Civil-Procedure With2018BARQs

CIVIL PROCEDURE
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

JURISDICTION
Total # of Questions - 65
111
Over the issues, 1
2
4 Over the res or property in litigation, 1
5
Over small claims, 1
Totality rule, 2
Over the parties, 4
51 Over the subject matter, 5
Jurisdiction of courts, 51
Special civil actions 82
Pleadings 73
Post-judgment remedies 61
Provisional remedies 55
Motions 40
Judgments and final orders 31
Execution, satisfaction and effect… 30
Parties to civil actions 23
Summons 21 CIVIL
Cause of action 17
Pre-trial 15 PROCEDURE
Venue 13
Demurrer to evidence 12
Modes of discovery 11
Dismissal of actions 8
Actions 7
Intervention 5
Trial 2
Subpoena 2
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of Courts in Civil Cases
SUPREME COURT (SC)

• Exclusive original jurisdiction over
 Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the:
i. Court of Appeals (CA) (Section 17, R.A. No. 296; Rule 65);
ii. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) (Rule 64);
iii. Commission on Audit (COA) (Rule 64); and
iv. Sandiganbayan.
• Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the hierarchy of courts:
 With the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls (Section
17, R.A. No. 296 in relation to Section 21(b), B.P. Blg. 129).
 With the CA, in
i. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against
the RTC (Section 5 (1), Article 8, 1987 Constitution;
Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129); and
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).
Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the hierarchy of courts:
With the RTC and CA:

i. Petitions for Habeas Corpus (Section 5 (1), Article 8, 1987
Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129; and Section
21(a), B.P. Blg. 129);
ii. Petitions for Quo Warranto (Section 5 (1), Article 8, 1987
Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129; and Section
21(a), B.P. Blg. 129); and
iii.Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against
inferior courts and other bodies (Section 5 (1), Article 8,
1987 Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129; and Section
21(a), B.P. Blg. 129).
SUPREME COURT (SC)
• Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the hierarchy of courts:

 With the RTC, CA & Sandiganbayan
i. Petitions for a Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC); and
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
SUPREME COURT (SC)
Appellate jurisdiction
By way of Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45) of the decisions of
the:
i. CA;
ii. Sandiganbayan;
iii.RTC on pure questions of law;
iv.In cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law
or treaty, international agreement or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost,
assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court
(Sec. 5, Art. VIII, Constitution); and
v. Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.
COURT OF APPEALS
• Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of the RTC (Section 9(2), B.P. Blg. 129).
• Concurrent jurisdiction with:

 The SC:
i. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the
RTC;
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan; and
COURT OF APPEALS
• Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of the RTC (Section 9(2), B.P. Blg. 129).

 The SC:
iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the
NLRC (but according to the SC in St. Martin Funeral Homes v.
CA (G.R. No. 130866, 16 September 1998), all such petitions
should be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the rule
on hierarchy of courts. The concurrent original jurisdiction of the
SC can be availed of only under compelling and exceptional
circumstances (Regalado, p. 40).
COURT OF APPEALS

 The SC and RTC:
i. Petitions for Habeas Corpus;
ii. Petitions for Quo Warranto; and
iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against
inferior courts and other bodies.
COURT OF APPEALS
• Concurrent jurisdiction:
 With the RTC, SC and Sandiganbayan:
i. Petitions for a Writ of Amparo; and
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Data.
• COURT OF APPEALS
• Appellate jurisdiction (Section 9(3), B.P. Blg. 129):
 By way of Ordinary Appeal from the RTC and the Family
Courts;
 By way of Petition for Review from the RTC in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction;
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the MTCs in
cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated
jurisdiction.
• COURT OF APPEALS
• Appellate jurisdiction (Section 9(3), B.P. Blg. 129):
 By way of Petition for Review from the final judgments,
decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of any quasi-judicial
agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, such as
the:
i. Securities and Exchange Commission;
ii. Social Security Commission;
iii. Employees Compensation Commission;
iv. Civil Service Commission;
v. Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases; and
vi. Other bodies mentioned in Rule 43; and
SANDIGANBAYAN
• Original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a) Violations of R.A. 3019, as amended
b) Violations of R.A. 1379
c) Sequestration cases
SANDIGANBAYAN
d) Bribery where one or more of the principal accused are
occupying the following positions in the government, whether in
permanent, acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission
of the offense:
i. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27
and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989
ii. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as G-27
and up under R.A. 6758
iii. Members of the Judiciary
iv. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions
v. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and
higher under R.A. 6758.
SANDIGANBAYAN
e) Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials
and employees mentioned in Sec. 4(a) of R.A. 7975 as
amended by R.A. 8249 in relation to their office
f) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection
with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14-A.
• Concurrent original jurisdiction with SC, CA and RTC for

petitions for writs of habeas data and amparo
RTC
Exclusive original jurisdiction
1. The action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
2. Title to, possession of, or interest in real property with assessed

value exceeding P20,000 outside Metro Manila, or exceeds
P50,000 in Metro Manila (MM);
RTC
3. If the amount involved exceeds P300,000 outside MM or

exceeds P400,000 in MM in the following cases:
A. Damages (apply totality rule).
B. Collection of sum of money, exclusive of damages claimed
and interests.
C. Admiralty and maritime cases
D. Matters of Probate
E. Other actions involving property
RTC
4. Cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,

person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. All
actions involving the contract of marriage and family relations.
5. To hear and decide intra-corporate controversies:

A. Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any
acts, of the board of directors, business associates, its
officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest
of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members
of associations or organizations registered with the SEC.
RTC

B. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership
relations, between and among stockholders, members or
associates; between any or all of them and the corporation,
partnership or association of which they are stockholders,
members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation , partnership or association and the state insofar
as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as
such entity
RTC

C. Controversies in the election or appointments of directors,
trustees, officers or managers of such corporations,
partnerships or associations
D. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to
be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases
where the corporation, partnership or association possesses
sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the
impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due
or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association
has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the
management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management
Committee.
RTC
Concurrent jurisdiction
1. With the Supreme Court - in actions affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls
2. With the SC and CA - in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies in petitions for quo
warranto, habeas corpus, and writ of continuing mandamus on
environmental cases
3. With the SC, CA and Sandiganbayan - in petitions for writs of
habeas data and amparo
4. With the Insurance Commissioner – claims not exceeding
P100,000
RTC
Appellate jurisdiction
Over cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions except decisions of lower courts in the exercise of
delegated jurisdiction
Special jurisdiction – SC may designate certain branches of RTC to

try exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases,
agrarian cases, urban land reform cases not falling within the
jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body and other special cases in the
interest of justice
MTC, MeTC, MCTC
• Exclusive original jurisdiction
1. If the amount involved does not exceed P300,000 outside MM or

does not exceed P400,000 in MM in the following cases:
A. Actions involving personal property
B. Probate Proceeding based on gross value of the estate
C. Admiralty and maritime cases
D. Demand for collection of money, exclusive of damages
claimed and interests.
E. damages
MTC, MeTC, MCTC
2. Actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any

interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside MM or does not
exceed P50,000 in MM;
3. Inclusion and exclusion of voters
4. Those governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure:

MTC, MeTC, MCTC
• Special jurisdiction - Over petition for writ of habeas corpus

or application for bail in criminal cases in the absence of all
RTC judges in the province or city.
• Delegated jurisdiction - To hear and decide cadastral and

land registration cases where there is no controversy over the
land or in case of contested lands, the value does not exceed
P100,000.
Bar Question 2018
Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of

Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao
City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment
against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao
City. Danielle’s property, which is located in Digos City, Davao
del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the
complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping
executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a
notary public.
Was the action properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City?
(2.5%)
Suggested Answer:
No. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 vests the Municipal Trial Court
with the exclusive jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases,
regardless of the assessed value of the property; hence, the
action was wrongfully instituted with the RTC.
Jurisdiction of Courts in Criminal Cases
MTC, MeTC, MCTC
• Violations of city/municipal ordinances;

• Crimes punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years,
regardless of the fine or other accessory penalties and civil
liability;
• Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence (Sec. 32, BP 129);
• Violations of traffic laws/rules/regulations, of rental laws, and
cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding
P1000, except that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence and the imposable fine does not
exceed P10,000.
MTC, MeTC, MCTC
• Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for writ of

habeas corpus or application for bail in the province or city where
the RTC judge is absent;
• Cases involving BP 22—Bouncing Checks Law;
• In election offenses, cases involving failure to register or failure to
vote.
RTC
• Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal
or body (Sec. 20, BP 129);
• All criminal cases where the penalty is higher than 6
years, including government-related cases
wherein the accused is not one of those falling under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;
• Cases where one or more of accused is 18 years old but not
less than 15 years old, or where one or more of the victims is a
minor, at the time of the commission of the offense (R.A. No.
9344);
Totality Rule
“Totality rule" under Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129 states that
"where there are several claims or causes of action between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transactions."
Determination of Jurisdictional Amount in Relation to the

Totality Rule
Under BP 129, as amended, and under R.A 7691, the jurisdictional
amount excludes the following:
1. Interest
2. Damages of whether kind
3. Attorney’s Fees
4. Litigation expenses and cost
Totality Rule
These matters, however, shall be included in determining the filing

fees.
“Damages of whatever kind” applies to cases where the damages

are merely incidental to or consequence of the main cause of action
(Adm. Circ. No. 09-94, June 14, 1994). Thus , if the main cause of
action is the recovery of damages, the amount of damages should
not be excluded in determining the jurisdictional amount (Sante v.
Claravall, G.R 173915, February 22, 2010).
Bar Question 2015
Lender extended to Borrower a Pl00,000.00 loan covered by
a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another Pl00,000.00
loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower
obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on
his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments
when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00
loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed
against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a
collection suit for P500,000.00.
a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder
of causes of action? (2%)
Bar Question 2015
At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender,

successfully elicited an admission from the latter that the two
promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer
filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven
only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which
claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of
the proceedings.
b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)

Suggested Answers:
(a) Yes, the totality rule and rule on joinder of action apply. Where
the claims are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be determinative of jurisdiction. (Section 5(d)
Rule 2, 1997 Rules of Civil. Procedure).
(b) The case should not be dismissed. It is the allegations

appearing in the complaint that is determinative of the jurisdiction of
the Court. (Navida v. Dijon, Jr., C.R. No. 18031, March 20, 2013)
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
A Special Civil Action is one which is also

governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, but
subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil
action. [RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, Sec. 3(a)]
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
DIFFERENT KINDS OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
• Interpleader (Rule 62);

• Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (Rule 63);
• Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of
COMELEC and the COA (Rule 64);
• Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65);
• Quo Warranto (Rule 66);
• Expropriation (Rule 67);
• Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68);
• Partition (Rule 69);
• Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70); and
• Contempt (Rule 71).
INTERPLEADER (Rule 62)
The action of interpleader is a remedy whereby a

person who has property in his possession or has an obligation
to render wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both,
comes to court and asks that the defendants who have made
upon him conflicting claims upon the same property or who
consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with the
obligation be required to litigate among themselves in order to
determine who is entitled to the property or payment of the
obligation. "The remedy is afforded not to protect a person
against a double liability but to protect him against a double
vexation in respect of one liability.” ( Beltran v. People’s
Homesite & Housing Corporation, G.R. No. L-25138, 28 August
1969)
INTERPLEADER (Rule 62)
When interpleader proper. — Whenever conflicting

claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made
against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject
matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed
by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting
claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several
claims among themselves. (Rule 62, Section 1)
Bar Question 2018
Dory Enterprises Inc. (Dory) leased to Digna Corporation
(Digna) a parcel of land located in Diliman, Quezon City. During
the term of the lease, Digna was informed by DBS Banking
Corporation (DBS) that it had acquired the leased property from
the former owner Dory and required Digna to pay the rentals
directly to it. Digna promptly informed Dory of DBS’ claim of
ownership. In response, Dory insisted on its right to collect rent
on the leased property.
Due to conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the rental

payments, Digna filed a complaint for interpleader in the RTC of
Manila. Digna also prayed that it be allowed to consign in court
the succeeding monthly rentals, and that Dory and DBS be
required to litigate their conflicting claims.
Bar Question 2018
It later appeared that an action for nullification of a dacion en
pago was filed by Dory against DBS in the RTC of Quezon City.
In said case, Dory raised the issue on which of the two
corporations had better right to the rental payments. Dory argued
that, to avoid conflicting decisions, the interpleader case must be
dismissed.
Does the action for nullification of the dacion en pago bar the
filing of the interpleader case?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. The interpleader case should be dismissed in view of the

action for nullification of the dacion en pago.
Under Rule 2, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, if two or
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one
is available as a ground for dismissal of the others. In the
situation above, the interpleader case filed by Digna seeks to
resolve who between Dory and DBS has the right to receive the
rental payments. Similarly, Dory’s action for nullification of the
dacion en pago will determine who between Dory and DBS has
the right to collect rental payments from Digna. Considering that
the two cases involve the same cause of action, the interpleader
case should be dismissed.
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
(Rule 63)
Who may file petition. — Any person interested under a

deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights
are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation,
ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate
Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction
or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties,
thereunder. (Rule 63, Sec. 1)
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
(Rule 63)
The requisites of a special civil action for declaratory
relief are:
(1) the existence of a justiciable controversy;
(2) the controversy is between persons whose interests
are adverse;
(3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in
the controversy; and
(4) that the issue invoked is ripe for judicial
determination. (Board of Optometry v. Hon. Angel Colet,
G.R. No. 122241, 30 July 1996)
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR
RESOLUTIONS OF COMELEC AND THE COA (Rule 64)
Mode of review. — A judgment or final order or resolution of
the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be
brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari
under Rule 65. (Rule 64, Sec. 2)
Time to file petition. — The petition shall be filed within

thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial
or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if
allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the
aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period,
but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event,
reckoned from notice of denial. (Rule 64, Sec. 3)
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR
RESOLUTIONS OF COMELEC AND THE COA (Rule 64)
The Fresh Period Rule is not applicable in Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court. The Rules of Court provide for a separate rule
(Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the COMELEC
and the Commission on Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the
application of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for certiorari. Rule
64, however, cannot simply be equated to Rule 65 even if it
expressly refers to the latter rule. They exist as separate rules for
substantive reasons. Procedurally, Rule 64 provides for a special
period for the filing of petitions for certiorari from decisions or
rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The period is 30 days from
notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65
provides), with the intervening period used for the filing of any
motion for reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30
days (instead of the fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides).
(Pates v. Comelec, GR No. 184915, 30 June 2009)
CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
Petition for certiorari — When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or
in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of
such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs
as law and justice may require. (Rule 65, Section 1)
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the

judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (Rule 65, Section 1)
NATURE AND PURPOSE
It is a writ emanating from a superior court directed against

an inferior court, tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions, the purpose of which is to correct
errors of law.
REQUISITES:
1. There must be a controversy;

2. Respondent is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
3. Respondents acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction; and
4. There must be no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.
CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65
Petition is based on questions of Petition raises the issue as to
law. whether the lower court acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.
It is a mode of appeal. It is an original action.
Involves the review of the Directed against an interlocutory
judgment award or final order on order of the court or where there
the merits. is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy or adequate remedy.
Must be made within the Filed not later than 60 days from
reglementary period. notice of judgment, order or
resolution appealed from.
Stays the judgment or order Unless a writ of preliminary
appealed from. injunction or temporary restraining
order is issued does not stay the
challenged proceeding.
CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65
The appellant and the appellee The parties are the aggrieved
are the original parties to the party against the lower court or
action, and the lower court or quasi-judicial agency and the
quasi-judicial agency is not prevailing parties.
impleaded.
Motion for reconsideration is not Motion for reconsideration or for
required. new trial is required;
If a motion for reconsideration or
new trial is filed, the period shall
not only be interrupted but
another 60 days shall be given to
the petitioner. ( SC Admin. Matter
02-03 )
The court is in the exercise of its Court exercises original
appellate jurisdiction and power of jurisdiction.
review.
PROHIBITION (Rule 65)
Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of any

tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding
the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or
matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require. (Rule 65, Section 2)
Petition for prohibition. — The petition shall likewise be

accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or
resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-
forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3,
Rule 46. (Rule 65, Section 2)
NATURE AND PURPOSE
• Principal purpose for the writ of prohibition is to prevent an

encroachment, excess, usurpation or assumption of
jurisdiction on the part of an inferior court or quasi-judicial
tribunal.
• It is granted when it is necessary for the orderly

administration of justice, or prevent the use of the strong
arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or
multiplicity of actions. The writs of certiorari and prohibition,
for that matter, are intended to annul or void proceeding in
order to insure the fair and orderly administration of justice
(Longino v. General, G.R. No. 147956, 16 February 2005)
• A special civil action of prohibition is an original and independent
action and not merely a continuation or a part of the trial resulting
in the rendition of the judgment or order complained of. Neither is
such an action ancillary or substitute to the action against which
the supervisory authority of the appellate court is sought and
directed. It bears stressing that an action for prohibition or
certiorari, for that matter, does not divest the inferior or trial court
of its jurisdiction validly acquired over the case pending before it;
it is merely an invocation for the exercise of its supervisory power
over the lower court to insure that the lower court acts within its
jurisdiction. If the lower court errs in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to appeal in due
course from an adverse judgment of the trial court, absent grave
abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
(Mayon Estate Corporation v. Altura, G.R. No. 134462, 18
October 2004)
REQUISITES:
1. It must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board

or person exercising functions, judicial or ministerial;
2. The tribunal, corporation, board or person has acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion; and
3. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
MANDAMUS (Rule 65)
Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation,

board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the
use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by
the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of
the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner
by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. (Rule 65,
Section 3)
MANDAMUS (Rule 65)
Petition for mandamus. — The petition shall also contain a

sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (Rule 65, Section 3)
MANDAMUS (Rule 65)
• It is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation,

board, officer or person to do an act required to be done:
• When it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty and there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
• When one unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled
and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
MANDAMUS (Rule 65)
REQUISITES:
1. The plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded;

2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act,
because it is mandated by law;
3. The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the
duty enjoined by law;
4. The act performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and
5. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Provisions Common to Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus
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. (Rule 65, Sec. 4)
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.
Mandamus
When and where petition filed
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.
(Rule 65, Sec. 4)
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except

for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15)
days (Rule 65, Sec. 4)
Mandamus
Respondents and costs in certain cases
When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge,
court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or
respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the
person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the
court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear
and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the
public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and
the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner
shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the
judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
(Rule 65, Sec. 5)
Mandamus
Respondents and costs in certain cases
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the

petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file
an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If the
case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public
respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties. However,
unless otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not
appear or participate in the proceedings therein. (Rule 65, Sec. 5)
Mandamus
Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief
The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders

expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending such
proceedings. (Rule 65, Section 7)
The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal

case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary
injunction has been issued against the public respondent from
further proceeding in the case. (Rule 65, Section 7)
Bar Question (2015)
The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder
the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer,
and accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the
Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the
treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed to
cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case.
Immediately, the governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a
petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman claiming there was
grave abuse of discretion in excluding the treasurer from the
Information.
Bar Question (2015)
a.) Was the remedy taken by the governor correct? (2%)

b.) Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to
include the treasurer in the Information? (3%)
c.) Can the Special Prosecutor move for the discharge of the
budget officer to corroborate the testimony of the treasurer in the
course of presenting its evidence? (2%)
Suggested Answers:
(a) No, a petition for certiorari should only be filed where there is
no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Here, the governor could have filed a motion for
reconsideration, which is generally a pre-requisite prior to the
filing of a petition for certiorari.
Alternative answer: The remedy was correct as the

Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by granting
immunity to the treasurer.
Suggested Answers:
(b) No, Mandamus will not lie. Mandamus may only be used to
compel respondent to act. It, may not be used to influence or
interfere with the respondent's exercise of discretion.
(Ampatuan, Jr. r. De Lima, C.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013)
(c) No, the budget officer may not be used as a State witness as
his testimony is not absolutely necessary as there is another
direct evidence available. (Sec. 17, Rule 119, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
Alternative answer: The Special Prosecutor does not have the

authority from the Ombudsman to move for the discharge of
the budget officer to become a State witness. (Uy v.
Sandiganbayan, CR. No. 105965-70, March 20, 2001)
Bar Question 2018
In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread

Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court (Court) as
Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was
announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the
position on the ground that he was not a natural born Filipino
citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining
him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position
and discharging the functions of his office until he is able to
successfully complete all the necessary steps to show that he is
a natural born citizen of the Philippines. He however, continued
to exercise his functions as CA Justice.
Bar Question 2018
Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as

well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, asked the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through a verified request,
to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the
latter’s capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to
initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s
citizenship was still being litigated in another case.
Bar Question 2018
When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto
proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari against the
OSG, and certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The petition
for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed
grave abuse of discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo
warranto proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for
certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to
order him to cease and desist from further exercising his powers,
duties and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances, Atty.
Dacio relied on the fact that at the time of J. Dong’s appointment
as CA Justice, J. Dong’s birth certificate indicated that he was a
Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a
naturalized Filipino citizen.
Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate the action
for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong?
Suggested Answer:
No. He is not clothed with legal interest. Rule 65, Sections 1

and 2 of the Rules of Court state that only an aggrieved party may
file petitions for certiorari and prohibition in the appropriate court.
An “aggrieved party” is one who was a party to the original
proceedings that gave rise to the original action for certiorari under
Rule 65 (Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices v.
Chionlo-Sia, G.R. No. 181186, 3 February 2016).
In this case, since there is no “original proceeding” before J.
Dong where Atty. Dacio is a party. Atty. Dacio cannot be considered
an “aggrieved party” for purposes of Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2 of
the Rules of Court. Atty. Dacio therefore, has no legal personality
to file the same.
QUO WARRANTO (Rule 66)
Action by Government against individuals. — An action

for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may
be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines against:
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully

holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by
the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his
office; or
(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the
Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful
authority so to act. (Rule 66, Sec. 1)
When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must
commence action. — The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor,
when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon
complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any
case specified in the preceding section can be established by
proof, must commence such action. (Rule 66, Sec. 2)
When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may

commence action with permission of court. — The Solicitor
General or a public prosecutor may, with the permission of the
court in which the action is to be commenced, bring such an action
at the request and upon the relation of another person; but in such
case the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the
expenses and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to
be deposited in the court by the person at whose request and
upon whose relation the same is brought. (Rule 66, Sec. 3)
When an individual may commence such an action. — A

person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped
or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action
therefor in his own name. (Rule 66, Sec. 5)
Judgment where usurpation found. — When the

respondent is found guilty of usurping into, intruding into, or
unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position or
franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent be
ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner
or relator, as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further
judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in
and to the public office, position or franchise of all the parties to
the action as justice requires. (Rule 66, Sec. 9)
Bar Question 2018
In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread

Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court (Court) as
Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was
announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the
position on the ground that he was not a natural born Filipino
citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining
him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position
and discharging the functions of his office until he is able to
successfully complete all the necessary steps to show that he is
a natural born citizen of the Philippines. He however, continued
to exercise his functions as CA Justice.
Bar Question 2018
Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as

well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, asked the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through a verified request,
to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the
latter’s capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to
initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s
citizenship was still being litigated in another case.
Bar Question 2018
When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding,
Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari against the OSG, and
certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The petition for
certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed
grave abuse of discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo
warranto proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for
certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to
order him to cease and desist from further exercising his powers,
duties and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances, Atty.
Dacio relied on the fact that at the time of J. Dong’s appointment
as CA Justice, J. Dong’s birth certificate indicated that he was a
Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a
naturalized Filipino citizen.
May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to initiate

a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong?
Bar Question 2018
May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to

initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong?
Suggested Answer:
No. the OSG has the discretion in determining the

presence of the requisites for a Quo Warranto proceeding.
Besides, there is already a pending case for the purpose of
determining citizenship.
For a Quo Warranto proceeding to be successful the
private person suing must show a clear right to the contested
office (Ferdinand Topacio v. Associate Justice Gregory Ong and
the Office of the Solicitor General, G.R. No. 179895, 18
December 2008).
EXPROPRIATION (Rule 67)
Distinction between eminent domain and expropriation
Eminent domain - one of the inherent powers of the state; it is

the right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state
for public use or to meet a public exigency and is said to be an
essential party of governance even in its most primitive form.
Expropriation - process by which the power of eminent domain is

carried out; taking as of private owned property, by government
under eminent domain.
“Just compensation” is the full and fair equivalent of the

property sought to be expropriated.
Rule 67 outlines the procedure under which eminent

domain may be exercised by the Government. Yet by no means
does it serve at present as the solitary guideline through which the
State may expropriate private property. For example, Section 19 of
the Local Government Code governs as to the exercise by local
government units of the power of eminent domain through an
enabling ordinance. And then there is Rep. Act No. 8974, which
covers expropriation proceedings intended for national
government infrastructure projects. (Republic of The Philippines v.
Hon. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, 19 December 2005)
Rep. Act No. 8974, which provides for a procedure

eminently more favorable to the property owner than Rule 67,
inescapably applies in instances when the national government
expropriates property "for national government infrastructure
projects." Thus, if expropriation is engaged in by the national
government for purposes other than national infrastructure
projects, the assessed value standard and the deposit mode
prescribed in Rule 67 continues to apply. (Republic of The
Philippines v. Hon. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, 19 December
2005)
Under both Rule 67 and Rep. Act No. 8974, the
Government commences expropriation proceedings through the
filing of a complaint. The most crucial difference between Rule 67
and Rep. Act No. 8974 concerns the particular essential step the
Government has to undertake to be entitled to a writ of possession.
Rule 67 merely requires the Government to deposit with an
authorized government depositary the assessed value of the
property for expropriation for it to be entitled to a writ of
possession. On the other hand, Rep. Act No. 8974 requires that the
Government make a direct payment to the property owner before
the writ may issue. Moreover, such payment is based on the zonal
valuation of the BIR in the case of land, the value of the
improvements or structures under the replacement cost method, or
if no such valuation is available and in cases of utmost urgency, the
proffered value of the property to be seized. (Id.)
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
(Rule 68)
JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
GOVERNING LAW
KINDS OF FORECLOSURE
Governed by Rule 68 Governed by Act No. 3135
NECESSITY OF COURT INTERVENTION
Requires court intervention No court intervention necessary
EXISTENCE OF RIGHT REDEMPTION
There is only an equity of redemption Right of redemption exists within 1 year from the
registration of the certificate of sale in the register of
deeds
ACTION FOR DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT
There could be deficiency judgment No deficiency judgment because there is no judicial

proceeding, but the recovery of deficiency is allowed
MANNER OF RECOVERING DEFICIENCY
Recovery of deficiency can be done by mere Recovery of deficiency is through an independent

motion action
(Rule 68)
Judgment on Foreclosure
• It is the judgment of the court ordering the debtor to pay within
90 to 120 days from the entry of judgment after ascertaining the
amount due to the plaintiff including interest, other charges and
costs. (Rule 68, Sec. 2)
Foreclosure Sale
• When the defendant fails to pay the amount of the judgment
within the period specified therein, the court, upon motion, shall
order the property to be sold in the manner and under the
provisions of Rule 39 and other regulations governing sales of
real estate under execution. (Rule 68, Sec. 3)
(Rule 68)
Equity of Redemption
• The right of the defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage
and retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt
within the 90 to 120 day period after the entry of judgment or
even after the foreclosure sale but prior to its confirmation.
(Rule 68)
In Judicial Foreclosure:
• General Rule: There is no right of redemption, only equity of
redemption.
• Exception: Those granted by banks or banking institutions as
provided by the General Banking Act (GSIS v. The CFI of Iloilo,
GR No. 45322, 5 July 1989)
Hence, if mortgagee is a bank, the mortgagor may exercise a

right of redemption and this rule applies even if the foreclosure is
judicial in accordance with Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
(Rule 68)
In Extrajudicial Foreclosure:
• General Rule: The Mortgagor has the right to redeem the

property.
• Period: within one (1) year from the registration of the deed of
sale.
(Rule 68)
• Exception: When the mortgagor is a juridical person, it shall

have the right to redeem the property until, but not after, the
registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the
Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than three (3)
months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier (RA No. 8791,
Sec. 47, par. 2.)
• Note: the pendency of an action stops the running of the right of

redemption and that said right continues after perfection of an
appeal until the decision of the appeal (Consolidated Bank v.
IAC, GR No. L-73976, 29 May 1987)
(Rule 68)
Order of Confirmation
Before the order of confirmation, even after the expiration of the
period of equity, the debtor can still pay his debt.
Effect of Confirmation
It operates to divest the title out of the former owner and vest it in
the purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be
allowed by law.
PARTITION (Rule 69)
Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A person
having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so,
and set forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and
an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is
demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in
the property. (Rule 69, Sec. 1)
Order for partition and partition by agreement thereunder.
— If after the trial the court finds that the plaintiff has the right
thereto, it shall order the partition of the real estate among all the
parties in interest. Thereupon the parties may, if they are able to
agree, make the partition among themselves by proper instruments
of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed
upon by all the parties, and such partition, together with the order
of the court confirming the same, shall be recorded in the registry
of deeds of the place in which the property is situated (Rule 69,
Sec. 2).
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
UNLAWFUL DETAINER (Rule 70)
FORCIBLY ENTRY (DETENTACION) UNLAWFUL DETAINER (DESAHUCIO)
Possession of land by defendant is unlawful Possession is inceptively lawful but it

from the beginning as he acquires becomes illegal by reason of the
possession by force, intimidation, strategy, termination of his right to possession of the
threat, or stealth property under his contract with the plaintiff
No previous demand for defendant to Demand is jurisdictional if the ground is

vacate the premises is necessary non-payment of rentals or failure to comply
with lease contract
Plaintiff must prove that he was in prior Plaintiff need not have been in prior
physical possession of the premises until physical possession
he was deprived thereof by defendant
The 1-year period is generally counted from Period is counted from the date of last letter
date of actual entry on land of demand
The issue centers on who was in prior The issue centers on whether the
possession de facto. defendant’s right to possess has expired or
not.
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
ACCION INTERDICTAL ACCION PUBLICIANA ACCION

REIVINDICATORIA
Summary action for recovery of A plenary action for recovery An action for recovery of
physical possession where the of real right of possession ownership, which
dispossession has not lasted for when dispossession has necessarily includes the
more than 1 year lasted for more than one recovery of possession
year
All cases of forcible entry and RTC has jurisdiction if value of the property exceeds
unlawful detainer, irrespective of P20,000 outside Metro Manila; exceeds P50,000 within
the amount of damages or Metro Manila.
unpaid rentals sought to be MTC has jurisdiction if value of property does not exceed
recovered should be brought to the above amounts
the MTC. (RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of 1st level courts)
However, if not brought within 1
year, RTC has jurisdiction
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. —
If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall
issue immediately upon motion unless an appeal has been
perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient
supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and
executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and
costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from,
and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits
with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to
time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment
of the Municipal Trial Court.
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. —
In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional
Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of
the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate
determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the
tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The
supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial
Court, with the papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court
to which the action is appealed. (Rule 70, Sec. 19)
CONTEMPT (Rule 71)
Definition
Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or

disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a
disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative
or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly
behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as
to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a
body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a
court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its
legal signification a variety of different acts. (Lorenzo Shipping
Corporation v. Distribution Management Association of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 155849, 31 August 2011)
CONTEMPT (Rule 71)
Power to Punish for Contempt
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts,

and need not be specifically granted by statute. The power to
punish for contempt essentially exists for the preservation of order
in judicial proceedings and for the enforcement of judgments,
orders, and mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for the due
administration of justice. The reason behind the power to punish for
contempt is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of
their institution; without such guarantee, the institution of the courts
would be resting on a very shaky foundation. (Lorenzo Shipping
Corporation v. Distribution Management Association of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 155849, 31 August 2011)
CONTEMPT (Rule 71)
TWO KINDS OF CONTEMPT
• There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct

contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed
when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so
near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive
personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer
as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when
lawfully required to do so. Indirect contempt or constructive
contempt is that which is committed out of the presence of the
court. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice would
constitute indirect contempt. (Prosecutor Baculi v. Judge Belen,
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176, 20 April 2009)
CONTEMPT (Rule 71)
Direct contempt punished summarily. — A person guilty

of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct
or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect
toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to
be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or
deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily
adjudged in contempt by such court and punished by a fine not
exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten
(10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of
equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred
pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a
lower court. (Rule 71, Sec. 1)
CONTEMPT (Rule 71)
Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and

hearing. — A person guilty of indirect contempt may only be
punished after a charge in writing has been filed, and an
opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court. (Rule 71, Sec. 3)
Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu

proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by
an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to
show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
CONTEMPT (Rule 71)
Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and
hearing. —
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be

commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and
certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and
upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory
pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt
charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in
the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said
petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless
the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt
charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
PLEADINGS
PLEADINGS
DEFINITION
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective

claims and defense of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment.
PLEADINGS
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
COMPLAINT – a pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause of

action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and
defendant must be stated in the complaint (Sec. 3, Rule 6).
ANSWER – a pleading in which a defending party sets forth

his defenses (Sec. 4, Rule 6). The defenses of a party are
alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against
him.
PLEADINGS
Answer may contain affirmative defenses or negative

defenses.
Negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact

or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to
his cause or causes of action. [Rule 6, Section 5(a)]
A negative defense is stated in the form of a specific denial,

which may be a/an: (a) absolute denial; (b) partial denial; or (c)
denial by disavowal of knowledge. (Rule 8, Section 10)
PLEADINGS
Specific denial, when material:

When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding
pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument
shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under
oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to
be the facts.
Exceptions: The requirement of an oath does not apply

when: (a) the adverse party does not appear to be a party to
the instrument; or (b) when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused.
PLEADINGS
Effect of admission of genuineness of documents:
When the due execution and genuineness of an

instrument are deemed admitted because of the adverse
party’s failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the
instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it
may be considered an admitted fact. (Casent Realty
Development Corp. v. Philbanking Corp., G.R. No. 150731, 14
September 2007)
PLEADINGS
COUNTERCLAIM - any claim which a defending party may

have against an opposing party.
A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by

the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with
the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of
the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within
the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the
nature thereof, except that in an original action before the
Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.
PLEADINGS
Nature of compulsory counterclaims

a. It is auxiliary to the original suit such that as a general rule, the
court must have jurisdiction over the original action in order to
hear the compulsory counterclaim.
PLEADINGS
b. Effect of dismissal of complaint. –

i. If the dismissal of the complaint somehow eliminates the
cause of the counterclaim, then the counterclaim cannot survive.
ii. If the counterclaim itself states sufficient cause of action
then it should stand independently of and survive the dismissal of
the complaint, i.e., counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees
arising from the unfounded suit.
iii. If the dismissal is pursuant to circumstances covered by
Section 6, Rule 16 and Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17, then the
dismissal of the complaint does not result in the dismissal of the
counterclaim, whether compulsory or permissive. (Pinga v. Heirs
of Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, 30 June 2006; Padilla v. Globe
Asiatique, G.R. No. 207376, 6 August 2014)
PLEADINGS
c. The court must have jurisdiction both as to amount and nature of
the counterclaim, except when the original action was filed before
the Regional Trial Court. In the latter case, the counterclaim may
be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
d. When original action filed with RTC, the counterclaim is deemed

compulsory regardless of amount.
e. A counterclaim in the municipal or city court beyond that

jurisdictional limit may be pleaded only by way of defense to
weaken the plaintiffs claim, but not to obtain affirmative
relief. (Maceda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83545, 11 August
1989)
ALBA, JR. v. MALAPAJO
G.R. NO. 198752,13 January 2016
Facts: Petitioner Alba filed a Complaint for recovery of ownership

and/or declaration of nullity or cancellation of title and damages
against respondents. Alba was the previous registered owner of a
parcel of land in Roxas City. However, Alba claimed that his title was
cancelled by virtue of his signature being forged in a Deed of Sale with
a consideration of P500,000 executed in favor of respondents. On the
other hand, respondents filed an answer with counterclaim contending
that the deed was a unilateral document presented to them in lieu of
the loans obtained by Alba and his mother, on separate occasions,
secured by a real estate mortgage covering the subject property.
Petitioners alleged that counterclaims made are permissive in nature,
thus, there must be a payment of docket fees and filing of certification
against forums hopping.
G.R. NO. 198752,13 January 2016
Issue: Whether the counterclaim involved is permissive.
Ruling:No.
A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of

or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim
that may be filed separately in another case.
G.R. NO. 198752,13 January 2016
To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or

permissive, we have devised the following tests:
(a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and
by the counterclaim largely the same?
(b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on
defendants’ claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim
rule?
(c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute
plaintiffs’ claim as well as defendants’ counterclaim?
(d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the
counterclaim?
A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the

counterclaim is compulsory.
PINGA v. SANTIAGO
G.R. No. 170354, 30 June 2006
Facts: For failure of the respondents to present evidence and to

appear several times on scheduled hearings, RTC dismissed their
complaint and ordered the other party, Pinga, to present evidence
ex-parte as to the Counterclaim he filed along with his Answer to
the Original Complaint. Respondents filed MR, averring that since
the Complaint had already been ordered dismissed, Pinga’s
Counterclaim should be dismissed as well.
Issue: Whether the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the

dismissal of the counterclaim.
Ruling: No. In fact, the dismissal of the complaint is without

prejudice to the right of defendants to prosecute the counterclaim.
PINGA v. SANTIAGO
G.R. No. 170354, 30 June 2006
If a complaint is dismissed due to fault of the plaintiff, such

dismissal is "without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.“
The present rule embodied in Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17 ordains
a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that
any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim
itself and not on the survival of the main complaint. Certainly, if
the counterclaim is palpably without merit or suffers jurisdictional
flaws which stand independent of the complaint, the trial court is
not precluded from dismissing it under the amended rules,
provided that the judgment or order dismissing the counterclaim is
premised on those defects. At the same time, if the counterclaim
is justified, the amended rules now unequivocally protect such
counterclaim from peremptory dismissal by reason of the
dismissal of the complaint.
PLEADINGS
CROSS-CLAIM
A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party

arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim
therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party
against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-
claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action
against the cross-claimant.
PLEADINGS
THIRD (FOURTH, ETC.)-PARTY COMPLAINT
A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a

defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person
not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any
other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim.
PLEADINGS
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
One filed by an intervenor asserting a claim against either or

all of the original parties. (Section 3, Rule 19).
FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORP v. PO
G.R. No. 217694, 27January 2016
Facts: Fairland filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before

the MeTC alleging that it was the owner of condominium unit
no.205 in Cedar Mansion II. It was leased to Lo by a verbal
agreement. Fairland opted not to renew the lease agreement
because Lo continuously failed to pay rent. Fairland sent a
formal letter of demand to Lo demanding that he pay the
amount of P220,000 within 15 days from receipt. Since Po
neither tendered payment for the unpaid rent nor vacated the
premises, Fairland was constrained to file the complaint for
unlawful detained before the MeTC. Lo failed to file his answer
so Fairland filed a motion to render judgment.
FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORP v. PO
G.R. No. 217694, 27January 2016
Issue: Whether the judgment should be rendered based on the

complaint itself.
Ruling: Yes. Section 6 of the Rules on Summary Procedure is

clear that in case the defendant failed to file his answer, the
court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon
plaintiff’s motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the
complaint and limited to what is prayed for. The failure of the
defendant to timely file his answer and to controvert the claim
against him constituted his acquiescence to every allegation
stated in the complaint.
Amendments
Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an

allegation or the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in
the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or
description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the
controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to
technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive
manner. (Rule 10, Section 1)
Amendments
Amendments as a matter of right.

A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at
any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case
of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.
Amendments
Amendments by leave of court.
Except as provided in the next preceding section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such
leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion
was made with intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the
matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed
in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity
to be heard. (Sec. 3, Rule 10)
When amendments by leave of court NOT allowed

1. Cause of action, defense or theory of the case is changed;
2. Amendment is intended to confer jurisdiction to the court;
3. Amendment seeks to cure the defect in the cause of action;
4. Amendment is made with intent to delay
Amendments
Formal amendments.
A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly

clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected by
the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion,
provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.
(Rule 10, Section 4)
Amendments
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
effect 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.
Amendments
Filing of amended pleadings.

When any pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading,
incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated by
appropriate marks, shall be filed. (Sec. 7, Rule 10)
Effect of amended pleadings.

An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends.
However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in
evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged
therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed
waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 10)
Supplemental Pleadings
Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and
upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental
pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which
have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be
supplemented. The adverse party may plead thereto within ten
(10) days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental
pleading. (Rule 10, Section 5)
Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the parties to

supplement their pleadings by setting forth transactions,
occurrences, or events that happened since the date of the
pleading sought to be supplemented
Supplemental Pleadings Distinguished From
Amended Pleadings
Amended Pleadings Supplemental Pleadings
Refers to transaction, occurrences Refers to transactions,

or events already existing at the occurrences or events which have
time of the filing of the original happened since the date of the
action. pleading sought to be
supplemented.
Can be a matter of right such as Always with leave of court.
when made before a responsive
pleading is served.
A new copy of the entire pleading No need to file but must serve a
must be filed incorporating the copy to the court and the adverse
amendments and indicated by party.
appropriate marks.
An amended pleading supersedes Original pleadings stands.
the original one.
Bar Question 2018
Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money

and damages against spouses Dake and Donna Demapilis for
unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of PhP
250,000. In their answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the
purchases from Daribell, but alleged that they could not
remember the exact amount since no copies of the documents
were attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claimed that
they made previous payments in the amounts of PhP 110,000
and PhP 20,000 and that they were willing to pay the balance of
their indebtedness after account verification.
Bar Question 2018
In a written manifestation, spouses Demapilis stated that,

in order to buy peace, they were willing to pay the sum of PhP
250,000, but without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell
filed a Motion for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, Daribell
filed an amended complaint, alleging that the total purchases of
construction materials were PhP 280,000 and only PhP 20,000
had been paid. Daribell also served upon the spouses
Demapilis a request for admission asking them to admit the
genuineness of the statement of accounts, delivery receipts and
invoices, as well as the value of the principal obligation and the
amount paid as stated in the amended complaint.
Bar Question 2018
Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The

amendment modified the period covered and confirmed the
partial payment of PhP110,000 but alleged that this payment
was applied to the spouses’ other existing obligations. Daribell
however reiterated that the principal amount remains
unchanged.
(a) Is the request for admission deemed abandoned or

withdrawn by the filing of the second amended complaint?
(b) Can the amendment of the complaint be allowed if it

substantially alters the cause of action?
Suggested Answer:
(a) No. The second amended complaint merely supersedes the

first amended complaint and nothing more, pursuant to Rule
10, Section 8 of the Rules of Court; thus, the Request for
Admission is not deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the
filing of the Second Amended Complaint (Spouses Villuga v.
Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply, Inc., G.R. No.
176570, 18 July 2012).
Suggested Answer:
(b) Such amendment could still be allowed when it is sought

to serve the higher interest of substantial justice, prevent delay,
and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions
and proceedings (Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
131175, August 28, 2001). The amended complaint may be
allowed if it will not prejudice the rights of the parties.
Certification against forum shopping
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the

complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or
in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action
or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Effect of failure to comply:

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his
counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and
shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.
PAL v. Flight Attendants and Stewards Assn of the Philippines

(FASAP)
G.R. No. 143088, 24 January 2006
Facts: FASAP filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal

suspension, and illegal dismissal against PAL before the Labor
Arbiter of the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in favor of FASAP. The NLRC
modified the arbiter’s decision by setting aside the finding that PAL
was guilty of unfair labor practice, but affirming the rest of the
decision. Subsequently, PAL filed a petition for certiorari with the CA,
it was accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum shopping
executed by Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen, Vice-
President Human Resources and Assistant Vice-President Cabin
Services of PAL, respectively, who are not parties to the case.
The certification, however, was without proof that the
two affiants had authority to sign in behalf of petitioners. As a
result, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case for failure to
show the authority of affiants to sign for PAL and for failure of
the other petitioners to join in the execution of the certification.
A motion for reconsideration was filed with a Secretary’s Certificate
attached evidencing that affiants Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del
Carmen have been authorized by Board Resolution No. 00-02-03 to
initiate and/or cause to be filed on behalf of PAL petitions and
pleadings in all labor-related cases. As to the other petitioners, it
was argued that they are mere nominal parties so that their failure to
execute the certification does not justify dismissal of the petition.
Despite this submission, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration.
Issue: Whether the petition is impressed with merit.

Ruling: No. Only individuals vested with authority by a valid board
resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of
a corporation. In addition, the Supreme Court has required that proof
of said authority must be attached. Failure to provide a certificate of
non-forum shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.
Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was
submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory’s authority.
The petition filed with the Court of Appeals had a certification

of non-forum shopping executed by Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan
Del Carmen. The certification, however, was without proof of
authority to sign. When a motion for reconsideration was filed, a
Secretary’s Certificate was submitted as proof that the board of
directors of PAL had authorized the two to execute the certificate.
Nonetheless, the Court finds that this belated submission is an
insufficient compliance with the certification requirement. x x x
A perusal of the Secretary’s Certificate submitted reveals that
the authority to cause the filing of the petition was granted on
February 15, 2000. The petition, on the other hand, was filed on
January 24, 2000 and was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on
January 31, 2000. This means that at the time the certification was
signed, Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen were not duly
authorized by the Board of Directors of PAL and, consequently, their
signing and attestations were not in representation of PAL. This
effectively translates to a petition that was filed without a certification
at all as none was issued by PAL, the principal party to the case.
The required certification of non-forum shopping must

be valid at the time of filing of the petition. An invalid certificate
cannot be remedied by the subsequent submission of a
Secretary’s Certificate that vests authority only after the
petition had been filed.
Effect of Failure to Plead
DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS NOT PLEADED EITHER IN A

MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ANSWER, ARE DEEMED
WAIVED (Sec. 1, Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil. Procedure).
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) When it appears from the pleading or the pieces of evidence
on record that the Court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
(2) That there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause;
(3) That the action is barred by the statute of limitations; (same as
Sec. 8, Rule 117, Rules of Civil Procedure) and
(4) Res judicata. In all these cases, the court shall dismiss the
claim. (Sec. 1, Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
A COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM OR A CROSS-CLAIM

NOT SET UP SHALL BE BARRED. (Sec. 2, Rule 9, 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure)
EXCEPTION: If the compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim is

an after-acquired counterclaim, that is, such claim matured after
filing of the answer, it may be pleaded by filing an amended
answer or a supplemental answer or pleading. (Sec. 9, Rule 11,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
If the defending party FAILS TO ANSWER within the time

allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming
party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure,
DECLARE THE DEFENDING PARTY IN DEFAULT. Thereupon,
the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant
such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.
(Rule 9, Section 3, par. 1)
REMEDY FROM ORDER OF DEFAULT

Motion to set aside Order of default. — A party declared in
default may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment
file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon
proper showing that his failure to answer was due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may be
set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose
in the interest of justice. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)]
REMEDIES FROM JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
• Before finality
1. Motion for reconsideration or new trial
2. Appeal
• After finality
1. Petition for relief from judgment
2. Annulment of judgment
Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration,
Petition for Relief from Judgment and Annulment of
Judgment as Remedies from Judgment by Default
Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may
move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and
grant a new trial on the ground of FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE
OR EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE which ordinary prudence could
not have guarded against and by reason of which such
aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights.
Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration,
Petition for Relief from Judgment and Annulment of
Judgment as Remedies from Judgment by Default
Petition for Relief from Judgment
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding
is thereafter taken against a party in any court through FRAUD,
ACCIDENT, MISTAKE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE, he may
file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
Annulment of Judgment
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.
POST-JUDGMENT
REMEDIES
REMEDIES AGAINST JUDGMENTS OR FINAL
ORDERS
Remedies Before Finality Of Judgment

• (1) Motion for reconsideration
• (2) Motion for new trial
• (3) Appeal
Motion for Reconsideration
• Grounds for Motion for Reconsideration:

