0% found this document useful (0 votes)

300 views223 pages

CIVPRO From 3F SUPPORT GROUP DIGESTS

This document provides a table summarizing civil procedure case digests. The first case discusses whether a public official can be held in contempt for dismissing an employee while their appeal was pending. The court ruled the official could not be held in contempt. The second case discusses whether 2019 amendments to procedural rules could be applied retroactively to a pending case regarding a probate dispute.

Uploaded by

Aira Mae Borras

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

300 views223 pages

CIVPRO From 3F SUPPORT GROUP DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Aira Mae Borras

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 223

NOTE: Pls see tracker here - CIVPRO DIGEST TRACKER - 3F/3D/3H Support Group

Civil Procedure Digests

Atty. Francesca Lourdes Señga
3F/3D/3H SY 2022-2023

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RULING/DOCTRINE

MODULE 1

1. In the Matter to TICKLER: Tel-Equen dismissed while appeal was W/N Sec. No. Sec. Datumanong cannot be held in
Declare in pending, prays that respondent be cited in Datumanong should contempt of court for issuing the
Contempt of Court contempt be cited in contempt Memorandum Order in the absence of malice
Hon. Simeon or wrongful conduct in issuing it.
Datumanong FACTS:
● The Ombudsman Task Force on Public The remedy of the petitioner is not to file a
Works and Highways filed with the Office petition to cite him in contempt of court but to
of the Ombudsman an administrative elevate the error to the higher court of review
complaint against Jimmie Tel-Equen and and correction.
others due to dishonesty, falsification of
official documents, grave misconduct, and However, two events supervened since the
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of filing of this petition that would support its
service, among others. dismissal:

● Tel-Equen and others were found guilty by ● First, on March 28, 2005, the Court in
the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of G.R. No. 144694 affirmed the
the Office of Ombudsman. This decision decisions of the Court of Appeals and
was affirmed by the CA, with modification Administrative Adjudication Bureau of
– exonerating the other two for lack of the Office of the Ombudsman ordering
evidence. petitioner dismissed from the service
for dishonesty, falsification of public
● Tel-Equen, together with another two documents, misconduct, and conduct
co-accused, appealed CA’s decision. prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.
● While the appeal was pending, Sec.
Datumanong issued a memorandum ● Second, Section 7, Rule III of the
order dismissing Tel-Equen. Hence, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
instant petition to cite Sec. Datumanong in Ombudsman was amended by
contempt of court. Administrative Order No. 17 wherein
the pertinent provision on the
execution of decisions pending appeal

is now essentially similar to Section

47 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service and other related laws, thus:

xxx

An appeal shall not stop the decision from

being executory. In case the penalty is
suspension or removal and the respondent
wins such appeal, he shall be considered as
having been under preventive suspension and
shall be paid the salary and such other
emoluments that he did not receive by reason
of the suspension or removal.

xxx
Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws
are construed to be applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of
their passage, and are deemed retroactive
in that sense and to that extent. As a
general rule, the retroactive application of
procedural laws cannot be considered
violative of any personal rights because no
vested right may attach to nor arise
therefrom.

2. Colmenar v. TICKLER: Application of 2019 amendments 1) W/N petitioner 1) Yes, a question of law exists in this case as
Colmenar availed of the the issue in this case is whether the trial court
FACTS: correct remedy (go committed reversible error when it applied the
● Petitioner filed a Complaint, alleging, straight to the 2019 Amendments to resolve the affirmative
among others, that he is the legitimate Supreme Court by defenses pleaded by the respondent
and lawful heir of his father, when his Rule 45). Yes. companies, albeit the same was already
father died, he left real properties and that pending when the amendments took effect.
Respondents pollo, Jeannie and Victoria 2) Whether the trial The issue of whether the trial court correctly
executed Extrajudicial Settlement of court was correct in applied a specific law or rules to a particular
Estate of his father, where it was made to applying the 2019 case is a question of law. The issue of
appear that only the Respondents amendments to whether the complaint states a cause of action

Appollo, Jeannie and Victoria were the resolve the also does not require the Court to re-evaluate
surviving heirs of his father, and allocating affirmative defenses the credibility of any witnesses or the veracity
unto themselves the interests of his father pleaded by of any evidence. The Court only needs to
over said properties. respondent examine the Complaint itself, the allegations
companies. NO. of which are assumed to be true, to determine
● Respondents Apollo, Jeannie and Victoria whether the complaint states a cause of action
then sold the properties in separate against respondent companies for declaration
contracts of sale to Respondents PEC, of nullity of deeds of extrajudicial settlement of
ProFriends and Crisanta Realty. estate, deeds of sale, cancellation of titles and
damages against respondent companies. This
● Respondent PEC then sold the property it is a pure question of law as well.
purchased to Respondent Amaia.
Petitioner claimed that the sale to PEC, 2) No. The application of the 2019
Crisanta Realty, Profriends and Amaia amendments to resolve the affirmative
were void because the respondents defenses pleaded by respondent companies
Appollo, Jeannie and Victoria were not the should not have been done because it was
rightful heirs of his father, and therefore both not feasible and would work injustice,
had no right of claim over his father’s as provided under Rule 144 of the 2019
properties, thereby making the sale to the Rules, which provides that the
said respondents companies void. amendments shall govern all cases after
their effectivity on 1 May 2020, and also all
● Apollo and Amaia filed their respective pending proceedings, except to the extent
Motion to Dismiss. Amaia claimed in the that in the opinion of the court, their
Motion to Dismiss that the Complaint application would not be feasible or would
stated no cause of action against it as it work injustice, in which case, the
was allegedly a buyer in good faith. procedure under which the cases were
filed shall govern.
● ProFriends, in its Answer, invoked as
affirmative defense lack of cause of Sec. 12, Rule 8 provides that the court shall
action. In their Answer, PEC and Crisanta motu proprio resolve the affirmative defenses
Realty claimed that the complaint failed to within 30 calendar days from the filing of the
state a cause of action against them, Answer. Here, the said 30-day period from the
claiming they were innocent purchasers filing of the answer had long expired when the
for value and that Petitioner’s claim had trial court issued the resolution on the
prescribed. They also invoked common affirmative defenses on 22 May 2020.
defenses of being innocent purchasers for ProFriends filed its answer in December 2018,
value, and that the claim is barred by PEC and Crisanta Realty on 3 January 2019
laches and/or prescription. and Amaia on 27 February 2020. The trial
court should have desisted from applying the

● PEC and Crisanta Realty then filed a 2019 amendments because when it did, the
Motion for Leave of Court to Set the Case same was no longer feasible, as it was
for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative already more than 30 days from the filing of
Defenses. the answer.

● In an Order dated a April 2019, the trial The application of the 2019 rules also caused
court through then Assisting Judge injustice for as a consequence, petitioner lost
Pascua granted the motion to set the his substantial right to be heard on the
affirmative defenses for hearing, and common affirmative defense of PEC, Crisanta
deferred the resolution of the motion to Realty and Amaia, and his right to seek a
dismiss. reconsideration of the order of dismissal,
which were both granted him under the 1997
● In an Order dated 26 December 2019, Rules.
Assisting Judge Gill set aside the Order
dated 1 April 2019 which set the It was also inaccurate for the trial court to say
affirmative defenses for hearing and that it was motu proprio acting on the
deferred the ruling on the motion to affirmative defenses. In truth, the trial court
dismiss and instead, deemed that the had already resolved this common affirmative
Motion for Leave of Court and Motions to defense of failure to state a cause of action,
Dismiss were submitted for Resolution. together with the other affirmative defenses in
the Omnibus Order dated 12 February 2020,
● In an Omnibus Order dated 12 February where it held that the issues were complex
2020, Judge Gill denied the motions, on and would be better threshed out in trial. PEC,
the ground that: (1) the issues raised by Crisanta Realty and Amaia also had filed their
Respondents were complex and respective motions for reconsideration to
evidentiary, which could be best threshed assail that Omnibus Order, which motions for
out during trial; and (2) pursuant to the reconsideration were pending when the trial
exercise of discretion under Sec. 1, Rule court motu proprio resolved their common
16, the motion to hear affirmative affirmative defenses and dismissed the
defenses were being denied as the issues complaint. This rendered the pending motions
raised by each party were complex and for reconsideration as moot. Instead of
would be better threshed out in trial. applying the 2019 amendments, the trial court
should have resolved the pending motions for
● PEC, Crisanta Realty and Amaia filed reconsideration of PEC, Crisanta Realty and
their respective motions for Amaia.
reconsideration. Amaia also filed its
answer, pleading failure to state a cause
of action as an affirmative defense.

● In the meantime, the 2019 Amendments

to the Rules of Court took effect on 1 May
2020. The affirmative defenses were set
for hearing.

● On 22 May 2020, the trial court issue an

order of even date, dismissing the
Complaint against PEC, Crisanta Realty,
Amaia and ProFriends on the ground that
the complaint failed to state a cause of
action against them, applying Sec. 12,
Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge
Gill resolved motu proprio the affirmative
defense of failure to state a cause of
action.

● Since Sec. 12, Rule 15 of the 2019 Rules

prohibited the filing of a motion for
reconsideration of the court’s action on
the affirmative defense, Petitioner
assailed the 22 May 2020 Order directly
with the Supreme Court by Rule 45, on
the basis of pure question of law.
Petitioner questions whether it was
correct for the trial court to apply the
amended rules on the motu proprio
resolution on the affirmative defense to
the present case, which was pending
before the amended rules took effect.

3. Labao v. Flores TICKLER: Security guards constructively W/N CA erred in Yes, the CA erred.
dismissed due to their failure to submit updated acting on the
documents, appeal filed out of time respondents’ petition The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid

despite its late filing any unreasonable delay that would violate the
FACTS: Petitioner Labao is the proprietor and constitutional rights of parties to a speedy
general manager of the SMPSA, while disposition of their case.
respondents were security guards assigned to Time and again, we have stressed that
NPC-MRC. Petitioner issued a memorandum procedural rules do not exist for the
requiring all security guards to submit their convenience of the litigants; the rules were
updated personal data files, security guard established primarily to provide order to, and
professional license, and other pertinent enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system.
documents for reevaluation. Respondents failed to While procedural rules are liberally
do so despite several notices. Petitioner relieved construed, the provisions on reglementary
them from NPC-MRC starting Sept and Oct 2004. periods are strictly applied, indispensable
as they are to the prevention of needless
In March and April 2005, respondents filed delays, and are necessary to the orderly
individual complaints for constructive dismissal and speedy discharge of judicial business.
and money claims, since they were not given new The timeliness of filing a pleading is a
assignments for a period of 6 months despite jurisdictional caveat that even this Court
repeated requests. LA dismissed the complaints. cannot trifle with.
Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to
NLRC affirmed LA’s decision. On Sept 29, 2006, be belittled or dismissed simply because their
NLRC denied respondents’ motion for non-observance may have prejudiced a
reconsideration. Atty. Plando (respondents’ party's substantive rights; like all rules, they
counsel) received the resolution on Oct 13, 2006. are required to be followed.
However, there are recognized exceptions to
On Jan 9, 2007 (or 88 days later), the their strict observance, such as:
respondents, through their new counsel, filed with 1. most persuasive and weighty reasons
the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 2. to relieve a litigant from an injustice
alleging that they were informed of the Sept 29 not commensurate with his failure to
2006 resolution on Dec 6, 2006, while Bicoy comply with the prescribed procedure;
received a copy on Nov 6, 2006. 3. good faith of the defaulting party by
immediately paying within a
On Sept 5, 2008, the CA reversed NLRC’s reasonable time from the time of the
decision and ruled in favor of respondents. Upon default;
petitioner’s reconsideration, CA modified its 4. the existence of special or compelling
decision dismissing Bicoy’s petition (one of the circumstances;
respondents) for having been filed out of time. 5. the merits of the case;
6. a cause not entirely attributable to the
Petitioner argues the following: fault or negligence of the party
1. Respondents’ petition for certiorari was favored by the suspension of the
filed 28 days late rules;

2. Respondents’ new counsel concealed 7. a lack of any showing that the review
Atty. Plando’s Oct 13, 2006 receipt of the sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
resolution 8. the other party will not be unjustly
3. The evidence on record supports the LA prejudiced thereby;
and NLRC decisions 9. fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence without appellant's fault;
Respondents argue that the reckoning date of the 10. peculiar legal and equitable
60-day period must be on Dec 6, 2006. circumstances attendant to each
case;
11. in the name of substantial justice and
fair play;
12. importance of the issues involved; and
13. exercise of sound discretion by the
judge guided by all the attendant
circumstances.
Thus, there should be an effort on the part of
the party invoking liberality to advance a
reasonable or meritorious explanation for
his/her failure to comply with the rules.

4. Gios-Samar, Inc. TICKLER: Yolanda victims Whether or not it No.

v. DOTC was proper for
FACTS: petitioner to file the Petitioner's arguments against the
● On March 27, 2015, petitioner present petition for constitutionality of the bundling of the Projects
GIOS-SAMAR, Inc., represented by its prohibition directly to are inextricably intertwined with underlying
Chairperson Gerardo M. Malinao the Supreme Court questions of fact, the determination of which
(petitioner), suing as a taxpayer and (This is more require the reception of evidence. This Court,
invoking the transcendental importance of lengthily discussed however, is not a trier of fact. We cannot
the issue, led the present petition for under the topic of resolve these factual issues at the first
prohibition. Jurisdiction) instance. Petitioner has not alleged ultimate
facts to support its claim that bundling will
● Petitioner alleges that it is a create a monopoly, in violation of the
nongovernmental organization composed Constitution. By merely stating legal
of subsistence farmers and fisherfolk conclusions, petitioner did not present any
fromSamar, who are among the victims of sufficient allegation upon which the Court
Typhoon Yolanda relying on government could
assistance for the rehabilitation of their grant the relief petitioner prayed for.
industry and livelihood.

xxx
● It assails the constitutionality of the
bundling of the Projects and seeks to The 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court
enjoin the DOTC and the CAAP from was granted with the following: (1) the power
proceeding with the bidding of the same. to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights; and
(2) the power to disapprove rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
The 1987 Constitution also took away the
power of Congress to repeal, alter, or
supplement rules concerning pleading,
practice and procedure.

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates

that direct recourse to the Supreme Court
is allowed only to resolve questions of law,
notwithstanding the invocation of
paramount or transcendental importance
of the action. This doctrine is not mere
policy, rather, it is a constitutional altering
mechanism designed to enable the Court
to focus on the more fundamental and
essential tasks assigned to it by the
highest law of the land.

5. Commission on TICKLER: Governor of Camarines Sur W/N Hon. Ferrer Yes. The principle of primary jurisdiction must
Audit v. Ferrer erred in taking be applied in this case.
FACTS: Governor Luis Raymund Villafuerte (Gov. cognizance of the
of Camarines Sur) approved several petitions The principle of primary jurisdiction holds
disbursements for the years 2006-2010 for various that if a case is such that its determination
activities and projects of the provincial requires the expertise, specialized training and
government. COA found several deficiencies and knowledge of the proper administrative
unnecessary expenditure, thus it issued 10 bodies, relief must first be obtained in an
Notices of Disallowances for the foregoing administrative proceeding before a remedy is
transactions. Governor Villafuerte did not question supplied by the courts even if the matter may
the NDs before the COA. Thus, Notices of Finality well be within their proper jurisdiction.
of Decisions were issued by COA.

The jurisdiction of courts and quasi-judicial

Later, Gov. filed 2 petitions for certiorari and bodies is determined by the Constitution and
prohibition assailing the NFDs issued by the law. The matter of allowing or disallowing
petitioners and seeking injunctive relief against the requests for payment is within the primary
COA’s orders of execution implementing the NDs. power of COA to decide, as bestowed by the
Constitution and law. As one of the three (3)
RTC issued a 72-hour TRO, and was extended independent constitutional commissions, COA
for another 17 days. has the power to define the scope of its audit
and examination, and to establish the
Petitioner moved to dismiss the petitions on the techniques and methods required therefor. It
ground of lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust also has the power to promulgate accounting
administrative remedies. RTC denied its motion, and auditing rules and regulations, including
and also petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. those for the prevention and disallowance of
irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
RTC affirmed its jurisdiction over Gov.’s petitions extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures
despite non-exhaustion of administrative remedies or uses of government funds and properties.
since they raise a purely legal question – Gov.s’
personal liability on the NDs. Exceptions to COA’s primary jurisdiction over
money claims against the government:
Among others, Gov. argues that judicial recourse
to the RTC was proper because he is not assailing 1. where there is estoppel on the part of
the ruling of the COA Commission Proper, but the party invoking the doctrine;
merely the ruling of its provincial auditors. 2. where the challenged administrative
act is patently illegal, amounting to
lack of jurisdiction;
3. where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant;
4. where the amount involved is
relatively small so as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive;
5. where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice;
6. where judicial intervention is urgent;
7. when its application may cause great
and irreparable damage;
8. where the controverted acts violate
due process;

9. when the issue of non-exhaustion of

administrative remedies has been
rendered moot;
10. when there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy;
11. when strong public interest is
involved; and,
12. in quo warranto proceedings.

None of the exceptions apply to this case. In

addition, the NDs have become final and
executory due to Gov.’s failure to question the
same. Sec. 48 of PD 1445 provides that: Any
person aggrieved by the decision of an auditor
of any government agency in the settlement of
an account or claim may within 6 months from
receipt of a copy of the decision appeal in
writing to the Commission.
Given that the disallowances have become
final and executory, the RTC could no longer
alter the same. It should have dismissed
private respondent’s petitions.

6. The Roman TICKLER: Marcos diktador tuta chz Whether the PARAD Yes.
Catholic Bishop of acted in excess of
Malolos Inc, v. Facts: The Romano Catholic Bishop of Malolos its jurisdiction when Doctrine of non-exhaustion of
Heirs of Marcos (RCBI) is the registered owner of parcels of land. it granted the heroes administrative remedies
Upon the enactment of the Tenants Emancipation of Marcos’ motion to
Decree, these parcels of land were awarded to quash the writ of First, this Court finds that the CA erred in
Mariano Marcos, now represented by the heirs of execution and dismissing RCBMI’s petition outright on the
Marcos. denied RCBMI’s ground of non-exhaustion of administrative
motion for remedies, as the narrative clearly illustrates
RCBMI sought the cancellation of the award of the reconsideration. how RCBMI’s action falls within the
above portions to Marcos, mainly alleging that exemptions to the said principle.
those lots were not devoted to rice production but
to social and humanitarian programs. The Ministry The CA, in dismissing RCBMI’s petition,
of Agrarian Reform (MAR) granted the petition on harked back to Section 5, Rule 2, of the 1989
the ground that the lot it covered was vacant and DARAB Rules and concluded that as provided
uncultivated. Marcose filed for reconsideration, but therein, RCBMI should have first appealed the

it was denied. PARAD’s quashal of the writ of execution

before the DARAB, for the exhaustion of the
RCBMI also filed a complaint for the issuance of a administrative remedies available to it.
writ of preliminary injunction and damages before
the PARAD. The PARAD ruled in favor of RCBMI The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
and ordered the heirs of Marcos to vacate the remedies, in and of itself, is grounded on
subject property. practical reasons, including allowing the
administrative agencies concerned to take
every opportunity to correct its own eros, as
well as affording the litigants the opportunity to
avail of speedy relief through the
administrative process and sparing them of
the laborious and costly resort to courts.

However, this principle is not inflexible, and

admits of several exceptions that include
situations where the very rationale of the
doctrine has been defeated.

With the peculiar length of time with which

this case has lasted, this Court concludes
that RCBMI’s action falls within the
temporal exempting circumstance, or
where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant. Specifically, the
exempting circumstance is the suspension of
RCBMI’s enjoyment of its legal victory, which
was awarded to it by the MAR in 1982, but to
date, 37 years later, remains to be executed.

RCBMI’s resort to the DARAB to appeal the

PARAD’s quashal would not only be
time-consuming but more so wasteful, as the
relief it prays for the DARAB is not clothed
with the authority to grant. This is largely
because the cases over which the DARAB
has primary, original, and appellate
jurisdiction, as enumerated in Section 1, Rule

2, of the 1989 DARAB Rules, are more

merit-focused in nature, with their application
to the substantive issues of an agrarian
dispute. Therefore, a resort to it may only take
more time, but ultimately not grant for RCBMI
the redress it seeks.

