ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

REMEDIAL LAW DEPARTMENT

SYLLABUS: SCHOOL YEAR 2020-2021

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I

Covers Civil and Criminal Procedures
By: Henedino M. Bondial

CIVIL PROCEDURE
(As amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, effective May 1, 2020)

I. JURISDICTION

A. Classes of Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction according to its nature: original, appellate
- Jurisdiction according to its object; corresponding principles
i. Over the subject matter
ii. Over the persons of the parties
iii. Over the “res”
iv. Over the issues
v. Over the territory

B. Elements of Jurisdiction: subject matter, parties, issues

C. Jurisdiction of Regular Courts

1. Supreme Court
2. Court of Appeals
3. Regional Trial Court
A. Intellectual Property Courts
B. Special Courts
4. Family Courts
5. Metropolitan Trial Courts
Municipal Trial Courts in cities
Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Courts
6. Sandiganbayan
Hannah Serena vs. Sandiganbayan, 653 SCRA (2011)
Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)
Delima vs. Guerrero, 843 SCRA (2017)
7. Court of Tax-Appeals
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo, February 4, 2014
CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co. vs. Prov. Of Nueva Ecija 759 CRA 180
8. Quasi-Judicial Tribunals (Sec. 1, Rule 43)
9. Sharia’h Courts: appellate, district, circuit
Lomondot vs. Balindong 762 SCRA 494
Municipality of Tangkal vs. Balindong, 814 SCRA (2017)

1
 D. Discuss the concept, description and application of the following:
1. Delegated jurisdiction
2. Special jurisdiction
3. Limited jurisdiction
4. Primary jurisdiction
Unduran vs. Aberasturi, 823 SCRA (2017)
LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)
5. RESIDUAL JURISDICTION
Dev. Bank of the Phil. Vs. Carpio, 816 SCRA (2017)
o Requisites: trial, judgment, appeal
6. Equity jurisdiction
Regulus dev. Inc. vs. De la Cruz, 781 SCRA (2016)
7. Epistolary jurisdiction
Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, 756 SCRA (2015)
8. Split jurisdiction
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo (2014)
9. Expanded/Extended jurisdiction
Edcel Lagman vs. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA (2018)

References:
1. Section 5, Article VIII, 1986 Constitution
2. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
3. B.P. Blg. 129
4. RA 7691
5. RA 8369 (Family Courts Act)
6. SC-AO No. 113-95-Intellectual Property Courts
7. PD 1486; 1606 (Sandiganbayan)
8. RA 7975; 8249; 10660 (Sandiganbayan)
9. RA 9282 (Court of Tax Appeals)
10. RA 9054 (Sharia’h Courts)
Other Cases On:
Jurisdictional estoppel
1. Deuro vs. CA – 373 SCRA 11
2. Gonzaga vs. CA – 394 SCRA 472
3. Manila Bankers vs. Ng Kok Wei, 418 SCRA
4. Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. CA, 699 SCRA
Hierarchy of Courts
5. Agan vs. Piato, 420 SCRA
6. Liga Ng Mga Barangay vs. Atienza, 420 SCRA
7. St. Mary Crusade Fndtn vs. Riel, 745 SCRA
8. INTRAMUROS Administration vs. Offshore Construction and Development Co., 857 SCRA
(2017)
9. Bureau of Customs vs. Gallegos
Residual Prerogatives
10. Katon vs. Palanca, 437 SCRA
Concurrent Jurisdiction: Pat-og vs. CSC, 697 SCRA (2013)
Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Phil Bank
of Communications, June 19, 2018 Justice Leonen, en banc (note: for class discussion

2
II. RULES 1 TO 5
A. Actions: Commencement (Section 3 and 5, R-1)
Cases:
1. Alday vs. FGU insurance – 350 SCRA
2. Mercado vs. C.A, 569 SCRA
3. Proton Pilipinas vs. Banque Nationale de Paris, 460 SCRA
4. Ruby Shelter Builders vs. Formaran, 578 SCRA 283
5. St. Luis University vs. Cobarubias, 626 SCRA 649
6. Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, 726 SCRA, June 18, 2014
7. Sy-Vargas vs. Estate of Orgos, 805 SCRA (2016)
8. Camaso vs. TSM Shippping Inc., 807 SCRA (2016)

B. One suit for one action (Sec. 3, R-2)

Splitting a single cause of action (Sec. 4, R-2)
Joinder of Cause of action (S-5. R-2)
Case: Dynamic Builders vs. Presbitero, 755 SCRA 90 (2015)
- No injunction against national govt projects

C. Parties to Civil Actions (S-1, R-3)

Joiner of Parties (S-6, 7, R-3)
Indispensable and Necessary Parties (S-7, 8, R-3)
Class Suit (S-12, R-3)
Death of Separation of Party (S-16, 17, 18, R-3)
Transfer of Interest (S-19, R-3)
Contractual Money Cliams (S-20, R-3)
Cases:
1. Relucio vs. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578
2. De Castro vs CA 386 SCRA 301
3. Oriquiola vs CA – 389 SCRA 461
4. China Banking Corp., vs Oliver – 390 SCRA 263
5. DAVID VS Paragas, Jr. 751 SCRA 648
6. Land Bank vs. Cacayuran, 757 SCRA, April 22, 2015
7. Lotte Phils. Co. Inc. vs. De la Cruz – 464 SCRA 519
8. Carabeo vs. Dingco, 647 SCRA 200
9. De la Cruz vs. Juauin – 464 SCRA 200
10. Navarro vs. Escobido, 606 SCRA 1
11. Divinagracia vs. Parilla, 753 SCRA 87
12. Enrique vda de Santiago vs. Vilar, 857 SCRA (2017)

D. Venue of Actions: real actions, personal actions

Cases:
1. Pacific Consultants International Asia vs. Schonfeld – 516 SCRA
2. Biaco vs. Countryside Rural Bank – 515 SCRA 106
3. BPI Savings Bank vs. Sps. Yujuico – 763 SCRA 486 (7/2015)
4. Planters Dev. Bank vs. Ramos, 840 SCRA (2017)

E. Summary Procedure vs. Small Claims suit

3
 - What are their salient characteristics
- How to determine if the case is summary or under small claims
- OCA 45-2019: increased amount of small claims to P400,000
Case:
A.L. Ang Network Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA (1/28/14)

III. RULE 6: Kinds of Pleadings (Sections 1-13)

A. Pleadings: Complaint, Answer, Counterclaim, Cross-claim, Reply,

Third-Party Compliant, Counter-Counterclaim, Intervention
- Compulsory vs. Permissive Counterclaim
B. Defense: Negative, Affirmative, Negative Pregnant

Cases:
1. Alba vs. Malapajo – 780 SCRA 534
2. Lim Teck Chuan vs. Uy – 752 SCRA 268
3. Metrobank vs. CPR Promotions – 760 SCRA 59
4. Valdez vs. Dabon – 775 SCRA 1
5. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan – 406 SCRA 190
6. Caneland Sugar Corp vs. Alon – 533 SCRA 28