• (1) Damages awarded are excessive
• (2) Evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order
• (3) The decision or final order is contrary to law
Motion for Reconsideration
• WHEN TO FILE:
• An aggrieved party may file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration within the period for taking an appeal.
• The motions are filed with the court which rendered the
questioned judgment or final order.
• The period for appeal is within 15 days after notice to the
appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. The 15-
day period is deemed to commence upon receipt by the counsel
of record, which is considered notice to the parties. Service upon
the parties themselves is prohibited and is not considered as
official receipt of judgment.
• Effect of Filing – The filing of a timely motion interrupts the
period to appeal.
Motion for New Trial
Grounds for Motion for New Trial:
(1) FAME – Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence
(a) Conditions:
(i) Which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; and
(ii) By reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been
impaired in his rights
NOTE: Fraud must be extrinsic fraud which means any fraudulent
scheme executed by the prevailing party outside of the trial
against the losing party who because of such fraud is prevented
from presenting his side of the case.
Motion for New Trial
Grounds for Motion for New Trial:
(2) Newly discovered evidence

(a) Requisites:
(i) It must have been discovered after the trial
(ii) It could not have been discovered and produced at the trial
even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and
(iii) The evidence is of such weight that if admitted, would
probably alter the result of the action; and
(iv) It must be material and not merely collateral, cumulative, or
corroborative
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Grounds: Grounds:
(1) Fraud, accident, mistake, or (1) Damages awarded are excessive
excusable negligence (F-A-M-E) (2) That evidence is insufficient to justify
(2) Newly discovered evidence the decision or final order
(3) 3. That decision or final order is
contrary to law
Second motion may be allowed so long Second motion from the same party is
as based on grounds not existing or prohibited.
available at the time the first motion was The prohibition applies only to final orders
made or judgments, hence it is allowed in
interlocutory orders
If a new trial is granted, original judgment If the court finds that excessive damages
or final order is vacated. have been awarded or that the judgment
The case stands for trial de novo and will or final order is contrary to the evidence
be tried anew or law, it may amend such judgment or
final order accordingly
Available even on appeal but only on the Available against the judgments or final
ground of newly discovered evidence orders or both the trial and appellate
courts
* Both are prohibited motions under the Rules of Summary Procedure
Appeal
NATURE OF APPEAL
(1) Not a natural right nor a part of due process

(2) It is merely a statutory right, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with provisions of the law. It must comply
with the requirements; failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost
(3) Once granted, appeals become part of due process and should
be liberally applied in favor of the right to appeal
Appeal
JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS SUBJECT TO APPEAL;

MATTERS NOT APPEALABLE
Rule 41, Sec. 1, as amended by AM 07-7-12-SC (2007) provides:
(1) Appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that

completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
when declared by the Rules to be appealable
(2) No appeal may be taken from:

(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion
seeking relief from judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
Appeal
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent,
confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress,
or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several
parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-
party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court
allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
• NOTE: AM 07-7-12-SC removed from the original list “an order

denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration.”
• NOTE, HOWEVER: Rule 37, Sec. 9 which states that no appeal
can be made from an order denying MR or MNT.
Appeal
Only final judgments or orders can be appealed, as distinguished
from interlocutory judgments or orders which are not appealable.
FINAL ORDER INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Disposes of the matter in its Does not dispose of a case
entirety, leaving nothing more to be completely but leaves something
done but to enforce execution more to be decided upon.
Appealable Not appealable except through a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65
Must clearly and distinctly state the No need to comply with such a
law and the facts on which it is requirement
based
Appeal
MODES OF APPEAL
(1) Ordinary appeal – Rule 40 and 41

(a) Notice of appeal (15-day period)
(b) Record on appeal (30-day period)
(2) Petition for review – Rule 42

(3) Petition for review on certiorari – Rule 45
Appeal
ORDINARY APPEAL PETITION FOR REVIEW PETITION FOR REVIEW
ON CERTIORARI
Rule 41 Rule 42 Rule 45
Case is decided by RTC in Case decided by RTC in the Case decided by the RTC,
its original jurisdiction exercise of its appellate CA, CTA, and
jurisdiction Sandiganbayan
Appealed to the CA Petition for review with the Appealed to the SC
CA
File notice of appeal or File a verified petition for File verified petition for
record of appeal with court review with CA. review on certiorari with the
of origin and give a copy to Pay docket and lawful fees SC.
adverse party and P500 as deposit for Pay docket and lawful fees
costs with the CA. and P500 for costs.
Furnish RTC and adverse Submit proof of service of a
party a copy of such copy to the lower court and
adverse party
Within 15 days from notice Within 15 days from notice Within 15 days from notice
of judgment for notice of of decision to be reviewed of judgment or order of
appeal and 30 days for or from denial of a MFR or denial of MFR or MFNT
records on appeal MFNT
Appeal
Rationale for allowing multiple appeals:

Allowing multiple appeals enables the rest of the case to proceed in
the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court
and held to be final (Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 111324, 5 July 1996
Fresh period Rule: Neypes Rule

A party litigant may file his notice of appeal within 15 days from
receipt of the order denying his MNT or MR. (Neypes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, 14 September 2005)
REMEDIES AFTER FINALITY OF JUDGMENT
(1) Petition for relief [Rule 38]
(2) Action to Annul Judgment [Rule 47]
(3) Collateral Attack of a Judgment that is Void on its Face

PETITION FOR RELIEF (Rule 38)
• Rule 38 can be availed of once the judgment has become final and
executory.
• The relief provided for by Rule 38 is of equitable character and is
only allowed in exceptional cases, that is where there is no other
available or adequate remedy. A petition for relief is not regarded
with favor and judgment will not be disturbed where the party
complaining has or by his exercising proper diligence would have
had an adequate remedy at law, as where petitioner could have
proceeded by appeal to vacate or modify the default judgment.
[Manila Electric v. CA (1990)]
• Under Sec. 1, it is also available when “any other proceeding is
thereafter taken against the petitioner in any court through FAME”
• Thus, it was held that a petition for relief is also applicable to a
proceeding taken after entry of judgment or final order such as an
order of execution [Cayetano v. Ceguerra] or an order dismissing
an appeal [Medran v. CA]
Rule 37 Rule 38
Available BEFORE judgment Available AFTER judgment has
becomes final and executory become final and executory
Applies to judgments or final Applies to judgments, final orders
orders only and other proceedings
Grounds: (1) FAME and (2) Newly Ground: FAME
discovered evidence
Filed within the time to appeal Filed within 60 days from
knowledge of judgment and within
6 months from entry of judgment
If denied, order of denial is not If denied, order denying a petition
appealable; hence, remedy is for relief is not appealable;
appeal from judgment remedy is appropriate civil action
under Rule 65
Legal remedy Equitable remedy
Motion need not be verified Petition must be verified
ACTION TO ANNUL JUDGMENT (Rule 47)
• Coverage. — 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.
• Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only on

the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
ACTION TO ANNUL JUDGMENT (Rule 47)
• Jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground

to annul a judgment. (Marcelina Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No.
173559, 7 January 2013)
• 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.
.
Bar Question 2018
In 2015, Dempsey purchased from Daria a parcel of land located
in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental. The latter executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale and handed to Dempsey the owner’s duplicate
copy of TCT No. 777 covering the property. Since he was
working in Manila and still had to raise funds to cover taxes,
registration and transfer costs, Dempsey kept the TCT in his
possession without having transferred it to his name. A few years
thereafter, when he already had the funds to pay for the transfer
costs, Dempsey went to the Register of Deeds of Dumaguete
and discovered that, after the sale, Daria had filed a petition for
reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 777
which the RTC granted. Thus, unknown to Dempsey, Daria was
able to secure a new TCT in her name.
What is Dempsey’s remedy to have the reconstituted title in the

name of Daria nullified?
Suggested Answer:
Dempsey may file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under

Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court had consistently held that when the

owner’s duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in
fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted
certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision
had no jurisdiction. As a rule, reconstitution can validly be made
only in case of loss of the original certificate. In this regard, the
remedy to nullify an order granting reconstitution is a petition for
annulment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (Eastworld Motor
Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation, G.R. No. 163994,
16 December 2005).
Suggested Answer:
In this case, RTC Dumaguete had no jurisdiction to order the

reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 777,
considering that the owner’s duplicate copy thereof had not been
lost, but is merely in Dempsey’s possession. The order granting
Daria’s petition for reconstitution is therefore void; accordingly,
Dempsey may file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under
Rule 47 to nullify the reconstituted title in Daria’s name.
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Preliminary Attachment (Rule 57)
Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the
commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment,
a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse
party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that
may be recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of
money or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of
action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict
against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent
to defraud his creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or
fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a public
officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker,
agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any
other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property
unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the
property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or
disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or
an authorized person;
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a
fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which
the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or
disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud
his creditors; or
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served
by publication.
Requisites for the issuance of an order of writ of preliminary
attachment:
(1) An Affidavit executed by an applicant, or some other person
knowing the facts showing that:
- a sufficient cause of action exists
- the case must be those where preliminary attachment is proper
- there is no sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced
- the amount due to the applicant, or the value of the property the
possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the
sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims
(2) Attachment bond.

The writ of preliminary attachment may be issued ex-parte. No
notice to the adverse party or hearing of the application is required
inasmuch as the time which the hearing will take could be enough
to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property
before a writ of attachment issues. In such a case, a hearing would
render nugatory the purpose of this provisional remedy. (Mindanao
Savings and Loan Association v. CA, G.R. No. 84481, 18 April
1989)
However, it cannot bind and affect the defendant until jurisdiction

over his person is eventually obtained. Therefore, it is required that
when the proper officer commences the implementation of the writ
of preliminary attachment, service of summons should be
simultaneously made. (Cuartero v. CA, G.R. No. 102448, 5 August
1992)
Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)
Preliminary injunction defined; classes. — A preliminary
injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or
a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.
It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in
which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory
injunction.
Who may grant preliminary injunction. — A preliminary

injunction may be granted by the court where the action or
proceeding is pending. If the action or proceeding is pending in the
Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said
court or any member thereof.
Bar Question 2018
On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucio, Sheriff of the RTC of
Makati, served the Order granting the ex-parte application for
preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order,
together with the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March
1, 2018, the Sheriff served upon Dodong the complaint and
summons in connection with the same case. The counsel of
Dodong filed a motion to dissolve the writ.
(a) Can the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in

favor of Dinggoy be dissolved? What ground/s can Dodong’s
counsel invoke?
(b) If Dodong posts a counter bond, is he deemed to have

waived any of his claims for damages arising from the issuance
of the Order and writ of attachment?
Suggested Answers:
(a) Yes, the preliminary attachment issued by the court in

favor of Dinggoy can be dissolved, because the enforcement
thereof was improper.
In Torres, et al. v. Satsatin, (G.R. No. 166759, 25

November 2009), the Supreme Court ruled that once the
implementation of a writ of preliminary attachment commences,
the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for
without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to
act in any manner against the defendant, consequently, any
order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.
Suggested Answers:
It is, thus, indispensable not only for the acquisition of

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant; but also upon
consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the
complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment and the grounds therefore that prior or
contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of attachment,
service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the
application for attachment, the applicants affidavit and bond, and
the order must be served upon him.
In this case, since copies of the complaint and summons

were served after the writ of preliminary attachment was served
upon Dodong, the writ therefore, was improvidently issued; the
writ of preliminary attachment may be dissolved.
Suggested Answers:
(b) No, the posting of a counter-bond does not amount to a

waiver of his claim for damages arising from the issuance of the
Order and the writ of attachment. The counter-bond and a claim
for damages pertain to two (2) different aspects in the issuance
and implementation of a writ of preliminary attachment.
A counter-bond posted by the person against whom the writ of

preliminary attachment was issued, does not answer for
damages on account of the lifting of the attachment, but for the
payment of the amount due under the judgment that may be
recovered by an attaching creditor. The counter-bond stands “in
place of the properties so released” (Dizon v. Valdes, G.R. No. L-
23920, 25 April 1968).
Suggested Answers:
On the other hand, a claim for damages by the person against
whom the writ of preliminary attachment was issued is governed
by Rule 57, Section 20 of the Rules of Court, which states that “an
application for damages on account of improper, irregular or
excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before
appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory,
with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties
setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the
amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper
hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case x
x x”.
Considering that the Rules of Court provided different purposes
for the filing of a counter-bond and the filing of claim for damages,
Dodong’s posting of a counter-bond cannot be deemed a waiver
of his claim for damages.
Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — A
preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and
the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or
in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited
period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of
the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably
work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to
be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of
the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding,
and tending to render the judgment ineffectual
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

It is an interlocutory order issued as a restraint to the defendant to
preserve the status quo on the ground of irreparable injury and is
granted to a party until the hearing of the application for
preliminary injunction.
Requisites of 72-hour TRO issued by the Executive Judge

(a) The applicant has a right to relief, or a right in esse or a right to
be protected and the act against which the injunction is
directed is violative of such right
(b) The matter is of extreme urgency such that the applicant will
suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury if the TRO is not
issued.
Requisites of 72-hour TRO issued by the Executive Judge
(c) The Executive Judge shall immediately summon the parties for
conference and immediately raffle the case in their presence;
and
(d) Before the expiration of the 72-hour period, the Presiding
Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary
hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended up to
20 days, including the original 72 hours.
Requisites for writ of preliminary injunction or TRO

a. Verified application stating the grounds for its issuance;
b. The applicant must establish that he has a right to relief, or a
right to be protected and the act against which the injunction is
directed is violative of such right
Requisites for writ of preliminary injunction or TRO
c. The applicant must establish that there is a need to restrain the

commission or continuance of the act complaint of, and if not
enjoined would work injustice to the applicant;
d. Applicant must post the bond, unless exempted by the court;
e. Contemporaneous service of summons; and
f. Establish present and unmistakable right
Receivership (Rule 59)
Appointment of receiver. — Upon a verified application,

one or more receivers of the property subject of the action or
proceeding may be appointed by the court where the action is
pending or by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court, or a
member thereof, in the following cases:
(a) When it appears from the verified application, and such

other proof as the court may require, that the party applying for
the appointment of a receiver has an interest in the property or
fund which is the subject of the action or proceeding, and that
such property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or
materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to administer
and preserve it;
(b) When it appears in an action by the mortgagee for the
foreclosure of a mortgage that the property is in danger of being
wasted or dissipated or materially injured, and that its value is
probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt, or that the
parties have so stipulated in the contract of mortgage;
(c) After judgment, to preserve the property during the

pendency of an appeal, or to dispose of it according to the
judgment, or to aid execution when the execution has been
returned unsatisfied or the judgment obligor refuses to apply his
property in satisfaction of the judgment, or otherwise to carry the
judgment into effect;
(d) Whenever in other cases it appears that the appointment of
a receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving,
administering, or disposing of the property in litigation.
During the pendency of an appeal, the appellate court may

allow an application for the appointment of a receiver to be filed in
and decided by the court of origin and the receiver appointed to be
subject to the control of said court.
Replevin (Rule 60)
Application. — A party praying for the recovery of

possession of personal property may, at the commencement of the
action or at any time before answer, apply for an order for the
delivery of such property to him, in the manner hereinafter
provided.
Replevin (Rule 60)
Affidavit and bond. — The applicant must show by his own
affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the
facts:
(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed,
particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party,
alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief ;
(c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed
under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such
seizure or custody; and
(d) The actual market value of the property.
Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61)
Application. — At the commencement of the proper action

or proceeding, or at any time prior to the judgment or final order, a
verified application for support pendente lite may be filed by any
party stating the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions
of both parties, and accompanied by affidavits, depositions or
other authentic documents in support thereof.
Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61)
Restitution. — When the judgment or final order of the

court finds that the person who has been providing
support pendente lite is not liable therefor, it shall order the
recipient thereof to return to the former the amounts already paid
with legal interest from the dates of actual payment, without
prejudice to the right of the recipient to obtain reimbursement in a
separate action from the person legally obliged to give the support.
Should the recipient fail to reimburse said amounts, the person
who provided the same may likewise seek reimbursement thereof
in a separate action from the person legally obliged to give such
support.
MOTIONS
Motion to Dismiss
Four general types of motion to dismiss under the Rules

1. Motion to dismiss before answer (Rule 16)
2. Motion to dismiss by plaintiff (Rule 17)
3. Motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence after plaintiff has
rested his case under Rule 33
4. Motion to dismiss appeal either in RTC (Rule 41, Sec. 13), CA
(Rule 50, Sec. 1) or SC (Rule 56, Sec. 5)
Motion to Dismiss (Rule 16)
GROUNDS
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the
defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties
for the same cause;
GROUNDS
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the
statute of limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has
been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is enforceable

under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been
complied with
Bar Question 2018
Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning

collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an action before the RTC
of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold the
annual stockholders’ meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as
required by Darwinkle Inc.’s By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction to use, as record date, April 30, 2017. The
complaint alleged, among others, that the refusal to call the ASM
on June 21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of the BOD to allow
Databank, Inc. (which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc.
after July 15, 2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute
the complainants’ shareholdings and ease them out of the BOD.
Bar Question 2018
Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of PhP 7,565

as filing fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of Court.
The Board of Directors filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have
been based on the actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc.
and David, which were collectively worth PhP 450 million.
If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss?
Suggested Answer:
No. While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a

jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of
filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case. The
court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but
in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period. Here, Dendenees Inc. and David merely relied on the
assessment made by the clerk of court. If incorrect, the clerk of
court has the responsibility of reassessing how much they must
pay within the prescriptive period (Proton Pilipinas v. Banque
Nationale de Paris, (G.R. No. 151242, June 15, 2005).
Instances when a complaint may no longer be re-filed after the

court grants a motion to dismiss
1. Cause of action is barred by prior judgment (Res judicata);

2. Bar by the statute of limitations (Prescription);
3. Claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished; and
4. Claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
• NOTE: The remedy would be to appeal the dismissal.

Res Judicata as a Ground for Motion to Dismiss
Concept of Res Judicata
Res Judicata comprehends two distinct concepts: (1) bar by a

former judgment; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment (Heirs of
Wenceslao Tabia v. CA, G.R. Nos. 129377 & 129399, 22
February 2007).
The first concept of res judicata bars the prosecution of a second

action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.
Concept of Res Judicata
The second concept – conclusiveness of judgment – states that a

fact of question which was in issue in a former suit and was there
judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far
as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are
concerned and cannot be litigated again in any future action
between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any
other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or
different causes of action, while the judgment remains unreversed
by proper authority.
Requisites of res judicata:
1. A final judgment or order;

2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties by the court
rendering it;
3. Judgment upon the merits;
4. Between the two cases: (a) There is identity of parties; or (2)
the actions are between those in privity with them, as between
their successors in interest by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and
under the same title and in the same capacity; or (3) where
there is substantial identity even if there are additional parties.
Litis Pendentia as a Ground for Motion to Dismiss
• As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis
pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that
one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious (Umale v.
Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167246, 20
July 2011).
• Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present:

(1) identity of the parties in the two actions; (2) substantial
identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the
parties; and (3) the identity between the two actions should be
such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other (Umale, supra.).
Bar Question 2011
What is the movant’s remedy if the trial court incorrectly denies

his motion to dismiss and related motion for reconsideration?
A. Answer the complaint.

B. File an administrative action for gross ignorance of the law
against the trial judge.
C. File a special civil action of certiorari on ground of grave
abuse of discretion.
D. Appeal the orders of denial.
Correct Answer: “C. File a special civil action of certiorari on

ground of grave abuse of discretion.”
Upon notice by plaintiff – before answer (Sec. 1)
Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint may be

dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time
before service of the answer or of a motion for summary
judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an
order confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the
notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice
operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a
plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action
based on or including the same claim. (Rule 17, Sec. 1)
Upon motion of plaintiff – after answer (Sec. 2)
Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided in

the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the
plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon such
terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim
has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of
the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to
the complaint.
Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this

paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be
dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.
(Rule 17, Sec. 2)
Due to fault of plaintiff (Sec. 3)
• Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable

cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation
of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his
action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with
these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own
motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.
This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon
the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (Rule 17,
Sec. 3)
Effect on counterclaim
If the dismissal is upon motion of plaintiff

The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action
unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he
manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the
same action. (Rule 17, Sec. 2)
If the dismissal is due to fault of plaintiff

This dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action (Rule 17, Sec. 3).
JUDGMENTS AND
FINAL ORDERS
Rendition of Judgment and
Preparation of Judgment
Rendition of Judgment Preparation of Judgment
The mere pronouncement of the A judgment or final order
judgment in open court does not determining the merits of the
constitute a rendition of case shall be in writing
judgment. It is the filing of the personally and directly
signed decision with the clerk of prepared by the judge,
court that constitute rendition. stating clearly and distinctly
(Ago v. CA, CR. No. L-17898, 31 the facts and the law on
October 1962) which it is based, signed by
him, and filed with the clerk
of the court. (Sec. 1, Rule
36, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
Judgment on the Pleadings and
Summary Judgment
Judgment On The Pleadings Summary Judgment
Where an answer fails to tender Summary judgment is a
an issue or admits material procedural technique to promptly
allegations in the adverse party's dispose of cases where the facts
pleading, the court may, on appear undisputed and certain
motion of that party, direct from the pleadings, depositions,
judgment on such pleading. (Sec. admissions and affidavits on
1, Rule 34, 1997 Rules of Civil record, for weeding out sham
Procedure) claims or defenses at an early
stage of the litigation. Summary
judgment must be premised on
the absence of any other triable
genuine issues of fact. (Monterey
Foods v. Esegose, G.R. No.
153126, September 11, 2006)
Spouses Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank
(Bohol), Inc. G.R. No. 202597, 8 February 2017, J.
Bersamin
Facts: The petitioners contend that their Motion for Summary

Judgment and Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance needed to be
first resolved before the pre-trial could proceed; and that the CA
erred in declaring that "it is only at the pre-trial that the rules allow
the courts to render judgment on the pleadings and summary
judgment, as provided by Section 2(g) of Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court.“
Issue: Whether the petitioners' contentions have merit.