7. Tan v. Cinco TICKLER: RTC Parañaque took cognizance of W/N RTC of Yes. The Court finds that the Parañaque RTC
nullification of sale case Parañaque violated violated the doctrine of judicial stability when it
the doctrine of took cognizance of Teresita's nullification case
FACTS: Respondents extended a loan to Dante judicial stability despite the fact that the collection case from
Tan in the amount of P50M. The loan was which it emanated falls within the jurisdiction
facilitated by PentaCapital Investment and was of the Makati RTC.
secured by Dante’s shares in Best World
Resources Corporation (BWRC). Verily, the nullification case ought to have
been dismissed at the outset for lack of
Later, Dante failed to pay and despite demands, jurisdiction, as the Parañaque RTC is bereft of
he proposed to settle the same by selling his authority to nullify the levy and sale of the
shares. When he was due to execute the subject property that was legitimately ordered
corresponding deeds of sale, he disappeared, by the Makati RTC, a coordinate and co-equal
leaving his obligations unpaid. court. In fact, the Parañaque RTC was already
on the right track when it initially dismissed the
Respondents filed an action for sum of money nullification case in its Decision dated July 8,
against Dante before the RTC of Makati, which 2010. However, it changed its stance and
rendered judgment against Dante. A writ was reconsidered its disposition upon Teresita's
issued, and to enforce the same, the Sheriff levied motion for reconsideration, thereby committing
on a property registered in Dante’s name. An reversible error. To reiterate, the determination
auction sale was then conducted. of whether or not the levy and sale of a
property in the execution of a judgment was
Dante sought the quashal of the writ by presenting valid properly falls within the jurisdiction of the
an affidavit executed by his wife, Teresita, court that rendered the judgment and issued
attesting to the conjugal nature of the subject the writ of execution.
property and in addition, the property was a family The doctrine of judicial stability or
home and therefore exempt from execution. non-interference in the regular orders or
judgments of a co-equal court is an
Teresita then filed before the RTC of Parañaque a elementary principle in the administration of
complaint against respondents, including the justice: no court can interfere by injunction
Sheriff and ROD of Parañaque City, for the with the judgments or orders of another court

nullification of the auction sale and the of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to
cancellation of the certificate of sale issued in grant the relief sought by the injunction. The
favor of respondents. rationale for the rule is founded on the concept
of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction
RTC of Parañaque initially dismissed the case due over the case and renders judgment therein
to res judicata. However, upon MR, it reversed its has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the
initial disposition and instead nullified the auction exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
sale, the certificate of sale, and the final deed of execution and over all its incidents, and to
sale. control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct
of ministerial officers acting in connection with
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before this judgment.
the CA and argued that RTC of Parañaque had no Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case
jurisdiction and power to review the proceedings where an execution order has been issued is
of a co-equal court. considered as still pending, so that all the
proceedings on the execution are still
The CA, citing the doctrine of judicial stability or proceedings in the suit. A court which issued a
non-interference in the regular orders or judgment writ of execution has the inherent power, for
of a co-equal court, found that the affirmance of the advancement of justice, to correct errors of
Parañaque RTC’s assailed issuances would allow its ministerial officers and to control its own
Teresita’s husband, Dante, to continue to evade processes. To hold otherwise would be to
his obligations, which was already finally divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum
adjudicated by the Makati RTC, a co-equal court in the resolution of incidents arising in
and the first one to take cognizance of the execution proceedings. Splitting of jurisdiction
controversy, on the basis of technicality. is obnoxious to the orderly administration of
justice.
Thus, Teresita's nullification case filed before
the Parañaque RTC was improper and in
glaring violation of the doctrine of judicial
stability. The judgment rendered by the Makati
RTC in the collection case, as well as the
execution thereof, and all other incidents
arising therefrom, may not be interfered with
by the Parañaque RTC, a court of concurrent
jurisdiction, for the simple reason that the
power to open, modify, or vacate the said
judgment or order is not only possessed but is
restricted to the court in which the judgment or
order is rendered or issued.Consequently, the
Parañaque RTC lacked jurisdiction over the

same, rendering all the proceedings therein,

as well as the Decision and other orders
issued thereon, void for lack of jurisdiction.

8. Erice v. Sison TICKLER: Si Echiverri yung boyfriend ni Marjorie Whether the findings YES.
Barretto of OCA in imposing
the penalty on Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of
FACTS: Complainant Erice, then Vice Mayor of Judge Sison is judicial stability
Caloocan City, filed a complaint against then correct.
Mayor Enrico R. Echiverri and several others Judge Sison should have, at the very least,
before the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged been aware that court orders or decisions
violation of the GSIS Act. Acting on the complaint, cannot be the subject matter of a petition
the Ombudsman issued an order of preventive for declaratory relief. They are not included
suspension against Echiverri, et. al., to last until within the purview of the words “other written
the administrative adjudication is completed but instrument” in Rule 63 of the ROC governing
not to exceed 6 months. petitions for declaratory relief. The same
principle applies to orders, resolutions, or
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the matter to the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies, and this is
CA, and they were able to obtain a TRO and a writ anchored on the principle of res judicata.
of preliminary injunction from the CA. The CA then
affirmed the order of suspension and set aside the Consequently, a judgment rendered by a court
TRO. or a quasi-judicial body is conclusive on the
parties, subject only to appellate authority. The
A week later, Echiverri et al filed a petition for losing party cannot modify or escape the
declaratory relief with prayer for TRO and/or writ effects of judgment under the guise of an
of preliminary injunction with the RTC of action for declaratory relief.
Caloocan. They prayed that the RTC “make a
definite judicial declaration on the rights and Petitioner specifically prayed that the RTC
obligations of the parties asserting adverse legal “make a definite judicial declaration on the
interests with respect to the implementation of rights and obligations of the parties
their suspension. asserting adverse legal interests with
respect to the implementation of the [order
RTC Judge then issued a 72-hour ex parte order of] preventive suspension,” effectively
to enjoin DILG and Erice from implementing the putting into question the CA-affirmed
order of suspension. Ombudsman Order of Suspension– a
matter clearly beyond the ambit of RTC’s
In the summary hearing, Erice and the DILG jurisdiction. This, coupled with the deference
questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC to hear the to the basic precepts of jurisdiction required of
matter, considering that the object of the petition judges, leads to no other conclusion than that

for declaratory relief were the CA decision and the Judge Sison acted in gross ignorance of the
order of suspension of the Ombudsman. The law in proceeding with the issuance of the writ
summary continued and the OSG invoked its right of preliminary injunction.
to cross-examine the witnesses. Judge Sison then
was found to be guilty of gross ignorance of the
law for issuing the TRO and writ of preliminary
injunction against Erice and the DILG to enjoin the
latter from enforcing the Ombudsman’s order of
suspension.

9. Vda. de teros v. TICKLER: Husband’s estate was partitioned by W/N the RTC of No (not anymore). The Court recognizes the
Rural Bank of her children without her knowledge and consent Iriga has jurisdiction doctrine on adherence of jurisdiction.
Canaman, Inc. over the subject However, such principle is not without
FACTS: Lucia Barrameda vda. De Ballesteros matter exceptions. One of the exceptions is when the
filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed of change in jurisdiction is curative in character.
Extrajudicial Partition, Deed of Mortgage, and For sure, Section 30, R.A. 7653 is curative in
Damages with prayer for preliminary injunction character when it declared that the liquidation
against her children and the Rural Bank of court shall have jurisdiction in the same
Canaman, Inc. (RCBI) before the RTC of Iriga. proceedings to assist in the adjudication of the
This was docketed as Civil Case No. IR-3128. disputed claims against the Bank. The
interpretation of this Section (formerly Section
During the pre-trial, RCBI’s counsel filed a motion 29, R.A. 265) becomes more obvious in the
to withdraw after being informed that Philippine light of its intent.
Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) would With regard to the consolidation, the CA
handle the case as RBCI had already been closed committed no error. Lucia’s complaint
and placed under receivership of the PDIC. involving annulment of deed of mortgage and
damages falls within the purview of a disputed
RBCI filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that claim in contemplation of Section 30 of R.A.
the RTC of Iriga no longer has jurisdiction over the 7653 (The New Central Bank Act). The
subject matter. That pursuant to Sec. 30 of RA jurisdiction should be lodged with the
7653 (New Central Bank Act), the RTC of Makati liquidation court.
already constituted itself as the liquidation court to It is clear, therefore, that the liquidation court
assist PDIC in undertaking the liquidation of RBCI. has jurisdiction over all claims, including that
Thus, the subject matter of Civil Case No. IR-3128 of Lucia against the insolvent bank. As
fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of such declared in Miranda v. Philippine Deposit
liquidation court. RTC of Iriga granted the motion Insurance Corporation, regular courts do not
to dismiss. have jurisdiction over actions filed by
claimants against an insolvent bank, unless
On the other hand, Lucia appealed the dismissal there is a clear showing that the action taken

to the CA on the ground that RTC of Iriga erred in by the BSP, through the Monetary Board, in
dismissing the case because it had jurisdiction the closure of financial institutions was in
over said case, citing the rule on adherence of excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
jurisdiction. discretion. The same is not obtained in this
present case.

10. Cang vs. CA TICKLER: Anna Marie, adoption What law is Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law,
applicable? the established rule is that the statute in force
FACTS: Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie at the time of the commencement of the action
Clavani were married and begot children. The determines the jurisdiction of the court. As
Court granted Anna Marie's petition for legal such, when private respondents filed the
separation with alimony pendete lite. And also petition for adoption on September 25, 1987,
went to the US and sought their divorce. Then, the applicable law was the Child and Youth
Ronald Clavano and wife Maria Clara Clavano Welfare Code, as amended by Executive
filed a special proceeding for the adoption of the Order No. 91, which requires the written
Cang children, who at the time, were minors. The consent of the natural parents of the child.
petition bears the signature of then 14-year-old
Keith signifying consent to his adoption. Nevertheless, Rule 99 of the Rules of Court
Petitioner‘s consent was lacking in the petition; provides that the written consent may be
however, the fact of abandonment of the children dispensed with if the natural parent has
by the petitioner was sufficiently alleged. abandoned the child or is insane or hopelessly
intemperate.The court may acquire jurisdiction
The RTC issued the decree of adoption. The over the case even without the written consent
petitioner assserted that the adoption was fatally of the parents or one of the parents provided
defective because (1) he did not give his that the petition for adoption alleges facts
written consent, (2) he never abandoned his sufficient to warrant exemption from
children (3) Keith and Charmained did not compliance therewith. This is in consonance
properly give their consent (4) the petitioners with the liberality with which this Court treats
adoption did not present any witness from DSWD the procedural aspect of adoption. Based on
as required by law. The CA affirmed the adoption the evidence presented, which was
decree and stated that Article 188 of the Family surprisingly not considered by the RTC and
Code is controlling which requires the written CA, and contrary to Anna Marie‘s claim, the
consent of the natural parents however, the petitioner did not abandon his children as to
written consent of the parent who has abandoned warrant the loss of parental authority. The

the children are not necessary. petition is granted the court denied the petition
for adoption.
Petitioner appealed to the SC, alleging that the
petition for adoption was fatally defective as it did Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law,
not have his written consent as a natural father as the established rule is that the statute in force
required by Article 31 (2) of Presidential Decree at the time of the commencement of the action
No. 603, the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and determines the jurisdiction of the court. As
Article 188 (2) of the Family Code. such, when private respondents filed the
petition for adoption on September 25, 1987,
the applicable law was the Child and Youth
Welfare Code, as amended by Executive
Order No. 91

11. Heirs of TICKLER: Away sa lupa; kala ni respondents W/N the RTC No, RTC properly granted respondent’s
Dolleton v. pinapacancel ni petitioners yung title nila, but properly granted motion to dismiss.
Fil-Estate petitioners have a diff contention as can be seen respondents’ motion
Management Inc. in their complaint – forcibly evicted sila to dismiss As previously established, petitioners' main
contention is that the subject properties from
FACTS: which they were forcibly evicted were not
● In a consolidated complaint for Quieting of covered by respondents' certificates of title.
Title and/or Recovery of Ownership or Stated differently, the subject properties and
Possession with Preliminary the land registered in respondents' names are
Injunction/Restraining Order and not identical. Consequently, petitioners do not
Damages against the respondents, have any interest in challenging the
petitioners claimed that they had been in registration of the land in respondents' names,
continuous, open, and exclusive even if the same was procured by fraud.
possession of the subject properties for
more than 90 years until they were While petitioners improperly prayed for the
forcibly ousted by armed men hired by cancellation of respondents' TCTs in their
respondents. They cultivated the subject Complaints, there is nothing else in the said
properties and religiously paid the real Complaints that would support the conclusion
estate taxes. that they are either petitions for reopening and
review of the decree of registration under
● Respondents filed Motion to Dismiss on Section 32 of the Property Registration
the grounds of prescription, laches, lack of Decree or actions for reconveyance based on
cause of action, and res judicata. implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil
Code. Instead, petitioners' Complaints may be
● In addition to their argument, they argue said to be in the nature of an accion

that under Sec. 32 of PD 1529, decree of reivindicatoria, an action for recovery of

registration can only be nullified on the ownership and possession of the subject
ground of fraud within one year after the properties, from which they were evicted
entry of such decree of registration. sometime between 1991 and 1994 by
respondents. An accion reivindicatoria may be
RTC: Granted respondents’ motion to dismiss. availed of within 10 years from
The trial court determined that the subject dispossession. There is no showing that
properties were already registered in the names of prescription had already set in when
respondents, and that petitioners were unable to petitioners filed their Complaints in 1997.
prove by clear and convincing evidence their title
to the said properties. Furthermore, the affirmative defense of
prescription does not automatically warrant
CA: Denied petitioners’ appeal. The appellate the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of
court found that respondents' titles to the subject the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of
properties were indefeasible because they were prescription can effectively be used in a
registered under the Torrens system. Thus, motion to dismiss only when the Complaint on
petitioners could not say that any claim on the its face shows that indeed the action has
subject properties casts a cloud on their title when already prescribed. If the issue of prescription
they failed to demonstrate a legal or an equitable is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a
title to the same. full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be
determined in a motion to dismiss. In the case
at bar, respondents must first be able to
establish by evidence that the subject
properties are indeed covered by their
certificates of title before they can argue that
any remedy assailing the registration of said
properties or the issuance of the certificates of
title over the same in the names of
respondents or their predecessors-in-interest
has prescribed.

12. Thornton v. TICKLER: Si mamshie na gustong gumimik Whether the CA has YES.
Thornton jurisdiction to issue
FACTS: Petitioner, an American and respondent, writs of habeas JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS
a Filipino, were married on August 28, 1998, in the corpus involving The Court ruled that the CA should take
Catholic Evangelical Church at United Nations custody of minors in cognizance of the case since there is nothing
Avenue, Manila. A year later, respondent gave light of the provision in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to
birth to a baby girl whom they named Sequeira in RA 8369 giving issue writs of habeas corpus involving
Jennifer Delle Francisco Thornton. family courts custody of minors.

exclusive original
However, after three years, respondent grew jurisdiction over We disagree with the CA’s reasoning that it
restless and bored as a plain housewife. She such petitions. cannot take cognizance of the case because
wanted to return to her old job as a “guest by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction
relations officer” in a nightclub, with the freedom to over habeas corpus cases, the lawmakers
go out with her friends. In fact, whenever intended it to be the sole court which can
petitioner was out of the country, respondent was issue writs of habeas corpus. The court, the
also out often with her friends, leaving her word “exclusive” apparently cannot be
daughter in the care of the househelp. construed in any other way.

Respondent continued her carefree ways and left We disagree because this will result in an
the family home with her daughter without iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like
notifying her husband. Petitioner then filed a petitioner without legal recourse in obtaining
petition for habeas corpus in the designated custody of their children.
Family Court in Makati but it was dismissed
because of the allegation that the child was in
Basilan.

Respondent moved from several places so

petitioner filed another petition for habeas corpus
in the Court of Appeals, which could issue a writ of
habeas corpus enforceable in the entire country,
but this was denied by the CA due to lack of
jurisdiction.

13. Manchester TICKLER: Di nilagay sa prayer amount of W/N jurisdiction was No, jurisdiction was not acquired as the
Development damages asked kaya nagkaroon acquired despite the correct docket fee has not been paid.
Corporation v. CA under-assessment of docket fees correct docket fee
has not been paid The rule is well-settled "that a case is
FACTS: This is a motion for reconsideration for an deemed filed only upon payment of the
action of torts and damages and specific docket fee regardless of the actual date of
performance with prayer for temporary restraining filing in court."
order.
Thus, in the present case the trial court did not
The total amount of damages is P78,750,000.00. acquire jurisdiction over the case by the
The same is not stated in the prayer of the payment of only P410.00 as docket fee.
complaint, yet it is spelled out in the body of the Neither can the amendment of the complaint
complaint. Said amount of damages should be the thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court. For
basis of assessment of the filing fee. all legal purposes there is no such original

complaint that was duly filed which could

Later, the Court issued an order ordering the be amended. Consequently, the order
re-assessment of the docket fee in the present admitting the amended complaint and all
case. The trial court then directed plaintiffs to subsequent proceedings and actions taken by
rectify the amended complaint by stating the the trial court are null and void. The Court
amounts which they were asking for. It was only acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon
then that plaintiffs specified the amount of payment of the prescribed docket fee. An
damages in the reduced amount of P10M. Still, no amendment of the complaint or similar
amount of damages were specified in the prayer. pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the
Said amended complaint was admitted. Court, much less the payment of the docket
The Court of Appeals therefore, aptly ruled in the fee based on the amounts sought in the
present case that the basis of assessment of the amended pleading.
docket fee should be the amount of damages
sought in the original complaint and not in the (Note: This ruling is clarified in further cases:
amended complaint. “when insufficient filing fees were initially paid
by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to
defraud the government, the Manchester rule
does not apply.”)

The Court frowned upon the counsel’s

practice in this case who filed the original
complaint and omitted specification of the
amount of damages in the prayer although the
same was specified in the body of the
complaint.

The Court serves warning that it will take

drastic action upon a repetition of this
unethical practice.

To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth

all complaints, petitions, answers and
other similar pleadings should specify the
amount of damages being prayed for not
only in the body of the pleading but also in
the prayer, and said damages shall be
considered in the assessment of the filing
fees in any case.

Any pleading that fails to comply with this

requirement shall not be accepted nor
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from
the record.

14. Sun Insurance TICKLER: Petitioner paid insufficient docket fees 1) W/N the 1) Yes, the Manchester ruling applied
Office, Ltd. v. but later on complied; so the court acquired Manchester ruling retroactively.
Asuncion jurisdiction. (kahit daw may intent to defraud the can be applied
government) retroactively.–Yes Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts
will be construed as applicable to actions
FACTS: 2) W/N Tiong could pending and undetermined at the time of their
be considered to passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in
● Petitioner Sun Insurance (SIOL for have filed the case that sense and to that extent.
brevity) filed a complaint for the even if the docket
annulment of a decision on the fee paid was 2) Yes, Tiong could be considered to have
consignation of fire insurance policy. insufficient and that filed the case.
the trial court could
● Subsequently, the private respondent files be considered to Although there was an obvious intent on
a complaint for the refund of premiums have acquired the part of TIong to defraud the
and the issuance of a writ of preliminary jurisdiction.–Yes government of the docket fee due through
attachment in a civil case against SIOL. In his amendments in his complaints, a more
addition, the private respondent also liberal interpretation of the rules is called
claims for damages, attorney’s fees, for considering that, unlike in the
litigation costs, etc., however, the prayer Manchester case, Tiong demonstrated his
did not state the amount of damages willingness to abide by the rules by paying
sought although from the body of the the additional docket fees as required.
complaint it can be inferred to be in the
amount of P 50 million. Thus, even if the Manchester ruling was
applied, the SC, through this case provided
● Hence, the private respondent originally the following guidelines regarding docket fees:
paid only PhP 210.00 in docket fees. The
complaint underwent a number of 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint
amendments to make way for subsequent or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
re-assessments of the amount of payment of the prescribed docket fee, that
damages sought as well as the vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
corresponding docket fees. subject matter or nature of the action.
Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is
● The respondent demonstrated his not accompanied by payment of the docket

willingness to abide by the rules by fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
paying the additional docket fees within a reasonable time but in no case
P62,432.90 as required in 1988. beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
● Petitioner SIOL still averred that the
docket fee paid by Tiong is not sufficient. 2. The same rule applies to permissive
Tiong should pay a total of P257, 810.49 counterclaims, third party claims and similar
because the total damages Tiong actually pleadings, which shall not be considered filed
sought was P64, 601, 620.70. Pursuant to until and unless the filing fee prescribed
the ruling in Manchester, Tiong's therefor is paid. The court may also allow
complaint should be dismissed and all payment of said fee within a reasonable time
incidents arising therefrom should be but also in no case beyond its applicable
annulled for Tiong's failure to pay the prescriptive or reglementary period.
proper docket fee.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction
● Tiong, however, argued that the ruling over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
in Manchester cannot be applied pleading and payment of the prescribed filing
retroactively. At the time the complaint fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a
was instituted, the Manchester ruling was claim not specified in the pleading, or if
not yet made. The correct jurisprudence specified the same has been left for
to apply in the case, then, is the Magaspi determination by the court, the additional filing
v. Ramolete doctrine wherein the SC held fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
that the trial court acquired jurisdiction judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the
over the case even if the docket fee paid Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
was insufficient. enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.