IV. RULE 7: Parts and contents of Pleading (Section 1-6)

A. Parts: Caption, Body, Relief, Date

B. Signature and Address
C. Distinguish Verification and Certification
D. Distinguish Parts and Contents

Cases:
1. Alma Jose vs. Javellana – 664 SCRA 1
2. Medado vs. Heirs of Antonio Consing – 665 SCRA 534
3. COA vs. Paler – 614 SCRA
4. Basan vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. 749 SCRA 541
5. Uy vs. CA – 770 SCRA 513
6. People vs. Arojado – 774 SCRA 193
7. Powerhouse vs. Rey, 807 SCRA (2016)
8. Heirs of Josefina Gabriel vs. Segundina Cebrero, Nov. 2, 2018

V. RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings (Section 1-13)

A. Allegations and Pleadings: ultimate facts and evidence

B. Actionable documents: how to allege, hoe to contest
C. Affirmative defenses in the Answer; effects
Cases:
1. Fernando Medical Enterprises vs. Wesleyan University 781 SCRA 508, January 20, 2016

4
 2. Go Tong Electrical Supply vs. BPI Family Savings Bank 760 SCRA 486
3. Asian Const. & Dev. Corp, vs. CA – 458 SCRA
4. Benguet Exploration Inc. vs. CA – 351 SCRA

VI. RULE 9: Effect of Failure to Plead (Section 1-3)

A. Effect of failure to plead
B. Waiver of defense and ojections
C. Default:
- when to declare
- how to declare
- Order of Default vs. Judgment by Default; remedies

Cases:
1. BDO vs. Tansipek – 593 SCRA 456
2. Salvador vs. Rabaja – 749 SCRA 654
3. Bitte vs. Jonas – 777 SCRA 489

VII. RULE 10: Amended and Suplemental Pleadings (Section 1-9)

A. Amendments: 1) a matter of right a matter of discretion

2) formal or substantial
B. Amendments to conform to the evidence, not necessary
C. Effects and amendments
D. Supplemental Pleadings

Cases:
1. Yujuico vs. United Resources Asset Mgt. Corp. – 760 SCRA
2. Lisan Enterprises vs. Banco De Oro – 670 SCRA
3. Tiu vs. Phil. Bank of Communications – 596 SCRA 432
4. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. vs. CA – 382 SCRA 499

VIII. RULE 11: When to File Responsive Pleadings (Section 1-11)

- Notes the changes in the periods to file responsive pleadings
1. Answer: a) 30 calendar days from summons
b) 60 calendar days when def. is foreign private corp.
c) 30 calendar days when complaint is amended as a matter of right; otherwise, 15
calendar days
d) 30/15 to amended counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint, complaint-in-
intervention
e) 20 calendar days to supplemental complaint
2. Reply: 15 calendar days

- Extension of time to file responsive pleadings: only once, 15 cal. Days

5
IX. RULE 12: Bill of Particulars (Sections 1-6)

- When applied/purpose
- Compliance vs. non-compliance

X. RULE 13: Filing and Service Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers (Sections 1-9)

A. Distinguish Filing from Service

B. Manner of Filing; Modes of Service
- Service by electronic means and facsimile
- What is presumptive service
- What is conventional service
- Is there still priority in the mode of service?

C. Completeness of Filling/Service
D. Proof of Filling/Service
E. Notice of Lis Pendens
Cases:
1. Palileo vs. Planters Dev. Bank – 738 SCRA
2. Heirs of Numeriano Miranda vs. Miranda – 700 SCRA

XI. RULE 14: Summons (Sections 1-23)

A.
What is Summons; Alias Summons
B.
Who issues summons
C.
Who serves summons
D.
To whom served
- To entity without juridical personality (S-7)
- To prisoners (S-8)
- To minors and incompetents (S-10)
- To spouses (S-11)
- To juridical entities: public private; domestic or foreign
E. Kinds of Summons
a. Service in person (S-5)
b. Substituted(S-6)
c. Extraterritorial (S-17)
1. Personal
2. Publication
3. Any mode
d. Publication (S-16)
F. Proofs of Service (S-21, 22)
G. Voluntary Appearance (S-23)
Cases:
1. Valmonte vs CA – 252 SCRA
2. Millenium Ind. & Com. Corp.., vs Tan – 326 SCRA
3. E.B. Villarosa vs. Benito – 312 SCRA

6
 4. Santos vs. PNOC Exploration, 566 SCRA 272
5. Mason vs.CA, 413 SCRA
6. Jose vs. Bayon, 414 SCRA
7. Manotoc vs. CA – 499 SCRA 21
8. Ong vs. Co, February 25, 2015
9. Domagas vs. Jensen – 448 SCRA 663
10. Dole Phil. Vs. Quilala – 557 SCRA 663
11. Green Star Express vs. Nissin Universal Robina Corp – 761 SCRA
12. Guy vs. Gacott – 780 SCRA 579 (1/13/16)
13. G.V. Florida Transit Inc. vs. Tiara Commercial Corporation 842 SCRA, October 18, 2017
On voluntary appearance:
1. Sunrise Garden Corp. vs. CA – 771 SCRA 616
2. Tujan-Militante vs. Nustad, 872 SCRA (2017)

XII. RULES 15: Motions (Sections 1-13)

A. Definition
B. Requirements
C. Kinds: Litigious; non-litigious
D. Omnibus Motion
E. Prohibited Motions
F. Dismissal With Prejudice
Cases:
1. Republic vs. Dimarucut, 857 SCRA (2017)
2. Acampado vs. Cosmilla, 771 SCRA
3. Laude vs. Gines-Jabalde, 775 SCRA
4. De Guzman vs. Ochoa, 684 SCRA

Note: Rule 16 has been deleted and/or transposed

XIII. RULE 17: Dismissal of Actions (Section1-4)

A. Dismissal Upon Notice (S-1)
B. Dismissal Upon Motion (S-2)
C. Dismissal due to plaintiff’s fault (S-3)
Cases:
1. Blay vs. VBana, 858 SCRA, 3/7/2018
2. Lim Tech Chuan, 752 SCRA 268
3. Ching vs. Cheng, 737 SCRA

XIV. RULE 18: Pre-trial (Sections 1-10)

A. When conducted
B. Nature and purpose
C. Notice

7
 D. Effect of Failure to appear
E. Pre-Trial Brief/Pre-trial Order
F. Mediations
G. Judicial Dispute Resolutions

Note: A.M. No. 03-1-09 Supreme Court effective August 16, 2004 (Guidelines to
be observed by trial courts judges and clerks of the court in the conduct of pre-trial and use of
deposition-discovery measures)

XV. RULE 19: Intervention (Sections 1-4)

- Who may intervene (S-1)
- When to intervene (S-2)
Cases:
1. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Sison, 612 SCRA
Compare with Ombudsman vs. Chavez, 700 SCRA
2. Anonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Janlandoni, 636 SCRA
3. Rodriguez vs. CA, 698 SCRA 352
4. Fernandez vs CA, 691 SCRA 167
5. Yao vs. Perello, 414 SCRA
6. Pinlac vs. CA, 410 SCRA
7. Chipongian vs. Benitez-Lirio - 768 SCRA 204