Bersamin
Ruling: No. Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court permits a

party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim
or seeking declaratory relief to file the motion for a summary
judgment upon all or any part thereof in his favor (and its
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) "at any time after
the pleading in answer thereto has been served;" while Section 2 of
Rule 35 instructs that a party against whom a claim, counterclaim,
or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may file
the motion for summary judgment (and its supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions) upon all or any part thereof "at any
time."
Bersamin
Ruling: No. Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court permits a

party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim
or seeking declaratory relief to file the motion for a summary
judgment upon all or any part thereof in his favor (and its
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) "at any time after
the pleading in answer thereto has been served;" while Section 2 of
Rule 35 instructs that a party against whom a claim, counterclaim,
or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may file
the motion for summary judgment (and its supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions) upon all or any part thereof "at any
time."
Bersamin
As such, the petitioners properly filed their motion for summary

judgment prior to the pre-trial (assuming that they thereby complied
with the requirement of supporting affidavits, depositions or
admissions). x x x
To be clear, the rule only spells out that unless the motion
for such judgment has earlier been filed the pre-trial may be the
occasion in which the court considers the propriety of rendering
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
Bersamin
If no such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge may then
indicate to the proper party to initiate the rendition of such
judgment by filing the necessary motion. Indeed, such motion is
required by either Rule 34 (Judgment on the Pleadings) or Rule
35 (Summary Judgment) of the Rules of Court. The pre-trial judge
cannot motu proprio render the judgment on the pleadings or
summary judgment. In the case of the motion for summary
judgment, the adverse party is entitled to counter the motion.
Bersamin
Even so, the petitioners cannot validly insist that the CA

should have first resolved their Motion for Summary
Judgment before holding the pretrial. They could not use the
inaction on their motion to justify their nonappearance with their
counsel at the pre-trial, as well as their inability to file their pre-trial
brief. In that regard, their appearance at the pre-trial with their
counsel was mandatory.
Bar Question 2018
Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money
and damages against spouses Dake and Donna Demapilis for
unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of PhP
250,000. In their answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the
purchases from Daribell, but alleged that they could not
remember the exact amount since no copies of the documents
were attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claimed that
they made previous payments in the amounts of PhP 110,000
and PhP 20,000 and that they were willing to pay the balance of
their indebtedness after account verification. In a written
manifestation, spouses Demapilis stated that, in order to buy
peace, they were willing to pay the sum of PhP 250,000, but
without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed a
Motion for partial summary judgment.
Bar Question 2018
Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint, alleging
that the total purchases of construction materials were PhP
280,000 and only PhP 20,000 had been paid. Daribell also
served upon the spouses Demapilis a request for admission
asking them to admit the genuineness of the statement of
accounts, delivery receipts and invoices, as well as the value of
the principal obligation and the amount paid as stated in the
amended complaint.
Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The

amendment modified the period covered and confirmed the
partial payment of PhP110,000 but alleged that this payment
was applied to the spouses’ other existing obligations. Daribell
however reiterated that the principal amount remains
unchanged.
Suggested Answer:
Can the facts subject of an unanswered request for admission be
the basis of a summary judgment?
Yes. Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to

in order to avoid long drawn-out litigations, and useless delays.
Such judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily
by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the parties
(Spouses Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply, Inc.
G.R. No. 176570, 18 July 2012).
In this case, the facts subject of an unanswered request for

admission are deemed admissions by the adverse party (Rule 26,
Section 2, Rules of Court). Applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Spouses Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply, Inc.,
(G.R. No. 176570, 18 July 2012), these facts may be the basis of a
summary judgment.
Bar Question 2018
Spouses Dondon and Donna Dumdum owned a
residential lot in Dapitan City. Doy Dogan bought said lot and
took possession thereof with the promise to pay the purchase
price of PhP 2 million within a period of six (6) months. After
receiving only PhP 500,000, spouses Dumdum executed the
Deed of Absolute Sale and transferred the title to Doy Dogan.
The balance was not paid at all. Spouses Dumdum, through
counsel, sent a demand letter to Doy Dogan for him to pay the
balance of PhP 1.5 million plus interest of PhP150,000. Doy
Dogan responded in a letter by saying that “while the remaining
balance is admitted, the interest charged is excessive.”
Bar Question 2018
There being no payment, Spouses Dumdum filed a

complaint for reconveyance with damages against Doy Dogan in
the RTC of Dapitan City.
In his Answer, Doy Dogan raised, by way of affirmative

defense, that the purchase price had been fully paid and for this
reason the complaint should have been dismissed.
Bar Question 2018
Spouses Dumdum then filed a motion for judgment on

the pleadings which was granted by the RTC of Dapitan City.
The Court awarded PhP1.5 million actual damages representing
the balance of the purchase price, PhP200,000 as moral
damages, PhP 200,000 as exemplary damages, PhP 90,000
as interest, PhP 50,000 as attorney’s fees, and PhP 5,000 as
cost of suit.
Was it proper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the motion for
judgment on the pleadings?
Suggested Answer:
No. It was improper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the
motion for judgment of the pleadings.
Rule 34 of the Rules of Court states that a judgment on

the pleadings is proper where an answer failed to tender an
issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleading. In this case, Doy Dogan alleged that he paid
the purchase price in full, contrary to Spouses Dumdum’s
allegation that Doy Dogan did not pay the balance of Php1.5
Million. He tendered an issue in his answer as to whether or not
he has an outstanding unpaid balance with Spouses Dumdum.
The answer claims that the purchase price has been fully paid;
hence, a judgment on the pleadings was improper.
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION AND
EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
Execution
EXECUTION is a process provided by law for the enforcement of a
final and executory judgment. Enforcement is part of the court’s
jurisdiction.
It is a remedy afforded for the satisfaction of a judgment. Its object

being to obtain satisfaction of the judgment on which writ is issued
(Cagayan de Oro Coliseum v. CA, G.R. No. 129713, December 15,
1999).
It is the fruit and end of suit (Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, A.M. No. RTJ-99-
1445, June 21, 1999).
Against whom issued: Execution can only issue against a party and
not against one who never had his day in court (Green Arces
Holdings, Inc. v. Cabral, G.R. No. 175542, June 5, 2013).
Execution
• Writ of Execution
• A judicial writ issued to an officer authorizing him to enforce the
judgment of the court in accordance with Rule 39.
• General Rule for the Validity of A Writ of Execution:

1. It must conform strictly to the decision or judgment which
gives it life;
2. It must conform strictly to every essential particular of the
judgment promulgated, and may not vary the terms of the
judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the terms of
the judgment sought to be executed;
3. It must conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be
executed (De Leon v. Public Estates Authority G.R. No. 181970,
August 3, 2010).
Execution
Exceptions:
1. Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the
judgment, the delivery of the possession of the land should be
considered included in the decision, it appearing that the defeated
party’s claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of
ownership which was rejected (Id).
Reason: It is equally settled that possession is an essential attribute

of ownership.
Execution
Exceptions:
2. Where there is ambiguity in the dispositive portion, the body of the

opinion may be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment
because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from
the decision’s ratio decidendi (Mutual Security Ins. Corp. v. CA,
G.R. No. L-47018, September 11, 1987; The Insular Life
Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Toyota Bel-Air, Inc., G.R. No. 137884,
March 28, 2008); and
3. Where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the

issue is found in the body of the decision (Wilson Ong Ching Kian
Chung, et al. v. Chinese National Cereals Oil and Foodstuffs
Import and Export Corp., G.R. No. 131502, June 8, 2000).
Execution
When does a judgment become final and executory?

Judgments and orders become final and executory by operation of
law and not by judicial declaration. The trial court need not even
pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by
operation of law. Its finality becomes a fact when the reglementary
period for appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within such
period (Testate of Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan v. Biascan, G.R.
No. 138731, December 11, 2000; Vlason Enterprises v. CA, G.R.
Nos. 121662-664, July 6, 1999; See discussion under ROC, Rule 36,
Sec. 2).
Execution
When does a judgment become final and executory?
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot

be the source of any right not the creator of any obligation. All acts
performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no
legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of
execution based on it is void (Galicia v. Manliquez, G.R. No. 155785,
April 13, 2007).
Note: Only final judgments or orders that have become final and
executory can be the subject of execution, except when a
discretionary execution is granted. An interlocutory order may not be
the subject of execution (See Discussion on Difference between
Final Judgments or Orders and interlocutory orders under ROC, Rule
36).
Execution of Judgment
• Execution as a Matter of Right
Execution shall issue as a matter of right, or motion, upon a

judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon
the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has
been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the
execution may be applied for in the court of origin. The appellate
court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of
justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of
execution (Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court)
Execution of Judgment
• Discretionary Execution
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.
- On motion of the prevailing party

- Discretionary execution may only issue upon good
reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments.
(Section 2, Rule 39, Rules of Court)

Form And Contents Of A Writ Of Execution
The writ of execution shall:
1. Issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court
which granted the motion;
2. State the name of the court, the case number and title the
dispositive part of the subject judgment or order; and
3. Require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to
enforce the writ according to its terms.
Execution of Judgments for Money, How Enforced
• If award is for payment of money:
1. Immediate payment on demand;
2. Satisfaction by levy; or
3. Garnishment of debts and credits.
• The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, or certified bank check

payable to the judgment obligee or any other form of payment
acceptable to the obligee (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 9, par. (b)).
• Levy is an act by which an officer sets apart or appropriates a

part or the whole property of the judgment debtor for purposes
of the execution sale (Fiestan v. CA G.R. No. 81552, May 28,
1990).
Levy is a pre-requisite to the auction sale. In order that an execution
sale may be valid, there must be a previous valid levy. A sale not
preceded by a valid levy is void and the purchaser acquires no title
(Valenzuela v. De Aguilar, G.R. No. L-18083-84, May 31, 1963).
The sheriff can validly levy any property of the judgment obligor which
may be disposed for value but not exempt from execution. The
judgment obligor has the option to choose which property to levy
upon.
If he does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on the
personal properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the
personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 9, par.)
Levy by the sheriff may be done only if the judgment obligor cannot
pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or through
other modes acceptable to the prevailing party. If payment can be
done, a levy is unnecessary (Villarin v. Munasque, G.R. No. 169444,
September 17, 2008).
Real or personal property or any interest in either may be levied upon

in like manner and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.
Real Property: By filing with the Register of Deeds a copy of the
order together with the description of the property and a notice that it
is attached (ROC, RULE 57, Sec 7 par. (a))
Personal Property: If capable of manual delivery, by taking and

safely keeping it in the custody of the sheriff after issuing the
corresponding receipt therefore (ROC, RULE 57, Sec.7(b)).
Money judgments are enforceable only against property of
judgment debtor
For purposes of levy, a property is deemed to belong to the judgment
debtor if he holds a beneficial interest in such property that he can
sell or otherwise dispose of for value. Thus, a mortgaged property
may still be levied upon by the sheriff to satisfy the judgment debtor’s
obligations (Golden Sun Finance Corporation v. Albano, A.M. No.P-
11-2888, July 27, 2011).
Garnishment is an act of appropriation by the court when property of

debtor is in the hands of third persons.
It is a species of attachment for reaching any property or credits

pertaining or payable to a judgment debtor.
The sheriff may levy on debts due the judgment obligor and other
credits, including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties,
commissions and other personal property not capable of manual
delivery in the possession or control of third parties (ROC, RULE 39,
Sec. 9, par. (c)).
The garnishee or the 3rd person who is in possession of the property

of the judgment debtor is deemed a forced intervenor.
Procedure for Garnishment:

1. The sheriff will serve a notice upon the person owing such debts
(garnishee);
2. The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within five
(5) days stating whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient
funds;
3. The garnished amount shall be delivered directly to the judgment
obligee within ten (10) days from service of notice.
Attachment Garnishment
It refers to corporeal property in the It refers to money, stocks, credits and
possession of the judgment debtor. other incorporeal property which belong
to the judgment debtor but is in the
possession or under the control of a
third person.
Execution of Judgments for Specific Act
1. Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts, vesting
title;
When the party refuses to comply: The court can appoint some
other person at the expense of the disobedient party and the act done
shall have the same effect as if the required party performed it. The
court, by an order, may also divest title of any party in real or personal
property situated in the Philippines and vest it in others, which shall
have the same effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law.
2. Sale of real or personal property;

3. Delivery or restitution of real property (e.g. In ejectment

cases): The officer shall demand from the judgment obligor to
vacate peaceably within three (3) working days, and restore
possession of the property to the judgment obligee.
If the party refuses to vacate the property:

The remedy is NOT contempt because the writ of execution did not
direct the judgment debtor to do anything; instead it was directed to
the sheriff. The Sheriff must oust the party and if after dispossession,
the judgment debtor should execute acts of ownership or possession,
then and only then may he be punished for contempt (Pascua v. Heirs
of Segundo Simeon, G.R. No. L-47717, May 2, 1988).
A writ of execution directing the sheriff to cause the defendants to
vacate is in the nature of a habere facias possessionem and
authorizes the sheriff to break open the premises where there is no
occupant therein (Arcadio v. Ylagan, A.C. No. 2734, July 30, 1986).
Note: Habere Facias Possessionem – the name of the process

commonly resorted to by the successful party in an action of
ejectment, for the purpose of being placed by the sheriff in the actual
possession of the land recovered.
4. Removal of improvements on property subject of execution

There must be a special order (Writ of Demolition) issued:
a. Upon motion of the judgment obligee;
b. After due hearing; and
c. After the judgment obligor has failed to remove the
improvements within a reasonable time fixed by the court.
5. Delivery of personal property.
General Rule: The judgment debtor cannot be cited in contempt of

court. Generally, contempt is not a remedy to enforce a judgment.
Exceptions:
a. Refusal to perform a particular act or Special Judgments under
ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 11 where he may be cited in contempt; and
b. In case of the provisional remedy of support pendente lite under
ROC, RULE 61, the judgment debtor may still be cited for
contempt even if the decision is not a special judgment and
requires the latter to pay money.
Writ of Demolition And Writ of Possession
Writ of Possession
In the case of LZK Holdings v. Planters Development Bank (G.R.

No. 167998, 27 April 2007), a Writ of Possession is defined as a
writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the
possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and
give possession of it to the person entitled under the judgment. It
may be issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real
estate mortgage under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended by
Act No. 4118.
A writ of possession may be issued to the purchase in a

foreclosure sale either within the one-year redemption period
upon the filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption
period, without need of a bond.
• It is the trial court’s ministerial duty to grant a writ of possession.
No discretion is left to the trial court in its issuance.
• A writ of possession may also be issued after consolidation of

ownership of the property in the name of the purchaser. It is settled
that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of
the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of
one year after the registration of sale. The owner is entitled to the
possession of the property and can demand it at any time following
the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to
him of a new transfer certificate of title; where, in such case, the
bond that was mentioned earlier under Section 7 is no longer
necessary.
• In the case of Joven v. CA (G.R. No. 80739, 20 August 1992), it
was discussed that the RTC may issue as a matter of course in
cases of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage a writ of
possession in favor of the purchaser during the redemption
period, provided that the proper motion has been filed, a bond is
approved, and no third person is involved.
Writ of Demolition
• A writ of demolition is ancillary to the process of execution and is

logically also issued as a consequence to the writ of execution
earlier issued (Vargas v. Cajucom, G.R. No. 171095, 22 June
2015).
• It can be found on Section 10 (d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

which provides:
Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. —

When the property subject of the execution contains
improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or
his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said
improvements except upon special order of the court, issued
upon motion of the judgment obligee after the hearing and after
the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable
time fixed by the court
Writ of Demolition
• In the case of Guario v. Ragsac (A.M. No. P-08-2571, 27 August

2009), it was discussed by the Court Administrator that “if
demolition is necessary, there must be a hearing on the motion
filed and with due notices to the parties for the issuance of a
special order of demolition.” It explained that this requirement of a
special order of demolition is “based on rudiments of justice and
fair play.” The immediate demolition therefore of any property and
destroyed without an order of demolition will amount to grave
abuse of authority.
Execution of Special Judgments
Special Judgment is one which can only be complied with by the

judgment obligor because of his personal qualifications or
circumstances.
When judgment requires the performance of any act other than

judgment for money and judgments for specific act, a certified copy
of the judgment shall be attached to the writ.
The writ of execution shall be served upon the party required to obey
the same and such party may be punished for contempt if he
disobeys.
Note: A special judgment may be enforced by contempt if the

defendant refuses to comply with the judgment because the writ is
already directed to the judgment obligor.
Effect of Levy on Execution as to Third Persons
The levy on execution creates a lien in favor of the judgment obligee

over the right, title and interest of the judgment obligor in such
property at the time of the levy, subject to liens and encumbrances
then existing.
Property Exempt From Execution
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the following
property, and no other, shall be exempt from execution:
1. The judgment obligor’s Family home as provided by law, or

the homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used
in connection therewith;
2. Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his
trade, employment, or livelihood;
3. Three (3) horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other
beasts of burden, such as the judgment obligor may select
necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupation;
4. His necessary Clothing and articles for ordinary personal use,
excluding jewelry;
5. Household Furniture and utensils necessary for
housekeeping, and used for that purpose by the judgment
obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor may
select, of a value not exceeding 100,000 pesos;
6. Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for 4 months;
7. The professional Libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers,
physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors,
clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not exceeding
300,000 pesos in value;
8. One (1) fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total
value of 100,000 pesos owned by a fisherman and by the lawful
use of which he earns his livelihood;
9. So much of the Salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment
obligor for his personal services within the 4 months preceding
the levy as are necessary for the support of his family;
10.Lettered gravestones;
11.Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any
manner growing out of any life insurance;
12.The Right to receive legal support, or money or property
obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
Government;
13.Properties specially Exempted by law.
But no article or species of property mentioned in this section shall

be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its
price or upon a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
Return of the Writ of Execution
Upon the issuance of the writ of execution, the same must be enforced
within 30 days and returned to the court after the judgment has been
satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be enforced in full
within 30 days, the officer must make a report to the court every 30
days thereafter on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is
satisfied in full. The lifetime of such will correspond to the period within
which the judgment may be enforced by motion, that is, within 5 years
from entry thereof.
Notice of Sale of Property on Execution
Notice of requirement
A. If perishable property - By posting written notice of the time
and place of the sale in 3 public places, preferably in
conspicuous areas of the municipal or city hall, post office and
public market where the sale is to take place, for such time as
may be reasonable, considering the character and condition
of the property;
B. Other personal property - By posting similar notice in three
(3) public places abovementioned for not less than five (5)
days;
C. If real property - By posting for twenty (20) days in three (3)
public places particularly describing the property and stating
where the property is to be sold, and if the assessed value of
the property exceeds P50,000, by publishing a copy of the
notice once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in one (1)
newspaper selected by raffle (whether in English, Filipino, or
any major regional language published, edited and circulated
or, in the absence thereof, having general circulation in the
province or city).
NOTE: In all cases, a written notice of the sale shall be given to the judgment obligor,
at least three (3) days before the sale, except as provided in par (a) hereof where
notice shall be given at any time before the sale.
Proceedings Where Property Is Claimed By Third Person
Third party claim Third party complaint

As to involvement of the principal action
Filed by third-party claimant who is a
Filed by third-party plaintiff who is a
stranger to principal action where the
defendant in the principal action
writ was issued.
As the filing
Shall be filed or served to the sheriff Shall be filed with the clerk of court like
enforcing the writ. any other pleadings.
As to effect
The filing of the third party claim will The third-party defendant is made a
discharge the sheriff from the duty of party to the principal action.
keeping the property to serve the
purpose of the writ.
Remedies of a Third-party Claimant
1. Summary hearing before the court which authorized the execution;

2. Terceria or third party claim filed with the sheriff;
3. Action for damages on the bond posted by judgment creditors; or
4. Independent reivindicatory action.
The remedies are cumulative and may be resorted to by the third

party claimant independently of or separately from the
others (Spouses Sy v. Discaya, G.R. No. 86301, January 23, 1990).
Remedies of a Third-party Claimant
If the winning party files a bond, it is only then that the sheriff can take
the property in his possession. If there is no bond, the sale cannot
proceed.
Note: The officer shall not be liable for damages to any third-party
claimant if such bond is filed for the taking or keeping of the property.
However, the judgment obligee can claim damages against a third-

party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, and such
damages may be recovered by the judgment obligee in the same or
separate action.
Note: The timing of the filing of the third party claim is important
because the timing determines the remedies that a third party is
allowed to file. A third party claimant under Section 16 of Rule 39 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure may vindicate his claim to the
property in a separate action, because intervention is no longer
allowed as judgment has already been rendered. A third party
claimant under Section 14 of Rule 57 of the same Rules, on the other
hand, may vindicate his claim to the property by intervention because
he has a legal interest in the matter in litigation (Fort Bonifacio
Development Corp. v. Yllas Lending, Corp. G.R. No. 158997, October
6, 2008).
Difference between Terceria in Execution, Preliminary Attachment and Replevin
Rule 39, Section 16 Rule 57, Section 14 Rule 60, Section 7
When to file
At any time the sheriff is At any time the sheriff is Within 5 days after the
still in possession of the still in possession of the taking of the property by
property levied on property levied on the sheriff because the
execution. attachment. sheriff is bound to deliver
the property after such
period to the applicant.
Where Third Party Claimant may vindicate his claim to the property
In a separate action
because he may no longer In a separate action or in In a separate action or in
file a pleading-in- the same proceeding by the same proceeding by
intervention since filing a complaint-in- filing a complaint-in-
judgment has already been intervention. intervention.
rendered in the main case.
Penalty For Selling Without Notice, or Removing or
Defacing Notice
• The following are liable for actual and punitive damages:

1. An officer selling without the notice prescribed by Sec. 15;
and
2. A person willfully removing or defacing the notice posted, if
done before the sale, or before the satisfaction of judgment if
satisfied before the sale.
• Punitive damages: In the amount of Php5,000 pesos.
• Actual and punitive damages may be recovered by motion in

the same action.
No Sale if Judgment and Costs Paid
At any time before the sale of property on execution, the judgment

obligor may prevent the sale by paying the amount required by the
execution and the costs that have been incurred therein.
How Property Sold On Execution; Who May Direct
Manner And Order Of Sale
• All sales of property under execution must be made:
1. At public auction;
2. To the highest bidder;
3. To start at the exact time fixed in the notice.
• After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution,

no more shall be sold and any excess shall be promptly
delivered to the judgment obligor or his authorized
representative, unless otherwise directed by the judgment or
order of the court.
Distinctions between Ordinary Sale and Sale in
Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage
Sale in Judicial Foreclosure of
Ordinary Sale on Execution (Rule 39)
Mortgage (Rule 68)
As to confirmation of certificate of sale
Must be confirmed by the court in order
Need not be confirmed by the court. It is to divest the rights in the property of the
merely provisional. parties and to vest the rights in the
purchaser.
As to existence of right of redemption
There is no right of redemption only
Right of redemption exist when the
equity of redemption, except where the
subject matter of execution is real
mortgagee is a bank or a banking
property.
institution.
As to how title is acquired
Title acquired after the expiration of the Title acquired upon entry f the
redemption period when final deed of confirmation and registration of the
conveyance is executed. foreclosure sale.
Effect of Judgments or Final Orders
The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of

the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or
final order, may be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in

respect to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of
a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal
condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to
another, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the
thing, the will or administration or the condition, status or relationship
of the person, however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of
administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the
testator or intestate;
Effect of Judgments or Final Orders
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the
matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have
been missed in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and
their successors in interest, by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the
same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their

successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in
a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have
been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included
therein or necessary thereto.
Effect of Foreign Judgments or Final Orders
The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a
foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final
order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing,

the judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the thing,
and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the
judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by

evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Judgments not Stayed by Appeal
General Rule: Judgment is stayed by appeal.
Exceptions: Instances when judgment is immediately executory

1. Injunction
2. Receivership
3. Accounting
4. Support; and
5. Such Other judgments declared to be immediately executory
unless otherwise ordered by the trial court (e.g. A judgment in
forcible entry or unlawful detainer when favorable to the
plaintiff (ROC, RULE 70, Sec. 19).
Judgments not Stayed by Appeal
The judgment in action for support is immediately executory or

enforceable because support is immediately needed and its delay
may unduly prejudice the one in need of it.
The rule on immediate execution of judgment in an injunction case

does not apply to a judgment in an action for prohibition (Embroidery
& Apparel Control Board v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-20024, June 30,
1967).
Res Judicata
1. Res Judicata (Bar by Prior Judgment)
It is a rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent

jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties
and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a
subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or, causes of
action. (Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo, G.R. No. 178495, July 26,
2010).
Res Judicata
1. Res Judicata (Bar by Prior Judgment)
Requisites of res judicata or bar by prior judgment:

1. A final judgment or order;
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties by the court
rendering it;
3. Judgment upon the merits;
4. Between the two cases: (a) There is identity of parties; or (2) the
actions are between those in privity with them, as between their
successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement
of the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same
title and in the same capacity; or (3) where there is substantial
identity even if there are additional parties.
Res Judicata
2. Res Judicata by Conclusiveness of Judgment
Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or

necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a
competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on
the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and
cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies
whether or not the claims or demands, purposes, or subject
matters of the two suits are the same (Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo,
supra).
This is also known as estoppel by verdict or estoppel by record, or

collateral estoppel by judgment or preclusion of issue or rule of
auter action pendant. It covers paragraph (c) of Rule 47.
Res Judicata v. Law of the Case v. Stare Decisis
(Ayala Corporation v. Rosa-Diana Realty and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 134284, December 1, 2000)
Res Judicata Law of the Case

Operates only in the particular and
The ruling in one case is carried over to single case where the ruling arises and
another case between the same parties. is not carried into other cases as a
precedent.
Law of the Case Stare Decisis

The ruling adhered to in the particular
Once a point of law has been
case need not be followed as a precedent
established by the court, that point of
in subsequent litigation between other
law will, generally, be followed by the
parties, neither by the appellate court
same court and by all courts of lower
which made the decision followed on a
rank in subsequent cases where the
subsequent appeal in the same cases,
same legal issue is raised.
nor by any other court.
Principle of Immutability of
Final and Executory Judgments
General Rule: Once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes
immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is
perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by
the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land (Abalos v.
Philex Mining Corp. G.R. No. 140374, November 27, 2002.)
Exception: The court may modify or alter a judgment even after the
same has become executory whenever unjust and inequitable, as
where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such
modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become
final and executory (David v. CA, G.R. No. 115821, October 13,
1999) (See Other Exceptions Discussed in ROC, Rule 36)
Principle of Immutability of
Final and Executory Judgments
Reason: The fact that the decision has become final does not
preclude a modification or an alteration thereof because even with
the finality or judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or
unjust, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same with
justice and the facts (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation, supra).
PARTIES
Who May Be Parties
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law

may be parties in a civil action (Rule 3, Sec. 1).
• Natural Persons
A natural person is a human being, which is a product of
procreation (Jurado, Civil Law Reviewer, 21st ed., p. 62).
• Juridical Persons
A juridical person exists only in contemplation of law, and is a
product of legal fiction (Jurado, supra.).
• Entities authorized by law