This petition was then dismissed. The Clerk of

Court was also instructed to reassess and
determine the additional filing fee to be paid
by Tiong considering the total amount of the
claim sought in his original complaint and
supplemental complaint; and to require Tiong
to pay the deficiency.

15. IBC-13 v. TICKLER: Hindi nagbayad ng docket fee Whether the failure NO.
Alonzo Legasto to pay the correct
FACTS: Petitioner, as first party, and private docket fees gives DOCKET AND FILING FEES
respondent Antonio Salvador, as second party, the trial court no

entered into a compromise agreement which jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction was properly acquired in this case.
contained the following stipulations: a) Payment of said case. The stringent requirements have been relaxed
P2 million, b) Payment of 25% of the said amount in the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v.
in staggered payment, in 3 installments, c) Offset Asuncion which laid down the following rules:
the airtime 320-30’s daytime spots against the P4 1) It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
million marketing fee, d) The balance of appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
6,080-30’s primetime spots shall mean usage in payment of the prescribed docket fee, that
commercial placement for TV commercials, and e) vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the said
Both parties shall submit a motion to dismiss the matter or the nature of the action. Where the
case pending before Branch 88 of the QC RTC. filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of docket fee,
However, petitioner commenced an action to the court may allow payment of the fee
declare the said compromise agreement null and within a reasonable time but in no beyond
void ab initio. By then, already privatized and the applicable prescriptive period or
under a new management, petitioner alleged, reglementary period.
among other matters, that said agreement was 2) The same rule applies to permissive
entered into without the prerequisite approval counterclaims, third-party claims, and similar
of the PCGG. pleadings, which shall not be considered filed
until and unless the filing fee prescribed
Petitioner then filed a complaint for specific therefor is paid. The court may also allow such
performance with the QC RTC. On February 5, reasonable time.
2004, petitioner filed a motion styled as one for 3) Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction
dismissal and/or suspension of all over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
proceedings in the consolidated cases and pleading and payment of the prescribed filing
calling attention to the unpaid docket fees. The fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards
cause of action should be a sum for money, and a claim not specified in the pleading, or if
the suit should be dismissed for lack of specified, the same has been left for
jurisdiction. determination by the court, the additional filing
fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
RTC: Denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and/or judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the
suspension of all proceedings pending payment Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
by respondent of the appropriate docket fees; enforce said lien and assess and collect the
held that petitioner is estopped from raising additional fee.
the issue because of participation in the The time of the filing of the January 5, 2001
cases. complaint cannot yet be quantified in
monetary terms because the primetime spots
CA: Found no abuse of discretion with RTC’s was dependent upon the privatization of the
decision. Hence, this petition. petitioner, and its prevailing market price for
such. The only basis then for the computation

of the docket fees are the damages that the

respondent prays to be awarded to him. Only
when the RTC rendered its summary
judgment of August 20, 2004 that
respondent’s prayer for specific performance
was valued at P540 million.
Further, in the case at bar, the respondent
relied on the assessment made by the docket
clerk which turned out to be incorrect. The
payment of the docket fees, as assessed,
negates any imputation of bad faith or an
intent to defraud the government by the
respondent. Thus, when insufficient filing fees
were initially paid by the respondent and there
was no intention to defraud the government,
the Manchester rule does not apply. Hence,
the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction
over the instant suit.

16. TICKLER: Whether RTC has NO.

Foronda-Crystal v. jurisdiction over the
Son FACTS: case. DOCKET AND FILING FEES
Petitioner is the daughter of Eddie Foronda, the
registered owner of a parcel of land located in It is clear that it is the MTC and not the RTC
Barrio Magay, Compostela, Province of Cebu. The that has jurisdiction over the case. The RTC
title was from a successful grant of a free patent should have upheld its initial order which
covered by OCT. dismissed the same.

On March 15, 1999, Aniana Lawas Son Settled is the requirement that the Judiciary
(respondent) instituted an action for Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended,
reconveyance and damages against Glynna required the allegation of the real property’s
Foronda-Crystal (petitioner), alleging that for 12 ½ assessed value in the complaint. That the
years, she has been the lawful owner and complaint in the present case did not aver the
possessor of the subject lot. She alleged that assessed value of the property is a violation of
she purchased the same from a certain Eleno T. the law, and generally would be dismissed
Arias and that she has been religiously paying her because the court which would exercise
property taxes, which was issued under her name. jurisdiction over the case could not be
identified.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground

of lack of jurisdiction. RTC dismissed the cases In Barangay Piapi, the complaint did not
asserting that the market value of the subject allege the assessed value of the subject
property based on the tax declaration is property. What it alleged was the market
P2,830.00 and thus, jurisdiction over the case value thereof. The court held that, in the
lies with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of absence of an allegation of assessed value
Liloan-Compostela, Cebu. in the complaint, the Court shall reconsider
the alleged market value to determine
jurisdiction. Section 7(b) Rule 141 of the
ROC, has already been deleted through an
amendment. The latest iteration of the
same provision already elated the phrase
“estimated value thereof,” such that the
determination of the amount of prescribed
filing and docket fees are now based on
the following: a) the fair valuation of the
BIR; or b) the stated value of the real or
personal property in litigation as alleged
by the claimant.

17. Radio TICKLER: Collection of unpaid rentals in the sum W/N RTC has Yes, RTC has jurisdiction over the
Communications of of P84,000 jurisdiction over the complaint filed by private respondent.
the Philippines, complaint filed by
Inc. v. CA FACTS: private respondent The allegations in the complaint plainly show
Manuel Dulawon filed before the RTC of Tabuk, that private respondent’s cause of action is
Kalinga a complaint for breach of contract of breach of contract.
lease with damages against petitioner.
It is settled that a breach of contract is a cause
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of of action either for specific performance or
jurisdiction as the complaint is basically one rescission of contracts.
for collection of unpaid rentals in the sum of
P84,000, which does not exceed the In one case, the Court held that actions for
jurisdictional amount of P100,000 for RTC. specific performance are incapable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore fall under
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss as the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
well as petitioner’s MR. Hence, it filed a petition
for certiorari before the CA. The CA also Here, the averments in the complaint reveal
dismissed the same. that the suit filed by private respondent was
primarily one for specific performance as it

was aimed to enforce their three-year lease

contract which would incidentally entitle him to
monetary awards if the court should find that
the subject contract of lease was breached.

As alleged therein, petitioner's failure to pay

rentals due for the period from January to
March 1997, constituted a violation of their
contract which had the effect of accelerating
the payment of monthly rentals for the years
1997 and 1998.

Clearly, the action for specific performance

case, irrespective of the amount of rentals
and damages sought to be recovered, is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence
cognizable exclusively by the Regional
Trial Court.

18. Sps. Erorita v. TICKER: Recovery of possession, unlawful W/N RTC had No, RTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
Sps. Dumlao detainer, Determined by the allegations in the jurisdiction over the
complaint case. –No The allegations in the complaint determine
the nature of an action and jurisdiction
FACTS: over the case. Jurisdiction does not
● Spouses Dumlao are the registered depend on the complaint's caption. Nor is
owners of a parcel of land. The San jurisdiction changed by the defenses in the
Mariano Academy structures are built on answer; otherwise, the defendant may
the property. The Spouses Dumlao easily delay a case by raising other issues,
bought the property in an extrajudicial then, claim lack of jurisdiction.
foreclosure sale.
To make a case for unlawful detainer, the
● Because the former owners, Spouses complaint must allege that:
Erorita, failed to redeem it, the title was (a) initially, the defendant lawfully
consolidated in the buyers' name. The possessed the property, either by
Spouses Dumlao agreed to allow the contract or by plaintiff's tolerance;
petitioners to continue to operate the (b) the plaintiff notified the defendant
school on the property. that his right of possession is
terminated;
● The Spouses Erorita appointed Hernan (c) the defendant remained in

and Susan Erorita as the San Mariano possession and deprived plaintiff
Academy's administrators. of its enjoyment; and
(d) the plaintiff filed a complaint within
● The Spouses Dumlao alleged that the one year from the last demand on
Eroritas agreed on a monthly rent of defendant to vacate the property.
P20,000.00, but had failed to pay rentals
since 1990. A complaint for accion publiciana or recovery
of possession of real property will not be
● The Spouses Erorita countered that the considered as an action for unlawful detainer if
Dumlaos allowed them to continue to run any of these special jurisdictional facts is
the school without rental out of goodwill omitted.
and friendship.
A review of the complaint shows that: (a) the
owners, Spouses Dumlao, agreed to allow the
petitioners to continue operating the school on
the disputed property; (b) in a demand letter
dated February 12, 2004, the Spouses
Dumlao told the petitioners to pay and/or
vacate the property; (c) the respondents
refused to vacate the property; and (d) the
Spouses Dumlao filed the complaint (March 4,
2004) within a year from the last demand to
vacate (February 12, 2004).

Thus, although the complaint bears the

caption "recovery of possession," its
allegations contain the jurisdictional facts for
an unlawful detainer case. Under RA 7691, an
action for unlawful detainer is within the MTC's
exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the
property's assessed value. In the present
case, the complaint clearly contained the
elements of an unlawful detainer case. Thus,
the case should have been filed with the MTC.
The RTC had no jurisdiction over this case.
Since a decision rendered by a court without
jurisdiction is void, the RTC's decision is void.

As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over

the subject matter may be raised at any

time, or even for the first time on appeal.
An exception to this rule is the principle of
estoppel by laches.

Estoppel by laches may only be invoked to

bar the defense of lack of jurisdiction if the
factual milieu is analogous to Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy. In that case, lack of
jurisdiction was raised for the first time
after almost 15 years after the questioned
ruling had been rendered and after the
movant actively participated in several
stages of the proceedings. It was only
invoked, too, after the CA rendered a decision
adverse to the movant. In Figueroa v. People,
we ruled that the failure to assail jurisdiction
during trial is not sufficient for estoppel by
laches to apply. When lack of jurisdiction is
raised before the appellate court, no
considerable length of time had elapsed for
laches to apply. Laches refers to the
"negligence or omission to assert a right within
a reasonable length of time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it
either has abandoned it or declined to assert
it."

The factual setting of this present case is not

similar to Tijam so as to trigger the application
of the estoppel by laches doctrine. As in
Figueroa, the present petitioners assailed the
RTC's jurisdiction in their appeal before the
CA. Asserting lack of jurisdiction on appeal
before the CA does not constitute laches.
Furthermore, the filing of an answer and the
failure to attend the pre-trial do not constitute
the active participation in judicial proceedings
contemplated in Tijam. Thus, the general rule

should apply. The petitioners timely

questioned the RTC's jurisdiction.

19. Heirs of Alfredo TICKLER: Right to repurchase, below P20k yung W/N RTC erred in Yes, RTC erred in dismissing the case.
Bautista v. Lindo value so respondents argue dapat sa MTC finile dismissing the case.
The course of action embodied in the
FACTS: Alfredo Bautista inherited a free-patent complaint by the present petitioners'
land in Poblacion, Lupon, Davao Oriental and predecessor, Alfredo R. Bautista, is to enforce
covered by OCTs. Years later, he subdivided the his right to repurchase the lots he formerly
property and sold it to several vendees, herein owned pursuant to the right of a free-patent
respondents. holder under Sec. 119 of CA 141 or the Public
Land Act. The Court rules that the complaint
Three years after the sale, Bautista filed a to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a
complaint for repurchase against respondents civil action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
before the RTC, Branch 32, Lupon, Davao
Oriental, anchoring his cause of action on Sec. It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of
119, CA 141, which provides that every the court is determined by the allegations
conveyance of land acquired under the free in the complaint and the character of the
patent, when proper, shall be subject to relief sought. In this regard, the Court, in
repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or Russell v. Vestil, wrote that "in determining
legal heirs, within a period of five years from whether an action is one the subject matter
the date of conveyance. of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation this Court has adopted the
Respondents raised lack of cause of action, criterion of first ascertaining the nature of
estoppel, prescription, and laches as defenses. the principal action or remedy sought. If it
Other respondents filed a motion to dismiss is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
alleging that the complaint failed to state the money, the claim is considered capable of
value of the property sought to be recovered. pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction
is in the municipal courts or in the RTCs would
Moreover, they asserted that the total selling price depend on the amount of the claim." But
of all the properties is only sixteen thousand five where the basic issue is something other
hundred pesos (PhP16,500), and the selling price than the right to recover a sum of money,
or market value of a property is always higher where the money claim is purely incidental
than its assessed value. Since Batas Pambansa to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
Blg. (BP) 129, as amended, grants jurisdiction to sought, this Court has considered such
the RTCs over civil actions involving title to or actions as cases where the subject of the
possession of real property or interest therein litigation may not be estimated in terms of
where the assessed value is more than money, and, hence, are incapable of
PhP20,000, then the RTC has no jurisdiction pecuniary estimation. These cases are

over the complaint in question since the cognizable exclusively by RTCs.

property which Bautista seeks to repurchase
is below the PhP20,000 jurisdictional ceiling. The Court finds that the instant cause of
action to redeem the land is one for specific
RTC: Dismissed the complaint for lack of performance.
jurisdiction. It found that Bautista failed to
allege in his complaint that the value of the
subject property exceeds 20 thousand pesos.
Furthermore, what was only stated therein was
that the total and full refund of the purchase price
of the property is PhP16,500. This omission was
considered by the RTC as fatal to the case
considering that in real actions, jurisdictional
amount is determinative of whether it is the
municipal trial court or the RTC that has
jurisdiction over the case.

20. Heirs of Julao TOPIC: JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT Whether the RTC No, RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
v. De Jesus MATTER; CONFERRED BY LAW, DETERMINED acquired jurisdiction the complaint.
BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT over the complaint.
It is clear that in an action for recovery of
TICKLER: DENR Rejection possession, the assessed value of the
property sought to be recovered
FACTS: determines the court‘s jurisdiction. Thus,
In 1960‘s, Telesforo Julao filed before the DENR, for the RTC to exercise jurisdiction, the
two Townsite Sales Applications. Upon his death, assessed value of the subject property
his applications were transferred to his heirs. must exceed P20,000.00.
Solito Julao (one of Telesforo’s heirs) executed a
Deed of transfer of Rights, transferring his In the case at bar, since petitioners failed to
hereditary share in the property to respondent allege in their Complaint the assessed value
spouses De Jesus. Thereafter, the spouses of the subject property, the CA correctly
constructed a house on the property they acquired dismissed the Complaint as petitioners
from Solito. failed to establish that the RTC had
jurisdiction over it. In fact, since the
In 1996, DENR issued an order rejection and assessed value of the property was not
transfer of sales rights. alleged, it cannot be determined which trial
court had original and exclusive jurisdiction
Consequently, an Original Certificate of Title over the case.

covering the land occupied by Spouses De

Jesus, was issued in favor of the heirs of Moreover,the fact that it was raised for the first
Telesforo. time on appeal is of no moment. The defense
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
Petitioners, representing themselves to be the may be raised at any stage of the
heirs of Telesforo, filed before the RTC a proceedings, even for the first time on appeal.
complaint for recovery of Possession of Real
Property against respondent spouses. Petitioners Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
alleged that they are the true and lawful owners of conferred by law and is determined by the
a 641-square meter parcel of land. material allegations of the complaint. Thus, it
cannot be acquired through, or waived by, an
RTC made a decision in favor of petitioners. act or omission of the parties; nor can it be
However, CA reversed on the ground of lack of cured by their silence, acquiescence, or even
jurisdiction. It pointed out that the Complaint express consent.
failed to establish that the RTC had
jurisdiction over the case as petitioners failed
to allege the assessed value of the subject
property.

21. TICKLER: Authority to file the case, Special W/N Diaz’s failure to Yes, Diaz’s failure to present proof of his
Palmiano-Salvador Power of Attorney; ‘Yung SPA ay more than one present proof of his authority to represent respondent rendered
v. Angeles year na since nag lapse so there is failure to authority to the complaint and the proceedings null
acquire Jurisdiction over the Parties represent and void.
respondent
FACTS: rendered the If a complaint is led for and on behalf of
● Respondent-appellee ANGELES is one of complaint and the the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized
the registered owners of a parcel of land proceedings null to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed.
located at 1287 Castanos Street, and void. –Yes An authorized complaint does not produce
Sampaloc, Manila. The subject parcel of any legal effect. In order for the court to
land was occupied by one Jelly Galiga have authority to dispose of the case on
from 1979 up to 1993, as a lessee with a the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over
lease contract. the subject matter and the parties.

● Subsequently, Fe Salvador alleged that Jurisprudence also provides that Courts

she bought on September 7, 1993 the acquire over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the
subject parcel of land from GALIGA who complaint and to be bound by a decision, a
represented that he was the owner, being party should first be subjected to the court‘s

one in possession. Petitioner-appellant jurisdiction. If no valid complaint was ever

SALVADOR remained in possession of filed, the court does not acquire jurisdiction
said subject property from November over the person of the respondent.
1993 up to the present.
In this case, DIAZ failed to present proof of his
● On November 18, 1993, the registered authority to represent ANGELES in filing the
owner, the respondent-appellee complaint. This prompted SALVADOR to raise
ANGELES, sent a letter to in her Answer in her Position Paper the issue
petitioner-appellant SALVADOR of DIAZ‘s authority. More than a year later,
demanding that the latter vacate the respondent attached to his Reply to
subject property, which was not heeded SALVADOR‘s Position Paper a document
by petitioner-appellant SALVADOR. entitled Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
Respondent-appellee ANGELES, thru one However, the said SPA was executed only on
Rosauro Diaz, Jr., filed a complaint for November 16, 1994, or more than a month
ejectment on October 12, 1994 with the after the complaint was filed appearing to
MeTC of Manila. have been notarized by one Robert F.
McGuire of Santa Clara County. No
● The complaint before the MeTC was filed certification from the Philippines
in the name of respondent, but it was one Consulate General in California that the
Rosauro Diaz who executed the said person is indeed a notary public.
verification and certification, alleging
therein that he was respondent’s Verily, the court cannot give full faith and credit
attorney-in-fact. There was, however, no to the official acts of McGuire, and hence, no
copy of any document attached to the evidentiary weight or value can be attached to
complaint to prove Diaz’s allegation the document designated as an SPA. Thus,
regarding the authority supposedly there is nothing on record to show that DIaz
granted to him. has been authorized by respondent to initiate
the action against SALVADOR.
● This prompted petitioner to raise in her
Answer the issue of Diaz’s authority to file
the case.

● On December 11, 1995, more than a year

after the complaint was filed, respondent
attached to his Reply, a document
entitled Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
supposedly executed by respondent in
favor of Rosauro Diaz.

● However, said SPA was executed only on

November 16, 1994, or more than a
month after the complaint was filed,
appearing to have been notarized by one
Robert F. McGuire of Santa Clara County.
Observe, further, that there was no
certification from the Philippine Consulate
General in San Francisco, California,
U.S.A, that said person is indeed a notary
public in Santa Clara County, California.