XVI. RULES 20 to 22:

A. Calendar of Cases (Sections 1-2)
B. Subpoena (Sections 1-10)
C. Computation of Time (Sections 1-2)

XVII. RULES 23-29: MODES OF DISCOVERY

A. Rule 23: Depositions Pending Actions (Sections 1-29)

a. Use of depositions (S-4)

b. Officers to take depositions (S-10, 11, 12)
c. Deposition upon oral examination (S-15)
d. Deposition upon written interrogatories (S-25)
e. Effects of errors and irregularities (S-29)
People vs. M.C. Sergio and J. Lacanilao, October 9, 2019
- Rule 23 was applied in a criminal case (Note: for class discussion)
Cases:
1. Dasmarinas Garments, Inc vs. Reyes, 225 SCRA
2. People vs. Webb, 312 SCRA
3. Vda de Manguerra vs. Risos, 563 SCRA
4. Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, 623SCRA
5. Go vs. People, 677 SCRA

B. Rule 24: Depositions Before Actions or Pending Appeal (Sections 1-7)

8
C. Rule 25: Interrogatories to Parties (Sections 1-6)
Cases:
1. Afulugencia vs. Metrobank, 715 SCRA
2. Phil. Health vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, 744 SCRA
- Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories

D. Rule 26: Admission by Adverse Party (Sections 1-5)

- Effect to failure to file and serve request for admission
Case: Duque vs. Yu, 856 SCRA (2017)

E. Rule 27: Production or Inspection of Documents or Things (One Section)

F. Rule 28: Physical and Mental Examination of Persons (Sections 1-6)

G. Rule 29: Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery (Sections 1-6)

XVIII. RULE 30: Trial (Sections 1-9)

A. Schedule of Trial (S-1)
B. Adjournment and Postponement (S-2,3,4)
C. Order of Trial (S-5)
D. Reception of Evidence (S-9)
-compare with Rule 119: trial in criminal cases

XIX. RULE 31: Consolidation of Severance (Sections 1-2)

Consolidation (S-1)
Cases: Rep. vs Heirs of Enrique Oribello, 692 SCRA
Marano vs. Pryce Gases Inc., 755 SCRA
Severance (S-2)
Cases: Metrobank vs. Sandoval, 691 SCRA

XX. RULE 32: Trial By Commissioner (Sections 1-13)

- Distinguish from trial with Assessors

XXI. RULE 33: Demurrer to Evidence (Sections 1-2)

Demurrer to Evidence (Sections 1-2)

- Distinguish between civil and criminal actions
- The similarities and differences between them
Cases:
1. Bernardo vs. CA ̶ 278 SCRA 782 (abandoned?)
2. Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. Del Rosario ̶ 335 SCRA 288
3. Cabador vs. Saraza ̶ 768 SCRA 356
4. Claudio vs. Saraza ̶ 768 SCRA 356
5. Felipe vs. MGM Motor Trading Corp. ̶ 771 SCRA 360
6. Republic vs. Gimenez ̶ 778 SCRA 261 (1/11/16)
7. Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, July 19, 2016

9
XXII. RULE 34 & 35: Judgment on the Pleadings (Sections 1-2)
Summary Judgement (Sections 1-6)
Cases:
1. Republic vs. Shell Petroleum Corp. ̶ 777 SCRA 393
2. Comglas Corp. vs. Santos Car Check Center ̶ 754 SCRA 481
3. Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Go. ̶ 642 SCRA
4. Adolfo vs. Adolfo ̶ 753 SCRA 580

XXIII. RULE 36: Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof (Sections 1-6)
- When is judgment deemed entered? Effect?
6. Several judgments (S-4)
7. Separate judgments (S-5)
8. Judgments against entities without personality (S-6)
Cases: FASAP vs PAL, 858 SCRA (for discussion)

REMEDIES AGAINST FINAL JUDGMENTS

XXIV. RULE 37: New Trial or Reconsideration

- Grounds for New Trial (S-1)
- Grounds for Reconsideration (S-1)
- Effects of a Grant or Denial (S-6,7,8)

Cases:
1. Mendezona vs. Ozamis ̶ 376 SCRA
2. People vs. Li Ka Kim ̶ 429 SCRA 169
3. Padilla Rumbaua vs. Rumbaua ̶ 596 SCRA 15
4. Chua vs. People ̶ 778 SCRA 425 (1/11/16)
5. Senit vs. People – 778 SCRA 425 (1/11/16)

XXV. RULE 40 - 45 (APPEALS)

A. Appeal from MTC to RTC (R-40)

Perfection of Appeal (S-4)
Docket Fees (S-5)
Appeals from order of dismissal (S-8)
De Vera vs. Santiago, 759 SCRA 431 (2015)
B. Appeal from RTC to CA (R-41)
Modes of Appeal (S-2)
Notice of Appeal vs Record on Appeal (S-5, 6)
Perfection of Appeal (S-9)
Heirs of Arturo Garcia vs. Mun. of Iba, 763 SCRA 349
C. Petition for Review from RTC to CA (R-42)
How appeal taken (S-1)
Failure to comply with requirements (S-3)
Perfection of Appeal (S-8)
Maravilla vs. Rios, 767 SCRA 522 (2015)

10
 D. Appeals from QJA to CA (R-43)
Contents of Petition (S-6)
Action on Petition (S-8)
Effect of Appeal (S-12)
Galindez vs. Firmalan, 864 SCRA 282 (June 2018)
E. Ordinary Appealed
Appellants Brief (S-7)
Appellees Brief (S-8)
De los Santos vs. Lucencio, 859 SCRA 449 (March 2018)
F. Appeal by Certiorari (R-45)
Contents of Petition (S-4)
Requirements (S-7)
Mendoza vs. Palugod, 867 SCRA 299 (2018)
Kensonic, Inc. vs. UNI-line Multi Resources, 864 SCRA 560
G. Dismissal of Appeal (R-50)
Valderama vs. Arguelles, 860 SCRA 188 (2018)
Material Data Rule (S-1)
Fresh period Rule: Fortune Life Insurance vs. COA, 845 SCRA (Nov.
21, 2017)

REMEDIES AGAINST EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS

XXVI. RULES 38 and 47

A. Relief from Judgments (R-38)

Petition for Relief from Judgment (S-1)
Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal (S-2)
Time for Filing Petition (S-3)
Preliminary Injunction (S-5)
Cases:
1. Mesina vs. Meer - 383 SCRA 625
2. The Provincial Government of Aurora
vs. Marco - 757 SCRA 222
3. Thomasites Center for International Studies
vs. Rodriguez - 782 SCRA 391 (1/27/16)

B. Annulment of Judgment (R-47)

Coverage, Grounds, Period (S-1,2,3)
Contents (S-4)
Effect (S-7)
Cases:
1. Diona vs. Balanque ̶ 688 SCRA 22
2. Santos vs. Santos ̶ 737 SCRA 637
3. Yuk Lik Ong vs. Co ̶ 752 SCRA 42
4. Lasala vs. National Food Authority 7̶ 67 SCRA 430
5. Manguba vs. Morga- Seva ̶ 775 SCRA 312
6. Sibal vs. Buquel ̶ 778 SCRA 517 (1/11/16)