One need not be or juridical person to be a party to a civil action.
As long as an entity is authorized by law to be a party, such
entity may sue or be sued or both. (examples: corporation by
estoppel under Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code; estate of a
deceased person)
Real Party in Interest
• Definition - A real party in interest is the party who stands to

be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit (Rule 3, Section 2).
• Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court,

every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest (Rule 3, Section 2).
Indispensable Parties
• Definition – An indispensable party is a real party-in-interest

without whom no final determination can be had of an action
(Rule 3, Sec. 7).
• Compulsory joinder of Indispensable Parties - The joinder

of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of
indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court
cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by
the judgment rendered by the court (Lucman v. Malawi, G.R.
No. 159794, 19 December 2006).
Necessary Party or Proper Party
• Definition – A necessary party is one who is not indispensable

but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be
accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action
(Rule 3, Sec. 8).
• Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded - Whenever

in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party
is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and
shall state why he is omitted (Rule 3, Sec. 9).
SUMMONS
Summons
• Definition and purpose
• Summons is the writ by which the defendant is notified of the

action brought against him.
• The issuance of summons is mandatory on the part of the
court.
• In an action in personam, the purpose of summons is not only
to notify the defendant of the action, but also to acquire
jurisdiction over his person.
• Service of summons is required even if the defendant is aware
of the filing of the action against him.
• In an action in rem or quasi in rem, the purpose of summons is
mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirements of due
process.
Summons
Issuance of alias summons
The clerk may issue an alias summons:

• on demand of the plaintiff,
• if the summons has been lost, or
• if the summons has been returned without being served (Sec.
5, Rule 14)
Modes of Service of Summons
Personal Service
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by

handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or by
tendering it to him, if he refuses to receive and sign for it.
(Sec. 6, Rule 14)
Extraterritorial Service
When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest,
actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists,
wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within
the Philippines, service may be effected out of the Philippines by
personal service or 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, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
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 by: (a) leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein; or (b) 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
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 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. (Sec. 14, Rule 14)
Entity without juridical personality
When persons associated in an entity without juridical
personality are sued under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known, service may be effected
• upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or
• upon the person in charge of the office or place of business
maintained in such name.
BUT such service shall not bind individually any person whose
connection with the entity has, upon due notice, been severed
before the action was brought. (Sec. 8, Rule 14)
Associations
Domestic
Service upon domestic private juridical entity—
Service may be made on
1. the president,
2. managing partner,
3. general manager,
4. corporate secretary,
5. treasurer, or
6. in-house counsel. (Sec. 11, Rule 14)
Foreign Juridical Entity (Rule 14, Sec. 12, as amended by
AM. No. 11-3-6-SC)
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which

has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be
made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law
for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of
its officers or agents within the Philippines.
Foreign Juridical Entity (Rule 14, Sec. 12, as amended by
A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC)
If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the

Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave of
court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the
following means:
a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in
the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of
Foreign Affairs;
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in
the country where the defendant may be
found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order
by-registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could
generate proof of service; or
d) By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Cause of Action
A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates the
right of another. (Rule 2, Section 2, Rules of Court)
Elements to determine existence of a cause of action:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under

whatever law it arises or is created;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or
not to violate such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of
the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation
of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain
an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief
(Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay, G.R. No. 191178, 13 March
2013).
Cause of Action
Cause of action v. Right of action
(L.G. Marquez v. Varela, G.R. No. L-4845, 24 December 1952)
Cause of action Right of action
A cause of action is a formal A right of action is a remedial right
statement of the operative facts belonging to some person.
that give rise to such remedial
right.
The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of action.

(Espanol vs. Chairman, Philippine Veterans Administration, 137 SCRA
314)
The elements of a right of action are: (a) the existence of a cause of

action; (b) the performance of all conditions precedent to the brining of
the action; and (c) the right to bring and maintain the action must be in
the person instituting it.
Cause of Action
A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or

omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary
rights of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or omission can be
violative of various rights at the same time, as when the act
constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct
legal obligations. However, where there is only one delict or
wrong, there is but a single cause of action regardless of
the number of rights that may have been violated belonging
to one person.
Cause of Action
The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the-

delict or wrong violating the rights of one person. Nevertheless, if
only one injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one
cause of action arises. x x x That vested in him a single cause of
action, albeit with the correlative rights of action against the
different respondents through the appropriate remedies allowed
by law.
(Joseph v. Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-41423, 23 February 1989)
Cause of Action: Splitting a Cause of Action
Splitting of causes of action

(Rule 2, Sections 3 and 4, Rules of Court)
Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing a

single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims
and instituting two or more actions upon them. (Perez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. No. 157616, 22 July 2005)
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the

same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the
others. (Section 4, Rule 2, Rules of Court)
Cause of action: Splitting a Cause of Action
CGR Corporation v. Treyes, Jr.
(G.R. No. 170916, 27 April 2007)
Facts: CGR Corp. claimed to have occupied a parcel of public land

even before the Sec. of Agriculture approved in its Favor a Fishpond
Lease Agreement in October 2000. On 18 November 2000, Treyes,
Jr. allegedly forcibly and unlawfully entered the leased properties and
once inside barricaded the entrance to the fishponds, set up a
barbed wire fence along the road going to petitioner’s fishponds, and
harvested several tons of milkfish, fry and fingerlings owned CGR
Corp.
CGR Corp. filed two (2) cases against Treyes, Jr.: (a) an
action for forcible entry with damages; and (b) an action for damages
arising from Treyes’ acts of harvesting and carting the milkfish, fry
and fingerlings owned by CGR Corp. found inside the property?
CGR Corporation v. Treyes, Jr.
(cont.)
Issue: Whether the CGR Corp. split its cause of action for
damages.
Ruling: No. The recoverable damages in forcible

entry and detainer cases refer to rents or the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the premises or fair
rental value of the property and attorney’s fees and costs. Other
damages must be claimed in an ordinary action. Thus, the filing
of an independent action for damages other than those
sustained as a result of their dispossession or those caused by
the loss of their use and occupation of their properties could not
thus be considered as splitting of a cause of action.
Progressive Development Corp., Inc. v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 123555, 22 January 1999
Facts: In a lease agreement, the lessor is authorized to do the

following in case of default by the lessee: (a) to take inventory
and possession of whatever equipment, furniture, articles,
merchandise, appliances, etc., found therein belonging to
lessee; and (b) to dispose of said property/properties in a public
sale through a Notary Public of lessor’s choice and to apply the
proceeds thereof to whatever liability and/or indebtedness lessee
may have to lessor plus reasonable expenses for the same,
including storage fees, and the balance, if any, shall be turned
over to lessee.
The lessee then filed two (2) complaints: (a) one for forcible
entry; and (b) for damages.
(cont.)
Issue: Whether the lessee split his cause of action
Ruling: Yes, the lessee split his cause of action in filing the two (2)
complaints. The forcible entry case has one cause of action,
namely, the alleged unlawful entry by petitioner into the leased
premises out of which three (3) reliefs (denominated by private
respondent as is causes of action) arose: (a) the restoration by the
lessor (petitioner herein) of the possession of the leased premises
to the lessee; (b) the claim for actual damages due to the losses
suffered by private respondent such as the deterioration of
perishable foodstuff stored inside the premises and the deprivation
of the use of the premises causing loss of expected profits; and,
(c) the claim for attorney's fees and cost of suit.
(cont.)
On the other hand, the complaint for damages prays for a

monetary award consisting of (a) moral damages of P500,000.00
and exemplary damages of another P500,000.00; (b) actual
damages of P20,000,000.00 and compensatory damages of
P1,000,000.00 representing unrealized profits; and, (c)
P200,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs, all based on the
alleged forcible takeover of the leased premises by petitioner.
Since actual and compensatory damages were already prayed
for in the forcible entry case before the MeTC, it is obvious that
this cannot be relitigated in the damage suit before the RTC by
reason of res judicata. (Progressive Development Corp., Inc.
v. Court of Appeals
Consequences of splitting a cause of action
If a suit is brought for a part of a claim, a judgment obtained

in that action precludes the plaintiff from bringing a second
action for the residue of the claim, notwithstanding that the
second form of action is not identical with the first or
different grounds for relief are set for the second suit. This
principle not only embraces what was actually determined, but
also extends to every matter which the parties might have
litigated in the case.
(Progressive Development Corp., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 123555, 22 January 1999)
Cause of Action: Joinder of Causes of Action
Definition
By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of

action is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of
action in one action, the statement of more than one cause of
action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes
of action, each of which could be made the basis of a separate
suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may
under certain circumstances join several distinct demands,
controversies or rights of action in one declaration, complaint or
petition. (Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, 13 August 2012)
Requisites for Joinder of Causes of Action:
1. The party joining the causes of action must comply with the
rules on joinder of parties;
Note: The following are elements for a joinder parties (Rule

3, Sec. 6):
a. A right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transaction; and
b. A common question of law or fact.
2. The joinder shall not include special civil action or actions

governed by special rules;
Totality Rule
“Totality rule" under Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129 states

that "where there are several claims or causes of action between
the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint,
the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all
the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action
arose out of the same or different transactions.
The computation of the jurisdictional amount excludes:

(a) interest; (b) damages of whatever kind; (c) litigation
expenses; and (c) costs. HOWEVER, if the main cause of action
is the recovery of damages, the amount of damages should not
be excluded in determining the jurisdictional amount. (Sante v.
Claravall, G.R 173915, February 22, 2010)
PRE-TRIAL
Pre-trial: Rule 18
Purpose of pre-trial:
• The possibility of amicable settlement or of a submission to

alternative modes of dispute resolution;
• The simplification of issues;
• The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
• The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts
and documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
• The limitation of the number of witnesses;
Pre-trial: Rule 18
Purpose of pre-trial:
• The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a

commissioner;
• The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or
summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid
ground therefor be found to exist;
• The advisability or necessity of the suspending the
proceedings; and
• Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the
cases. (Rule 18, Sec. 2)
Pre-trial: Rule 18
When pre-trial is conducted:
Pre-trial is mandatory in civil cases.
After the last pleading has been served and filed, the pre-trial
should already be conducted. It shall be the duty of the plaintiff
to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
(Rule 18, Sec. 1) The motion is to be filed within five (5) days
after the last pleading joining the issues has been served and
filed. (Administrative Circular No. 3-99,15 January 1999) The
“last pleading” need not to be literally construed as one having
been served and field. For purposes of pre-trial, the expiration of
the period for filing of the last pleading is sufficient. (Sarmiento v.
Juan, G.R. No. 56605, 28 January 1983)
Pre-trial: Rule 18
Requirements for appearance:
It shall be the duty of both parties and their counsels to

appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be
excused only if:
1. A valid cause is shown therefor; and
2. A representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in
writing to:
a. Enter into amicable settlement;
b. Submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution; and
c. Enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documents. (Sec. 4, Rule 18)
Pre-trial: Rule 18
Pre-trial Brief
The parties shall file with the court and serve on the
adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt
thereof at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial,
their respective pre-trial briefs.
Failure to file pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as

failure to appear at the pre-trial.
No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and

offered during the trial in support of party’s evidence–in-chief
other that those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked
during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause
shown. (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, 13 July 2004)
Pre-trial: Rule 18
Effect of failure to appear during pre-trial
Plaintiff’s failure to appear Defendant’s failure to appear
The failure of the plaintiff to A similar failure on the part of the

appear when so required pursuant defendant shall be cause to allow
to the next preceding section shall the plaintiff to present his
be cause for dismissal of the evidence ex parte and the court
action. The dismissal shall be to render judgment on the basis
with prejudice, unless otherwise thereof.
ordered by the court
The remedy for dismissal of the case with prejudice for plaintiff’s
failure to appear at the pre-trial conference is to file an ordinary
appeal, not a petition for certiorari because the order dismissing the
case is a final order. (Spouses Corpuz v. Citibank, G.R No. 175677,
31 July 2009)
VENUE
Venue : Rule 4
Venue v. Jurisdiction
Venue Jurisdiction
It is the place where the cause is It refers to the authority of the court to
instituted, heard or tried. hear and decide a case.
It may be waived. The waiver may be Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
express or implied, i.e., failure to conferred by law and cannot be waived.
object thereto whether through a
motion to dismiss or an answer raising
said affirmative defense.
It may be changed by the written It is fixed by law and cannot be the
agreement of the parties. subject of agreement of the parties.
It is not a ground for a motu proprio Lack of jurisdiction over the subject
dismissal, except in summary matter may be a ground for a motu
procedure. proprio dismissal.
Procedural (Rules of Court; agreement Substantive (Constitution; B.P. Blg. 129,
of the parties) as amended)
Venue : Rule 4
Venue of real actions

Where the action is real, the venue is local; hence, the
venue is the place where the real property involved, or any
portion thereof, is situated. (Rule 4, Sec.1)
Venue of personal actions

If the action is personal, the venue is transitory; hence, it
is the residence of the plaintiff or defendant at the option of the
plaintiff (Rule 4, Sec.2)
Venue : Rule 4
• Real action v. Personal action
Real action Personal action
In a real action, the plaintiff seeks In a personal action, the plaintiff

the recovery of real property, or, seeks the recovery of personal
as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule property, the enforcement of a
4, a real action is an action contract or the recovery of
affecting title to real property or for damages.
the recovery of possession, or for
partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of a mortgage on, real
property.
Venue: Rule 4
Venue of action affecting the personal status of plaintiff vis-
à-vis non-resident defendant – residence of plaintiff
• Where the defendant does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff, the action may be commenced and tried in the court
of the place where the plaintiff resides. (Rule 4, Sec.3)
Action affecting property of a non-resident defendant in the

Philippines – location of property
• Where the defendant does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action affects any property of said
defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be
commenced and tried where the property or any portion
thereof is situated or found. (Rule 4, Sec.3)
Venue: Rule 4
Applicability of Rule 4
The provisions of Rule 4 shall not apply when:

a. Where a specific rule or law provides otherwise;
b. Where parties have validly agreed in writing before filing of

the action on exclusive venue thereof
Venue: Rule 4
Applicability of Rule 4
The mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to

preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. It must be
shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of
qualifying or restrictive words, such as "exclusively" and
"waiving for this purpose any other venue, "shall only"
preceding the designation of venue, "to the exclusion of the
other courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation should
be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not
as limiting venue to the specified place. (Auction in Malinta, Inc.,
vs. Luyaben, G.R. No. 173979, 12 February 2007)
Bar Question 2018
Can the legal concept of “venue is jurisdictional” be validly raised

in applications for search warrants?
Suggested Answer:
No, the legal concept of venue being jurisdictional is not

applicable.
The Supreme Court in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals,
(G.R. No. 104879, 6 May 1994), states that an application for a
search warrant is a special criminal process, rather than a
criminal action; hence, the legal concept of venue being
jurisdictional is not applicable in the case at bar.
DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE
Demurrer to Evidence : Rule 33
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his

evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground
that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the right to present
evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of
dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the
right to present evidence. (Rule 33, Section 1)
Res judicata is an inappropriate ground for sustaining a

demurrer to evidence, even as it stands as a proper ground for a
motion to dismiss. A demurrer may be granted if, after the
presentation of plaintiff’s evidence, it appears upon the facts and
the law that the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. (Republic v.
Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246, 16 February 2007)
Demurrer to Evidence : Rule 33
Distinguished from demurrer in criminal case

Demurrer in Civil Action Demurrer in Criminal Actions
(Rule 33, Section 1) (Rule 119, Section 23)
Leave of court is NOT required Demurrer is filed with or without leave
before filing a demurrer of court.
If the demurrer is granted, the order The order of dismissal based on
of dismissal is appealable demurrer is NOT appealable because
of the constitutional policy against
double jeopardy.
If the demurrer is denied, the In a criminal case, the accused may
defendant may proceed to present adduce his evidence only if the
his evidence. demurrer is filed with leave of court.
He cannot present his evidence if he
filed the demurrer without leave of
court.
MODES OF DISCOVERY
Modes of Discovery : Rules 23 to 29
The different modes of discovery under the Rules of Court:

1. Depositions pending action (Rule 23)
2. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24)
3. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25)
4. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26)
5. Production or inspection of documents, or things (Rule 27)
6. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28)
DEPOSITION, definition.
• In a broad sense, it refers to any written statement verified by

oath.
• Technically –
A deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in

writing, under oath or affirmation, before a commissioner,
examiner or other judicial officer, in answer to interlocutory and
cross-interlocutory, and usually subscribed by the witnesses
(Ayala Land, Inc. v. Tagle et. al., G.R. No. 153667, 11 August
2005).
Classification of depositions:
1. Depositions pending action (Deposition de bene esse);

2. Depositions before action ;
3. Depositions pending appeal.
Use of Depositions (Rule 23, Section 4)
Person being deposed Uses of Deposition

Any person For the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the
testimony of deponent as a witness, EXCEPT, that the
testimony of any person may be used for any purpose
when, (1) witness is dead; (2) witness resides more
than 100 kilometers from the place of trial or hearing,
or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears that his
absence was procured by the party offering the
deposition; (3) that the witness is unable to attend or
testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment; (4) that the party offering the deposition
has been unable to procure the attendance of the
witness by subpoena; or (5) other exceptional
circumstances (upon application and notice)
Of a party, or an officer For any purpose
of a party to the case
Persons before whom depositions may be taken
(Rule 23, Sections 10 and 11)
If in the Philippines:
a. Judge;
b. Notary public;
c. Upon agreement of the parties in writing, any person
authorized to administer oaths, at any time or place.
If in a foreign country:
a. on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic
of the Philippines;
b. before such person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory; or
c. Upon agreement of the parties in writing, any person
authorized to administer oaths, at any time or place.
Persons before whom depositions may be taken
(Rule 23, Sections 10 and 11; cont.)
Commission Letters rogatory
An instrument issued by a court of An instrument sent in the name and
justice, or other competent tribunal, by the authority of a judge or court to
to authorize a person to take another, requesting the latter to
depositions, or do any other act by cause to be examined, upon
authority of such court or tribunal. interrogatories filed in a cause
pending before the former, a witness
who is within the jurisdiction of the
judge or court to whom such letters
are addressed.
Letters rogatory may be applied for
and issued only after a commission
has been "returned unexecuted."
(Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 108229, 24 August 1993)

Interrogatories to Parties (Rule 25)
When to avail: 1. Without leave of court after answer has been served,
for the first set of interrogatories.
2. With leave of court in the following circumstances: (a)
before answer has been served; and (b) for the second
set of interrogatories for the same adverse party.
Scope and use of The same scope and use as depositions (Rule 23, Section 4)
interrogatories
Effect of failure to Unless a party had been served with written interrogatories,
serve written he may not be compelled by the adverse party (a) to give
interrogatories testimony in open court; or (b) to give a deposition pending
appeal, EXCEPT when the court allows it for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
Effect of failure to A judgment by default may be rendered against a party who
answer written fails to answer written interrogatories. (Rule 29, Section 3(c))
interrogatories
Requests for Admission (Rule 26)
When to avail: At any time after the issues have been joined
(after the responsive pleading has been served).
What request may include: 1. Admission of the genuineness of any material
and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request; and
2. Admission of the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
Effect of failure to file and The party who fails or refuses to request the
serve request for admission of facts in question is prevented from
admission: thereafter presenting evidence thereon unless
otherwise allowed by the court.
Effect of failure to file and Each of the matters of which an admission is
serve answer to request: requested shall be deemed admitted.
Production and Inspection of Documents or Things (Rule 27)
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor,
the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in
the action and which are in his possession, custody or control, or
(b) order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other
property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting,
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
designated relevant object or operation thereon. The order shall
specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and
taking copies and photographs, and may prescribe such terms and
conditions as are just.
Physical and Mental Examination of Persons (Rule 28)
When to avail: In an action in which the mental or physical condition
of a party is in controversy
How to avail: File and serve to the party to be examined and to all
other parties a motion requesting for the grant of
physical or mental examination, showing good cause,
and stating the time, place, manner, conditions and
scope of the examination and the person or persons
by whom it is to be made.
Effect of request for By requesting and obtaining a report of the
result of physical or examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of
mental examination by the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege
the party examined he may have in that action or any other involving the
same controversy, regarding the testimony of every
other person who has examined or may thereafter
examine him in respect of the same mental or physical
examination.
Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery (Rule 29)
If a party refuses to answer any question, the following may

be the consequences:
1. The court, may, upon proper application, issue an order

to answer against the refusing deponent (Sec.1).
a. If granted and refusal to answer is without substantial
justification, court may require the refusing party to pay the
proponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in
obtaining the order, including attorney's fees.
If a party refuses to answer any question, the following may

be the consequences:
b. If denied and filed without substantial justification, court

may require the proponent to pay the refusing party the
amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the
order, including attorney's fees.
2. A refusal to answer after being directed by the court to do
so may be considered as contempt of court (Sec. 2)

If a person refuses to be sworn in as a witness, he may be cited
in contempt of court. (Section 2)
If a person refuses to answer designated questions or to
produce documents or to submit to physical or mental
examination (Sec. 3), the court may make the following orders:
1. Prohibit the disobedient party to introduce evidence of physical
or mental condition;
2. Refuse to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose
claims or defenses;
3. Strike out pleadings or parts thereof;
4. Stay further proceedings;
5. Dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof;
6. Render a judgment by default against disobedient party; and
7. Direct the arrest of any party or agent of a party disobeying any
of such orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental
examination.
If a person denies the genuineness of any document or
the truth of any matter of fact in a request for admission under
Rule 26, and the party requesting for admission proves said
document to be genuine or said fact to be true, the court may,
upon motion, order the party requested to admit, to pay the
expenses incurred in making such proof unless the court finds
that there were sufficient grounds for the denial.
If a person fails despite due notice to attend a schedule for

deposition-taking, or fails to file his answer to written
interrogatories, the court may:
1. Strike out all or any part of any pleading of disobedient party;
2. Dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof;
3. Enter a judgment by default against disobedient party; or
4. Order payment of reasonable expenses incurred by the other
including attorney's fees.
ACTIONS
Actions
An “action” is the legal and formal demand of one’s right

from another person made and insisted upon in a court of justice
(Hermanos v. de la Riva, G.R. No. L-19827, 6 April 1923).
A “civil action” is one by which a party sue another for the

enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
of a wrong (Rule 1, Section 3(a)).
Kinds of Actions
As to cause or foundation:
Real action v. Personal action
Real action Personal action
An action is “real” when it affects title to An action which is not founded upon
or possession of real property, or an the privity of real rights or real property.
interest therein. All other actions are
personal.
In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the Personal action is one brought for the
recovery of real property, or, as recovery of personal property, for the
indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a enforcement of some contract or
real action is an action affecting title to recovery of damages for its breach, or
real property or for the recovery of for the recovery of damages for the
possession, or for partition or commission of an injury to the person
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a or property (Go v. United Coconut Planters
mortgage on, real property. Bank, G.R. No. 156187, 11 November 2004).
Kinds of Actions
As to cause or foundation:
Real action v. Personal action
 The distinction between a real action and a personal action is
important for the purpose of determining the venue of the action.
Questions involving the propriety or impropriety of a particular
venue are resolved by initially determining the nature of the
action.
 A real action is local, i.e., its venue depends upon the location of
the property involved in the litigation.
 A personal action is transitory, i.e., its venue depends upon the

residence of the plaintiff or the defendant. A personal action may
be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant,
where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Kinds of Actions
As to cause or object:
In rem, in personam, quasi in rem
In rem In personam Quasi in rem
An action against the A proceeding to enforce An action quasi in rem is
thing itself instead of personal rights and one wherein an individual
against the person. obligations brought against is named as defendant
the person and is based on and the purpose of the
the jurisdiction of the proceeding is to subject
person, although it may his interest therein to the
involve his right to, or the obligation or lien
exercise of ownership of, burdening the property.
specific property, or seek to (Asiavest Limited v. Court
compel him to control or of Appeals, 296 SCRA
dispose of it in accordance 539).
with the mandate of the
court.
Kinds of Actions
In rem In personam Quasi in rem
A judgment in rem is The purpose of a Actions quasi in rem deal
binding upon the proceeding in personam is with the status, ownership
whole world, such as to impose through the or liability of a particular
a judgment in a land judgment of a court, some property but which are
registration case or responsibility or liability intended to operate on
probate of will. directly upon the person of these questions only as
the defendant (Domagas v. between the particular
Jensen, 448 SCRA 663). parties to the proceedings
and not to ascertain or
cut-off the rights or
interests of all possible
claimants (Domagas v.
Jensen, 448 SCRA 663).
Kinds of Actions
The distinction is important to determine whether or not
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required, and
consequently to determine the type of summons to be employed.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the

court to validly try and decide a case against said defendant where the
action is one in personam but not where the action in in rem or quasi in
rem.
Although summons is not required in actions in rem and quasi in

rem, nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for
the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely fore
satisfying the due process requirement.
Actions
Commencement of actions, pre-requisites:
1. Compliance with condition precedent
a. Katarungang Pambarangay Law - Under Sections 399-422,
Chapter 7, Title One, Book III, Republic Act No. 7160
otherwise known as the “Local Government Code of 1991,”
all disputes may be subject of barangay proceedings for
amicable settlement except:
• Where one party is the government or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof;
• Where one party is a public officer or employee; and the
disputes relates to the performance of his judicial functions;
• Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1)
year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
• Offenses where there is no private offended party;
Actions
(cont.)
• Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of
different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay
units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agrees to
submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
• Such other classes or disputes which the president may
determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
• Where the disputes involve real properties located in different
cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to
submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon; and
Actions
(cont.)
• Sec, 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules provide
for additional exception which is any complaint by or against
corporations, partnerships or juridical entities.
b. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper

unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition
that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made,
but that the same have failed. (Article 151, Family Code)
Actions
(cont.)
• Barangay conciliation is a condition precedent to the filing of
an action (Uy v. Contreras, G.R. No. 111416, 26 September
1994). While failure to comply with a condition precedent is
not jurisdictional, it may be a ground to dismiss under Rule
16, Section 1 (j) of the Rules of Court.
• Non-compliance with the condition precedent of barangay
conciliation does not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from
exercising its power of adjudication over a case where the
defendants fail to object to such exercise of jurisdiction. But such
objection should be seasonably made before the court first taking
cognizance of the complaint, and must be raised in the Answer, or
in such other pleading allowed under the Rules of Court. (Espino
v. Legarda, G.R. No. 149266, 17 March 2006; Sabay v. People of
the Philippines. (G.R. No. 192150, 1 October 2014).
Actions
(cont.)
Parties may go directly to court without need of prior

barangay conciliation under Section 412 of R.A. No. 7160 in
the following instances:
a. When the accused is under detention;

b. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal
liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;
c. Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as
preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal
property and support pendente lite; and
d. Where action may otherwise be barred by the statute of
limitations.
Actions

(cont.)
2. Payment of docket fees
• While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a

jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time
of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the
case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party
involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules
prescribing such payment. (Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v.
Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, 12 April 2005)
INTERVENTION
Intervention : Rule 19
Intervention, definition.
General rule: It is ancillary to a pending action.