● The MeTC ruled in favor of Angeles.

22. Denila v. TICKLER: Jurisdictional requirements in W/N the CA erred in No. The CA correctly found the RTC to have
Republic reconstitution of title – di nag-comply si Denila, no nullifying the 2008 exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the
notice to the actual occupants and possessors decision of RTC petition for reconstitution of title despite the
(when the latter failure of petitioner to comply with some
FACTS: The parcels of land involved are owned granted the petition jurisdictional requirements.
by Constancio and his common-law wife Isabel. for reconstitution of
When they died, they had no direct heirs and were title despite the Petitioner was not able to comply with the
survived by Heirs of Constancio Guzman, Inc. failure of petitioner jurisdictional requirements enumerated in R.A.
(HCGI) – a corporation whose stakeholders were to comply with some No. 26.
children and grandchildren of Constancio’s only jurisdictional
sibling, Manuel Guzman. requirements) Reconstitution of title is a special proceeding.
Being a special proceeding, a petition for
In 2001, HGCI filed 4 petitions for reconstitution reconstitution must allege and prove certain
of titles of lost and/or destroyed OCTs. In 2003, specific jurisdictional facts before a trial court
RTC dismissed all petitions by virtue of the can acquire jurisdiction. R.A. No. 26, as
Register of Deeds’ report that said OCTs were amended, is the special law which provides for
canceled as a result of both voluntary and a specific procedure for the reconstitution of
involuntary subsequent transfers. HGCI elevated Torrens certificates of title lost or destroyed;
the case to the SC via petition for review on Sections 2 and 3 thereof provide how original
certiorari. The same was denied due to the certificates of title and transfer certificates of
following: violating the hierarchy of courts, that title shall be respectively reconstituted and
said OCTs have no proof of being lost/destroyed, from what specific sources successively
and that said OCTs were actually canceled on enumerated therein such reconstitution shall
account of various conveyances. be made. It confers jurisdiction upon trial
courts to hear and decide petitions for judicial
In 2004, Helen Denila filed an amended petition reconstitution; however, before the court can

for reconstitution of OCTs involved, alleging, properly act, assume and acquire jurisdiction
among others, that: or authority over the petition and grant the
1. A certain Bellie Artigas had been entitled reconstitution prayed for, petitioner must
to a 40% share in Constancio’s estate and observe certain special requirements and
was authorized to recover, administer, and mode of procedure prescribed by the law.
dispose of all properties in the said estate More importantly, substantial compliance
pursuant to her agreement with with jurisdictional requirement is not
Constancio; enough because the acquisition of
2. That Artigas, as Constancio’s jurisdiction over a reconstitution case is
attorney-in-fact, sold to her the parcels of hinged on a strict compliance with the
land covered under the subject titles by requirements of the law.
way of a Deed of Absolute Sale;
3. That she is currently in possession of the Conversely, noncompliance with all
lands covered, and; jurisdictional requirements in special
4. That she had caused a re-survey of such proceedings (such as reconstitution of title)
parcels of land. adversely affects the trial court's jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case and, in
In 2008, RTC ruled in favor of Denila. The cases where a specific procedure is outlined
Republic filed a petition for relief from judgment, by law, over the remedy pursued by petitioner.
but was denied for being filed out of time. Its MR Failure to comply with any of the
was also denied. jurisdictional requirements for a petition
for reconstitution renders the whole
In 2009, the Republic filed a petition for certiorari proceedings null and void.
before the CA. Despite the pendency, Judge
Omelio (RTC Judge) issued an order, upon motion Strict observance of this rule is vital to prevent
of petitioner, directing the Davao City Engineer’s parties from exploiting reconstitution
Office to issue a Fencing Permit over the proceedings as a quick but illegal way to
properties covered. obtain Torrens certificates of title over parcels
of land which turn out to be already covered
In 2010, herein private respondents (actual by existing titles. Comparatively, this Court
occupants and possessors of parcels of land cannot even take a lenient approach in
involved) filed a very urgent omnibus motion for resolving reconstitution cases because liberal
leave of court to intervene, arguing, among others, construction of the Rules does not apply to
that they have a legal interest in the matter subject substantive requirements specifically
of the litigation and that construction of fence enumerated by a statute, especially so if
would cause them irreparable injury and injustice. matters affecting jurisdiction are involved.
The Republic agrees with such motion as the In other words, the principle of liberality cannot
private respondents were not notified of the be applied to statutory requirements as they
proceedings herein. are not technical rules of procedure which

may be brushed aside by the courts to serve

In 2012, the CA ruled in favor of the Republic the higher reason of resolving the case on the
regarding the petition for certiorari. This produced merits. In special proceedings, the merits
the effect of nullifying the 2008 decision of the directly hinge on the petitioner's compliance
RTC. The CA also found that the RTC exceeded with statutory requirements proven in court to
its jurisdiction in granting the petition for establish a status, right or particular fact.
reconstitution of title despite the failure of
petitioner to comply with some jurisdictional For the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over
requirements. the petition for reconstitution, the occupants of
the property should be notified of the petition.
In this petition, Denila argues, among others, that: In other words, it is beyond cavil that the
1. She presented enough evidence to prove requirement of actual notice to the
her interest over the subject parcels of occupants and the owners of the adjoining
land; property under Sections 12 and 13 of R.A.
2. She had compiled with jurisdictional No. 26 is itself mandatory to vest
requirements of notice and publication for jurisdiction upon the court in a petition for
being able to post her petition for reconstitution of title and essential in order
reconstitution in the City Hall of Davao to allow said court to take the case on its
City as well as the Official Gazette which merits. Verily, noncompliance with these
serves as notice to the whole world; and requirements, especially as regards the notice
3. The lack of notice to the private of hearing as provided for under Section 13 of
respondents was cured when her petition the same law, is fatal and the trial court cannot
for reconstitution was published in the acquire jurisdiction over the petition for
newspaper of general circulation; reconstitution.

23. De Joya v. TOPIC: Jurisdiction over the res 1) W/N lower court 1) Yes, lower court has jurisdiction over
Marquez has jurisdiction the case.
TICKLER: Quickie arrest case, about syndicated over the case.
estafa yung case, investment sa isang company –YES Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or
na nag fell due, dishonored checks thing which is subject of the litigation) is
2) W/N petitioner is acquired by the actual or constructive
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and entitled to seek seizure by the court of the thing in
prohibition that seeks the Court to nullify and set relief from the question, thus placing it in custodia legis,
aside the warrant of arrest issued by respondent SC or from the as in attachment or garnishment; or by
judge against petitioner in a criminal case. trial court provision of law which recognizes in the
despite refusing court the power to deal withthe property or
to surrender and subject matter within its territorial

submit to the jurisdiction.

court's
jurisdiction.–NO The court acquires jurisdiction to try the case,
even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the
person of a nonresident defendant, as long as
it has jurisdiction over the res, as when the
action involves the personal status of the
plaintiff or property in the Philippines in which
the defendant claims an interest.

In such cases, the service of summons by

publication and notice to the defendant is
merely to comply with due process
requirements.

2) No, petitioner is not entitled to seek relief

as he continuously refuses to surrender
and submit to the court's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent

is acquired by the voluntary appearance or
submission by the defendant or respondent to
the court or by coercive process issued by the
court to him, generally by the service of
summons.

There is no exceptional reason to allow

petitioner to obtain relief from the courts
without submitting to its jurisdiction.

24. PLDT v. Citi TOPIC: Jurisdiction over the Remedy 1) W/N the issue of 1) No, the issue of jurisdiction was not
Appliance MC lack of jurisdiction deemed waived by PLDT.
Corporation TICKLER: Citi Appliance ay magtatayo ng was deemed waived
building tapos nung nag-excavate underground, by PLDT; PLDT is not barred from raising the issue of
may mga telephone lines yung PLDT. Di jurisdiction. In the case of Amoguis v. Ballado
nagcomply PLDT, thus ejectment. 2) W/N MTCC has (G.R. No. 189526, 20 August 2018), the Court
jurisdiction over the pronounced the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
FACTS: case; subsumed is based on the doctrine of equity, which
● Citi Appliance has owned a parcel of land under which are the applies only in cases "where jurisdiction was

in Cebu City. In 2003, it decided to issues of whether: raised at the very last minute when the parties
construct a 16-storey commercial building (a) the element of have already gone through years of litigation."
on it. prior physical
possession is The Tijam doctrine will apply only when
● The Cebu City Zoning Board (CCZB) present; and (b) the circumstances of a case, allowing the belated
required Citi Appliance to construct a one-year objection to the jurisdiction of the court will
one-level parking area consisting of 26 prescriptive period additionally cause irreparable damages, and
parking slots. of an action for therefore, injustice to the other party that
forcible entry relied on the forum and the implicit waiver. In
● To comply with this requirement, Citi through stealth this case, PLDT raised the issue of jurisdiction
Appliance had to make a deep excavation should be reckoned when it filed with the MTCC its Amended
to lay the foundation of the parking lot. In from the time the Answer with leave of court.
the process, it discovered telephone lines, unlawful entry is
cables, and manholes underground, discovered or from Further, even if the Court disregards PLDT's
which had been placed there by PLDT the last demand to Amended Answer, PLDT is not deemed
sometime in 1983. vacate; and barred by laches since it immediately
questioned the MTCC's jurisdiction without
● These encroached on Citi Appliance's allowing trial to stretch into years. The unique
property, preventing it from excavating the circumstances in Tijam are absent here. As
land. In April 2003, Citi Appliance applied the Court noted in Amoguis, raising the lack of
for exemption from the parking jurisdiction a little under a year, or even after
requirement, which the CCZB eventually the laps of four (4) years, will not operate as
denied. estoppel against a party. Thus, as PLDT
seasonable raised the lack of jurisdiction,
● On 26 April 2004, Citi Appliance wrote there is neither waiver of the jurisdictional
PLDT, demanding that it remove the issue nor estoppel against it.
underground telephone lines, cables, and
manholes, or to shoulder the parking 2) No, The MTCC has no jurisdiction over
exemption fee. On 28 May 2004, Citi the case.
Appliance made a final demand on PLDT
to comply until 15 June 2004, otherwise, it For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the three
would file an appropriate action in court. (3) elements that must be alleged and proved
are the following: (a) that they have prior
● When PLDT still refused to comply, Citi physical possession of the property; (b) that
Appliance filed with the Municipal Trial they were deprived of possession either by
Court in Cities (MTCC) a complaint for force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth;
ejectment against PLDT. and, (c) that the action was filed within one (1)
year from the time the owners or legal
● PLDT alleged that its telephone lines, possessors learned of their deprivation of the

cables, and manholes did not encroach physical possession of the property.
on Citi Appliance's property as they were
properly positioned alongside and In this case, two (2) elements of forcible entry
underneath a public sidewalk. are absent: first, Citi Appliance has no prior
physical possession of the property; and
● It later filed an Amended Answer, arguing second, the action was filed beyond the
that the case should be dismissed since one-year prescriptive period.
the action for forcible entry had
prescribed. Moreover, PLDT argued that On lack of physical possession
the area in question was part of public
domain, it being a sidewalk. Possession in ejectment cases means nothing
more than physical or material possession, not
● Assuming that the property did belong to legal possession. It is not required that the
Citi Appliance, PLDT claimed that it had complainant is the owner of the property. If the
the right of eminent domain. issue of ownership is raised, the court may
resolve this question only to determine the
question of possession. Here, PLDT claims
that when it installed the lines and cables
beneath the property, the property was not yet
owned by Citi Appliance. Hence, it concludes
that Citi Appliance had no prior physical
possession of the property. A cursory reading
of the complaint shows that Citi Appliance
failed to allege its prior physical possession
over the property. It merely submitted proof of
ownership over the property, which is not
sufficient to prove prior physical possession.

Thus, Citi Appliance is mistaken in claiming

that it had prior physical possession by virtue
of its absolute ownership over the land. An
allegation of prior physical possession must
be clearly stated in a complaint for forcible
entry. It cannot equate possession as an
attribute of ownership to the fact of actual prior
physical possession. being filed beyond the
one-year prescriptive period.

On prescription

An action for forcible entry must be filed within

one (1) year from the date of actual entry to
the land. If the entry was done through stealth,
the one-year time bar in forcible entry cases is
reckoned from the date of discovery of the
encroachment, not from the date of the last
demand to vacate. A review of Citi Appliance's
own narration of facts reveals that it
discovered the underground cables and lines
in April 2003 when it applied for exemption
from the parking slot requirement with the
CCB. Counting from this date, the one-year
prescriptive period to file the forcible entry suit
had already lapsed sometime in April 2004.
Thus, by the time the complaint for forcible
entry was filed on 1 October 2004, the
period had already prescribed.

The MTCC no longer had jurisdiction to

resolve the case.

25. Tijam v. TICKLER: Nag-file motion to dismiss during W/N Surety is Yes, Surety is estopped from questioning
Sibonghanoy appeal na (after they filed motion to quash on a estopped from the jurisdiction of the CFI.
diff ground, etc). Almost 15 years na before it questioning the
raised the question of lack of jurisdiction jurisdiction of the The action commenced by plaintiff- appellees
CFI for the first time in the Court of First Instance for the recovery
FACTS: in appeal of money amounting to P1,908.00 is well
● Spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog within the original exclusive jurisdiction of
filed a complaint to recover the sum of inferior courts in accordance with the
money against spouses Magdaleno provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1948 which
Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio. had taken effect about a month prior to the
Subsequently, a writ of attachment was date when the action was commenced. Also, it
issued, but was soon dissolved when a is true that jurisdiction over the subject-matter
counter-bond was filed by the defendants and is conferred upon the courts exclusively by
the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. law, and as the lack of it affects the very
authority of the court to take cognizance of the
● The writ was returned unsatisfied, which case, the objection may be raised at any stage
prompted plaintiffs to file a writ of execution of the proceedings.

against the Surety‘s bond. The motion by

plaintiff was denied on the ground that no However, in the present case, the Surety is
previous demand was made on the Surety now barred by laches from invoking this plea.
for the satisfaction of judgment. The action was commenced in the Court of
First Instance almost fifteen years before it
● Later, the plaintiff filed a second motion for raised the question of lack of jurisdiction
execution. The Surety moved to quash the for the first time.
writ on the ground that the same was issued
without the required summary hearing The facts show that from the time the Surety
provided for under ROC, but the CA decided became a quasi-party, it could have raised
the case affirming the orders. Five days the question of the lack of jurisdiction, but
after receiving the notice of CA’s decision, it failed to do so. Instead, at several stages
Surety filed a motion asking for extension of the proceedings, it invoked the
of time for its MR. CA granted. jurisdiction of said courts to obtain
affirmative relief and submitted its case for
● Two days later, Surety filed a motion to a final adjudication on the merits. It was
dismiss, alleging substantially that the Court only after an adverse decision was
had no jurisdiction over the case. rendered by the Court of Appeals that it
finally raised the question of jurisdiction.
(Long version of Surety’s argument: That
appellees' action was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu on July 19, 1948 for the
recovery of the sum of P1,908.00 only; that a
month before that date Republic Act No. 296,
otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, had
already become effective, Section 88 of which
placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of
inferior courts all civil actions where the value of
the subject-matter or the amount of the demand
does not exceed P2,000.00, exclusive of interest
and costs; that the Court of First Instance
therefore had no jurisdiction to try and decide the
case.)

26. Spouses TICKLER: San Mariano, Recovery of possession, Whether jurisdiction YES.
Erorita v. Spouses unlawful detainer, Determined by the allegations in over the subject
Dumlao [Repeating the complaint matter may be ESTOPPEL JURISDICTION
case; different raised for the first As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over the
doctrine] FACTS: time on appeal. subject matter may be raised at any time, or

● Spouses Dumlao are the registered even for the first time on appeal. An exception
owners of a parcel of land. The San to this rule is the principle of estoppel by
Mariano Academy structures are built on laches.
the property. The Spouses Dumlao
bought the property in an extrajudicial Estoppel by laches may only be invoked to bar
foreclosure sale. the defense of lack of jurisdiction if the factual
milieu is analogous to Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.
● Because the former owners, Spouses In that case, lack of jurisdiction was raised for
Erorita, failed to redeem it, the title was the first time after almost 15 years after the
consolidated in the buyers' name. The questioned ruling had been rendered and after
Spouses Dumlao agreed to allow the the movant actively participated in several
petitioners to continue to operate the stages of the proceedings. It was only invoked
school on the property. too, after the CA rendered a decision adverse
to the movant.
● The Spouses Erorita appointed Hernan
and Susan Erorita as the San Mariano In Figueroa v. People, we ruled that the failure
Academy's administrators. to assail jurisdiction during trial is not sufficient
for estoppel by laches to apply. When lack of
● The Spouses Dumlao alleged that the jurisdiction is raised before the appellate court,
Eroritas agreed on a monthly rent of no considerable length of time had elapsed for
P20,000.00, but had failed to pay rentals laches to apply. Laches refers to the
since 1990. “negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonable length of time,
● The Spouses Erorita countered that the warranting a presumption that the party
Dumlaos allowed them to continue to run entitled to assert it either has abandoned it
the school without rental out of goodwill or declined to assert it.”
and friendship.
The factual setting of this present case is not
similar to Tijam so as to trigger the application
of the estoppel by laches doctrine. As in
Figueroa, the present petitioners assailed the
RTC’s jurisdiction in their appeal before the
CA. Asserting lack of jurisdiction on appeal
before the CA does not constitute laches.
Furthermore, the filing of an answer and the
failure to attend the pre-trial do not constitute
the active participation in judicial proceedings
contemplated in Tijam.

27. Lansangan v. TICKLER: Hindi dumaan sa barangay conciliation W/N the CA erred in Yes, the CA erred in upholding the motu
Caisip (which is a condition precedent). Di pa rin dapat upholding the motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint.
i-dismiss yung case kasi it should be invoked at proprio dismissal of
the earliest opportunity. petitioner's Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the ROC provides for the
complaint. –Yes grounds that may be raised in a motion to
FACTS: dismiss. “xxx (j) That a condition precedent
● Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of for filing the claim has not been complied
money and damages against respondent with.”
Caisip.
These grounds must be invoked by the
● Respondent defaulted in his obligation party-litigant at the earliest opportunity, as in
under a promissory note to pay €2,522 a motion to dismiss or in the answer;
and refused to heed petitioner's demands otherwise, such grounds are deemed waived.
to comply. As an exception, however, the courts may
order the motu proprio dismissal of a case on
● Since respondent failed to file any the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the
responsive pleading, petitioner moved to subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata,
declare him in default and for the MCTC and prescription of action, pursuant to Section
to render judgment. 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.

● MCTC motu proprio dismissed without The motu proprio dismissal of the
prejudice the complaint for failure to complaint was anchored on petitioner's
comply with the requirement of barangay failure to refer the matter for barangay
conciliation as mandated by the Local conciliation proceedings which in certain
Government Code. instances pursuant to Secs. 412(a) of RA
7160, is a condition precedent before filing
● When the case reached the review of the a case in court. It is a pre-condition to the
CA, it affirmed the dismissal of the case. filing of a complaint involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon. Disputes
between persons actually residing in the
same barangay, as in the parties herein,
shall be brought for amicable settlement
before the lupon of said barangay.

However, the ground of non-compliance with a

condition precedent, i.e., undergoing prior
barangay conciliation proceedings, was not
invoked at the earliest opportunity, as in
fact, respondent was declared in default

for failure to file a responsive pleading

despite due notice. Therefore, it was grave
error for the courts a quo to order the
dismissal of petitioner's complaint on said
ground.

Hence, in order to rectify the situation, the

Court finds it proper that the case be
reinstated and remanded to the MCTC, which
is the court of origin, for its resolution on the
merits.