11
XXVII. RULE 39 – EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS
A. Kinds of Execution
1. Matter of right, ministerial (S-1)
2. Discretionary (S-2)
a.Stay of discretionary execution (S-3)
b.Judgment not stayed by appeal (S-4)
Cases on execution pending appeal:
Banes vs. Banes, 374 SCRA 340
Santos vs. COMELEC, 399 SCRA 611
FEBTC vs. Toh, 404 SCRA
Stronghold Insurance vs. Felix, 508 SCRA
Abenion vs. Shell Petroleum, 816 SCRA (2017)
Ocampo vs. Enriquez, 835 SCRA 484 (2017)
B. Mode of Execution
1. By motion (S-6)
Villareal vs. MWSS, 857 SCRA 162
RCBC vs. Sera, 701 SCRA 124
2. By independent action (S-6)
Davis vs. Davis, 858 SCRA 145
Panotes vs. Townhouse Dev. Corp., 512 SCRA
C. Manner of Execution
1. When party is dead (S-7)
2. When judgment is for money (S-6)
3. When judgment is specific act (S-10)
4. When it is special judgment (S-11)
D. Properties exempt for execution (S-13)
D’Armoured Security Agency vs. Orpia, 461 SCRA 312
E. Third Party Claim (S-16)
PSALM vs. Maunlad Homes, Inc. 817 SCRA (2/8/17)
F. Execution Sale (S-17 to 26)
G. Redemption:
1. The right of redemption vs. equity of redemption
2. Who may redeem (S-27)
3. Effects of redemption (S-29)
H. Other remedies to fully satisfy judgment
1. Examination of judgment obligor (S-36)
2. Examination of obligor of judgment-obligor (S-37)
3. Appointment of receiver (S-41)
4. Sale of ascertainable interest (S-42)
I. Judgment: principal vs. surety (S-46)
J. Effect of judgment (S-47)
1. In rem
2. In personam
3. Res judicata
City of Cebu vs. Dedamo, 689 SCRA
K. Effect of foreign judgment (S-48)
Fujiki vs. Marinay, 700 SCRA 69
BPI vs. Guevarra, 752 SCRA 342

12
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ON JURISDICTION

A. Supreme Court:
1. No original Jurisdiction over criminal cases
2. Appellate jurisdiction: a) by petition for review b) by notice of appeal
B. Court of Appeals
1. No original Jurisdiction
2. Appellate jurisdiction: a) by notice of appeal b) by petition for review
C. Sandiganbayan (PD 1601; PD1861; RA7975,8249,10660)
1. Original and exclusive jurisdiction under the ff. guidelines:
a.What offence or crime was committed
a) R.A. 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
b) R.A. 1379 – the law on Ill-gotten Wealth
c) Chap. II, Title VII, Bk. 2 of RPC – Bribery
d) Exec. Orders 1, 2, 14, 14-A – PCGG cases
e) Estafa under the Hannah Serena case , 542 SCRA, 1/22/08
f) Falsification under the Ramiscal vs Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA
b.Who committed the offense/crime
b-1. Public officers in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the
government with salary grade 27 according to R.A. 6758 The Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 Read: Escobal vs. Garchitorena, 422 SCRA
b-2. Private individuals committing the offense/crime with public officers, Read:
People vs. Henry T. Go, March 25, 2014
Garcia vs. Sandiganayan, 603 SCRA
People vs. Benipayo, 586 SCRA
c. How was the offense /crime committed
Read : Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA
Sanchez vs. Sandiganbaya, 542 SCRA
Sen. Leila M. De Lima vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero
G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017, 843 SCRA (2017)
Other cases: Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)
Inocentes vs. People, 796 SCRA (2016)
Edgar Crisostomo vs. Sandiganbayan, 4/14/2005
Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan,3/11/2015

2. Appellate Jurisdiction
All cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of original appellate jurisdiction over cases
of public officer with salary grade less than 27 charged with offense/crimes
aforementioned

D. Regional Trial Courts

1. Original exclusive: all criminal cases which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court. The offense must carry a penalty of more than six years or prison major
2. Appellate jurisdiction: all criminal cases from the MTC

13
Note: The following are cognizable only by the RTC regardless of the penalty impossible:
i. Violations of the Omnibus Election Code
ii. Violations of the Intellectual Property Law
iii. Violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
iv. Violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2012
v. Violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
vi. Cases of Written Defamations

E. Family Courts (RA 8369)

1. Exclusive original:
a. Where the party is a minor at the time of commission
b. Violence against women and children
c. Child abuse
d. Drug cases

F. Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court

1. All violations of city/municipal ordinances
2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years
3. Violations of traffic rules and regulations
4. Violation of the Bouncing Check Law
5. Damage to property with fine of not more than 10,000.00
G. Courts of Muslim Mindanao (RA 6734 as amended by 9054)
1. Shari’ah Circuit Courts
2. Shari’ah District Courts
3. Shari’ah Appellate Courts
- All personal, family and property relations cases between muslims residing in the
autonomous region of muslim Mindanao
H. What are military courts? Only service-oriented cases…

Note: Read the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)

Read Bonifacio vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 149, 620 SCRA
Read Disini Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, Feb. 18, 2014, 716 SCRA

RULE 110 – Prosecution of Offenses

A. Institution of Criminal Acttions (Sec. 1)

- How is criminal action instituted
- When is it deemed instituted
- Who is qualified to institute it: a) by complaint, de parte
b) by information, de oficio
Read: Jimenez vs. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151
B. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information (Sec.6)
- Name of accused
- Name of offended party
- Name of offense
- Cause of accusation: qualifying and aggravating circumstances
- Place of commission
- Date of commission

14
 Read: People vs. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272
Miguel vs. Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA 560
People vs. Soria, 685 SCRA 483

C. Amendment vs. Substitution (Sec. 14)

- Distinguish
- Compare with rule 10

D. Place where action is to be instituted (Sec. 15)

- Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases
Read: Union Bank vs. People, 667 SCRA 113
E. Intervention of the offended party (Sec. 16); compare with rule 19

RULE 111 – Prosecution of Civil Action

A. Civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted (Sec. 1)

- Exceptions: waiver, reservations, prior institution (WaRP)
- On filing fees; counterclaim, cross-claim, 3 rd party complaint
- Compare with Sec. 7,8,11 of Rule 6
- Peculiar nature of B.P. 22
Read: Solidum vs. People, 718 SCRA 263
Castillo vs. Salvador, July, 2014
Dy vs. People, 800 SCRA 39
B. Suspension of Civil Action (Sec. 2)
- When suspended; consolidated
- What is the Bar Rule in Amparo and Habeas Data
Read: lim vs. Kou Co Ping, 679 SCRA 114