Intervention is "an act or proceeding by which a third
person is permitted to become a party to an action or proceeding
between other persons, and which results merely in the addition
of a new party or parties to an original action, for the purpose of
hearing and determining at the same time all conflicting claims
which may be made to the subject matter in litigation. (Saw v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90580, 8 April 1991)
Intervention, definition.
Exception:
May proceed if pending action was dismissed without
intervenor’s consent
The joint motion of therein plaintiff and the original defendants to

dismiss the case, without notice to and consent of the
intervenor, has the effect of putting to rest only the respective
claims of the said original parties inter se but the same cannot in
any way affect the claim of private respondent which was
allowed by the court to intervene without opposition from the
original parties. x x x
Any settlement made by the plaintiff and the

defendant is necessarily ineffective unless the intervenor is
a party to it. x x x After the intervenor has appeared in the
action, the plaintiff has no absolute right to put the intervenor out
of court by the dismissal of the action. The parties to the
original suit have no power to waive or otherwise annul the
substantial rights of the intervenor. When an intervening
petition has been filed, a plaintiff may not dismiss the action in
any respect to the prejudice of the intervenor. (Metrobank v.
Presiding Judge, et al., G.R. No. 89909, 21 September 1990)
Who may intervene A person who :
a. has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or
b. in the success of either of the parties, or
c. an interest against both, or
d. is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof.
How to intervene File a motion to intervene with leave of court
When to intervene At any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court
What to file If allowed by the court to intervene, the intervenor shall file
a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim against
either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-
intervention if he unites with the defending party in
resisting a claim against the latter.
Answer to the The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed
pleading filed by within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting
intervenor the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
Exception as to when motion for intervention may be filed:
Allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention

rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of
the appropriate circumstances. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a
rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the
court fully and completely available for justice. Its purpose is not
to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration
of justice. Thus, interventions have been allowed even beyond
the prescribed period in the Rule in the higher interest of justice.
Exception as to when motion for intervention may be filed:
Interventions have been granted to afford

indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the
right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by
the trial court, when the petition for review of the judgment
was already submitted for decision before the Supreme
Court, and even where the assailed order has already
become final and executory. (Strategic Alliance v. Radstock
Securities, G.R. No. 1781458, 4 December 2009)
TRIAL
Trial : Rule 30
Order of Trial (Rule 30, Section 5)
Unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial
shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall
proceed as follows:
a. The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his

complaint;
b. The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of
his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party
complaints;
c. The third-party defendant if any, shall adduce evidence of
his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party
complaint;
d. The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce
evidence of the material facts pleaded by them;
Trial : Rule 30
Order of Trial (Rule 30, Section 5)
Unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall
be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall
proceed as follows:
e. The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim

has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their
defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court;
f. The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting
evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the
furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon
their original case; and
g. Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision, unless the court directs the parties to
argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further
pleadings.
Trial : Rule 30
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule

A witness has to be fully examined one (1) day only.
(Section I, Item 5(i), A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, 13 July 2004)
Most Important Witness Rule

The trial judge shall determine the most important
witnesses to be heard and limit the number of witnesses. The
facts to be proven by each witness and the approximate number
of hours per witness shall be fixed. (Section I, Item 5(j), A.M. No.
03-1-09-SC, 13 July 2004)
Trial : Rule 30
Scope This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents
requiring the reception of evidence before:
a. the MTC, MCTC, MTCC, MeTC, Shari'a Circuit Courts
except small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
b. RTCs and the Shari'a District Courts;
c. The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of
Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate Courts;
d. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the
Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the Integrated
Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
e. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of
procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme Court,
insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the
provisions of this Rule.
Trial : Rule 30
Purpose The judicial affidavit shall take the place of the witnesses’ direct
testimonies.
When to file File with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or
and serve by licensed courier service, not later than five (5) days before pre-
trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with
respect to motions and incidents.
Effect of non- A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on
compliance time shall be deemed to have waived their submission, except if the court
determines that there is a valid reason for the delay, the submission may
be admitted subject to payment of a penalty of not less than P 1,000.00
nor more than P 5,000.00 at the court’s discretion.
The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to
appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who
fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have
waived his client's right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses
there present.
Lara’s Gift v. PNB General Insurer, G.R. Nos.
230429-30, 24 January 2018
Facts: Lara’s Gifts and Decors Inc. (“Lara’s Gift”) insured
its products, materials, machineries and equipment against
fire and other allied risks with PNB General Insurers Co.,
Inc. (“PNB General”). However, before the expiration of its
policy, a fire broke out and razed the three buildings it was
occupying.
Lara’s Gifts’ insurance claims were denied by PNB

General. Thus it filed a Complaint for Specific Performance
and Damages against respondents with the Regional Trial
Court, Makati City.
Lara’s Gift v. PNB General Insurer (cont.)
During Pre-Trial Conference, the court warned the

parties that "no evidence shall be allowed to be presented
and offered during the trial in support of a party's evidence-
in-chief other than those that had been earlier identified and
pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the
Court for good cause shown." Parties interposed their
reservations.
Trial on the merits ensued. During cross-

examination of a witness for Lara’s Gift, it furnished PNB
General a copy of its 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit.
PNB General, sought to expunge from the records said 2nd
Supplemental Judicial Affidavit because it violated the
Judicial Affidavit Rule, and the Guidelines on Pre-trial.
Issue: Whether the Judicial Affidavit Rule and the

Guidelines on Pre-Trial proscribe the submission of
additional evidence after trial on the merits has
commenced.
Ruling: No, the Supreme Court held that there is no

prohibition.
It bears to note that Section 10 of the Judicial

Affidavit Rule does not contain a blanket prohibition on the
submission of additional evidence.
However, the submission of evidence beyond the mandated
period in the Judicial Affidavit Rule is strictly subject to the
conditions that:
a) the court may allow the late submission of

evidence only once;
b) the party presenting the evidence proffers a valid

reason for the delay; and
c) the opposing party will not be prejudiced thereby

Corollary thereto, the Guidelines on Pre-Trial instructs the

parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs at least
three (3) days before the Pre-Trial, containing, inter alia, the
documents or exhibits to be presented and to state the
purposes thereof, viz:
xxx xxx xxx
The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the

purpose thereof. No evidence shall be allowed to be
presented and offered during the trial in support of a party's
evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier
identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if
allowed by the court for good cause shown.
Following the Guidelines on Pre-Trial, the parties are bound

by the contents of the Pre-Trial Order. Records do not
disclose that the respondents endeavored to amend the
Pre-Trial Order to withdraw their assent to their reservation.
Consequently, they cannot now dispute the contents of the
Pre-Trial Order.
The foregoing reservation is tantamount to a waiver of the

application of Sections 2 and 10 of the Judicial Affidavit
Rule.
SUBPOENA
Subpoena : Rule 21
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to

attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at
any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or
for taking of his deposition (Rule 21, Sec. 1).
Subpoena : Rule 21
Kinds of subpoena:
• SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM - is a process directed to a

person requiring him to bring with him at the hearing or trial of
an action any books, documents, or other things under his
control.
• SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM – is a process directed to a

person requiring him to attend and testify at the hearing or the
trial of the action, or at any investigation conducted by the
competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition.
Subpoena : Rule 21
By whom issued: a. the court before whom the witness is required to attend;
b. the court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
c. the officer or body authorized by law to do so in
connection with investigations conducted by said officer or
body; or
d. any Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of
Appeals in any case or investigation pending within the
Philippines.
Service Service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as
personal or substituted service of summons.
Effect of appearance A person present in court before a judicial officer may be
in court required to testify as if he were in attendance upon a
subpoena is sued by such court or officer.
Effect of witness’ a. The court may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or
failure to appear his deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him before the court
or officer where his attendance is required.
b. The witness shall be deemed in contempt of the court from
which the subpoena is issued.
Subpoena : Rule 21
Subpoena under the Judicial Affidavit Rule
(Section 5, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
If the government employee or official, or the requested

witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a
hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant
books, documents, or other things under his control available for
copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the
requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a
subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena
to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his
deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shal1 be
understood to be ex parte.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
14 Cases covered by the

rule
Effect of failure to answer
Cases covered by
the rule Effect of failure to
answer
Cases Covered / When Applicable
A. In Civil Cases
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective
of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be
recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded, the same shall
not exceed twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
(2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the
total amount of the plaintiff's claim does not P100,000.00
(outside Metro Manila) or P200,000 (Metro Manila), exclusive of
interest and costs.
B. In Criminal Cases
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law
for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six
months, or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided,
however, that in offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable
fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
The courts which have jurisdiction over cases covered by the

Revised Rules on Summary Procedure are the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Determination of Applicability
Upon the filing of a civil or criminal action, the court shall issue
an order declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by
the Rules on Summary Procedure.
A patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of

the Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground for disciplinary
action.
Prohibited Pleadings and Motions
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or
information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or

for opening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or

any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against

any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; chanrobles

virtual law library
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints;
(l) Interventions.
Bar Question 2018
Danica obtained a personal loan of PhP 180,000 from
Dinggoy, payable in 18 equal monthly installments of PhP 10,000
until fully paid. In order to complete her payment at an earlier date,
Danica instead paid PhP 20,000 monthly, and continued doing so
until the 18th month, which payments Dinggoy all accepted. Later
on, she realized that she had overpaid Dinggoy by 100% as she
should have already completed payment in nine (9) months. She
demanded the return of the excess payment, but Dinggoy
completely ignored her. Thus, Danica availed of the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases by filing before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) a Statement of Claim, together with the required
documents.
•
Should the MTC proceed with the case under the: (i) Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure; (ii) the Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims; or (iii) the regular procedure for civil cases?
Suggested Answer:
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) should try the case under the
Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims (the “Revised Rules”).
As per the latest amendment of said rules (En Banc Resolution dated
10 July 2018 in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC), the MTC shall apply the
Revised Rules in all actions which are purely civil in nature where the
claim or relief prayed for is solely for payment or reimbursement of
sum of money not exceeding Php300,000.00,[1] exclusive of interest
and costs.
Having overpaid by one hundred percent (100%) of the
amount of the loan, Danica’s claim for reimbursement amounts to
One Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos (Php180,000.00), which is
within the threshold of the Revised Rules. Thus, the MTC should
proceed to hear the case under the Revised Rules.
RULES FOR SMALL
CLAIMS CASES
RULES FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES
1 Finality of judgment, 1
1
Prohibited pleadings and
motions, 1
1
Commencement of small
claims action, 1
2
Scope and applicability of
the rule, 2
The 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases, as amended
(A.M. No. 08-8-7-sc)
Scope – The Rules shall govern the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs),
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial
Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) for
payment of money where the value of the claim does not
exceed Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00)
exclusive of interest and costs for MeTCS and Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for MTCCs, MTCs
and MCTCs. (Section 2 as amended)
The 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases, as amended
(A.M. No. 08-8-7-sc)
Joinder of Claims – Plaintiff may join in a single

statement of claim one or more separate small claims against
a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive
of interest and costs, does not exceed Four Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) for MeTCS and Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for MTCCs, MTCs
and MCTCs. (Section 8 as amended)
Applicability (Section 5)
The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,

Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply
this Rule in all actions that are purely civil in nature where the
claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment
or reimbursement of sum of money.
The claim or demand may be:

(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
Applicability (Section 5)
(b) For liquidated damages arising from contracts;

(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an
arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule
pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as
The Local Government Code of 1991.
(a) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim/s;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any
other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any
interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply and rejoinder;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions
Where the Case Filed Falls under Summary or
Regular Procedure
If the case does not fall under the Rules for Small Claims
Cases, but falls under summary or regular procedure, the court
shall not dismiss the case. Instead, the case shall be re-docketed
under the appropriate procedure, and returned to the court where it
was assigned, subject to payment of any deficiency in the
applicable regular rate of filing fees. If a case is filed under the
regular or summary procedure, but actually falls under Rules for
Small Claims Cases, the case shall be referred to the Executive
Judge for appropriate assignment.
2015
REMEDIAL LAW BAR
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2015 Civil Procedure Bar Questions
Q1. Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a
promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another P100,000.00
loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower
obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on
his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his
payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the
P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the
totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00.
(a) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on
joinder of causes of action? (2%)
Q1, cont.
Suggested answer to Q1A:
Yes Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the rule on joinder
of causes of action. Under the rule on joinder of causes of action, a
party may in one pleading assert as many causes of action as he
may have against an opposing party. Under the totality rule, where
the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction. Here the causes of action by Lender are all against
borrower and all the claims are principally for recovery of money.
Hence the aggregate amount claimed, which is P500,000 shall be
the test of jurisdiction and thus it is the RTC of Manila which has
jurisdiction. Although the rules on joinder of causes of action state
that the joinder shall not include special civil actions, the remedy
resorted to with respect to the third loan was not foreclosure but
collection. Hence joinder of causes of action would still be proper.
Q1, cont.
At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender,
successfully elicited an admission from the latter that the two
promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer
filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven
only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which
claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of
the proceedings.
(b) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)
Q1, cont.
Suggested answer for Q1b:
No, the court should not dismiss the case. The Supreme Court
has held that subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the
amount of the claim alleged in the complaint and not the amount
substantiated during the trial. (Dionisio v Sioson Puerto, 31
October 1974) Here the amount claimed was P500,000. Even if
the claim substantiated during the trial was only P300,000 that is
not determinative of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hence the
argument that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at
any time is misplaced since in the first place the RTC has
jurisdiction.
Q2.
Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the foreclosure of real
estate mortgage against siblings Scylla and Charybdis, co-owners
of the property and cosignatories to the mortgage deed. The
siblings permanently reside in Athens, Greece. Circe tipped off
Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan trip and is billeted at the
Century Plaza Hotel in Pasay City. Sheriff Pluto went to the hotel
and personally served Scylla the summons, but the latter refused to
receive summons for Charybdis as she was not authorized to do
so.
Q2, cont.
Sheriff Pluto requested Scylla for the email address and fax
number of Charybdis which the latter readily gave. Sheriff Pluto, in
his return of the summons, stated that "Summons for Scylla was
served personally as shown by her signature on the receiving copy
of the summons. Summons on Charybdis was served pursuant to
the amendment of Rule 14 by facsimile transmittal of the summons
and complaint on defendant's fax number as evidenced by
transmission verification report automatically generated by the fax
machine indicating that it was received by the fax number to which
it was sent on the date and time indicated therein."
Q2, cont.
Circe, sixty (60) days after her receipt of Sheriff Pluto's return,
filed a Motion to Declare Charybdis in default as Charybdis did
not file any responsive pleading.
(a) Should the court declare Charybdis in default? (2%)

Q2, cont.
Suggested answer to Q2a:
No, the court should not declare Charybdis in default. Under the
Rules of Court, the amendment of Rule 14 allowing service of
summons by facsimile transmittal refers only to service of
summons upon a foreign private juridical entity under Section 12
of Rule 14, not to a non-resident defendant under Section 15 of
Rule 14. Service of summons by facsimile cannot be effected
under Section 15 unless leave of court was obtained specifically
permitting service by facsimile transmittal. Here the defendant is
not a foreign private juridical entity but a non resident defendant
and no leave of court was obtained to serve summons by
facsimile. Hence there was no valid service of summons and
thus the court could not declare Charybdis in default.
Q2, cont.
Scylla seasonably filed her answer setting forth therein as a

defense that Charybdis had paid the mortgage debt.
(b) On the premise that Charybdis was properly declared in

default, what is the effect of Scylla's answer to the complaint?
(2%)
Q2, cont.
Suggested answer to Q2b:
The effect of Scylla’s answer to the complaint is that the court
shall try the case against both Scylla and Charybdis upon the
answer filed by Scylla. Under Section 3(c) of Rule 9, when a
pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action
against several defending parties, some of whom answer and
the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all
upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the
evidence presented. Here there was a common cause of action
against Scylla and Charybdis since both were co-signatories to
the mortgage deed. Hence the court should not render judgment
by default against Charybdis but should proceed to try the case
upon the answer filed and the evidence presented by Scylla.
Q3.
Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against

Women and their Children filed with the RTC designated as a
Family Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary Protection
Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo. The Family Court
issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo. A day before the expiration
of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his
opposition raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No.
9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law authorizing the
issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and due process
clauses of the 1987 Constitution.
Q3, cont.
The Family Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of the
TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The
Family Court judge reasoned that Family Courts are without
jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special
court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the
Family Courts, does not provide for such jurisdiction. Is the Family
Court judge correct when he declined to resolve the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262? (3%)
Q3, cont.
Suggested answer:
No, the Family Court judge was not correct when he declined to
resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Supreme
Court has held that despite its designation as a Family Court, a
Regional Trial Court remains possessed of authority as a court of
general jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a
statute. (Garcia v. Drilon, 25 June 2013)
Q4. Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of

title. Wagner moved to dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to
whom he mortgaged the property as duly annotated in the TCT,
was not impleaded as defendant.
(a) Should the complaint be dismissed? (3%)
(b) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being
impleaded as a party to the case, what is his remedy to
protect his interest? (2%)
Q4, cont.
No, the complaint should not be dismissed. The Supreme Court

has held that non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a
ground of a motion to dismiss. (Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508).
Here although Grieg, the registered mortgagee, is an
indispensable party (Metrobank v. Alejo, 364 SCRA 813 [2001]),
his non-joinder does not warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
Q4, cont.
The remedy of Grieg is to file a motion for leave to intervene.

Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation may intervene in the action. Here Grieg is a mortgagee
and such fact was annotated in the title. Hence he has a legal
interest in the title subject-matter of the litigation and may thus
intervene in the case.
Q5.
A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area

since it was a major watershed. The protected area covered a
portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a portion
located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of
Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people's
organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in
the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was
bulldozed and leveled to the ground, and several trees and plants
were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure Resorts,
Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course.
Q5, cont.
Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a permit for
the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional
Director (RD-DENR-EMB). Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a
petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus against
RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a
designated environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB
negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. On scrutiny of the petition,
the court determined that the area where the alleged actionable
neglect or omission subject of the petition took place in the City of
Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province
II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
Q5, cont.
(a) Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the

petition? (3%)
Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-
DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to dismiss the petition on
the ground that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance of the
ECC and to exhaust administrative remedies provided in the
DENR Rules and Regulations.
(b) Should the court dismiss the petition? (3%)

Q5, cont.
No, the court was not correct in motu proprio dismissing the
petition for lack of jurisdiction. In a case involving similar facts,
the Supreme Court held that the requirement that the petition be
filed in the area where the actionable neglect or omission took
place relates to venue and not to subject-matter
jurisdiction. Since what is involved is improper venue and not
subject-matter jurisdiction, it was wrong for the court to dismiss
outright the petition since venue may be waived. (Dolot v. Paje,
27 August 2013).
Q5, cont.
No, the court should not dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court
has held that in environmental cases, the defense of failure to
exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the ECC issuance
would apply only if the defect in the issuance of the ECC does
not have any causal relation to the environmental damage. Here
the issuance of the ECC has a direct causal relation to the
environmental damage since it permitted the bulldozing of a
portion of the mountain and the cutting down and buring of
several trees and plants. (See Paje v. Casiño, 3 February 2015)
Q6.
Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 million based on the

latter's promissory note. The complaint alleges, among others:
(1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as evidenced by
a duly executed promissory note;
Q6., cont.
(2) The promissory note reads:
"Makati, Philippines
Dec. 30, 2014
For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises to pay

plaintiff P1 million, twelve (12) months from the above
indicated date without necessity of demand.
Signed
Defendant"
A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex "A."