28. Abagatnan v. TICKLER: Parties live in different places kaya di W/N the CA No.
Spouses Clarito na nag-barangay conciliation, MTCC agad correctly dismissed
the Complaint for The LGC further provides that "the lupon of
FACTS: failure to comply each barangay shall have authority to bring
● Petitioners filed a Complaint for Unlawful with the prior together the parties actually residing in the
Detainer and Damages against barangay same city or municipality for amicable
respondents before the Municipal Trial conciliation settlement of all disputes," subject to certain
Court in Cities (MTCC). requirement under exceptions enumerated in the law.
Section 412 of the
● The Complaint alleged that prior barangay LGC, despite the One such exception is in cases where the
conciliation proceedings are not required fact that not all real dispute involves parties who actually
as a pre-condition for the filing of the case parties in interest reside in barangays of different cities or
in court, given that not all petitioners are resided in the same municipalities, unless said barangay units
residents of Roxas City. Petitioner city or municipality adjoin each other and the parties thereto
Jimmy Abagatnan resided in Laguna, agree to submit their differences to amicable
while petitioner Jenalyn resided in settlement by an appropriate lupon.
Pasig City.
Thus, parties who do not actually reside in the
● Respondents argued that prior barangay same city or municipality or adjoining
conciliation is a mandatory requirement barangays are not required to submit their
that cannot be dispensed with, dispute to the lupon as a precondition to the
considering that Jimmy and Jenalyn had filing of a complaint in court.
already executed a Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) in favor of their
co-petitioner and sister, Josephine A.
Parce (Josephine), who is a resident of
Roxas City.

● MTCC ruled in favor of petitioners. RTC

affirmed. CA concluded that petitioner's
Complaint had been prematurely filed with
the MTCC as it should have been first
brought before the Lupon for mandatory
conciliation.

29. Chavez v. Topic: KATARANGUNGANG PAMBARANGAY Whether RTC Yes, the RTC Valenzuela has jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals Valenzuela has
TICKLER: Jurisdiction over away sa fishpond jurisdiction over the
action filed by the The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
FACTS: respondent despite law provides that an amicable settlement
● Chavez leased a fishpond to Trillana. It was the presence of an reached after barangay conciliation
agreed in their contract that respondent must amicable settlement proceedings has the force and effect of a
undertake the necessary repairs in cases of between the parties final judgment of a court if not repudiated
force majeure. in the Office of or a petition to nullify the same is filed
Barangay Captain of before the proper city or municipal court
● After a typhoon, the fishpond was destroyed. Taliptip, Bulacan. within 10 days from its date. It further
Chavez then undertook to repair the fishpond provides that the settlement may be
since Trillana did not immediately repair the enforced by execution by the lupong
fishpond. tagapamayapa within 6 months from its
date, or by action in the appropriate city or
● Trillana filed a complaint before the barangay municipal court, if beyond the 6-month
for Chavez' unauthorized repairs. Thereafter, period.
they settled that Chavez must return 150k as
payment for the rest of the lease. Chavez was Although the “kasunduan” executed by
not able to return the said amount. petitioner and respondent before the office of
the barangay captain had the force and effect
● Hence, Trillana filed a petition for sum of of a final judgment of a court, petitioner’s
money before RTC. RTC granted it. Chavez non-compliance paved the way for the
now argues that RTC has no jurisdiction and application of Article 2041 under which
that Trillana must honor the settlement. respondent may either enforce the
compromise, following the procedure laid
out in the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay law, or regard it has
rescinded and insist upon his original
demand.

MODULE 2

1. Macasaet v. Co, TOPIC: Actions in rem, in personam, and quasi in W/N jurisdiction over Yes, jurisdiction over the petitioners has been
Jr. rem the petitioners has acquired.
been acquired.
TICKLER: Abante Tonite tabloid, libel, nag-serve –YES Jurisdiction over the person, or
ng summons pero wala sa office. Di na raw need jurisdiction in personam is the power of the
personal service lalo na kung justified naman court to render a personal judgment or to
substituted service (saka lagi din wala defendants subject the parties in a particular action to the
so paano mape-personally serve yung summons judgment and other rulings rendered in the
diba) action – is an element of due process that is
essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal,
FACTS: except in actions in rem or quasi in rem.
Jurisdiction over the defendant in an
● On July 3, 2000, respondent, a retired action in rem or quasi in rem is not required,
police officer assigned at the Western and the court acquires jurisdiction over an
Police District in Manila, sued Abante action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over
Tonite, a daily tabloid of general the res that is the subject matter of the action.
circulation; its Publisher Allen A. The purpose of summons in such action is
Macasaet; its Managing Director Nicolas not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the
V. Quijano; its Circulation Manager Isaias defendant but mainly to satisfy the
Albano; its Editors Janet Bay, Jesus R. constitutional requirement of due process.
Galang and Randy Hagos; and its
Columnist/Reporter Lily Reyes Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in
(petitioners), claiming damages because personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is
of an allegedly libelous article determined by its nature and purpose, and by
petitioners published in the June 6, 2000 these only.
issue of Abante Tonite.
A proceeding in personam is a proceeding
● The suit, docketed as Civil Case No. to enforce personal rights and obligations
0097907, was raffled to Branch 51 of the brought against the person and is based
RTC, which in due course issued on the jurisdiction of the person, although
summons to be served on each it may involve his right to, or the exercise
defendant, including Abante Tonite, at of ownership of, specific property, or seek
their business address at Monica to compel him to control or dispose of it in
Publishing Corporation, 301-305 3rd accordance with the mandate of the court.
Floor, BF Condominium Building, Solana The purpose of a proceeding in personam
Street corner A. Soriano Street, is to impose, through the judgment of a
Intramuros, Manila. court, some responsibility or liability

directly upon the person of the defendant.

● In the morning of September 18, 2000, Of this character are suits to compel a
RTC Sheriff Raul Medina proceeded to defendant to specifically perform some act
the stated address to effect the personal or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on
service of the summons on the him. An action in personam is said to be
defendants. But his efforts to personally one which has for its object a judgment
serve each defendant in the address were against the person, as distinguished from
futile because the defendants were then a judgment against the property to
out of the office and unavailable. He determine its state. It has been held that an
returned in the afternoon of that day to action in personam is a proceeding to
make a second attempt at serving the enforce personal rights or obligations;
summons, but he was informed that such action is brought against the person.
petitioners were still out of the office. As far as suits for injunctive relief are
concerned, it is well-settled that it is an
● He decided to resort to substituted injunctive act in personam.
service of the summons, and explained
why in his sheriff’s return dated In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court
September 22, 2005. held that proceedings to enforce personal
● Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the rights and obligations and in which
complaint through counsel’s special personal judgments are rendered adjusting
appearance in their behalf, alleging lack of the rights and obligations between the
jurisdiction over their persons because of affected parties is in personam. Actions for
the invalid and ineffectual substituted recovery of real property are in personam.
service of summons On the other hand, a proceeding quasi in
rem is one brought against persons
seeking to subject the property of such
persons to the discharge of the claims
assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an
individual is named as defendant and the
purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests therein to the obligation or loan
burdening the property. Actions quasi in
rem deal with the status, ownership or
liability of a particular property but which
are intended to operate on these questions
only as between the particular parties to
the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut
off the rights or interests of all possible
claimants. The judgments therein are

binding only upon the parties who joined

in the action.

As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any

case against a defendant who does not reside
and is not found in the Philippines because of
the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over
his person unless he voluntarily appears in
court; but when the case is an action in rem or
quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule
14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts
have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case
because they have jurisdiction over the res,
and jurisdiction over the person of the
non-resident defendant is not essential. In the
latter instance, extraterritorial service of
summons can be made upon the defendant,
and such extraterritorial service of summons is
not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction, but for the purpose of complying
with the requirements of fair play or due
process, so that the defendant will be
informed of the pendency of the action against
him and the possibility that property in the
Philippines belonging to him or in which he
has an interest may be subjected to a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can
thereby take steps to protect his interest if he
is so minded. On the other hand, when the
defendant in an action in personam does
not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, our courts cannot try the case
against him because of the impossibility of
acquiring jurisdiction over his person
unless he voluntarily appears in court.

As the initiating party, the plaintiff in a civil

action voluntarily submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court by the act of filing the

initiatory pleading. As to the defendant, the

court acquires jurisdiction over his person
either by the proper service of the summons,
or by a voluntary appearance in the action.

The significance of the proper service of the

summons on the defendant in an action in
personam cannot be overemphasized. The
service of the summons fulfills two
fundamental objectives, namely: (a) to vest in
the court jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant; and (b) to afford to the
defendant the opportunity to be heard on
the claim brought against him. As to the
former, when jurisdiction in personam is
not acquired in a civil action through the
proper service of the summons or upon a
valid waiver of such proper service, the
ensuing trial and judgment are void. If the
defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent
with the right to object to the lack of personal
jurisdiction as to him, like voluntarily appearing
in the action, he is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. As to
the latter, the essence of due process lies in
the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to
submit any evidence the defendant may have
in support of his defense. With the proper
service of the summons being intended to
afford to him the opportunity to be heard on
the claim against him, he may also waive the
process. In other words, compliance with the
rules regarding the service of the summons is
as much an issue of due process as it is of
jurisdiction.

Under the Rules of Court, the service of the

summons should firstly be effected on the
defendant himself whenever practicable. Such

personal service consists either in handing a

copy of the summons to the defendant in
person, or, if the defendant refuses to receive
and sign for it, in tendering it to him. The rule
on personal service is to be rigidly enforced in
order to ensure the realization of the two
fundamental objectives earlier mentioned. If,
for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot
be served in person within a reasonable time,
the service of the summons may then be
effected either (a) by leaving a copy of the
summons at his residence with some
person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copy
at his office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge
thereof. The latter mode of service is known
as substituted service because the service of
the summons on the defendant is made
through his substitute.

There is no question that Sheriff Medina twice

attempted to serve the summons upon each of
petitioners in person at their office address,
the first in the morning of September 18, 2000
and the second in the afternoon of the same
date. Each attempt failed because Macasaet
and Quijano were “always out and not
available” and the other petitioners were
“always roving outside and gathering news.”
After Medina learned from those present in the
office address on his second attempt that
there was no likelihood of any of petitioners
going to the office during the business hours
of that or any other day, he concluded that
further attempts to serve them in person within
a reasonable time would be futile. The
circumstances fully warranted his conclusion.
He was not expected or required as the

serving officer to effect personal service

by all means and at all times, considering
that he was expressly authorized to resort
to substituted service should he be unable
to effect the personal service within a
reasonable time. In that regard, what was a
reasonable time was dependent on the
circumstances obtaining. While we are
strict in insisting on personal service on
the defendant, we do not cling to such
strictness should the circumstances
already justify substituted service instead.
It is the spirit of the procedural rules, not
their letter, that governs.

2. Heirs of Tomas TOPIC: Rule 2: Cause of Action (Cause of action Whether the Yes. The complainants sufficiently stated a
Dolleton v. defined) complaint sufficiently cause of action. Respondents mistakenly
Fil-Estate stated a cause of construe the allegations in petitioners’
Management, Inc. TICKLER: Daming properties 91 years na sa action - YES. Complaints. What petitioners alleged in their
kanila Complaints was that while the subject
properties were not covered by respondents’
FACTS: certificates of title, nevertheless, respondents
In October 1997, petitioners Heirs of Tomas forcibly evicted petitioners therefrom. Hence, it
Dolleton, Heraclio Orcullo, Remedios San Pedro, is not simply a question of whether petitioners’
Bernardo Millama, Agapito VIllanueva, Hilarion possession can defeat respondents’ title to
Garcia, Serafina SP Argana, and Mariano registered land. Instead, an initial
Villanueva, filed before the RTC separate determination has to be made on whether the
complaints for quieting of title and/or recovery subject properties were in fact covered by
of ownership and possession with preliminary respondents’ certificates of title.
injunction/restraining order and damages against
respondents Fil-Estate Management, Inc. Section 2, Rule 2 of thfe Rules of Civil
Spouses Arturo E. Dy and Susan Dy, Megatop Procedure defines a cause of action as the
Realty Development, Inc., and the Register of act or omission by which a party violates
Deeds of Las Piñas. the right of another. Its essential elements
are as follows: (1) a right in favor of the
Petitioners claimed in their complaints that they plaintiff by whatever means and under
had been in continuous, open, and exclusive whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an
possession of the parcels of land for more obligation on the part of the named
than 90 years until they were forcibly ousted defendant to respect or not to violate such

by armed men hired by respondents in 1991. right; and (3) an act or omission on the
They had cultivated the subject properties and part of such defendant in violation of the
religiously paid for the real estate taxes of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a
same. That respondents cannot rely on the TCTs breach of the obligation of the defendant to
issued by the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas in the plaintiff, for which the latter may
their names, to support their claim over the maintain an action for recovery of
subject properties since the subject properties damages or other appropriate relief.
were allegedly not covered by said certificates;
and that the TCTs, purportedly derived from the The elementary test for failure to state a
subject Original Certificate of Title, issued in favor cause of action is whether the complaint
of Jose Velasquez, were spurious. alleges facts which if true would justify the
relief demanded. The inquiry is into the
Petitioners sought from the RTC an order be sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material
issued enjoining respondents from making any allegations. If the allegations in the complaint
developments on the subject properties and pray furnish sufficient basis on which it can be
for such other affirmative reliefs as are deemed maintained, it should not be dismissed
just and equitable in the premises. regardless of the defense that may be
presented by the defendant.
Respondents filed before the RTC a Motion to
Dismiss and Opposition to Application for a This Court is convinced that each of the
Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Complaints filed by petitioners sufficiently
Injunction. They moved for the dismissal of the stated a cause of action. The Complaints
Complaints on the grounds of (1) prescription; (2) alleged that petitioners are the owners of the
laches; (3) lack of cause of action; and (4) res subject properties by acquisitive prescription.
judicata. As owners thereof, they have the right to
remain in peaceful possession of the said
Respondents maintained that the Complaints properties and, if deprived thereof, they may
should be dismissed for a failure to state a recover the same.
cause of action. Even assuming that petitioners
were able to prove their allegations of longtime
possession and payment of realty taxes on the
subject properties, and to submit a sketch plan of
the same, these cannot defeat a claim of
ownership over the parcels of land, which were
already registered under the Torrens system in
the name of respondents and the other
consortium members.

The RTC issued a Resolution granting

respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.

3. Multi-Realty TICKLER: Away sa parking lots Whether the CA Yes. Given the factual backdrop of the case, it
Development Corp. erred in ruling that was inappropriate for the CA, motu proprio, to
FACTS: Multi-Realty’s action delve into and resolve the issue of whether
had already petitioner's action had already prescribed. The
● Multi-Realty Development Corporation prescribed appellate court should have proceeded to
constructed a 26-storey at the corner of resolve petitioner's appeal on its merits
Ayala Avenue and Fonda Street in Makati instead of dismissing the same on a ground
City, known as the Makati Tuscany not raised by the parties in the RTC and even
Condominium Building. in their pleadings in the CA.

● Makati Tuscany consisted of 160 Article 1144 of the New Civil Code provides
condominium units – 156 units from 2nd to that an action upon a written contract must be
25th floors, and 4 penthouse units on the brought within ten (10) years from the time the
26th floor. For the parking lots, a total of right of action accrues. In relation thereto,
270 parking lots were built -- 164 were Article 1150 of the New Civil Code provides
allotted for the residents, 8 were that the time for prescription of all actions,
designated as guest parking slots on when there is no special provision which
the ground floor, while the remaining ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the
98 were to be retained by Multi-Realty day they may be brought. It is the legal
for sale to unit owners who would want possibility of bringing the action that
to have additional slots. determines the starting point for the
computation of the period of prescription.
● Pursuant to the Condominium Act, Makati
Tuscany Condominium Corporation The term "right of action" is the right to
(MATUSCO) was organized. Later, commence and maintain an action. In the law
Mutli-Realty executed a Master Deed and of pleadings, right of action is distinguished
Declaration of Restrictions of the Makati from a cause of action in that the former is a
Tuscany. The Master Deed provides, remedial right belonging to some persons
among others, that: while the latter is a formal statement of the
operational facts that give rise to such
SEC. 7. The Common Areas. — The common remedial right. The former is a matter of right
elements or areas of the Makati Tuscany shall and depends on the substantive law while the
comprise of all the parts of the project other than latter is a matter of statute and is governed by
the units, including without limitation the following: the law of procedure. The right of action
springs from the cause of action but does not
xxx xxx xxx accrue until all the facts which constitute the
cause of action have occurred.

(d) All driveways, playgrounds, garden areas and

PARKING AREAS OTHER THAN THOSE A cause of action must always consist of two
ASSIGNED TO EACH UNIT UNDER SEC. 5 elements: (1) the plaintiff's primary right and
ABOVE; the defendant's corresponding primary duty,
whatever may be the subject to which they
● The Master Deed was filed with the relate — person, character, property or
Register of Deeds in 1977. Multi- Realty contract; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or
executed a Deed of Transfer in favor of omission of the defendant, by which the
MATUSCO over these common areas. primary right and duty have been violated.
However, the Master Deed and the
Deed of Transfer did not reflect or To determine when all the facts which
specify the ownership of the 98 constitute a cause of action for reformation of
parking slots. Nevertheless, an instrument may be brought and when the
Multi-Realty sold 26 of them in 1977 to right of the petitioner to file such action
1986 to condominium unit buyers who accrues, the second paragraph of Section 1,
needed additional parking slots. Rule 63, must be considered because an
MATUSCO did not object, and action for the reformation of an instrument
certificates of title were later issued by may be brought under said Rule. Such a
the Register of Deeds in favor of the petition is a special civil action determinative
buyers. MATUSCO issued Certificates of of the rights of the parties to the case. It is
Management covering the condominium permitted on the theory that courts should be
units and parking slots which Multi- Realty allowed to act, not only when harm is actually
had sold. done and rights jeopardized by physical
wrongs or physical attack upon existing legal
● In 1979, MATUSCO’s Board of Directors relations, but also when challenge, refusal,
approved a resolution authorizing its dispute or denial thereof is made amounting to
President, Jovencio Cinco, to negotiate a live controversy.
terms under which MATUSCO would buy
36 of the unallocated parking slots from In sum, one has a right of action to file a
Multi-Realty. Later, Cinco informed the complaint/petition for reformation of an
Board of Multi-Realty’s proposal to sell all instrument when his legal right is denied,
of the unassigned parking lots. challenged or refused by another; or when
there is an antagonistic assertion of his
● In 1989, Multi-Realty requested that two legal right and the denial thereof by
Multi-Realty executives be allowed to park another concerning a real question or
their cars in two of Makati Tuscany’s 72 issue; when there is a real, definitive and
unallocated parking slots. MATUSCO substantive controversy between the
denied the request, asserting for the first parties touching on their legal relations
time, that the remaining unallocated having adverse legal interests. This may

parking slots were common areas owned occur shortly after the execution of the
by it. In another letter, MATUSCO offered, instrument or much later.
by way of goodwill gesture, to allow
Multi-Realty to use two unallocated In the present case, petitioner executed the
parking slots, which offer was rejected by Master Deed in 1975. However, petitioner had
the latter. no doubt about its ownership of the
unassigned parking lots, and even sold some
● In 1990, Multi-Realty filed a complaint of them. Respondent did not even object to
against MATUSCO for damages and/or these sales, and even offered to buy some of
reformation of instrument with prayer the parking slots. Respondent assailed
for TRO and/or preliminary injunction. petitioner's ownership only in 1989 and
It alleged therein that it had retained claimed ownership of the unassigned parking
ownership of the 98 unassigned slots, and it was then that petitioner
parking lots. discovered the error in the Master Deed; the
dispute over the ownership of the parking slots
● MATUSCO alleged that multi-Realty thereafter ensued. It was only then that
had no cause of action against it for petitioner's cause of action for a reformation of
reformation of their contract. By its own the Master Deed accrued. Since petitioner
admission, Multi-Realty sold various filed its complaint in 1990, the prescriptive
parking slots to third parties despite its period had not yet elapsed.
knowledge that the parking areas, other
than those mentioned in Sec. 5 of the Thus, this petition is granted and the CA is
Master Deed, belonged to MATUSCO. directed to resolve petitioner’s appeal with
reasonable dispatch.
● RTC ruled that Multi-Realty failed to prove
any ground for the reformation of its
agreement with MATUSCO relative to the
ownership of the common areas. There is
no evidence on record to prove that the
defendant acted fraudulently or
inequitably to the prejudice of the plaintiff,
and the latter was estopped, by deed,
from claiming that it owned the common
areas. It also held that the defendant was
not estopped from assailing plaintiff's
ownership over the disputed parking slots.