C. Independent Civil Action (Sec. 3)

- Articles 32,33, 34 and 2176
Read: Casupanan vs. Laroya, 388 SCRA 28
Caterpillar, Inc. vs. Samsom, 808 SCRA 309 (2016)

D. Effect of death on the Civil Action (Sec. 4)

- Compare with Secs. 17, 18 and 20 of Rule 3
Read: People vs. Romero, 306 SCRA 90

E. Prejudicial Question (Sec. 6 and 7)

Read: Magistrado vs. People, 527 SCRA 125
Pimentel vs. Pimentel, 630 SCRA 436
J.M. Dominguez vs. Liclica, July 28, 2015

RULE 112 – Preliminary Investigation

A. Definition/Description
- When a matter of right
- Distinguish from Preliminary Examination
Read: Fenequito vs. Vergara, Jr., 677 SCRA 113

15
 Burgundy Realty Corporation vs. Reyes, 687 SCRA 524

B. Who may conduct P.I.

Read: Abanado vs. Bayona, 677 SCRA 595
Heirs of Nestor Tria vs. Obias, 635 SCRA 91
C. Procedure in Metro Manila vs. Outside Metro Manila
Read: Uy vs. Javellan, 680 SCRA 13
D. Inquest, what is
- When applied
- Waiver of Art, 125 of RPC
Read: People vs. Valenciana, 214 SCRA 89
E. Quantum of Evidence
- Probable cause vs. prima facie
PCGG vs. Navarro-Gutierrez, 773 SCRA
De Lima vs. Reyes, 779 SCRA

RULE 113 – ARREST

A. Definition
- How made; when; time, method
- Who may arrest
B. Warrantless Arrests (Sec. 5)
a. In flagrante delicto rule
b. Hot pursuit rule
c. “escape” rule
d. “absconding” rule (Sec. 23, par. 2, rule 114
Procedure: delivery to the nearest police station/precint
Read: Luz vs. People, 667 SCRA 421
Antiquera vs. People, 712 SCRA, 12/11/2013
People vs. Vasquez, 714 SCRA, 1/15/2014
Read: RA 7438 – The Rights of Persons Arrested

RULE 114 – Bail

A. Definition/Description
B. Conditions/Requirments

- Effective upon approval and shall remain force at all stages of the proceedings until
promulgation of judgment by the RTC
- When appearance is required
C. When:
- Bail is a matter of right; a matter of discretion;
- Bail as a constitutional right
D. Kinds:
a. Corporate surety
b. Property bond
c. Cash bond
d. Recognizance: is an obligation of record entered into before some court

16
 or magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do some particular act
particularly the appearance of the accused for trial

E. Amount of bail; guidelines

F. Where to file bail

- RTC; MTC exercising special jurisdiction

G. Forfeiture vs. Cancellation of Bail

- Forfeiture: failure to appear, jumping bail
- Cancellation: death; conviction; acquittal; dismissal

Read: 1. Zuno vs. Cabebe, 444 SCRA 382

2. Govt of HK Spec. Adm. Region vs. Olalia, 521 SCRA
3. Leviste vs. CA, 615 SCRA 619
4. Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan, 767 SCRA 282, August 18, 2015
5. Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan, 844 SCRA (2017)
6. Altobano-Ruiz vs. Pichay, 856 SCRA (2018)
- What is the new policy/rule on Hold Departure Order, Watchlist Order?

RULE 115 – Rights of Accused

- Distinguish the constitutional from statutory rights of the accused

1. Presumption of Innocence, Del Castillo vs. People, 664 SCRA

2. Rights to be heard, Miguel vs. Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA
3. Right to Counsel, People vs. Lara, 678 SCRA; People vs. Espiritu, 302
4. Right Against Self-Incrimination, People vs. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216
5. Right to Speedy, Impartial and public Trail, Villareal vs. People 664 SCRA

RULE 116 – Arraignment and Plea

A. What is arraignment
How; When; Where; Why

B. Kinds of Plea:
a) Conditional
b) Unconditional
c) Negative/indirect (refusal to flead)
d) Inverted (pleads guilty with exculpatory evidence)
e) Improvident plea (not knowing fully well)

C. Plea of guilty to a capital offense vs. non-capital offense

- Requirements

D. Presentation or inspection of evidence in prosecution’s possession

- Modes of discovery (Rules 23-29)

17
 E. Suspension of arraignment
a) When suffering from unsound mental condition
b) Prejudicial question
c) Petition for review
d) Absence of judicial personnel
Read: 1. People vs. Estomaca – 256 SCRA 421
2. People vs. Pangilinan – 518 SCRA 359
3. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan – 560 SCRA 233
4. People vs. Janjalani – 639 SCRA 157

F. Bill of Particulars, Read: Enrile vs. People, August 11, 2015

RULE 117 Motion to Quash

A. Motion to Quash vs. Motion to Dismiss; Grounds

B. When and How to move to quash
C. Effects when motion is granted; denied
D. Remedies against denial/grant of motion

Read: 1. People vs. Lacson – 400 SCRA 267

2. Panaguiton vs. DOJ – 571 SCRA 549
3. People vs. Dumlao – 580 SCRA 409
4. Soriano vs. People – 591 SCRA 244
5. Cerezo vs. People – 650 SCRA 222
6. Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products, 727 SCRA 503, 6/30/14
7. People vs. De Leon, 754 SCRA 147

RULE 118 Pre-Trial

I. Pre-trial in civil cases vs. Pre-trial in criminal cases. Distinguish

II. Non appearance at the pre-trial; effects
III. The Pre-trial Order; when and how done; effect of lack of Order
Read: Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 160, 8/15/2017
A.M. No., 18-13-16-SC, Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases, 4/10/2018

RULE 119 – Trial

A. The Speedy Trial Act/RA 8493 as amended by OCA Circular No. 101-2017
- The time requirement
- Exclusions
- Remedies
Read: Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC,
effective. September 1, 2017
- Imperial vs. Joson, 635 SCRA 71

B. Order of Trial
- Civil vs. criminal cases; Order in presentation of Evidence

18
 C. Modes of Discovery in criminal cases
Read: People vs. Maris Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, October 9, 2019. For class discussion.
Compare with People vs. Webb, Vida. De Manguerra vs. Risos and GO vs. People.