Q6, cont.
Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among others: (1)
Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 1 and
2 of the complaint, the truth being defendant did not execute any
promissory note in favor of plaintiff, or 2) Defendant has paid the
P1 million claimed in the promissory note (Annex "A" of the
Complaint) as evidenced by an "Acknowledgment Receipt" duly
executed by plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his
spouse signing as witness. A copy of the "Acknowledgment
Receipt" is attached as Annex "1" hereof.
Q6, cont.
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground
that defendant's answer failed to tender an issue as the allegations
therein on his defenses are sham for being inconsistent; hence, no
defense at all. Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer
tendered an issue.
(a) Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (3%)
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that

there are no longer any triable genuine issues of facts.
(b) Should the court grant defendant's motion for summary

judgment? (3%)
Q6, cont.
No, judgment on the pleadings is not proper. Under Section 2 of

Rule 8, a party may set forth two or more statements of a
defense alternatively or hypothetically. The Supreme Court has
held that inconsistent defenses may be pleaded alternatively or
hypothetically provided that each defense is consistent with
itself. (Baclayon v. Court of Appeals, 26 February 1990). Hence
Plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s answer failed to tender an
issue as his defenses are sham for being inconsistent is without
merit.
Q6, cont.
Yes, the court should grant Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. Under Section 2 of Rule 35, a defendant may at any
time, move with supporting admissions for a summary judgment
in his favor. Here the Plaintiff had impliedly admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the acknowledgment receipt,
which was the basis of Defendant’s defense, by failing to
specifically deny it under oath. Hence the Defendant may move
for a summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had admitted
that Defendant had already paid the P1 million obligation.
Q7.
Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a parcel of

land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00 down payment upon
signing and the balance payable in twelve (12) monthly
installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin paid the down payment and
had paid three (3) monthly installments when he found out that
Neil had sold the same property to Yuri for P1.5 million paid in
cash. Aldrin sued Neil for specific performance with damages
with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court, filed an answer-in-
intervention as he had already obtained a TCT in his name.
Q7, cont.
After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering Aldrin to pay all
the installments due, the cancellation of Yuri's title, and Neil to
execute a deed of sale in favor of Aldrin. When the judgment
became final and executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the installments
but the latter refused to execute the deed of sale in favor of the
former. Aldrin filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Execution" with proper notice of hearing. The petition alleged,
among others, that the decision had become final and executory
and he is entitled to the issuance of the writ of execution as a
matter of right. Neil filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
ground that it lacked the required certification against forum
shopping.
Q7, cont.
(a) Should the court grant Neil's Motion to Dismiss? (3%)
Despite the issuance of the writ of execution directing Neil to

execute the deed of sale in favor of Aldrin, the former obstinately
refused to execute the deed.
(b) What is Aldrin's remedy? (2%)

Q7, cont.
No, the court should not grant Neil’s Motion to Dismiss. Under
Section 5 of Rule 7, a certification against forum shopping is
required only for initiatory pleadings or petitions. Here the
“Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution,” although
erroneously denominated as a petition is actually a motion for
issuance of a writ of execution under Rule 39. Hence the motion
to dismiss on the ground of lack of a certification against forum
shopping should be denied.
Q7, cont.
Aldrin’s remedy is to file a motion for judgment for specific act

under Section 10(a) of Rule 39. Under Section 10(a) of Rule 39,
if a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land
and the party fails to comply, the court may direct the act to be
done at the disobedient party’s cost by some other person
appointed by the court or the court may by an order divest the
title of the party and vest it in the movant or other person.
Q8. The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder
the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and
accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the
Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the
treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate
with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately,
the governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari
against the Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of
discretion in excluding the treasurer from the Information. Will the
writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to include the
treasurer in the Information? (3%)
Q8, cont.
Suggested answer:
No, the writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman
to include the Treasurer in the information. The Supreme Court
has held that mandamus will lie only if the exclusion of a person
from the information was arbitrary. Here the exclusion was not
arbitrary but based on Sec. 17 of RA 6770 which empowers the
Ombudsman to grant immunity to witnesses.
Q9. Water Builders, a construction company based in Makati City,
entered into a construction agreement with Super Powers, Inc.,
an energy company based in Manila, for the construction of a
mini hydro electric plant. Water Builders failed to complete the
project within the stipulated duration. Super Powers cancelled the
contract. Water Builders filed a request for arbitration with the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). After due
proceedings, CIAC rendered judgment in favor of Super Powers,
Inc. ordering Water Builders to pay the former P 10 million, the
full amount of the down payment paid, and P2 million by way of
liquidated damages.
Dissatisfied with the CIAC's judgment, Water Builders, pursuant
to the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR Rules) filed with the RTC of Pasay City a petition to vacate
the arbitral award. Super Powers, Inc., in its opposition, moved to
dismiss the petition, invoking the ADR Rules, on the ground of
improper venue as neither of the parties were doing business in
Pasay City. Should Water Builders' petition be dismissed? (3%)
Q9, cont.
Suggested answer:
Yes, Water Builders’ petition should be dismissed. Under Rule

11.3 of the Special ADR Rules, the petition for vacation of a
domestic arbitral award may be filed with the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction over the place in which one of the
parties is doing business, where any of the parties reside or
where arbitration proceedings were conducted. Here neither of
the parties were doing business in Pasay City nor was there a
showing that arbitration proceedings were conducted in Pasay
City.
Acknowledgment:
The suggested answers to the 2015 Remedial Law

Bar Exam questions are by Prof. Manuel R. Riguera.
(source:http://www.juristbar.com.ph/index.php/news/
192-suggested-answers-to-the-2015-remedial-law-
bar-examination)
2016
REMEDIAL LAW BAR
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q1. State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts
(RTCs). (5%)
Suggested answer:
• RTCs shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over the

following civil cases:
• In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation;
• 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 P20,000.00 or, for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds P50,000.00, except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings;
Q1, cont.
• In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the

demand or claim exceeds P300,000.00 or, in Metro Manila, where
such demand or claim exceeds P400,000.00;
• In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations;
• In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
Q1, cont.
• In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the

exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court and the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law;
and
• 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
P300,000.00 or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the
demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items, exceeds
P400,000.00. (Sec. 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691)
Q2. Briefly explain the procedure on “Interrogatories to Parties”

under Rule 25 and state the effect of failure to serve written
interrogatories. (2.5%)
Suggested answer:
“Interrogatories to Parties” under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court is

a mode of discovery which may be availed by any party desiring
to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse party.
Unless a party had been served with written interrogatories, he
may not be compelled by the adverse party (a) to give testimony
in open court; or (b) to give a deposition pending appeal,
EXCEPT when the court allows it for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice.
Q3. Briefly explain the procedure on “Admission by Adverse Party”
under Rule 26 and the effect of failure to file and serve the request.
(2.5%)
Suggested answer:
An “Admission by Adverse Party” under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court

is a mode of discovery wherein a party files and serves to any other
party a written request for: (i) the admission by the latter of the
genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request; or (ii) the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. This mode of
discovery may be availed of by a party at any time after issues have
been joined. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the
request unless copies have already been furnished. (Rule 26, Sec. 1,
Rules of Court)
Q3. What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (5%)
Suggested answer:
• Under the Section 3 of Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 12-8-8-

SC or the “Judicial Affidavit Rule,” a judicial affidavit contains
the following:
• The name, age, residence or business address, and

occupation of the witness;
Q3. What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (5%)
Suggested answer:
• The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or

supervises the examination of the witness and the place where
the examination is being held;
• A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked

of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he
may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
Q3, cont.
• Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding

answers, consecutively numbered that:
• Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired
the facts upon which he testifies;
• Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues
that the case presents; and
Q3, cont.
• Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and

establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of
Court;
• The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
• A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers

the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to administer the
same.
Q4. Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a complaint for the
annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed in favor
of Galaxy Bank (Galaxy), and the consequent foreclosure and
auction sale of his mortgaged Makati property. Galaxy filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue alleging that
the complaint should be filed with the RTC of Makati since the
complaint involves the ownership and possession of Eduardo’s
lot. Resolve the motion with reasons. (5%)
Q4, cont.
Suggested answer:
The motion should be DENIED. The instant complaint is

primarily an action to compel Galaxy to release the mortgage
instituted on Eduardo’s lot and not an action that involves the
ownership and possession thereof. (Orbeta v. Orbeta, G.R. No.
166837, 27 November 2006; Chua v. TOPROS, Inc., G.R. No.
152808, 30 September 2005)
Q4, cont.
Suggested answer:
An action for the annulment of a real estate mortgage is a

personal action, which may be commenced and tried where the
defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or
where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides or may be
found, at the election of plaintiff. (Rule 4, Sec. 2, Rules of Court;
Chua v. TOPROS, Inc., G.R. No. 152808, 30 September 2005)
Therefore, Eduardo correctly filed the instant complaint in the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, which is the city where he resides
in.
Q5. What is the “most important witness” rule pursuant to the

2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
Measures? Explain. (2.5%)
Suggested answer:
Under Section (I)(A)(5)(j) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC or the “2004

Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
Measures,” in civil cases where no amicable settlement was
reached by the parties, the trial judge is directed to determine
the most important witnesses to be heard and limit the number of
witnesses during the pre-trial proceedings. The facts to be
proven by each witness and the approximate number of hours
per witness shall be fixed.
Q5. What is the “one-day examination of witness” rule pursuant

to the said 2004 Guidelines? Explain. (2.5%)
Suggested answer:
Under Section (I)(A)(5)(i) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC or the “2004

Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
Measures,” a witness presented by a party in civil cases has to
be fully examined in one day only, subject to the court’s
discretion during trial on whether to extend the direct and/or
cross-examination for justifiable reasons.
Q6. Pedro and Juan are residents of Barangay Ifurug,

Municipality of Dupac, Mountain Province. Pedro owes Juan the
amount of P50,000.00. Due to non-payment, Juan brought his
complaint to the Council of Elders of said barangay which
implements the bodong justice system. Both appeared before
the council where they verbally agreed that Pedro will pay in
installments on specific due dates. Pedro reneged on his
promise. Juan filed a complaint for sum of money before the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the case did
not pass through the barangay conciliation under R.A. No. 7160
and that the RTC, not the MTC has jurisdiction. In his opposition,
Juan argued that the intervention of the Council of Elders is
substantial compliance with the requirement of R.A. No. 7160
and the claim of P50,000.00 is clearly within the jurisdiction of
the MTC. As MTC judge, rule on the motion and explain. (5%)
Q6, cont.
Suggested answer:
The motion is denied.
The confrontation between Pedro and Juan before the Council of

Elders of their barangay is sufficient compliance with the
precondition for filing the case in court under Section 412 of R.A.
No. 7160. (Zamora v. Heirs of Izquierdo, G.R. No. 146195, 18
November 2004)
Q6, cont.
Suggested answer:
Moreover, Pedro is incorrect in alleging that the RTC, not the

MTC, has jurisdiction over Juan’s claim. Considering that the
claim is only for Php50,000.00, the case is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MTC under B.P. Blg. 129 and may proceed
pursuant to A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the “Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases.” Notably, a motion to dismiss is among the
prohibited pleadings under Section 14(a) of said rules.
Q8. Spouses Marlon and Edith have three (3) children ages 15,
12, and 7, who are studying at public schools. They have a
combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00 and they stay in
an apartment in Manila with a monthly rent of P5,000.00. The
monthly minimum wage per employee in Metro Manila does not
exceed P13,000.00. They do not own any real property. The
spouses want to collect a loan of P25,000.00 from Jojo but do
not have the money to pay the filing fees.
(a) Would the spouses qualify as indigent litigants under Section

19, Rule 141 on Legal Fees? (2.5%)
Q8, cont.
Suggested answer to Q8(a):
Spouses Marlon and Edith are not qualified as indigent clients

under Section 19, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
because their combined gross monthly income exceeds the
amount double the monthly minimum wage of Php13,000.00 for
employees in Metro Manila.
Q8, cont.
Under the Rules of Court, indigent litigants shall be exempt from

the payment of legal fees upon the concurrence of two (2)
conditions, namely: (a) their gross income and that of their
immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly
minimum wage of an employee; and (b) they do not own real
property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than P300,000.00. (Section 19, Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC and
A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC)
Q8, cont.
(b) If the spouses do not qualify under Rule 141, what other
remedy can they avail of under the rules to exempt them from
paying the filing fees? (2.5%)
Suggested answer to Q8(b):
The spouses may be authorized to litigate as indigents if the

court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that
they do not have money or property sufficient and available for
food, shelter, and basic necessities for themselves and their
family. (Rule 3, Sec. 21, Rules of Court; Re: Query of Mr. Roger
Prioreschi, A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC, 19 August 2009)
Q9. Juan sued Roberto for specific performance. Roberto knew

that Juan was going to file the case so he went out of town and
temporarily stayed in another city to avoid service of summons.
Juan engaged the services of Sheriff Matinik to serve the
summons but when the latter went to the residence of Roberto,
he was told by the caretaker thereof that his employer no longer
resides at the house. The caretaker is a high school graduate
and is the godson of Roberto.
Believing the caretaker’s story to be true, Sheriff Matinik left a

copy of the summons and complaint with the caretaker. Was
there a valid substituted service of summons? Discuss the
requirements for a valid service of summons. (5%)
Q9, cont.
Suggested answer:
The substituted service of summons in this case is INVALID.

Sheriff Matinik failed to comply with the following requirements for a
valid substituted service:
a. Impossibility of prompt personal service—that is, the sheriff
failed to personally serve the summons on defendant on at least
three tries, preferably on at least two different dates, and within one
month from the issuance of summons;
Q9, cont.
Suggested answer:
b. The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal
service. The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons
behind the failure must be clearly narrated; and
c. If the substituted service will be effected at the defendant’s
residence, it should be left with a person of suitable age and
discretion residing therein—that is, one who has attained the age of
full legal capacity and is considered to have enough discernment to
understand the importance of a summons. (Manotoc v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 130974, 16 August 2006)
Q9, cont.
In this case, Sheriff Matinik did not exert reasonable efforts to

locate Roberto, and instead immediately resorted to substituted
service on his first attempt of serving the summons. Moreover,
while the caretaker is a high school graduate, it was not
established that he has attained the age of full legal capacity as
required in the Manotoc case.
Q10A. Is the buyer in the auction sale arising from an extrajudicial

foreclosure entitled to a writ of possession even before the
expiration of the redemption period? If so, what is the action to be
taken? (1%)
Suggested answer:
YES. The buyer may petition the Regional Trial Court of the
province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated,
to give him possession thereof during the redemption period. The
buyer must furnish a bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the
property for a period of twelve (12) months, to indemnify the debtor
in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the
mortgage or without complying with the requirements of Act No.
3135. (Sec. 7, Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118)
Q10B. After the period of redemption has lapsed and the title to the
lot is consolidated in the name of the auction buyer, is he entitled to
the writ of possession as a matter of right? If so, what is the action
to be taken? (2%)
Suggested answer:
YES. After the consolidation of title in the buyer’s name for failure of
the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter
of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is
merely a ministerial function. The writ of possession issues as a
matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the
approval of the corresponding bond. (Spouses Yulienco v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 141365, 27 November 2002)
Q10C. Suppose that after the title to the lot has been
consolidated in the name of the auction buyer, said buyer sold
the lot to a third party without first getting a writ of possession.
Can the transferee exercise the right of the auction buyer and
claim that it is a ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of
possession in his favor? Briefly explain. (2%)
Suggested answer:
YES. When the lot purchased at a foreclosure sale is in turn sold

or transferred, the right to the possession thereof, along with all
other rights of ownership, follows the lot sold to its new owner.
(Spouses Gallent v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 203949, 6 April 2016)
Q11. Hannibal, Donna, Florence, and Joel, concerned residents

of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint for mandamus against the
Laguna Lake Development Authority, the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Public
Works and Highways, Department of Interior and Local
Government, Department of Agriculture, Department of Budget,
and Philippine National Police before the RTC of Laguna
alleging that the continued neglect of defendants in performing
their duties has resulted in serious deterioration of the water
quality of the lake and the degradation of the marine life in the
lake.
Q11, cont.
The plaintiffs prayed that said government agencies be ordered

to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water quality to Class
C waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 1152,
otherwise known as the Philippine Environment Code.
Defendants raise the defense that the cleanup of the lake is not
a ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by
mandamus to perform the same. The RTC of Laguna rendered a
decision declaring that it is the duty of the agencies to clean up
Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent writ of mandamus
ordering said agencies to perform their duties prescribed by law
relating to the cleanup of Laguna de Bay.
Q11, cont.
(a) Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus? Explain

(2.5%)

YES. In line with the principle of continuing mandamus, the RTC
may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with
the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to
naught by administrative inaction or indifference.
Q11, cont.
Thus, as in the instant case, the RTC may issue a writ of

continuing mandamus in an environmental case, directing any
agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which
shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. (MMDA v.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947-48, 18
December 2008; Sec. 4 (c), A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q11, cont.
(b) What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2.5%)
Section 4 (c) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

defines a continuing mandamus as a writ issued by a court in an
environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of
the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of
acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until
judgment is fully satisfied.
Q12. Miguel filed a Complaint for damages against Jose, who

denied liability and filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
failure to state a cause of action. In an Order received by Jose
on January 5, 2015, the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss.
On February 4, 2015, Jose sought reconsideration of that Order
through a Motion for Reconsideration. Miguel opposed the
Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that it was filed out of
time. Jose countered that the 15-day rule under Section 1 of
Rule 52 does not apply where the Order sought to be
reconsidered is an interlocutory order that does not attain finality.
Is Jose correct? Explain. (5%)
Q12, cont.
Suggested answer:
Jose is wrong. Rule 52 does not apply in this case. Rule 52 applies to
motions for reconsideration of judgments or final resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in appealed cases. This case, however, involves
proceedings before the trial court.
Jose sought the reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying his
motion to dismiss. He filed his motion for reconsideration thirty (30)
days after he received the order denying his motion to dismiss.
Q12, cont.
Suggested answer:
Section 4 of Rule 16 expressly provides that the defendant shall file
his answer within the balance of the period prescribed for filing an
answer, but not less than five (5) days in any event, computed from
his receipt of the notice of denial. Necessarily, if Jose desires to seek
the court’s reconsideration of its denial of his motion to dismiss, he
must file the same before the period for filing his answer lapses. In this
case, Jose’s period to file his answer has clearly lapsed considering
that thirty (30) days have passed since he received the order denying
his motion to dismiss. Thus, his motion for reconsideration thereof was
filed out of time.
Q13. Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the complaint
for illegal dismissal against Empire Textile Corporation. They
were terminated on the ground that they failed to meet the
prescribed production quota a least four (4) times. The NLRC
decision was assailed in a special civil action under Rule 65
before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification and
certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed the
verification and certification, while Atty. Arman signed for Nelson.
Empire filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of defective
verification and certification. Decide with reasons. (5%)
Q13, cont.
Suggested answer:
The motion to dismiss should be denied. Nelson and Yenyen

should be dropped as parties to the case.
The Supreme Court has held that a defect in the verification

does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective
(Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-
Purpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 164205, 3 September 3, 2009).
Q13, cont.
Suggested answer:
The court may order its submission or correction or act on the

pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that
the ends of justice may be served thereby. Verification is
deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true
and correct (Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers, supra).
Q13, cont.
The certification must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in

a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties
to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certification substantially
complies with the Rule. The certification must be executed by the
party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or
justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must
execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of
record to sign on his behalf (Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers,
supra).
Q13, cont.
In this case, only Toto signed both the verification and certification.
While Atty. Arman may sign the verification for Nelson, the facts do
not state whether he had a Special Power of Attorney authorizing
him to sign the certification on behalf of Nelson. Hence, Nelson is
deemed to have not signed the same. Since Nelson and Yenyen did
not sign the certification, they should be dropped as parties to the
case.
Q14. The officers of ”Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc.” engaged
your services to file an action against ABC Mining Corporation
which is engaged in mining operations in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque.
ABC used highly toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC’s toxic
mine tailings were accidentally released from its storage dams
and were discharged into the rivers of said town. The mine
tailings found their way to Calancan Bay and allegedly to the
waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon. The damage to the
crops and loss of earnings were estimated at Pl Billion. Damage
to the environment is estimated at Pl Billion. As lawyer for the
organization, you are requested to explain the advantages
derived from a petition for writ of kalikasan before the Supreme
Court over a complaint for damages before the RTC of
Marinduque or vice-versa. What action will you recommend?
Explain. (5%)
Q14, cont.
Suggested answer:
I will recommend the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan.

Under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC otherwise known as the “Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, a Writ of Kalikasan is a
remedy available to a natural or juridical person, on behalf of
persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces. (Section 1, Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) The
filing of said petition is exempt from the payment of docket fees.
(Section 4, Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q14, cont.
• The reliefs that may be granted under the writ include:
• Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from

committing acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in
violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage;
• Directing the respondent public official, government agency,

private person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or
restore the environment;
• Directing the respondent public official, government agency,

private person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the
decision and orders of the court;
Q14, cont.
• Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or

private person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution
of the final judgment; and
• Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a

balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation,
rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award
of damages to individual petitioners. (Section 15, Rule 7 of A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q14, cont.
From the foregoing, it is clear that filing a petition for Writ of
Kalikasan would be the best remedy to address all the
environmental problems caused by the release of the toxic waste
to the waters of Romblon and Quezon without the burden of
paying docket fees. Furthermore, there is no prohibition on the
subsequent filing of a complaint for damages should the parties
desire to do so. Thus, the organization can later file a complaint
for damages with the Regional Trial Court. Moreover, the rules
provide that judgment must be rendered within sixty (60) days
from the time the petition is submitted for decision which
expedites the proceedings significantly considering the urgency
of situation in the instant case, hence, as lawyer for the
organization I would recommend the filing of a petition for a Writ
of Kalikasan with the Supreme Court.
Q15. Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money. The

Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC) rendered a decision
ordering Gringo to pay Chika P50,000.00 plus legal interest.
During its pendency of the appeal before the RTC, Gringo died
of acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Atty. Perfecto, counsel of
Gringo, filed a manifestation attaching the death certificate of
Gringo and informing the RTC that he cannot substitute the heirs
since Gringo did not disclose any information on his family. As
counsel for Chika, what remedy can you recommend to your
client so the case can move forward and she can eventually
recover her money? Explain. (5%)
Q15, cont.
Suggested answer:
As counsel for Chika, I will recommend that she move for the
substitution of Gringo’s heirs in the case. In the absence of
Gringo’s heirs, Chika may move for the appointment of an
executor or administrator of Gringo’s estate.
Q15, cont.
Suggested answer:
Section 16, Rule 3 requires the substitution of a party who dies

during the pendency of an action. The heirs of the deceased
may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased as the latter’s
legal representatives without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator. The court may also appoint a guardian
ad litem for the minor heirs. However, if no legal representative is
named by the counsel for the deceased party as in this case, the
court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to
procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the
estate of the deceased, and the latter shall immediately appear
for and on behalf of the deceased.
Q16. Tristan filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against Arthur
King and/or Estate of Arthur King for reconveyance of a lot
declared in the name of Arthur King under TCT No. 1234. The
complaint alleged that “on account Arthur King’s residence
abroad up to the present and the uncertainty of whether he is still
alive or dead, he or his estate may be served with summons by
publication.” Summons was published and nobody filed any
responsive pleading within sixty (60) days therefrom. Upon
motion, defendants were declared in default and judgment was
rendered declaring Tristan as legal owner and ordering
defendants to reconvey said lot to Tristan.
Q16, cont.
Jojo, the court-designated administrator of Arthur King’s estate,

filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA praying
that the decision in favor of Tristan be declared null and void for
lack of jurisdiction. He claims that the action filed by Tristan is an
action in personam and that the court did not acquire jurisdiction
over defendants Arthur King and/or his estate. On the other
hand, Tristan claims that the suit is an action in rem or at least
an action quasi in rem. Is the RTC judge correct in ordering
service of summons by publication? Explain. (5%)
Q16, cont.
Suggested answer:
No. The RTC judge erred in ordering the service of summons by

publication. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an action
for reconveyance of real property is an action in personam, for it
binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a
tangible thing(Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, G.R. No.
146262, January 21, 2005; Alfredo Ching v. CA, G.R. No. L-59731,
January 11, 1990). Any judgment therein is binding only upon the
parties properly impleaded. Hence, proper service of summons is
imperative for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant.
Q16, cont.
Suggested answer:
As a general rule, summons must be served to the defendant in

person (Section 6, Rule 14, Rules of Court). If, for justifiable
causes, personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable
time, summons may be served through substituted service, or
under certain circumstances, by publication (Sections 14 to 16,
Rule 14, Rules of Court). Further, service of summons by
publication may only be effected with leave of court (Sections 14 to
16, Rule 14, Rules of Court).
Q16, cont.
In this case, the facts do not indicate any attempt to first serve
summons personally. In fact, it was Tristan, in his complaint, who
alleged that summons may be served by publication on account
of Arthur King’s residence abroad or death. Thereafter, summons
was served by publication based solely on said allegation. This
is in violation of established jurisprudence which requires that
serious efforts must first be exerted to serve summons
personally before substituted service or service by publication is
resorted to (De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation,
G.R. No. 194751, 26 November 2014).
Q16, cont.
Such attempts to serve summons personally must be stated in

the Sheriff’s Return in order to justify resort to alternative modes
of service of summons (De Pedro v. Romasan Development
Corporation, supra). Failure to do so renders the service of
summons through publication invalid (De Pedro v. Romasan
Development Corporation, supra). Hence, for failing to comply
with the requisites for resorting to alternative modes of serving
summons, the RTC judge erred in ordering the service of
summons by publication.
Q17. Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of money

against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of Manila. The initiatory
pleading averred that on February 14, 2010, Ervin obtained a
loan from Royal in the amount of P 1 Million, as evidenced by
Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) signed by Ervin. Jude signed a
Surety Agreement binding himself as surety for the loan. Royal
made a final demand on February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude
(defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal prayed that
defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay the amount of P 1
Million plus interests.
Q17, cont.
In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan from

Royal and signed the PN. Jude also admitted that she signed the
Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed out that the PN did not
provide the due date for the payment, and that the loan has not
yet matured as the maturity date was left blank to be agreed
upon by the parties at a later date. Defendants filed a Motion for
a Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground that there is no
genuine issue presented by the parties’ submissions. Royal
opposed the motion on the ground that the PN’s maturity is an
issue that must be threshed out during trial.
Q17, cont.
(a) Resolve the motion with reasons. (2.5%)
Defendants’ Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings should be

denied. Under Section 1, Rule 34, a judgment on the pleadings
is proper where the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.
In a proper case of judgment on the pleadings, there is no
ostensible issue at all.
Q17, cont.
(a) Resolve the motion with reasons. (2.5%)
In this case, however, defendants raised an affirmative defense

that the loan has not yet matured since the maturity date of the
PN was left blank by the parties. Defendants thereby raised a
factual issue that needs to be resolved by the court. Therefore, a
judgment on the pleadings is not proper.
Q17, cont.
(b) Distinguish “Summary Judgment” and “Judgment on
the Pleadings.” (2.5%)
What distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary

judgment is the presence of issues in the answer to the
complaint. When the answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it
does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits
said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by
admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with
them at all, a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.
Q17, cont.
(b) Distinguish “Summary Judgment” and “Judgment on
the Pleadings.” (2.5%)
On the other hand, when the Answer specifically denies the

material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative
defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a summary
judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine.
A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the
presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is
fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine
issue for trial. (Basbas v. Sayson, G.R. No. 172660, 24 August
2011)
2017
REMEDIAL LAW BAR
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q1. What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original
jurisdiction over the following cases? Explain briefly your
answers.
Question 1-A:
An action filed on November 13, 2017, to recover the possession
of an apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere
tolerance of the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand
to vacate that was duly served upon and received by him on July
6, 2016. (2.5%)
Q1, cont.