● CA dismissed Multi-Realty’s appeal on the

ground that the action had already

prescribed.

4. Consular Area DOCTRINE: Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Civil Whether or not the No, the demolition should not be enjoined.
Residents Procedure defines a cause of action as the act or demolition should be
Association, Inc. v. omission by which a party violates the right of enjoined - NO. It is a fundamental rule of procedural law
Casanova another. Its essential elements are as follows: (1) that it is not the caption of the pleading
a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means that determines the nature of the complaint
and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) but rather its allegations.
an obligation on the part of the named defendant
to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an Hence, considering the above-discussed
act or omission on the part of such defendant in allegations, the petition, albeit denominated as
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a one for prohibition, is essentially an action for
breach of the obligation of the defendant to the injunction, which means that Section 4, Rule
plaintiff, for which the latter may maintain an 65 of the Rules of Court would not apply.
action for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief. Instead, it is Section 21 of RA 7227, which
solely authorizes the Supreme Court to issue
FACTS: injunctions to restrain or enjoin "the
implementation of the projects for the
● Congress enacted Republic Act No. (RA) conversion into alternative productive uses of
7227, otherwise known as the Bases the military reservations," that would govern.
Conversion and Development Act of
1992, which, inter alia, created the BCDA In this case, the Court finds that the petitioner
in order to "accelerate the sound and has failed to prove that the structures for
balanced conversion into alternative which they seek protection against demolition
productive uses of the Clark and Subic fall within the Diplomatic and Consular Area.
military reservations and their Its supposition is anchored on two (2)
extensions (i.e., John Hay Station, documents, namely: (a) a printed copy of
Wallace Air Station, O'Donnell Transmitter BCDA's declaration in its website that the
Station, San Miguel Naval Diplomatic and Consular Area is a non-BCDA
Communications Station, and Capas property; and (b) a map of the South Bonifacio
Relay Station)" and "to raise funds by the Properties showing the metes and bounds of
sale of portions of Metro Manila military the properties of the BCDA as well as the
camps." properties contiguous to them. However, none
● Executive Order (EO) No. 40, Series of of these documents substantiate petitioner's
1992 was issued, identifying Fort claim: the website posting is a mere statement
Bonifacio as one of the military camps that the Diplomatic Consular Area is

earmarked for development and supposedly a non-BCDA property, whereas

disposition to raise funds for BCDA the map only depicts the metes and bounds of
projects. the BCDA's properties.
● The Local Housing Board of Taguig City
issued a Certificate of Compliance on NOTE:
Demolition declaring that the BCDA had
complied with the requirement of "Just Jurisprudence teaches that in order for a
and Humane Demolition and Eviction," writ of injunction to issue, the petitioner
prescribed under Section 28 of RA 7279, should be able to establish: (a) a right in
otherwise known as the "Urban esse or a clear and unmistakable right to
Development and Housing Act of 1992," be protected; (b) a violation of that right;
for the demolition of structures within the and (c) that there is an urgent and
JUSMAG Area. permanent act and urgent necessity for the
● Respondent Casanova sent a Letter writ to prevent serious damage. In the
informing petitioner and its members that absence of a clear legal right, the writ must
they should, within a seven (7)-day not issue. A restraining order or an
period, coordinate with BCDA officials injunction is a preservative remedy aimed
should they choose to either accept the at protecting substantial rights and
relocation package being offered to them, interests, and it is not designed to protect
or voluntarily dismantle their structures contingent or future rights. Verily, the
and peacefully vacate the property. possibility of irreparable damage without
● Petitioner filed the present case to enjoin proof of adequate existing rights is not a
the demolition of their structures which ground for injunction.
they claimed are within the Diplomatic and
Consular Area, and not the JUSMAG
Area.

5. Danfoss Inc. v. TICKLER: Converter/Inverter order. Cinancel ni W/N there was a NO. In order to sustain a dismissal on the
Continental buyer yung order pero kasi nasa agreement cause of action in ground of lack of cause of action, the
Cement Corp. naman na 8-10 weeks yung shipping kaya walang the complaint filed insufficiency must appear on the face of the
cause of action kasi di pa naman due and by Continental complaint. And the test of the sufficiency of
demandable yung obligation ni seller. Cement Corp the facts alleged in the complaint to
against Danfoss constitute a cause of action is whether or
FACTS: not, admitting the facts alleged, the court
● Respondent ordered 2 unit 132 KW can render a valid judgment thereon in
Danfoss Frequency Converter/Inverter accordance with the prayer of the
from MINCI (agent of petitioner for its complaint. For this purpose, the motion to
product in the Philippines) to be used in dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of
the Finish Mill of its Cement Plant in the facts alleged in the complaint

Bulacan. In the original purchase order, its

terms state that the converter shall be When respondent sued petitioner for
delivered by Danfoss within 8-10 damages, petitioner had not violated any right
weeks from the opening of the letter of of respondent from which a cause of action
credit. The letter of credit was opened by had arisen. Respondent only surmised that
Respondent in favor of petitioner on 9 petitioner would not be able to deliver the two
September 1997. units frequency converter/inverter on the date
● On 17 September 1997, MINCi informed agreed upon by them. Based on this
Respondent that its orders were ready for apprehension, it cancelled its order six days
shipment. On 6 November 1997, MINCI prior to the agreed date of delivery. How
relayed to respondent that Danfoss was could respondent hold petitioner liable for
still checking the status of their ordered to damages (1) when petitioner had not yet
which respondent replied that “every breached its obligation to deliver the goods
delay in the delivery will cause loss to and (2) after respondent made it impossible
their company so they requested for early for petitioner to deliver them by cancelling its
work out and immediate shipment to avoid order even before the agreed delivery date?
further loss.
● On November 9, 1997, Danfoss Inc. The obligation of petitioner to respondent was
informed MINCI through fax, that the not yet due and demandable at the time the
reason for the delivery problems was that latter filed the complaint. The alleged violation
some of the supplied components did not of respondent's right being no more than mere
meet the agreed quality standard. There speculation, there was no need to call for
was no clear message as to when normal judicial intervention.
production will resume.
● Upon receiving the relayed information, Note: Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. 'A
CCC surmised that Danfoss would not be cause of action is the act or omission by
able to deliver their order. There was also which a party violates a right of another.
no definite commitment of the delivery
from Danfoss and MINCI, so CCC The Principle of Anticipatory Breach does
informed MINCI that they intend to cancel NOT apply in the case at bar. Under the
its order. The order was cancelled on PRINCIPLE OF ANTICIPATORY BREACH,
November 13, 1997. even if the contract is divisible in its
● Hence the complaint for damages filed by performance and the future periodic deliveries
CCC with the RTC of Quezon City against are not yet due, if the obligor has already
Danfoss and MINCI. In reply, Danfoss manifested his refusal to comply with his
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. future periodic obligations, the contract is
CCC’s contention: Due to the entire and the breach is total. Hence, there
“impending” delay in the delivery of its can only be one action for damages.
order, it suffered more than P8 million and Therefore, the principle contemplates future

was compelled to look for another periodic deliveries and a willful refusal to
supplier. Danfoss’ contention: The case comply therewith. In the case however, the
should be dismissed on the ground obligation was single and indivisible – to
that it did not state a cause of action. deliver the 2 units by November 19, 1997.

6.Colmenar v. TOPIC: Failure to state cause of action 1) W/N the 1) Yes, the complaint stated a cause of
Colmenar distinguished from lack of cause of action complaint stated action against the respondent
a cause of companies.
TICKER: ProFriends action. –YES
2) W/N it is correct Assuming the allegations in the complaint are
FACTS: for the trial court true, i.e., petitioner is the legitimate child and
● Petitioner filed a Complaint, alleging, to consider lawful heir of his father, his father left real
among others, that he is the legitimate Profriends’ properties that would legally pass to him upon
and lawful heir of his father, when his Affirmative his death, individual respondents are not the
father died, he left real properties and that defense of lack lawful heirs of his father and have no claim to
Respondents pollo, Jeannie and Victoria of cause of the properties but nevertheless executed a
executed Extrajudicial Settlement of action as one void extrajudicial settlement and that their sale
Estate of his father, where it was made to that is failure to to respondents companies were without
appear that only the Respondents state a cause of authority and thus void, petitioner has the right
Appollo, Jeannie and Victoria were the action. –NO to the relief prayed for – to declare void the
surviving heirs of his father, and extrajudicial settlement of estate, declare void
allocating unto themselves the the subsequent deeds of sale.
interests of his father over said
properties. Whether respondents companies are buyers
in bad faith or not is not the issue nor the
● Respondents Apollo, Jeannie and Victoria trigger that gave rise to the complaint.
then sold the properties in separate Petitioner’s cause of action hinged on his
contracts of sale to Respondents PEC, averment that the individual respondents are
ProFriends and Crisanta Realty. not the owners of the properties and thus,
cannot validly sell the same. Good faith or lack
● Respondent PEC then sold the property it of bad faith is a matter of defense for the
purchased to Respondent Amaia. buyers. It can be pleaded in the answer and
Petitioner claimed that the sale to PEC, proved during trial.
Crisanta Realty, Profriends and Amaia
were void because the respondents
Appollo, Jeannie and Victoria were not the 2) No, it is not correct for the trial court to
rightful heirs of his father, and therefore consider Profriends’ Affirmative defense of
had no right of claim over his father’s lack of cause of action as one that is
properties, thereby making the sale to the failure to state a cause of action.

said respondents companies void.

Failure to state a cause of action and lack
● Apollo and Amaia filed their respective of cause of action are distinct and separate
Motion to Dismiss. Amaia claimed in the grounds to dismiss a particular action.
Motion to Dismiss that the Complaint Failure to state a cause of action refers to
stated no cause of action against it as it the insufficiency of the allegations in the
was allegedly a buyer in good faith. pleading, while lack of cause of action
refers to the insufficiency of the factual
● ProFriends, in its Answer, invoked as basis of the action. Dismissal for failure to
affirmative defense lack of cause of state a cause of action may be raised at the
action. In their Answer, PEC and Crisanta earliest stage, such as an affirmative
Realty claimed that the complaint failed to defense in the answer.
state a cause of action against them,
claiming they were innocent purchasers Lack of cause of action may be raised any
for value and that Petitioner’s claim had time after the questions of fact have been
prescribed. They also invoked common resolved on the basis of stipulations,
defenses of being innocent purchasers for admissions or evidence presented by the
value, and that the claim is barred by plaintiff, such as in a demurrer to evidence
laches and/or prescription. under Rule 33.

● PEC and Crisanta Realty then filed a In Failure to state a cause of action, the
Motion for Leave of Court to Set the Case veracity of the allegations is immaterial. In lack
for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative of cause of action, this is invoked after the
Defenses. plaintiff has rested its case, and the judge
must determine the veracity of the allegations
● In an Order dated a April 2019, the trial based on the evidence presented.
court through then Assisting Judge
Pascua granted the motion to set the
affirmative defenses for hearing, and
deferred the resolution of the motion to
dismiss.

● In an Order dated 26 December 2019,

Assisting Judge Gill set aside the Order
dated 1 April 2019 which set the
affirmative defenses for hearing and
deferred the ruling on the motion to
dismiss and instead, deemed that the
Motion for Leave of Court and Motions

to Dismiss were submitted for

Resolution.

● In an Omnibus Order dated 12 February

2020, Judge Gill denied the motions, on
the ground that: (1) the issues raised by
Respondents were complex and
evidentiary, which could be best threshed
out during trial; and (2) pursuant to the
exercise of discretion under Sec. 1, Rule
16, the motion to hear affirmative
defenses were being denied as the issues
raised by each party were complex and
would be better threshed out in trial.

● PEC, Crisanta Realty and Amaia filed

their respective motions for
reconsideration. Amaia also filed its
answer, pleading failure to state a cause
of action as an affirmative defense.

● In the meantime, the 2019 Amendments

to the Rules of Court took effect on 1 May
2020. The affirmative defenses were set
for hearing.

● On 22 May 2020, the trial court issue an

order of even date, dismissing the
Complaint against PEC, Crisanta
Realty, Amaia and ProFriends on the
ground that the complaint failed to
state a cause of action against them,
applying Sec. 12, Rule 8 of the 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure. Judge Gill resolved
motu proprio the affirmative defense of
failure to state a cause of action.

● Since Sec. 12, Rule 15 of the 2019 Rules

prohibited the filing of a motion for

reconsideration of the court’s action on
the affirmative defense, Petitioner
assailed the 22 May 2020 Order directly
with the Supreme Court by Rule 45, on
the basis of pure question of law.
Petitioner questions whether it was
correct for the trial court to apply the
amended rules on the motu proprio
resolution on the affirmative defense to
the present case, which was pending
before the amended rules took effect.

7. Sanico v. TOPIC: Failure to state cause of action Whether or not Only Sanico (owner) breached the contract of
Colipano distinguished from lack of cause of action Castro (driver) is carriage.
liable for breach of
DOCTRINE: A driver is not a party to the contract contract of carriage? Colipano was injured while she was a
of carriage, the plaintiff had no cause of action NO. passenger in the jeepney owned and operated
against him and the complaint against him should by Sanico that was being driven by Castro.
be dismissed. WON the complaint Both the CA and RTC found Sanico and
lacks cause of Castro jointly and severally liable. This,
FACTS: action against the however, is erroneous because only Sanico
Respondent Colipano filed a complaint for breach driver for the breach was the party to the contract of carriage with
of contract of carriage and damages against of contract of Colipano.
petitioners Sanico and Castro. At 4:00 pm on carriage? - YES
Christmas Day, she and her daughter were Since the cause of action is based on a
passengers in the jeepney operated by Sanico, breach of a contract of carriage, the liability of
which was driven by Castro. Colipano sat on an Sanico is direct as the contract is between him
empty beer case at the edge of the rear and Colipano. Castro, being merely the driver
entrance/exit of the jeepney with her sleeping of Sanico's jeepney, cannot be made liable as
child on her lap. At an uphill road to Cebu, the he is not a party to the contract of carriage.
jeepney slid backwards. Colipano pushed both her
feet against the step board to prevent herself and A complaint for breach of a contract of
her child from being thrown out of the exit, but carriage is dismissible as against the
because the step board was wet, her left foot employee who was driving the bus because
slipped and got crushed between the step board the parties to the contract of carriage are only
and a coconut tree. Colipano's leg was badly the passenger, the bus owner, and the
injured and was eventually amputated. operator.

Sanico and Castro admitted that Colipano's leg Since Castro was not a party to the
was crushed and amputated but claimed that it contract of carriage, Colipano had no
was Colipano's fault that her leg was crushed. The cause of action against him and the
jeepney slid backwards because the jeepney lost complaint against him should be
power. The conductor then instructed everyone dismissed. Although he was driving the
not to panic but Colipano tried to disembark and jeepney, he was a mere employee of Sanico,
her foot got caught in between the step board and who was the operator and owner of the
the coconut tree. Sanico claimed that he paid for jeepney. The obligation to carry Colipano
all the hospital and medical expenses of Colipano, safely to her destination was with Sanico. In
and that Colipano eventually freely and voluntarily fact, the elements of a contract of carriage
executed an Affidavit of Desistance and Release existed between Colipano and Sanico:
of Claim. ● Consent - when Castro, as employee
of Sanico, accepted Colipano as a
RTC found that Sanico and Castro breached the passenger when he allowed Colipano
contract of carriage between them and Colipano to board the jeepney, and as to
but only awarded actual and compensatory Colipano, when she boarded the
damages in favor of Colipano. jeepney;
● cause or consideration - when
CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision. Colipano, for her part, paid her fare;
and,
● Object - the transportation of
Colipano from the place of departure
to the place of destination.

8. Misamis TOPIC: Test of sufficiency of cause of action (1) Whether or not 1) No. In Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v.
Occidental II the Court of Appeals Court of Appeals, a preliminary hearing
Cooperative Inc. v. TICKLER: COOP FUNDS erred in dismissing permitted under Section 5, Rule 16, is not
David the petition for mandatory even when the same is prayed for.
FACTS: Private respondent David, a supplier of certiorari and in It rests largely on the sound discretion of the
electrical hardware, filed a case for specific holding that the trial court. The use of the word "may" in the
performance and damages against petitioner court did not commit provision shows that such a hearing is not
MOELCI II, a rural electric cooperative in Misamis grave abuse of mandatory but discretionary. It is an auxiliary
Occidental. The complaint was predicated on a discretion in denying verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission
document attached to the Amended Complaint petitioner’s Motion. and possibility. Such interpretation is now
(Annex A) that according to David is the contract specifically expressed in the 1997 Rules of
pursuant to which he sold to MOELCI II 1 unit of (2) Whether or not Civil Procedure. Section 6, Rule 16 provides
10 MVA Transformer. MOELCI II filed its Answer Annex A states a that a grant of preliminary hearing rests on the
to Amended Complaint which pleaded, among sufficient cause of sound discretion of the court.
others, affirmative defenses which also constitute action

grounds for dismissal of the complaint. These (2) Yes. To determine the existence of a
grounds were lack of cause of action, there being cause of action, only the statements in the
allegedly no enforceable contract between David complaint may be properly considered. It is
and MOELCI II under the Statute of Frauds error for the court to take cognizance of
pursuant to Section 1 (g) and (i), Rule 16 of the external facts or hold preliminary hearings to
Rules of Court, and improper Venue. determine their existence. If the allegations in
a complaint furnish sufficient basis by which
In accordance with Section 5, Rule 16 of the the complaint can be maintained, the same
Rules of Court, (now Section 6, Rule 16 of the should not be dismissed regardless of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) MOELCI II filed defenses that may be averred by the
with the trial court a Motion (For Preliminary defendants. The test of sufficiency of facts
Hearing of Affirmative Defenses and Deferment of alleged in the complaint as constituting a
Pre-Trial Conference). In said Motion, MOELCI II cause of action is whether or not admitting
contends that David’s Amended Complaint is the facts alleged, the court could render a
dismissible for failure to state a cause of action. valid verdict in accordance with the prayer
On the other hand, David contended that because of said complaint. While Annex "A" is
a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to captioned as such, the presence of the
state a cause of action is required to be based signatures of both the General Manager and
only on the allegations of the complaint, the the Chairman of the Committee of
"quotation letter," being merely an attachment to Management immediately below the word
the complaint and not part of its allegations, "CONFORME" appearing on the document’s
cannot be inquired into. last page lends credulity to David’s contention
that there was, or might have been, a meeting
MOELCI II filed a rejoinder to the opposition in of minds on the terms embodied therein.
which it asserted a complaint cannot be separated Thus, the appendage of Annex "A" does not
from its annexes; hence, the trial court in resolving entirely serve to snuff out David’s claims. Now,
a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to whether in truth Annex "A" is, as entitled, a
state a cause of action must consider the mere quotation letter is a matter that could
complaint’s annexes. best be proven during a full-blown hearing
rather than through a preliminary hearing as
RTC: It issued an order denying MOELCI II’s this may involve extensive proof. Verily, where
motion for preliminary hearing of affirmative a preliminary hearing will not suffice, it is
defenses. MOELCI II’s motion for reconsideration incumbent upon the trial court to deny a
was likewise denied in another order. motion for preliminary hearing and go on to
trial. The veracity of the assertions of the
CA: It dismissed MOELCI II’s petition holding that parties can be ascertained at the trial of the
the allegations in David’s complaint constitute a case on the merits.
cause of action. The interpretation of the
document requires evidence aliunde which is not

allowed in determining whether or not the

complaint states a cause of action. The appellate
court further declared that when the trial court is
confronted with a motion to dismiss on the ground
of lack of cause of action, it is mandated to
confine its examination for the resolution thereof
to the allegations of the complaint and is
specifically enjoined from receiving evidence for
that purpose.

Contentions of MOELCI II: It asserts that the Court

of Appeals committed serious error in:
(1) ruling that the resolution of its motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action
necessitated hearings by the trial court with the
end in view of determining whether or not the
document attached as Annex "A" to the Amended
Complaint is a contract as alleged in the body of
said pleading.
(2) not ordering the trial court to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on the ground of lack of
cause of action.

9. Marilag v. TOPIC: Splitting of single cause of action and its Whether or not the NO, the Supreme Court ruled that did not err
Martinez effects CA committed a in upholding the dismissal of the collection
reversible error in case but they did err in applying the principle
DOCTRINE: A party will not be permitted to split upholding the of res judicata. The requisites of a case being
up a single cause of action and make it a basis for dismissal of the barred by prior judgment or res judicata are:
several suits as the whole cause must be collection case. - NO
determined in one action. To be sure, splitting a (a) the judgment sought to bar the new
cause of action is a mode of forum shopping by action must be final ; (b ) the decision must
filing multiple cases based on the same cause of have been rendered by a court having
action, but with different prayers, where the jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
ground of dismissal is litis pendentia (or res parties; (c) the disposition of the case
judicata, as the case may be). must be a judgment on the merits; and (d)
there must be as between the first and
FACTS: second action, identity of parties, subject
● Rafael Martinez is the father of the matter, and causes of action.
respondent Marcelino Martinez who

obtained a P160,000 loan from Marilag The SC ruled that there is no res judicata in
with 5% monthly interest to be payable in this case because there is no indication in the
6 months. This loan was secured with a decision that the judicial foreclosure case has
Real Estate Mortgage but Rafael failed to already attained finality which is evidenced by
comply with his obligations which the entry of judgment in the case.
prompted Marilag to file a Complaint for
Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate However, the petitioner’s prosecution of the
Mortgage. collection case of the PN is barred by the
● Rafael failed to file an answer which principle of litis pendentia in view of the
declared him in default. The RTC-Imus substantial identity of parties and
found the 5% monthly interest to be singularity of the causes of action in the
usurious and reduced it to 12% per foreclosure and collection cases, such that
annum. The RTC-Imus ordered Rafael to the prior foreclosure case barred petitioner's
pay the amount of P229,000 but the recourse to the subsequent collection case.
records do not show that this decision
already attained finality. Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal
● The Respondent Martinez was not aware of a civil action, refers to that situation wherein
of the decision and agreed to pay Rafael’s another action is pending between the same
obligation to Marilag for P689,000 and parties for the same cause of action, such that
payed P400,000 only but executed a the second action becomes unnecessary and
promissory note to pay the remaining vexatious.
P289,000.
● However, the Respondent learned about For the bar of litis pendentia to be invoked,
the decision of RTC-Imus he refused to the following requisites must concur: (a)
pay the remaining balance which led to identity of parties, or at least such parties as
the filing of Marilag for a complaint for represent the same interests in both actions;
sum of money and damages. (b ) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
● The respondent contended that there is for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
no cause of action against him because and (c) the identity of the two preceding
he has already satisfied the obligation of particulars is such that any judgment rendered
Rafael as per the decision of RTC-Imus in the pending case, regardless of which party
and is entitled to the return of the excess is successful would amount to res judicata in
payment. the other. Splitting a cause of action is a
● The court A quo ruled in favor of the mode of forum shopping by filing multiple
Respondent and ordered the return of the cases based on the same cause of action, but
excess payment following the concept of with different prayers, where the ground of
solutio indebiti. The petitioner filed an MR. dismissal is litis pendentia (or res judicata, as
● The court A quo acted on the MR and the case may be).
recalled and set aside its previous

decision on the ground that the causes of In loan contracts secured by a real estate
action of collection and foreclosure are mortgage, the rule is that the
distinct and failure of the Respondent to creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of
comply with his PN will entitle the action against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e. to
petitioner to seek judicial relief. The recover the debt, through the filing of a
respondent elevated the matter to the CA. personal action for collection of sum of money
● The CA ruled and set aside the 2nd or the institution of a real action to foreclose
decision of the Court a quo and upheld on the mortgage security. The two remedies
the first decision where it held that the are alternative, not cumulative or successive,
doctrine of res judicata finds application in and each remedy is complete by itself.
the instant case, considering that both the
judicial foreclosure and collection cases In the present case, records show that
were filed as a consequence of the petitioner, as creditor-mortgagee, instituted an
non-payment of Rafael's loan, which was action for judicial foreclosure pursuant to the
the principal obligation secured by the real provisions of Rule 68 of the Rules of Court in
estate mortgage and the primary order to recover on Rafael's debt. In light of
consideration for the execution of the the foregoing discussion, the availment of
subject PN. such remedy thus bars recourse to the
subsequent filing of a personal action for
collection of the same debt, in this case, under
the principle of litis pendentia, considering that
the foreclosure case only remains pending as
it was not shown to have attained finality.

Finally, the SC directed the Petitioner Marilag

to return to the respondent Martinez the
excess payments plus legal interest from the
filing of the Answer.

10. Yap v. First TICKLER: Security ng loan ng anak yung lupa + W/N the subsequent NO. Petitioners anchor their position on
E-Bank warehouse ng magulang. Nagbounce yung foreclosure of the Supreme Court Circular 57-97, which provides
Corporation binayad na check, yung bank nagkaso ng BP22 mortgage property for the rules and guidelines in the filing and
against sa anak tas pinaforeclose ng yung was barred by the prosecution of criminal cases under BP 22.
property ng petitioners. Barred na ba raw yung previous filing of the Pertinent portions of Circular 57-97 provide:
complaint re: BP22 kasi ni-foreclose yung complaint for
property/bawal daw ba yung magfile for BP22 x violation of BP 22 “1. The criminal action for violation of [BP] 22
foreclose - pede parin. shall be deemed to necessarily include the
corresponding civil action, and no reservation
FACTS: to file such civil action separately shall be

● Sammy Yap obtained a 2M loan from allowed or recognized.” Circular 57-97 has
respondent (former PDCP) and as a been institutionalized as Section 1(b), Rule
security his parents, petitioners, executed 111 of the Rules of Court: Section 1.
a third party mortgage on their land and Institution of criminal and civil actions.—xxx
warehouse standing on it which allowed “(b) The criminal action for violation of [BP] 22
PDCP to extrajudicially foreclose said shall be deemed to include the corresponding
property incase of failure to pay the loan. civil action. No reservation to file such civil
● Sammy issued a promissory note and six action separately shall be allowed.”
PDCs in favor of PDCP as additional loan
securities. When Sammy defaulted on the However, Circular 57-97 (and, it goes without
payment of his loan, PDCP presented the saying, Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of
six checks to the drawee bank but the Court) was not yet in force when PDCP
said checks were dishonored. This sued Sammy for violation of BP 22 and
prompted PDCP to file a complaint when it filed a petition for extrajudicial
against Sammy for six counts of violation foreclosure on the mortgaged property of
of BP 22. It also filed an application for petitioners on February 8, 1993 and May 3,
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage 1993, respectively. In Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa,
on the property of petitioners which Circular 57-97 was not applied because the
served as principal security for Sammy’s collection suit and the criminal complaints for
loan. violation of BP 22 were filed prior to the
● Upon Sammy’s motion, without objection adoption of Circular 57-97. The same principle
from the public prosecutor and PDCP, the applies here. Thus, prior to the effectivity of
BP 22 cases were provisionally Circular 57-97, the alternative remedies of
dismissed. foreclosure of mortgage and collection suit
● Petitioner filed in RTC San Carlos a were not barred even if a suit for BP 22 had
complaint for injunction with prayer for been filed earlier, unless a judgment of
issuance of TRO, damages and conviction had already been rendered in the
accounting payments against PDCP BP 22 case finding the accused debtor
seeking to stop the foreclosure on the criminally liable and ordering him to pay the
ground that PDCP waived its right to amount of the check(s).
foreclose the mortgage on their property
when it filed the BP 22 cases against In this case, no judgment of conviction (which
Sammy. could have declared the criminal and civil
liability of Sammy) was rendered because
RTC: The remedies are alternative and the choice Sammy, at his instance, moved for the
of one excludes the others. PDCP was deemed to provisional dismissal of the case. In other
have waived its foreclosure on the property of words, PDCP was prevented from recovering
petitioners when it elected to sue Sammy for the whole amount by Sammy himself. To bar
violation of BP 22. PDCP from foreclosing on petitioners’ property

for the balance of the indebtedness would be

CA: Reversed. It opined that PDCP was not to penalize PDCP for the act of Sammy. That
barred from exercising its right to foreclose on the would not only be illogical and absurd but
property of petitioners despite suing Sammy for would also violate elementary rules of justice
violation of BP 22. and fair play. In sum, PDCP has not yet
effectively availed of and fully exhausted its
remedy. Hence, PDCP could have still
foreclosed on the mortgage or filed a
collection suit.

11. Umale v. TOPIC: Splitting of a single cause of action and its W/N the two cases No, the two cases of unlawful detainer do not
Canoga Park effects of unlawful detainer involve the same cause of action.
Development Corp. involve the same
TICKLER: Two ejectment cases were filed cause of action. Generally, a suit may only be instituted for
(first-violation of the lease contract; second- –NO a single cause of action. If two or more
expiration of the lease contract) suits are instituted on the basis of the
same cause of action, the filing of one or a
FACTS: judgement on the merits in any one is
● On January 4, 2000, the parties entered ground for the dismissal of the others.
into a Contract of Lease on an eight Several tests exist to ascertain whether
hundred sixty (860)-square-meter prime two suits relate to a single or common
lot located in Ortigas Center, Pasig City cause of action, such as (1) whether the
owned by the respondent. The same evidence would support and sustain
respondent acquired the subject lot from both the first and second causes of action
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership through a (also known as the "same evidence" test),
Deed of Absolute Sale, subject to the or (2) whether the defenses in one case
some conditions such as: (1) no shopping may be used to substantiate the complaint
arcades or retail stores, restaurants, etc, in the other. Also fundamental is the (3)
shall be allowed to be established on the test of determining whether the cause of
property, except with the prior written action in the second case existed at the
consent from Ortigas & Co. Ltd. time of the filing of the first complaint.
Partnership and (2) respondent and/or its
successor-in-interest shall become Of the three tests cited, the third one is
member/s of the Ortigas Center especially applicable to the present case, i.e.,
Association, Inc., and shall abide by its whether the cause of action in the second
rules and regulations. case existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint – and to which we answer in the
● On October 10, 2000, before the lease negative. The facts clearly show that the filing
contract expired, the respondent filed an of the first ejectment case was grounded on

unlawful detainer case against the the petitioner’s violation of stipulations in the
petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial lease contract, while the filing of the second
Court (MTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City. The case was based on the expiration of the lease
respondent used as a ground for contract. At the time the respondent filed the
ejectment the petitioner’s violation of first ejectment complaint on October 10, 2000,
stipulations in the lease contract regarding the lease contract between the parties was
the use of the property. MTC decide in still in effect. The lease was fixed for a period
favor of the respondent. RTC-Branch 155 of two (2) years, from January 16, 2000, and
affirmed. in the absence of a renewal agreed upon by
the parties, the lease remained effective until
● The case, however, was re-raffled to the January 15, 2002. It was only at the expiration
RTC-Branch 267, granted the petitioner’s of the lease contract that the cause of action
motion, thereby reversing and setting in the second ejectment complaint accrued
aside the MTC-Branch 68 decision. and made available to the respondent as a
Accordingly, Civil Case No. 8084 was ground for ejecting the petitioner. Thus, the
dismissed for being prematurely filed. cause of action in the second case was not
Thus, the respondent filed a petition for yet in existence at the time of filing of the first
review with the CA. ejectment case.

● During the pendency of the petition for In response to the petitioner’s contention that
review, the respondent filed on May 3, the similarity of Civil Case Nos. 8084 and
2002 another case for unlawful detainer 9210 rests on the reiteration in the second
against the petitioner before the MTC. case of the cause of action in the first case,
Respondent used as a ground for we rule that the restatement does not result in
ejectment the expiration of the parties’ substantial identity between the two cases.
lease contract. MTC rendered a decision Even if the respondent alleged violations of
in favor of the respondent. the lease contract as a ground for ejectment in
the second complaint, the main basis for
● On appeal, the RTC-Branch 68 reversed ejecting the petitioner in the second case was
and set aside the decision of the the expiration of the lease contract. If not for
MTC-Branch 71, and dismissed Civil this subsequent development, the respondent
Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis could no longer file a second complaint for
pendentia. unlawful detainer because an ejectment
complaint may only be filed within one year
after the accrual of the cause of action, which,
in the second case, was the expiration of the
lease contract. Also, contrary to petitioner’s
assertion, there can be no conflict between
the decisions rendered in Civil Case Nos.

8084 and 9210 because the MTC-Branch 71

decided the latter case on the sole issue of
whether the lease contract between the
parties had expired. Although alleged by the
respondent in its complaint, the MTC-Branch
71 did not rule on the alleged violations of the
lease contract committed by the petitioner. We
note that the damages awarded by the
MTC-Branch 71 in Civil Case No. 9210 were
for those incurred after the expiration of the
lease contract, not for those incurred prior
thereto.

12. Perez v. DOCTRINE: Whether or not the The statutory intent behind the provisions on
Hernano trial court erred in joinder of causes of action is to encourage
A joinder of causes of action is largely left to the dropping Hermano joinder of actions which could reasonably be
option of a party litigant, Section 5, Rule 2 of our in the civil action said to involve kindred rights and wrongs,
present Rules allows causes of action to be joined and ruling that there although the courts have not succeeded in
in one complaint conditioned upon the following was a misjoinder in giving a standard definition of the terms used
requisites: (a) it will not violate the rules on the causes of action. or in developing a rule of universal application.
jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties; and (b) - YES The dominant idea is to permit joinder of
the causes of action arise out of the same causes of action, legal or equitable, where
contract, transaction or relation between the there is some substantial unity between them.
parties, or are for demands for money or are of While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as many
the same nature and character. separate claims as he may have, there should
nevertheless be some unity in the problem
FACTS: presented and a common question of law and
fact involved, subject always to the restriction
● Petitioner spouses and Aviso filed three thereon regarding jurisdiction, venue and
causes of action based on the following joinder of parties. Unlimited joinder is not
allegations: the spouses Perez and Aviso authorized.
entered into a Contract to Sell with
Zecson Land Inc. as the buyer through its What the Supreme Court gathered from the
president Zenie Sales-Contreras. trial court’s Orders was that the trial court
● The first cause of action was for ruled that there was a misjoinder in the
enforcement of contract to sell entered civil case filed because it did not comply
into between the spouses and Aviso with the conditions on joinder of parties. It
and Zecson, the second was for is well to remember that the joinder of
annulment or rescission of two causes of action may involve the same

contracts of mortgage entered into parties or different parties. If the joinder

between the spouses and Aviso and involves different parties, as in this case,
Hermano, while the last one was for there must be a question of fact or of law
damages against all the mentioned common to both parties joined, arising out
defendants. of the same transaction or series of
● A joinder was made on these causes of transactions.
action and a civil case for Enforcement
of Contract and Damages with Prayer It can be deduced from the averments made
for the Issuance of a Temporary in the complaint that there are questions of
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or fact and law common to both Zecson Land,
Preliminary Injunction against Zescon Inc. and Hermano arising from a series of
Land, Inc. and/or its President Zenie transactions over the same properties.
Sales-Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele
and against respondent Antonio There is the question of fact, for example, of
Hermano was filed before the RTC. whether or not Zescon Land, Inc., indeed
● Hermano denied the spouses and Aviso’s misled petitioners to sign the mortgage deeds
allegations through his Answer with in favor of respondent Hermano. There is also
Counterclaim. Hermano also filed a the question of which of the four contracts
“Motion with Leave to Dismiss the were validly entered into by the parties. Note
Complaint or Ordered Severed for that under Article 2085 of the Civil Code, for a
Separate Trial" which was granted by the mortgage to be valid, it is imperative that the
trial court on the ground that there was a mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing
misjoinder in the causes of action. As a mortgaged. Thus, respondent Hermano will
consequence, Hermano was dropped definitely be affected if it is subsequently
from the civil case. The spouses Perez declared that what was entered into by
and Aviso moved for reconsideration but petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc., was a
was also denied by the trial court. So, Contract of Sale (as evidenced by the Deed of
they filed an original action for certiorari Absolute Sale signed by them) because this
before the CA. would mean that the contracts of mortgage
were void as petitioners were no longer the
absolute owners of the properties mortgaged.
Finally, there is also the question of whether or
not Zescon Land, Inc., as represented by
Sales-Contreras, and respondent Hermano
committed fraud against petitioners as to
make them liable for damages.

13. Pantranco TOPIC: Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action WON the RTC has Permissive joinder of parties requires that:
North Express Inc. jurisdiction over the (a) the right to relief arises out of the

v. Standard TICKLER: Pantranco bus overtook the jeepney case considering same transaction or series of
Insurance Co. Inc. and was hit. Jeepney owner and the insurer that respondent’s transactions;
claimed damages from the bus company. cause of action did (b) there is a question of law or fact
not arise of the common to all the plaintiffs or
FACTS: same transaction defendants; and
Crispin Gicale was driving the jeepney owned by nor are the (c) such joinder is not otherwise
his mother Martina Gicale (respondent) while it questions of law and proscribed by the provisions of the
was raining. While driving north bound along the fact common to both Rules on jurisdiction and venue.
National Highway in Nueva Ecija, a passenger petitioners and
bus (Pantranco) driven by Alexander Buncan, was respondents - YES In this case, there is a single transaction
trailing behind. When the two vehicles were common to all, that is, Pantranco's bus hitting
negotiating a curve along the highway, the WON the RTC has the rear side of the jeepney. There is also a
passenger bus overtook the jeepney. Thus, the jurisdiction over the common question of fact, that is, whether
passenger bus hit the left rear side of the jeepney case (applying the petitioners are negligent. There being a single
and sped away. totality rule) since transaction common to both respondents,
the aggregate claim consequently, they have the same cause of
Crispin reported to the Talavera Police Station and is more than action against petitioners.
respondent Standard Insurance (insurer of the P20,000 - YES
jeepney) The total cost of the repair was To determine identity of cause of action, it
P21,415.00, but respondent Standard paid only must be ascertained whether the same
P8,000.00. Martina Gicale shouldered the evidence which is necessary to sustain the
balance of P13,415.00. second cause of action would have been
sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first.
Respondents Martina and Standard demanded Here, had respondents filed separate suits
reimbursement from petitioners Pantranco and its against petitioners, the same evidence would
driver Buncan, but they refused. This prompted have been presented to sustain the same
respondents to file with the RTC Manila, a cause of action. Thus, the filing by both
complaint for a sum of money. Both petitioners respondents of the complaint with the court
specifically denied the allegations and averred below is in order. Such joinder of parties
that it is the MTC not the RTC, which has avoids multiplicity of suit and ensures the
jurisdiction over the case. convenient, speedy and orderly administration
of justice.
RTC: in favor of respondents Standard and
Martina. CA affirmed the RTC decision Section 5(d), Rule 2:
(d) Where the claims in all the causes
The appellants argue Martina's claim of of action are principally for recovery of
P13,415.00 and Standard’s claim of P8,000.00 money the aggregate amount claimed
individually fell under the exclusive original shall be the test of jurisdiction."
jurisdiction of the MTC. Appellants contend that

there was a misjoinder of parties. They insist The above provision presupposes that the
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case different causes of action which are joined
since the cause of action of each respondent did accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and
not arise from the same transaction and that there against the same defendant/s and that no
are no common questions of law and fact misjoinder of parties is involved. The issue of
common to both parties. whether respondents' claims shall be lumped
together is determined by paragraph (d) of the
Respondents contend that their individual claims above provision.
arose out of the same vehicular accident and
involve a common question of fact and law. This paragraph embodies the "totality rule"
Hence, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. as exemplified by Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg.
1299 which states, among others, 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."

Respondents' cause of action against

petitioners arose out of the same
transaction. Thus, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims.

Standard’s claim: P8,000

Martina’s claim: P13,415
Total: P21,415

Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129: RTC has

"exclusive original jurisdiction over all other
cases, in which the demand, exclusive of
interest and cost or the value of the property in
controversy, amounts to more than twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00)." Clearly, it is
the RTC that has jurisdiction over the instant
case. It bears emphasis that when the
complaint was filed, R.A. 7691 expanding the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan, Municipal and

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts had not yet

taken effect. It became effective on April 15,
1994.