IV. The “State-Witness” rule; requirements

Read: jimenez vs. People, 735 SCRA, Sept. 2014
People vs. Dominguez, 856 SCRA 109

V. Mistake in charging the proper offenses; effects

VI. Demurrer to Evidence
Read: Cabador vs. People. 602 SCRA
People vs. Tan, 625 SCRA
Rep. vs De Borja, 814 SCRA 10 (2017)
Macapagay-Arroyo vs. People, 823 SCRA (2017)
VII. Reopening vs. New Trial

RULE 120 JUDGMENT

1. Nature of judgment in criminal cases vs. civil cases

2. Judgment of conviction vs. judgment of acquittal
3. Judgment for two or more offenses; accused
4. Promulgation, modification and entry of judgment
Cases:
1. Llamas vs. CA – 601 SCRA 288
2.People vs. Monteclaros – 589 SCRA 320
3.Hipos Sr. vs. Bay – 581 SCRA 674
4.People vs. Lorenzo – 619 SCRA 389
5.People vs. Baron – 621 SCRA 646
6.Abellana vs. People – 566 SCRA 683
7.People vs. Asis – 629 SCRA 250
8.Bastilonia vs. Villaruz, 765 SCRA 489
9.Morillo vs. People, 777 SCRA 207

RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

1. In civil cases vs. criminal cases

2. Grounds; effect
Cases:
1. Estino vs. People – 584 SCRA 304
2. Briones vs. People – 588 SCRA 345
3. Saludaga vs. Sandiganbayan – 619 SCRA 364
4. Lumanog vs. People – 642 SCRA 248
5. Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan – 654 SCRA 277

RULES 122-125 – APPEALS

1. Appeals in Civil cases vs. Appeals in Criminal cases

2. Similarities and differences

19
NO 20

20
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
REMEDIAL LAW DEPARTMENT

SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
PROF. HENEDINO M. BRONDIAL

I. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rules 57-61)

A. Preliminary Attachment (R-57)

1. Grounds (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-3)
3. Manner of Attaching (S-5)
4. Discharge of Attachment (S-5, 12, 13)
5. Third Party Claim (S-14)
6. Claim for damages (S-20)
Cases:
1. Lim Jr. vs. Lazaro, 700 SCRA
2. Ligon vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 56, 717 SCRA
3. Mangila vs. CA, 387 SCRA
4. Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, 349 SCRA
5. Alejandro Ng Wee vs. Tankiansee, 545 SCRA
6. Torres vs. Satsatin, 605 SCRA
7. Luzon Dev. Bank vs. Krishman, 755 SCRA, April 13, 201,
8. Northern Luzon Island Co. vs. Garcia, 753 SCRA 603
9. Watercraft Venture Corp. vs. Wolfe, 770 SCRA 179
10. Phil. Airconditioning Center vs. RCJ Lines, 775 SCRA 265

B. Preliminary Injunction (R-58)

1. Definition, Classes (S-1)
2. Grounds (S-3); TRO
3. Requirements (S-4)
4. Damages (S-8)
Cases:
1. Idolo vs. CA, 351 SCRA
2. Gustilo vs. Real, 353 SCRA
3. Lagrosas vs. Bristo-Myers, 565 SCRA
4. Jenosa vs. Delariarte, 630 SCRA
5. Solid Builders Inc. vs. China Bank, 695 SCRA, 4/3/13.
6. Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc., 824 SCRA (2017)
7. Novecio vs. Lim, 754 SCRA 111
8. Cayabyab vs. Dimson, 830 SCRA 520
9. Republic vs. Cortez, 769 SCRA 267
10. AMA Land, Inc. vs. Wack-Wack Residents’ Assoc., Inc.
831 SCRA 328 (requisites for Injunction)

- What cases/subject matters prescribe injunctive relief?

21
 C. Receivership (R-59)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Power of receiver (S-6)
4. Termination and Compensation (S-8)
Cases:
1. Larrobis, Jr. vs. Phil. Veterans Bank, 440 SCRA
2. Chavez vs. CA, 610 SCRA
3. Koruga vs. Arcenas, 590 SCRA
4. Tantano vs. Espina-Caboverde, 702 SCRA ̶ 7/29/13

D. Replevin (R-60)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Third Party Claim (S-7)
4. Judgment and Damages (S-9, 10)
Cases:
1. Orosa vs. CA, 329 SCRA
2. Smart Communications vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA
3. Hao vs. Andres, 555 SCRA
4. Navarro vs. Escobido, 606 SCRA
5. Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, 697 SCRA, 6/3/13

E. Support (R-61)
1. Application for Support Pendente Lite (S-1)
2. Comment, Hearing, Order (S-2, 3, 4)
3. Enforcement of Order (S-5)
4. Restitution (S-7)
Cases:
1. De Asis vs. CA, 303 SCRA
2. People vs. Manahan, 315 SCRA
3. Lim vs. Lim, 604 SCRA
4. Gotardo vs. Buling, 678 SCRA
5. Republic vs. Yahon, 726 SCRA 438
6. Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem, 744 SCRA 516
7. Lim-Lua vs. Lua, 697 SCRA
8. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA 560
9. Abella vs. Cabanero, 836 SCRA 453 (2017)

II. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (Rules 62-71)

A. Interpleader (R-62)
1. What is an action in Interpleader (S-1)
2. Requisites (S-1)
3. Procedure (S-2 to 7)
Cases:
1. Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Won, 70 SCRA
2. Eternal Gardens vs. IAC, 165 SCRA

22
 3. Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA
4. Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 681 SCRA

B. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (R-63)

1. Nature; Kinds (S-1)
2. Parties (S-2)
3. Conversion into ordinary action (S-6)
Cases:
1. Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Ind., 542 SCRA
2. De Borja vs. Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na
Mangingisda ng L, M at V.,823 SCRA 550 (2017)
3. Malana vs. Tappa, 600 SCRA
4. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA
5. Sabitsana vs. Muertegui, 703 SCRA (8/5/13)
6. Dept of Finance vs. De la Cruz Jr., 768 SCRA 73
7. Erice vs. Sison, 846 SCRA (2017)

C. Review of Judgments and Final Orders of the COMELEC and COA (R-64)
- The distinctive nature and procedure of this special civil action
Case: Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. COMELEC
705 SCRA 340, September 10, 2013

D. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (R-65)

1. Certiorari (S-1)
a.grounds
b.requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects
Cases:
1. Ampil vs. Ombudsman, 703 SCRA, 7/31/13
2. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA, 1/28/14
3. Maglalang vs. PAGCOR, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
4. People vs. Castaneda, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
5. UP Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Teylan, 227 SCRA
6. Tuazon vs. RD of Caloocan, 157 SCRA
7. GSIS vs. CA, 867 SCRA (2018)
8. Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan SCRA, 868 SCRA (2018)

2. Prohibition (S-2)
a.grounds
b.Requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects
Cases:
1. Vivas vs. Monetary Board of BSP, 703 SCRA 8/7/13
2. Corales vs. Republic, 703 SCRA, 8/27/13
3. Javier vs. Gonzales, 815 SCRA (2017)
4. Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service
Commission, 819 SCRA 482 (2017)

23
 3. Mandamus (S-3)
a. grounds
b. requisites
c. procedure; parties and effects
d. damages
Cases:
1. Hipos, Sr. vs. Bay, 581 SCRA 3/17/09
2. Sanchez vs. Lastimosa, 534 SCRA, 9/25/07
3. Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, 517 SCRA, 3/7/07
4. Laygo vs. Mun. Mayor of Solano, N. V., 814 SCRA (2017)
5. Cudia vs. Superintendent of PMA, February 24, 2015
6. Villanueva vs. JBC, 755 SCRA 182

E. Quo Warranto (R-66)

1. Parties (S-1 to 6)
2. Period (S-8)
3. Limitation (S-11)
4. Judgment for Cost (S-12)
Read for class discussion: Republic vs. Sereno, May 11, 2018, 863
SCRA 1
Cases:
1. Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA
2. Calleja vs. Panday, 483 SCRA
3. Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 621 SCRA
4. Aratea vs. COMELEC, 683 SCRA
5. De Castro vs. Carlos, 696 SCRA, 4/16/13
6. Velasco vs. Belmonte, 779 SCRA 81 (1/12/16)
F. Expropriation (R-67)
1. The right of Eminent Domain
-Constitutional provision: “private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation”
-RA 7160: The Local Govt. Code, Sec. 19
2. Who may expropriate
3. Two stages in expropriation
1. determination of public use
2.just compensation
Cases:
1. City of Manila vs. Serrano, 359 SCRA
2. National Power Corp. vs. CA, 436 SCRA
3. Republic vs. Andaya, 524 SCRA
4. Asia’s Emerging Dragon vs. DOTC, 552 SCRA
5. Abad vs. Fil-Homes Realty, 636 SCRA
6. NPC vs. YCLA Sugar Dev. Corp., 712 SCRA 550
7. Limkaichong vs. LBP, 799 SCRA 139 (8/2/16)
8. LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)

G. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (R-68)

1. The Complaint (S-1)

24
 2. The Judgment (S-2)
3. Sale of foreclosed property (S-3)
-Equity of Redemption vs. Right of Redemption
4. Deficiency Judgment (S-6)
Read the law on extra-judicial foreclosure: RA 3135, 4118
Cases:
1. Ramirez vs. Manila Banking Corp., 712 SCRA, 12/20/13
2. Marquez vs. Alindog, 714 SCRA 1/2014
3. Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff, 436 SCRA
4. LZK Holdings vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 714 SCRA 1/2014
5. Goldenway Merchandising Corp. vs. Equitable PCI
Bank, 693 SCRA, March 13, 2013
6. Solid Builders vs. CBC, 695 SCRA (also on injunction)
7. Robles vs. Yapcinco,739 SCRA 75
8. MBTC vs. CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc., 760 SCRA 59
9. Roldan vs. Barrios, 862 SCRA 318, April 23, 2018

H. Partition (R-69)
1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Order (S-2)
3. Stages of Partition
4. Rule of Commissioners (S-3 to 7)
5. The Judgment (S-11)
Cases:
1. Balus vs. Balus, 610 SCRA
2. Feliciano vs. Canosa, 629 SCRA
3. Mangahas vs. Brobio, 634 SCRA
4. Vda. De Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla, 690 SCRA
5. Agarrado vs. Librando-Agarrado, 864 SCRA 582, June 6, 2018

I. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (R-70)

1. Parties (S-1)
2. Procedure: Summary (S-3 to 15)
3. Judgment (S-17)
4. Immediate Execution (S-19 vs. S-21)
-preliminary injunction (S-20)
5. Appeals
Cases:
1. Prov. Of Cam. Sur vs. Bodega Glassware, 821 SCRA (2017)
2. Santiago vs. Northbay Knitting, Inc.,842 SCRA (2017)
3. Regalado vs. De la Rama vda. De dela Pena, 848 SCRA (2017)
4. Ferrer vs. Rabaca, 632 SCRA
5. CGR Corp. vs.Treyes, 522 SCRA 765
6. Zacarias vs. Anacay, 736 SCRA 508, 9/24/14
7. Supapo vs. De Jesus, 756 SCRA 211, 4/20/15
8. De Guzman-Fuerte vs. Estomo, 862 SCRA (2018)
9. Iglesia de Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Phil. Inc.
vs. De la Cruz, 862 SCRA (2018)

25
 J. Contempt (R-71)
1. Kinds: direct (S-1); indirect (S-3)
2. Procedure (S-4 to 9)
3. Judgment and Review (S-11)
Cases:
1. Yasay vs. Recto, 313 SCRA
2. Sison vs. Caoibes, Jr., 429 SCRA 258
3. Espanol vs. Formoso, 525 SCRA
4. Marantan vs. Diokno, 716 SCRA 164, 2/2014
5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez, 717 SCRA
6. Tormis vs. Paredes, 749 SCRA 505, Feb. 4, 2015
7. Oca vs. Custodio, 832 SCRA (2017)
8. Causing vs. De la Rosa, 857 SCRA (2017)
9. Sps. Bayani & Myrna Partoza vs. Lilian Montano & Amelia
Solomon, 866 SCRA 35 (2018)

III. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rules 72 to 109)

A. Settlement of Estate
1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (R-73)
2. Kinds of settlement
a. Extrajudicial
(1) By Agreement
(2) By self-adjudication
b. Judicial
(1) Summary (R-74)
(2) By Petition (R-75 to 90)
a. Intestate
b. Testate
(3) By partition (R-69)
3. The Administrator or Executor
(a) Special vs Regular (R-80)
(b) Bonds (R-81)
(c) Powers and Duties(R-84)
(d) Accountability (R-85)
4. Claims Against the Estate (R-86)
5. Actions by and against Executor and Administrator (R-87)
6. Distribution and Partition (R-90)

Cases:
1. San Luis vs. San Luis, 514 SCRA, February 2007
2. Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belen, 702 SCRA, 7/31/13
3. Agtarap vs. Agtarap, 651 SCRA, June 2011
4. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, 683 SCRA, October 2012
5. Lee vs. RTC of Q.C., 423 SCRA, February 2004
6. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs. Edmond Ruiz, 252 SCRA, January 1996
7. Unionbank vs. Santibanez, 452 SCRA, February 2005 (R-86)

26
 8. Heirs of Maglasang vs. MBC, 706 SCRA 235
9. Pilapil vs. Heirs of M. Briones, 514 SCRA, February 2007
10. Sabidong vs. Solas, 699 SCRA, June 2013
11. Aranas vs. Mercado, 713 SCRA
12. Silverio Sr. vs. Silverio Jr., 733 SCRA 183 (8/13/14)
13. Butiong vs. Plazo, 765 SCRA 227

B. Escheats (R-91)
1. Definition
2. Historical background and legal basis
3. Actions for Revisions (S-5)
Cases:
1. Alvario vs. Sola, 382 SCRA
2. Maltos vs. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo, 770 SCRA 397

C. Guardians and Guardianship (R-92) as amended by

A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003

1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (S-92)

2. Appointment, Kinds, Qualifications (S-93)
3. Requirement (S-94)
4. Power and Duties (S-96)
5. Termination (S-97)
Cases:
1. Goyena vs. Ledesma Gustillo, Jan. 13, 2003
2. Caniza vs. CA, Feb. 24, 1997
3. Neri vs. Heirs od Hadji Yusop Uy, 683 SCRA
4. Oropesa vs. Oropesa, 671 SCRA (4/2012)
5. Abad vs. Biazon, 687 SCRA (12/2012)

D. Trustees (R-98)
1. Parties
2. Kinds/Classes
Cases:
1. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. vs. Alcantara, 664 SCRA
2. Land Bank of the Phil. vs. Perez, 672 SCRA

E. Adoption and Custody of Minors (R-99-100)

1. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA 8552)
2. Inter Country Adoption Act of 1995 (RA 8043)
3. Rule of Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC dated July 31, 2002
effective Aug. 22, 2002)
a.Who may adopt (S-4)
b.Who may be adopted (S-5)
c. Venue and Jurisdiction (S-20)

27
Cases:
1. Cang vs CA ̶ 296 SCRA 128
2. Vda de Jacob vs CA ̶ 312 SCRA 772
3. Republic of the Phil. vs Hon, Jose R. Hernandez-253 SCRA 509
4. Republic vs CA ̶ 255 SCRA 99
5. Reyes vs. Mauricio, 636 SCRA
6. In the Matter of Stephanie Nathy Astorga-Garcia, 454 SCRA
7. Petition for Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim, 588 SCRA 98 (2007)
8. Nery vs. Sampana, 734 SCRA
9. Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA
10. Bartolome vs. SSS, 740 SCRA

F. Habeas Corpuz (R-102)

4. Definition and Nature or Scope (S-1)
5. Requisites for Application (S-3)
6. Disallowance or Discharge of Writ (S-4)
7. Preliminary citation vs. Writ (S-6)
8. The return: when evidence; when plea (S-10, 12, 13)
Cases:
1. Ilusorio vs Bildner, 332 SCRA 169
2. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan- 396 SCRA 443
3. Lacson vs. Perez, 357 SCRA 756
4. Sangca vs. City Prosecutor of Cebu, 524 SCRA 610
5. Mangila vs. Pangilinan, 701 SCRA 355
6. Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera, July 28, 2014
7. Datukan Malang Salibo vs. The Warden, 755 SCRA 296

H. Change of Name vs. Correction/Cancellation of Entries, as amended

R.A. 9048 and 10172 (Rule 103 vs. Rule 108)

1. Venue vs Jurisdiction
2. Contents of Petition/Grounds
3. Hearing
4. Judgment
5. R.A. 9048 and its Implementing Rules
Cases:
1. Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of Q.C. ̶ May 9, 2002
2. Republic vs. Kho ̶ 526 SCRA
3. Petition for Change on Name of Julian Lim
Carulasan Wang ̶ 454 SCRA
4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. ̶ ̶ 607 SCRA (2009)
5. Republic vs. Silverio ̶ 537 SCRA
6. Republic vs. Cagandahan ̶ 565 SCRA
7. Republic vs. Uy ̶ 703 SCRA (August 12, 2013)
8. Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay, June 26, 2013
9. People vs. Merlinda Olaybar, February 10, 2014
10. Onde vs. CR of Las Pinas, 734 SCRA, Sept. 2014

28
I. Prerogative Writs

A. Writ of Amparo

Cases:
1. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA
2. Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Asso., 554 SCRA
3. Castillo vs. Cruz, 605 SCRA
4. Razon vs. Tagitis, 606 SCRA
5. Roxas vs. GMA, 630 SCRA
6. Burgos vs. Esperon, 715 SCRA, February 2014

B. Writ of Habeas Data

Cases:
1. Caram vs. Segui, August 5, 2014
2. Vivares et Al. vs. St. Therese College, Sept. 29, 2014
3. Meralco vs. Lim, 632 SCRA
4. Lee vs. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59

C. Writ of Kalikasan

Cases:
1. Dolot vs. Paje, 703 SCRA (continuing Mandamus)
2. Paje vs. Casino, 749 SCRA 39 (Writ of Kalikasan)
3. Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102
4. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape
Tanon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes et Al., 756 SCRA 513
April 21, 2015
5. West Tower Condominium vs. Phil. Ind. Corp., 758 SCRA

29
Page 34
SN No. 4456379
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION
REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL METRO MANILA DIST. V
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
No. -4434-

It is HEREBY CERTIFIED that certain land situated in the Municipality of Pateros Metro Manila
bounded and described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot 1-B of the subdivision plan (LPO) Psd-309916 approved as a non-subdivision
project, being a portion of Lot 1, Psu-211407; L.R.C. Rec.No. N050584), situated in the Barrio of Sto.
Rosario, Municipality of Pateros (Metro Manila), Island of Luzon, Bounded on the NE*,points 1 to 2, by
Lot 1-A; on the SE, points 3 to 4, by lot 1-F (Alley) 3.00 m. and on the NW. .points 5 to 1, by property of
Victorino Lacambacal, Lot 2, Psu-160982. Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan, being S. 54 deg. 31*
W., 1534.87 m. from HLIM No.1. Municipality of Pasig, thence S. 21 deg. 28*E., 10.36 m. to point 2;
thence S. 68 deg. 31*W., 11.88 m. to point 3; thence S. 71 deg. 29* ,. 2.48 m to point 4; thence N. 18
deg. 33*W., 11.57m. to point 5; thence N. 74 deg. 01* E., 13.82 m. to the point of beginning; containing
an area of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (155) SQUARE METERS, more or less, All points (Over) is registered
in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Art in the name of

AMADA LACAMBACAL, of legal age, married to Daniel Patajo, Filipino.

as owner thereof in fee simple, subject to such of the incumbrances mentioned in Section 89 of
said Act as may be subsisting and to

30
Book (T-1860)
Page (35)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION
REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR THE (PROVINCE OF RIZAL METRO MANILA (DIST. II)
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE of TITLE
No. (317435) -0581-

It is HEREBY CERTIFIED that certain land situated in the Municipality of Pateros Province of Rizal,
Philippines, bounded and described as follows;
A parcel of land (Lot A-4 B-2 of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-136256, being a portion of Lot A-4-
B, (LRC) Psd-133222, LRC Record No. 44649), situated in the Barrio of Sto. Rosario, Municipality of
Pateros, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the NE., points 1 to 2 by Lot A-4B-1, of the
subdivision plan; on the SE., points 2 to 3 by Lot A-5, (LRC) Psd-71780 (Felisa Lacambacal); on the SW.,
points 3 to 4 by Alley (3.00 m. wide); and on the NW., point marked “1” on plan, being S. 53 deg. 51’w.,
1586.93 m. from B.L.L.M. No.1, Mp. of Pasig, Rizal; thence S. 35 deg. 03’E ., 13.84 m. to point 2; thence
S. 54 deg. 11’w., 29.53 m. to the point 3; thence N. 9 deg. 30’ W., 17.00 m. to the point 4; thence N. 57
deg. 49’E., 22.22 m. to the point of the beginning; containing an area of THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE
(379) SQUARE METERS, more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked on
the ground as follows : Points 1 and 2 by P.S. and the rest by Old P.S. Cyl. Conc. Mons. 15x60 oms.,
bearing true ; date of the original survey, Aug. 17, 1911 and that of the subdivision survey, Feb. 28,
1971./.

Is registered in accordance with the provision of the Land Registration Act in the name of AMADA
LACAMBACAL, married to Daniel Patajo, Filipino, of legal age,

As owner thereof in fee simple, subject to such of the incumbrances mentioned in Section 39 of said Act
as may be subsisting, and to

31