It depends. The instant action is an accion publiciana considering
that more than a year has lapsed from the date of last demand
(Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 126462, 12 November 2002;
Penta Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley Construction and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 161589, 24 November 24,
2014, J. Bersamin). Thus, if the assessed value of the apartment
unit does not exceed Php20,000.00, the Municipal Trial Court has
the exclusive original jurisdiction over the action (Penta Pacific
Realty Corporation, supra.; Blg. 129, Sec. 19).
Q1, cont.

On the other hand, if the assessed value of the apartment unit
exceeds Php20,000.00, the Regional Trial Court has the exclusive
original jurisdiction over the action (Penta Pacific Realty
Corporation, supra.; Blg. 129, Sec. 19). The allegation of the
assessed value of the apartment unit must be found in the
complaint, otherwise the action should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction because the trial court is not thereby afforded the means
of determining from the allegations of the pleading whether
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pertains to it or to
another court (Penta Pacific Realty Corporation, supra.).
Q1B. A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the

enforcement of a seller’s contractual right to repurchase a lot
with an assessed value of P15,000. (2.5%)
Suggested answer to Q1(B):
The Regional Trial Court has the jurisdiction over an action in

which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a seller’s
contractual right to repurchase a lot. Since said action is one for
specific performance to enforce a contractual right, it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore cognizable by
the Regional Trial Court (See Surviving Heirs of Bautista v.
Lindo, G.R. No. 208232, 10 March 2014; BP Blg. 129, Sec. 19).
Q2. Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action
for specific performance praying for the delivery of a parcel of
land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the
case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated as a special
commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to
Era, who, upon realizing that the trial court was a regular RTC,
approaches you and wants to file a petition to have the judgment
annulled for lack of jurisdiction.
What advice would you give Era? Explain your answer. (4%)
Q2, cont.
Suggested answer:
I will advise Era that a petition to have the judgment annulled for
lack of jurisdiction has no basis.
In Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., et al. (G.R. No. 202664, 10

November 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that a
particular branch which has been designated as a Special
Commercial Court does not shed the RTC's general jurisdiction
over ordinary civil cases under the imprimatur of statutory law,
i.e., Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.
Q2, cont.
Suggested answer:
The designation of Special Commercial Courts was merely

intended as a procedural tool to expedite the resolution of
commercial cases in line with the court's exercise of jurisdiction.
This designation was not made by statute but only by an internal
Supreme Court rule under its authority to promulgate rules
governing matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to
supervise.
Q3. Give brief answers to the following:
Question 3A:
What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts? (2%)

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as a rule, requires that
recourse must be first made to the lower ranked courts
exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court (Dio v.
Subicbay Marine Exploration Inc., G.R. No. 189532, 11 June
2014).
Q3, cont.
Question 3B:
What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals? (2%)
Suggested answer to Q3B:

Under Rule 51, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, the Harmless
Error Rule states that no error in either the admission or the
exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or
order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of
the parties is a ground for granting a new trial or for setting
aside, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order,
unless refusal to take such action appears to the court to be
inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of
the proceeding must disregard any error or defect which does
not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Q4. After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan returned to
the Philippines to retire in Manila, the place of his birth and
childhood. Ten years before his retirement, he bought for cash in his
name a house and lot in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return,
he learned that his house and lot were the subject of foreclosure
proceedings commenced by ABC Bank on the basis of a promissory
note and a deed of real estate mortgage he had allegedly executed
in favor of ABC Bank five years earlier.
Knowing that he was not in the country at the time the promissory
note and deed of mortgage were supposedly executed, Evan
forthwith initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that the
subject documents be declared null and void.
Q4, cont.
ABC Bank filed a motion to dismiss Evan’s complaint on the ground

of improper venue on the bases of a stipulation in both documents
designating Quezon City as the exclusive venue in the event of
litigation between the parties arising out of the loan and mortgage.
Should the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be granted? Explain your

answer. (5%)
Q4, cont.
Suggested answer:
No. ABC Bank’s motion to dismiss should be denied. In Briones

v. Court of Apepals (G.R. No. 204444, 14 January 2015), the
Supreme Court ruled that a complaint directly assailing the
validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the
exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed
in accordance with the general rules on venue. The Supreme
Court ruled that it would be inherently inconsistent for a
complaint of this nature to recognize the exclusive venue
stipulation when it, in fact, precisely assails the validity of the
instrument in which such stipulation is contained.
Q4, cont.
Suggested answer:
In this case, Evan’s complaint directly assails the validity of the

promissory note and deed of mortgage which contain said venue
stipulation. Hence, said venue stipulation is not binding on him.
Evan correctly filed his complaint with the RTC of Manila
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
Q5. Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the

partition of a large tract of land located in Oriental Mindoro. She
impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants but
did not implead Leica and Agatha, her two sisters who were
permanent residents of Australia.
Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case

without impleading all indispensable parties, John and Adrian
moved to dismiss the complaint.
Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain
your answer. (4%)
Q5, cont.
Suggested answer:
It depends on the ownership of the property subject of the action for

partition.
If Leica and Agatha are co-owners of the subject property, along with
Hanna, John and Adrian, they are indispensable parties to the action
for partition. Thus, Hanna’s failure to implead them renders all the
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act. In
Quitalan v. Heirs of Quitalan (G.R. No. 183059, 28 August 2009), the
Supreme Court ruled that all co-heirs and persons having an interest
in the properties subject of partition are indispensable parties.
Q5, cont.
Suggested answer:
In the same case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is the plaintiff who
is mandated by the Rules of Court to implead all the indispensable
parties, considering that the absence of one such party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to
act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
However, if Leica and Agatha are not co-owners of the property

subject of the action for partition, John and Adrian’s motion to
dismiss has no basis since Leica and Agatha are not indispensable
parties thereto.
Q6. Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant Bank.

Aside from executing a promissory note in favor of Merchant
Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her
house and lot as security for her obligations. The loan fell due
but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant Bank filed an action
against Elise to foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month
after, and while the foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank
also filed an action to recover the principal sum of P3 Million
against Elise based on the same promissory note previously
executed by the latter.
Q6. cont.
In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on

the ground of splitting of a single cause of action, Merchant Bank
argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid of any
legal basis considering that the two actions were based on
separate contracts, namely, the contract of loan evidenced by
the promissory note, and the deed of real estate mortgage.
Is there splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your

answer.
Q6, cont.
Suggested answer:
Yes. Section 3, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states
that a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
action. In relation thereto, the Supreme Court ruled in Flores v.
Spouses Lindo (G.R. No. 183984, 13 April 2011) that a mortgage-
creditor has a single cause of action against a mortgagor-debtor, that
is, to recover the debt. The mortgage-creditor has the option of either
filing a personal action for collection of sum of money or instituting a
real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. An election of the
first bars recourse to the second, otherwise there would be multiplicity
of suits in which the debtor would be tossed from one venue to
another depending on the location of the mortgaged properties and
the residence of the parties.
Q6, cont.
Suggested answer:
The two remedies are alternative and each remedy is complete by

itself. If the mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he
waives the action for the collection of the debt, and vice versa.
Thus, in this case, Merchant Bank after having availed of foreclosure

may no longer file a separate action for the collection of the principal
amount of Elise’s obligation considering that it will violate the rule
against spitting of cause of action.
Q7. Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by Louie.

When the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate the property.
Her refusal prompted Louie to file an action for unlawful detainer
against Laura who failed to answer the complaint within the
reglementary period.
Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default. Should the

motion be granted?
Q7, cont.
Suggested answer:
No, the motion should not be granted because it is a prohibited

pleading. Under Section 19(h) of the Rules on Summary
Procedure, a motion to declare defendant in default is among the
pleadings that are prohibited in cases covered by said Rule.
Considering that an action for unlawful detainer is covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure, Louie’s motion to declare Laura
in default is a prohibited pleading, and thus, should not be
granted.
Q8.
Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in Makati City to

collect P350,000, an amount representing the unpaid balance on
the price of the car Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a
jurisdictional error in filing the complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a
notice of dismissal before she was served with the answer of
Yana. The RTC issued an order confirming the dismissal.
Q8, cont.
Three months later, Agatha filed another complaint against Yana
based on the same cause of action this time in the MeTC of
Makati City. However, for reasons personal to her, Agatha decided
to have the complaint dismissed without prejudice by filing a
notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of Yana.
Hence, the case was dismissed by the MeTC.
A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana in the

same MeTC.
May Yana successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar

Agatha’s third complaint? Explain your answer.
Q8, cont.
Suggested answer:
No, Yana cannot successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule. In

order for the Two-Dismissal Rule to apply, Rule 17, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court requires that the both dismissals through plaintiff’s
notices were made by a competent court. Moreover, in Ching v.
Cheng (G.R. No. 175507, 8 October 2014), the Supreme Court
ruled that the following requisites should concur for the Two-
Dismissal Rule to apply:
a. There was a previous case that was dismissed by a

competent court;
b. Both cases were based on or include the same claim;
Q8, cont.
Suggested answer:
c. Both notices for dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; and

d. When the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff was
consented to by the defendant on the ground that the latter paid
and satisfied all the claims of the former.
In this case, RTC of Makati City had no jurisdiction over the

first complaint which was dismissed through Agatha’s notice,
because it is below its jurisdictional amount of at least
Php400,000.00. Therefore, the Two-Dismissal Rule cannot be
successfully invoked in this case.
Q9. Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the amount of
P750,000.00 against Salvador in the RTC of Quezon City for the
latter’s alleged breach of their contract of services. Salvador
promptly filed his answer, and included a counterclaim for
Php250,000.00 arising from the allegedly baseless and
malicious claims of Abraham that compelled him to litigate and to
engage the services of counsel, and thus caused him to suffer
mental anguish.
Noting that the amount of the counterclaim was below the

exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, Abraham filed a motion
to dismiss vis-a-vis the counterclaim on that ground.
Should the counterclaim of Salvador be dismissed? Explain your

answer. (4%)
Q9, cont.
Suggested answer:
No, Salvador’s counterclaim is compulsory in nature, and thus,

should not be dismissed.
Section 7, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court defines a compulsory

counterclaim as any claim for money or any relief, which a defending
party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit
arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction
or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s complaint
(Bungcayao v. Fort Ilocandia, G.R. No. 170483, 19 April 2010).
Q9, cont.
Suggested answer:
A counterclaim is compulsory where: (a) it arises out of, or is

necessary connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; (b) it does not require
the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction; and (c) the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the
claim. (Spouses Arenas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126640, 23
November 2000) Regarding the trial court’s jurisdiction, Section 7,
Rule 6 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that in an original action
before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.
Q9, cont.
In relation thereto, the Supreme Court held in Alday v. FGU

Insurance Corp. (G.R. No. 138822, 23 January 2001) that claims
for damages, allegedly suffered as a result of plaintiff’s filing of a
complaint, are compulsory.
In this case, the court’s jurisdiction over Salvador’s counterclaim,

despite being below the jurisdictional amount is evident from the
following: (a) Salvador’s claims for litigation expenses arise out
of Abraham’s complaint for damages; (b) Salvador’s claims does
not require the presence of third parties; and (c) being
compulsory in nature, the trial court may exercise jurisdiction
over said counterclaim.
Q10. Teddy filed against Buboy an action for rescission of a

contract for the sale of a commercial lot. After having been told
by the wife of Buboy that her husband was out of town and
would not be back until after a couple of days, the sheriff
requested the wife to just receive the summons in behalf of her
husband. The wife acceded to the request, received the
summons and a copy of the complaint, and signed for the same.
(a) Was there a valid service of summons?

Q10, cont.
No, there was no valid service of summons in this case since the
summons were not personally received by Buboy. For
substituted service of summons to be available, there must be
several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons
within a reasonable period. "Several attempts" means at least
three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates.
(Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974, 16 August
2006).
Q10, cont.
(b) If Buboy files a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the
twin grounds of lack of jurisdiction over his person and
prescription of cause of action, may he be deemed to have
voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court?

No, the filing of the motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of
the court over his person, together with other grounds raised
therein, is not a voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction
(Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, 12 October 2009).
The filing of a motion is deemed voluntary submission to the
court’s jurisdiction only when it constitutes an unqualified
voluntary appearance before the court, such that the defendant
failed to object to the court’s jurisdiction of over his person (PVIB
v. Spouses Dy, G.R. No. 171137, 5 June 2009).
Q11. What is the mode of appeal applicable in the following

cases, and what issue may be raised before the reviewing court
/tribunal?
(a) Decision or final order of the National Labor Relations

Commission; and
(b) The judgment and final order of the Regional Trial Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Q11, cont.
National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC)

decisions or final orders are reviewable by petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Court of
Appeals (St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866,
16 September 1998). Petitioner may raise the issue on whether
the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction (Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, G.R. No. 158460,
24 August 2007).
Q11, cont.
The mode of appeal is petition for review under Rule 42

of the Rules of Court. Petitioner may raise errors of fact, law, or
both (Rule 42, Section 2 of the Rules of Court).
Q12.
Judgment was rendered against defendant Jaypee in an action for

unlawful detainer. The judgment ordered Jaypee to vacate and to
pay attorney’s fees in favor of Bart, the plaintiff. To prevent the
immediate execution of the judgment, would you advise the posting
of a supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee? Explain your
answer briefly.
Q12.
Suggested answer:
I would advise Jaypee to post a supersedeas bond, but I would

also advise him that the posting of a supersedeas bond alone does
not prevent the immediate execution of the judgment. To stay the
immediate execution of the judgment in an ejectment case, the
defendant: (a) must perfect an appeal; (b) file a supersedeas bond;
and (c) periodically deposit the rentals becoming due during the
pendency of the appeal. Otherwise, the writ of execution will issue
upon motion of the plaintiff (Acbang v. Hon. Luczon, G.R. No.
164246, 15 January 2014, J. Bersamin; Rules of Court, Rule 70,
Section 19).
Q13. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on

September 20, 2017 by the RTC against defendant Jeff enjoining
him from entering the land of Regan, the plaintiff.
On October 9, 2017, upon application of Regan, the trial court

allegedly in the interest of justice, extended the TRO for another
20 days based on the same ground for which the TRO was
issued.
On October 15, 2017 Jeff entered the land subject of the TRO.
May Jeff be liable for contempt of court? Why?

Q13, cont.
Suggested answer:
No, Jeff may not be held liable for contempt. Under Rule 58,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court, a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) is valid for 20 days. Its effectivity is not extendible without
need of any judicial declaration to that effect, and no court shall
have authority to extend or renew the same on the same ground
for which it was issued.
In this case, the extended TRO was not valid and it is as if no

extended TRO was issued. Thus, Jeff cannot be held liable for
contempt.
Other Bar Questions 2018
Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy,

filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where
she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a
resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property,
which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed
value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s
certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly
notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public.
(a) Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong

Tagapamayapa for prior barangay conciliation before the court
can take cognizance of the case?
(b) Should the complaint be verified or is the certification
sufficient?
Suggested Answer:
(a) No. Since Danielle is not an actual resident of Barangay

Daliao, or a barangay adjacent thereto, this case is not subject to
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law; hence, prior referral to the
Lupong Tagamayapa is not a pre-condition to the filing of this
case in court (Pascual v. Pascual, G.R. No. 157830, 17
November 2005).
Suggested Answer:
(b) Yes. Considering that the action is for unlawful detainer, the
Rules on Summary Procedure will apply. Rule II, Section 3(B) of
the Rules on Summary Procedure requires that all pleadings
submitted to the court be verified; hence, a mere certification on
non-forum shopping, the complaint being an initiatory pleading is
insufficient.
Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively
25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an action before the RTC of Makati
to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold the annual
stockholders’ meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by
Darwinkle Inc.’s By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction to use, as record date, April 30, 2017. The complaint
alleged, among others, that the refusal to call the ASM on June
21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of the BOD to allow Databank,
Inc. (which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July
15, 2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute the
complainants’ shareholdings and ease them out of the BOD.
cont.
Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of PhP 7,565 as

filing fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of Court. The
Board of Directors filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have
been based on the actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc.
and David, which were collectively worth PhP 450 million.
If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss?
Suggested Answer:
No. While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a

jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of
filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case. The
court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but
in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period. Here, Dendenees Inc. and David merely relied on the
assessment made by the clerk of court. If incorrect, the clerk of
court has the responsibility of reassessing how much they must
pay within the prescriptive period (Proton Pilipinas v. Banque
Nationale de Paris, (G.R. No. 151242, June 15, 2005).
Dick Dixson had sons with different women — (i) Dexter with
longtime partner Delia and (ii) Dongdong and Dingdong with his
housemaid Divina. When Dick fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all his
property titles and shares of stock in various companies to Delia
who, in turn, handed them to Dexter for safekeeping. After the
death of Dick, Dexter induced Dongdong and Dingdong to sign
an agreement and waiver of their right to Dick’s estate in
consideration of PhP 45 million. As Dexter reneged on his
promise to pay, Dongdong and Dingdong filed with the RTC of
Manila a complaint for annulment of the agreement and waiver.
The summons and complaint were received by Dalia, the
housemaid of Dexter, on the day it was first served. Hence,
Dexter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the motion to
dismiss.
cont.
Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new complaint

against Dexter for annulment of the agreement and waiver.
Before Dexter could file his answer, Dongdong and Dingdong
filed a motion to withdraw their complaint praying that it be
dismissed without prejudice. An Order was issued granting the
motion to withdraw without prejudice on the basis that the
summons had not yet been served on Dexter. Dexter filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. He argued
that the dismissal should have been with prejudice under the
“two-dismissal rule” of Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court,
in view of the previous dismissal of the first case.
Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second dismissal

with prejudice?
Suggested Answer:
No. the two-dismissal rule will not apply, because the first
dismissal was at the instance of the defendant.
The requirements for the application of the two-dismissal rule

under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court are: (a) [t]here
was a previous case that was dismissed by a competent court;
(b) [b]oth cases were based on or include the same claim; (c)
[b]oth notices for dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; and (d)
[w]hen the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff was consented
to by the defendant on the ground that the latter paid and
satisfied all the claims of the former (Ching, et al. v. Cheng, et
al., G.R. No. 175507, 8 October 2014).
In this case, the third requisite is absent because the first

dismissal was upon the motion to dismiss filed by Dexter; hence,
the two-dismissal rule will not apply.
Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc.

(Debra), Daniel, and Debbie in the RTC of Manila for recovery of
sum of money. The complaint alleged that, on October 14, 2017,
Debra obtained a loan from Dorton in the amount of PhP 10
million with interest of 9% per annum. The loan was evidenced
by a promissory note (PN) payable on demand signed by Daniel
and Debbie, the principal stockholders of Debra, who also
executed a Surety Agreement binding themselves as sureties.
Copies of both the PN and the Surety Agreement were attached
to the complaint. Dorton further alleged that it made a final
demand on March 1, 2018 for Debra and the sureties to pay, but
the demand was not heeded.
Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised the
affirmative defense that, while the PN and the Surety Agreement
appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie were uncertain whether
the signatures on the documents were theirs. The PN and the
Surety Agreement were pre-marked during pre-trial, identified
but not authenticated during trial, and formally offered.
Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the Surety

Agreement in rendering its decision?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the RTC of Manila may consider the PN and the surety
agreement in rendering its decision.
The PN and the surety agreement are actionable documents,

defined under Rule 8, Section 7 of the Rules of Court as a
written instrument upon which an action is founded upon Rule 8,
Section 8, moreover, provides that when an action is founded
upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of
the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts.
Suggested Answer:
In this case, Debra, Daniel, and Debbie are parties to the PN

and the surety agreement. Since the PN and surety agreement
are attached to the complaint, Debra, Daniel, and Debbie are
deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution
thereof for their failure to: (a) deny the genuineness and due
execution of these documents under oath; and (b) to set for what
they claim to be facts. The court, therefore, may consider the PN
and the surety agreement in rendering its decision.
THANK YOU!

Civil-Procedure With2018BARQs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil-Procedure With2018BARQs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

Over the parties, 4

51 Over the subject matter, 5

SUPREME COURT (SC)

Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the hierarchy of courts:

With the RTC and CA:

• Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the hierarchy of courts:

SUPREME COURT (SC)

• Concurrent jurisdiction with:

• Concurrent jurisdiction with:

• Concurrent jurisdiction with:

• Concurrent original jurisdiction with SC, CA and RTC for

Exclusive original jurisdiction

1. The action is incapable of pecuniary estimation

2. Title to, possession of, or interest in real property with assessed

Exclusive original jurisdiction

3. If the amount involved exceeds P300,000 outside MM or

Exclusive original jurisdiction

4. Cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,

5. To hear and decide intra-corporate controversies:

Exclusive original jurisdiction

5. To hear and decide intra-corporate controversies:

Exclusive original jurisdiction

5. To hear and decide intra-corporate controversies:

Special jurisdiction – SC may designate certain branches of RTC to

1. If the amount involved does not exceed P300,000 outside MM or

2. Actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any

3. Inclusion and exclusion of voters

4. Those governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure:

• Special jurisdiction - Over petition for writ of habeas corpus

• Delegated jurisdiction - To hear and decide cadastral and

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of

• Violations of city/municipal ordinances;

• Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for writ of

Determination of Jurisdictional Amount in Relation to the

These matters, however, shall be included in determining the filing

“Damages of whatever kind” applies to cases where the damages

At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender,

b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)

(b) The case should not be dismissed. It is the allegations

A Special Civil Action is one which is also

• Interpleader (Rule 62);

The action of interpleader is a remedy whereby a

When interpleader proper. — Whenever conflicting

Due to conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the rental

Yes. The interpleader case should be dismissed in view of the

Who may file petition. — Any person interested under a

Time to file petition. — The petition shall be filed within

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the

NATURE AND PURPOSE

It is a writ emanating from a superior court directed against

1. There must be a controversy;

Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of any

Petition for prohibition. — The petition shall likewise be

NATURE AND PURPOSE

• Principal purpose for the writ of prohibition is to prevent an

• It is granted when it is necessary for the orderly

1. It must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board

Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation,

Petition for mandamus. — The petition shall also contain a

• It is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation,

1. The plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded;