Rule 8.7) With regard to heirs of Carlos, Back to square 1 (need to conciliate / settle with them first)

Aposagas withdrawal, which was done in the middle of the trial. (lack of COA when Aposaga withdrew)

Heirs of Licaros v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 157438, Oct. 18, 2004) Facts: Held: Tancuntian v. Gempesaw (G.R. No.149097, Oct. 18, 2004) Katon v. Palanca (supra) Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115 SCRA 178) This was the case where the sole proprietorship filed suit. Juasing Hardware is not a legal person. The ground for dismissal should be lack of legal personality, because it did not exist in the eyes of the law. It is not lack of capacity to sue, because personality refers to the fitness to be the subject of legal relations. Malion v. Alcantara (G.R. No.141528, Oct. 31, 2006) Lee Bun Ting v. Aligain (76 SCRA 178) This case involved a sale of land to an alien, to which the vendor wanted the land returned. In a 1956 decision, SC declared that vendor did not have a juridical remedy under the law, because he was also in pari delicto. When the subsequent ruling of PBC v. Li (Ruling: Exception to the pari delicto rule when the pari delicto rule would render injustice) came about, vendor again returned to the trial court to have the land adjudicated back to him. There was a bar by prior judgment of the SC. Present parties are still the same. Compare Bar by prior judgment v. Conclusiveness of judgment Bar by Prior Judgment (Sec. 47 (b), Rule 39) Complete res judicata Conclusiveness of Judgment (Sec. 47 (c), Rule 39) There is NO identity of issues, but there

Sustiguer v. Tamayo (176 SCRA 579) This was the case of an award of land by the mayor to Aposaga, but was subsequently sold to Tamayo. Aposaga and Sustiguer, who was the loser in the award of land by the mayor, filed suit saying they have a preferential right to the land. But Aposaga withdrew from the suit later on. Tamayo now claims that Sustiguer was not the real party in interest. Again the court was confused in delineating the terms lack of COA and failure to state COA. The motion to dismiss the complaint was only filed after

Kind of Res Judicata

24 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

Scope of Matters which are rendered conclusive

(identity of parties, subject matter, and issues) All matters directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto

is identity of parties and it involves the same subject matter. That which is only been deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been adjudged, or which was actually or necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

b. trial by commissioners Rule 32; Rule 67, sec. 5; Rule 30.9 Angara v. Fedman Devpt. Corp. (G.R. No.156822, Oct 18, 2004) 3. Incidents/processes a. calendar of cases Rule 20 b. intervention Rule 19; Rule 11.3 Holiday Inn v. Sandiganbayan (186 SCRA 447) Ordoez v. Gustilo (182 SCRA 469) Agulto v. Tecson (G.R. No.145276, Nov. 29, 2005) c. subpoena Rule 21; Rule 71, sec. 3 (f) d. Rule 22 Wee v. First Metro (G.R. No.167245, Sep. 27, 2006)

* Res judicata is merely a re-litigation of the same issues with the same parties. Villarino v. Avila (G.R. No.131191, Sep. 26, 2006) Carillo v. Dabon (supra) Regala v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No.105938, Sep. 20, 1996) J. Dismissal by claimant Rule 17 Goho v. Goyala (supra) K. Judgment on the Pleadings Rule 34; Rule 18, sec. 2; Rule 9.3 L. Pre-trial Rule 18 SC A.M. 03-1-09SC Jonathan Landoil Intl. v. Mangudadatu (G.R. No.155010, Aug. 16, 2004) Paredes v. Verano (G.R. No.164375, Oct 12, 2006)

M.

Course of Trial

1. Trial proper Rule 30 OCA Cir. No. 39-98 SC Cir. 1-89 2. Kinds of trial a. consolidated/separate Rule 31 Sps. Yu v. Magno Construction (G.R. No.13870102, Oct. 17, 2006)

25 Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009 (with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)