14. Danilo v. Pedro TOPIC: Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action Whether there are 2 A cause of action is an act or omission of one
causes of action in party in violation of the legal right of the other
TICKLER: Bulacan MOA, property this case, warranting which causes the latter injury. It has the
the joinder of causes following elements: (1) existence of a legal
FACTS: Agreement for the sale of Spouses of action - NO. right of the plaintiff; (2) correlative duty of the
Decena’s house and lot located in Parañaque, defendant to respect one’s right; and (3) act or
Metro Manila, for the price of P940,250 payable in omission of the defendant in violation of the
6 installments via postdated checks. Thereafter, plaintiff’s right. A cause of action is to be found
Spouses Piquero took possession of the property. in the facts alleged in the complaint and not in
the prayer for relief.
In the MOA, the parties agreed that the petitioners
will transfer the property to the respondents upon To warrant a joinder of causes of action,
the execution of the MOA with the condition that there must be two or more demands or
should 2 of the 6 postdated checks be dishonored right of action in a complaint. It involves a
by the drawee bank, the respondents shall be preliminary inquiry as to whether two or
obligated to reconvey the property to the more causes of action are alleged.
petitioners.
To determine this, the following tests may
Thus in 1999, petitioners filed a complaint with the be of use:
Malolos, Bulacan RTC for the annulment of the (a) Whether more than one primary right or
sale/MOA, recovery of possession, and damages subject of controversy is present;
alleging that the first 2 checks drawn and issued (b) Whether recovery on one ground would
by the respondents in payment of the purchase bar recovery on the other;
price of the property were dishonored by the (c) Whether the same evidence would
drawee bank, and that despite demands, the support the other different counts; or
respondents failed to replace the value of the (d) Whether separate actions could be
checks with cash. maintained for separate relief.

Respondents, on the other hand, filed a motion to A cause of action may be single although the
dismiss on the ground of improper venue and lack plaintiff seeks a variety of remedies. The mere
of jurisdiction over the property subject matter of fact that the plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs
the action. According to them, since the action is does not indicate that he has stated more than
real and not personal, it should have been filed one cause of action. If the allegations of the
with the RTC of Parañaque, where the subject complaint show one primary right and one
property was located, and not in Malolos, Bulacan, wrong, only one cause of action is alleged

where the petitioners resided. even though other matters are incidentally
involved, and although different acts,
Petitioners insisted that their action for damages methods, elements of injury, items of claims or
and attorney’s fees is a personal action, and that theories of recovery are set forth. Where two
while their second cause of action for recovery of or more
possession of the property is a real action, it may primary rights and wrongs appear, there is a
be joined with the rest of the causes of action for joinder of causes of action.
damages, conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of
the Rules of Court. Thus, Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
Court finds no application in this case.
Petitioners had only one cause of action
against respondents: the breach of the MOA
upon the latter’s refusal to pay the first 2
installments in payment of the property as
agreed upon, and turn over to the petitioners
the possession of the real property. The claim
for damages on account of the said breach of
contract is merely incidental to the main cause
of action, and are not independent or separate
causes of action.

Respondents are correct in saying that the

action of the petitioners for the rescission of
the MOA on account of breach thereof, and
the respondents’ eviction from the subject
property is a real action. As such, it should
have been filed with the RTC in Parañaque,
where the subject property was located.

15. Santos Ventura TICKLER: Ayaw magbayad ng rent ni respondent 1) W/N Petitioner 1) NO. In the instant case, We find that the
Hocorma sa lupa ni petitioner. May two cases na finile - committed forum second and third elements of forum
Foundation, Inc. v. ejectment case + collection case. shopping when it shopping and litis pendentia are lacking.
Mabalacat filed two different Thus, We are of the firm view that there is no
FACTS: actions in two identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed
The elements of ● Petitioner claimed that it is the registered different courts - NO for between a collection suit and an ejectment
forum shopping and absolute owner of a land in case, and that any judgment rendered in one
are: (i) identity of Mabalacat. Respondent occupies said lot 2) W/N An action for of these actions would not amount to res
parties, or at least without paying any rent and only through collection of sum of judicata in the other action.

such parties its tolerance since 1983 until 14 March money may be
representing the 2002. Nevertheless, Petitioner informed joined with an The purpose of the Collection Case was to
same interest; Respondent through a letter that ejectment suit - NO compel MII to pay its rent in view of its
(ii) identity of rights beginning 1 April 2002, it will be charged occupancy on the subject lot from the time of
asserted and relief a rental fee at the monthly rate of SVHI's initial demand to vacate the subject lot.
prayed for, the P50/sqm payable on or before the 5th of While in the Ejectment Case, SVHFI's cause
latter founded, on each month. Respondent refused to of action stemmed from the prejudice it
the same facts; comply even after demand letters. suffered due to the loss of possession of its
and ● Petitioner filed a complaint for collection of property.
(iii) any judgment sum of money against respondent before
rendered in one the RTC Makati. Instead of filing an In the Ejectment Case, the sole issue was the
action will amount answer, respondent filed a Motion to restoration to the rightful possessor of the
to res judicata in Dismiss on the ground that the court a subject lot who was deprived of the same. On
the other action. quo had not validly acquired jurisdiction the other hand, in the Collection Case, what is
because it was not properly served with sought to be recovered is the payment of
summons. This was dismissed, prompting rentals, without regard to the legality of MII's
respondent to file a certiorari under Rule occupancy or damages which SVHFI allegedly
65 before the CA. Also Denied. suffered but which have no direct relation to its
● Respondent then filed an Answer with loss of material possession. Both issues may
Compulsory Counterclaim with the RTC in be decided by the courts wherein they are
the Collection Case. Thereafter, the case pending.
was set for pre-trial. However, prior to the
scheduled pre-trial, MII filed a Motion to 2) NO. Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of
Dismiss on the ground of forum shopping Court prohibits the joinder of an ordinary
arguing that Petitioner’s failure to inform action, such as an action for collection of
the RTC that it filed an Ejectment Case sum of money and a special civil action,
while the proceedings were underway as such as an ejectment suit.
required under Sec. 5(c), Rule 7 of the
Rules was a willful and deliberate act of Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A
forum shopping. Respondent likewise party may in one pleading assert, in the
charged petitioner with violating the rule alternative or otherwise, as many causes of
on splitting of a single cause of action action as he may have against an opposing
under Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 2. party, subject to the following conditions:

(b) The joinder shall not

include special civil actions or
actions governed by special
rules;

In Lajave, We pointed out that "an action, for

collection of sum of money may not be
properly joined with the action for
ejectment. The former is an ordinary civil
action requiring a full-blown trial, while an
action for unlawful detainer is a special civil
action which requires a summary procedure."

In the instant case, the Collection Case

requires a full-blown trial for the parties to
show evidence on the propriety of paying rent
and its rightful amount. These may not be
accomplished in an ejectment proceeding
which is summary in nature.

NOTE: Therefore, this Court finds SVHFI

not guilty of forum shopping when it filed
the Ejectment Case subsequent to the
Collection Case, while the latter is still
pending. In both cases, there is no identity
of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for,
and that any judgment on any of these
cases would not amount to res judicata on
the other. In the Ejectment Case, the cause of
action stemmed from the prejudice that SVHFI
allegedly suffered due to the loss of
possession of the subject lot. On the other
hand, the Collection Case was founded on the
appropriate amount of rental fees that are
allegedly due and the damages that SVHFI
allegedly suffered but which have no direct
relation to its loss of material possession.

16. Gaffney v. TOPIC: Rule 3 Parties to Civil Actions; Who may W/N the estate or No, the estate or heirs of Anthony could not be
Butler be parties heirs of Anthony, named as additional defendants.
represented by his
TICKLER: Si Anthony nag-invest sa isang surviving spouse A deceased person does not have the
company na hindi na nag-materialize, na-deads Butler, could be capacity to be sued and may not be made a
na siya so hinabol ng heirs niya yung nilabas named as additional defendant in a case.

niyang money. Kaso nga lang, yung heirs niya ay defendants. –NO
di pwedeng maging parties sa civil action na Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of
institute nila. Court states that "only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be
FACTS: parties in a civil action." Applying this legal
● Private respondent Donald Francis provision, the Court, in Ventura v. Militante,
Gaffney filed a Complaint against declared that neither a deceased person nor
petitioner Gina V. Butler for sum of money. his estate has capacity to be sued, explaining
Private respondent alleged that sometime thus: Parties may be either plaintiffs or
between the years 2006 to 2007, defendants.
petitioner and her husband Anthony
Richard Butler approached and invited Neither a dead person nor his estate may
private respondent to invest in Active Fun, be a party plaintiff in a court action. A
an entity engaged in the construction, deceased person does not have such legal
operation and management of children's entity as is necessary to bring action so
play and party facilities. much so that a motion to substitute cannot
lie and should be denied by the court.
● Private respondent advanced the amount
of PhP12,500,000 representing his initial An action begun by a decedent's estate
investment. However, petitioner's husband cannot be said to have been begun by a legal
passed away. Consequently, the proposed person, since an estate is not a legal entity;
investment agreement did not materialize. such an action is a nullity and a motion to
Private respondent then demanded the amend the party plaintiff will not likewise lie,
return of his investments from petitioner. there being nothing before the court to amend.
Considering that capacity to be sued is a
● Several demands through phone calls and correlative of the capacity to sue, to the
e-mails were made to petitioner but to no same extent, a decedent does not have the
avail. capacity to be sued and may not be named
a party defendant in a court action.
● Petitioner in a letter, denied having
knowledge of the investments and having Hence, there can be no doubt that a deceased
offered to buy private respondent's share person or his estate may not be impleaded as
in Active Fun. Private respondent was defendant in a civil action as they lack legal
thus constrained to institute a legal action personality. Thus, when Anthony died, his
for the enforcement of his claim against legal personality ceased and he could no
petitioner. longer be impleaded as respondent in the
present ordinary civil suit for collection. As
● After the issues have been joined and such, the complaint against him should be
Pre-trial was scheduled, parties were dismissed on the ground that the pleading

directed to have all their documentary asserting the claim states no cause of
evidence pre-marked. Among those action or for failure to state a cause of
pre-marked by the petitioner is a action pursuant to Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of
handwritten note signed by the private the Rules of Court, because a complaint
respondent acknowledging receipt of cannot possibly state a cause of action
Php1,000,000 from petitioner. against one who cannot be a party to a
civil action.
● Because no full relief can be had against
the Estate/heirs of Anthony Richard Butler Moreover, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction
under the original Complaint, private over the person or estate of Anthony.
respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Summons is a writ by which the defendant is
Admit Amended Complaint for the notified of the action brought against him and
purpose of impleading the estate or the service thereof is the means by which the
heirs of the late Anthony Richard Butler, court acquires jurisdiction over his person.
allegedly represented by petitioner as his
surviving spouse. In the present case, no valid service of
summons upon the deceased Anthony was or
● Gina opposed the motion primarily on the could have been made, precisely because he
ground that “only natural or juridical was already dead even before the complaint
persons may be parties in an ordinary against him and his wife was filed in court. On
civil action”. several occasions, the Court has held that the
trial court fails to acquire jurisdiction over a
defendant who was already dead at the time
the complaint was filed against him.

17. Evangelista v. TOPIC: Parties in interest Whether or not the NO, the Supreme Court ruled that in the
Santiago petitioners have the present case, the Court assumed that
DOCTRINE:A case is dismissible for lack of legal personality to respondent is raising the affirmative defense
personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is file the complaint that the complaint filed by petitioners before
not the real party-in- interest, hence grounded on against the the RTC stated no cause of action because
the failure to state a cause of action. It can be respondent - NO the petitioners lacked the personality to sue,
used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based not being the real party-in-interest.
on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, Respondent contended that only the State can
evidently states no cause of action. file an action for annulment of his certificates
of title, since such an action will result in the
FACTS: reversion of the ownership of the subject
● Petitioners alleged that they were property to the State.
occupying and possessing the subject
parcels of land that was by virtue of deeds In their complaint, petitioners never alleged

of assignment that was given by Ismael that the subject property was part of the public
Favila who claimed to be one of the heirs domain. Petitioners asserted their title over the
of Don Hermogones who was the one subject property by virtue of their actual,
who received the lands as evidence by physical, open, continuous, and adverse
Spanish title. possession thereof, in the concept of owners,
● The petitioners were informed that by themselves, and through their
Santiago planned to evict them from the predecessors-in-interest, since time
property and sent notices to vacate. immemorial. The action was more
Santiago’s mother had an OCT issued in appropriately an action to remove cloud on or
her name for the subject lots in which to quiet title over the subject property.
TCT’s originated from the OCT of the
Respondent’s mother. Even as the Court agrees that the action was
● The petitioners filed an action for the one for removal of cloud on or quieting of title,
declaration of nullity of the TCT because it does arrive with the same conclusion as the
the OCT in which it originated from was RTC and CA that petitioners had no
fake and defective on these grounds 1) personality to file the said action, not being the
OCT No. 670 was not signed by a duly parties-in-interest, and their complaint should
authorized officer; (2) Material data be dismissed for not stating a cause of action.
therein were merely handwritten and in According to Art. 477 of the Civil Code, the
different penmanships; (3) OCT No. 670 plaintiff, in an action to remove a cloud on or
was not printed on the Official Form used to quiet a title, must have legal or equitable
in 1913, the year it was issued; (4) It failed title to, or interest in, the real property which is
to indicate the Survey Plan which was the the subject matter of the action. Petitioners
basis of the Technical Description of the failed to establish in their complaint that they
property covered by the title; (5) Decree had any legal or equitable title to, or a
No. 10248 referred to in OCT No. 670 legitimate interest in, the subject property so
was issued only on 11 April 1913, while as to justify their right to file an action to
OCT No. 670 was issued earlier, on 13 remove cloud on or to quiet title.
February 1913; and (6) Decree No. 10248 There existed a contradiction when petitioners
was issued over a property other than the based their claim of title to the subject
one described in OCT No. 670, although property on their possession thereof since
also located in the Province of Rizal time immemorial, and at the same time, on the
● Santiago filed an answer and as his Spanish title granted to Don Hermogenes
defense he claimed that petitioners had Rodriguez. The title to and possession of the
no legal capacity to file the complaint, and subject property by petitioners‘ predecessor-
thus, the complaint stated no cause of in-interest could be traced only as far back as
action. He claimed that since the OCT the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes.
was genuine on its face, all of his land Petitioners, having acquired portions of the
titles derived therefrom are indefeasible subject property by assignment, could acquire

and conclusive against petitioners and the no better title to the said portions than their
whole world. predecessors-in-interest, and hence, their title
can only be based on the same Spanish title.
Respondent maintained that PD 892 prevents
petitioners from invoking the Spanish title as
basis of their ownership of the subject
property. Petitioners failed to allege in their
complaint that their predecessors- in-interest
complied with PD 892. It could then be
assumed that they failed to comply with PD
892. Since they failed to comply with PD 892,
then the successors of Don Hermogenes were
already enjoined from presenting the Spanish
title as proof of their ownership of the subject
property in registration proceedings.

Petitioners failed to allege any other basis for

their titles in their complaint aside from
possession of the subject property from time
immemorial and the Spanish title, which is
already ineffective to prove ownership over
the subject property. Therefore, without legal
or equitable title to the subject property,
petitioners lacked the personality to file an
action for removal of a cloud on, or quieting of
title and their complaint was properly
dismissed for failing to state a cause of action.

18. V-Gent, Inc. v. DOCTRINE: Whether or not The court ruled that every action must be
Morning Star Every action must be prosecuted or defended in V-Gent is a real prosecuted or defended in the name of the
Travel & Tours, Inc. the name of the real party-in-interest - the party party-in-interest in real party in-interest – the party who stands to
who stands to be benefited or injured by the filing the complaint. - be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
judgment in the suit. In suits where an agent NO. suit. In suits where an agent represents a
represents a party, the principal is the real party, the principal is the real party-in-interest;
party-in-interest; an agent cannot file a suit in his an agent cannot file a suit in his own name on
own name on behalf of the principal. behalf of the principal.

An agent may sue or be sued solely in its own Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court
name and without joining the principal when the provides the exception when an agent may

following elements concur: (1) the agent acted in sue or be sued without joining the principal.
his own name during the transaction; (2) the agent
acted for the benefit of an undisclosed principal; Section 3. Representatives as parties. –
and (3) the transaction did not involve the property Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted
of the principal. and defended by a representative or someone
acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
FACTS: shall be included in the title of the case and
shall be deemed to be the real
● Petitioner V-Gent filed a money claim party-in-interest. A representative may be a
against Morning Star for payment of the trustee of an express trust. A guardian, an
unrefunded $5,301.88 plus attorney's executor or administrator, or a party
fees. authorized by law or these Rules. An agent
● Morning Star countered that V-Gent was acting in his own name and for the benefit
not entitled to a refund because the of an undisclosed principal may sue or be
tickets were bought on the airline sued without joining the principal except
company's "buy one, take one" promo. It when the contract involves things
alleged that there were only 14 unused belonging to the principal.
tickets and only 7 of these were
refundable; considering that it had already Thus, an agent may sue or be sued solely in
refunded 6 tickets then there was nothing its own name and without joining the principal
else to refund. when the following elements concur: (1) the
● Morning Star also questioned V-Gent's agent acted in his own name during the
personality to file the suit. It asserted that transaction; (2) the agent acted for the benefit
the passengers, in whose names the of an undisclosed principal; and (3) the
tickets were issued, are the real transaction did not involve the property of the
parties-in-interest. principal.
● After due proceedings, the MeTC
dismissed the complaint for lack of a In this case, only the first element is present;
cause of action. Citing Rule 3, Section 3 the purchase order and the receipt were in the
of the Rules of Court, the MeTC declared name of V-Gent. However, the remaining
that, as agent of the passengers who paid elements are absent because: (1) V-Gent
for the tickets, V-Gent stood as the real disclosed the names of the passengers to
party-in-interest. Nevertheless, it still Morning Star – in fact the tickets were in their
dismissed the complaint because V-Gent names; and (2) the transaction was paid using
failed to prove its claim by a the passenger’s money.
preponderance of evidence.
● The RTC granted the appeal after finding To define the actual factual situation, V-Gent,
that V-Gent had established its claim by a the agent, is suing to recover the money of its
preponderance of evidence. It set aside principals - the passengers - who are the real

the MeTC's judgment and ordered parties-in-interest because they stand to be

Morning Star to pay V-Gent the value of injured or benefited in case Morning Star
the 9 unrefunded tickets plus attorney's refuses or agrees to grant the refund because
fees. Morning Star filed a petition for the money belongs to them. From this
review with the CA. Morning Star perspective, V-Gent evidently does not have a
questioned the RTC's appreciation of the legal standing to file the complaint.
evidence and factual conclusions. It also
reiterated its question about V-Gent's
legal standing, submitting once again that
V-Gent is not the real party-in interest.
● The CA granted the petition for review
and dismissed V-Gent's complaint. The
CA held that V-Gent is not a real
party-in-interest because it merely acted
as an agent of the passengers who
bought the tickets from Morning Star with
their own money. V-Gent moved for
reconsideration, which motion the CA
denied, thus clearing the way for the
present petition for review on certiorari.

19. Oposa v. TOPIC: Parties to Civil Actions - Representatives Whether or not the Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as
Factoran as Parties minors have a class suit. We hereby rule that the said civil
personality to sue in case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter
Note: The issue of DOCTRINE: The Petitioners (minors) can, for behalf of their of the complaint is of common and general
legal standing was themselves, for others of their generation and for generation and interest not just to several, but to all citizens of
not specifically the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their succeeding the Philippines. Consequently, since the
raised, but the personality to sue on behalf of the succeeding generations - YES. parties are so numerous, it becomes
Court nonetheless generations can only be based on the concept of impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring
addressed the intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right all of them before the court. We likewise
same because of to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous
the ―special and and representative enough to ensure the full
novel element of FACTS: protection of all concerned interests. Hence,
the case. ● The petitioners in this case are minors, all the requisites for the filing of a valid
represented and joined by their parents, class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the
and Philippine Ecological Network, Inc., a Revised Rules of Court are present both in
domestic, non-stock, and non-profit the said civil case and in the instant petition,
corporation. The respondents are DENR the latter being but an incident to the former.
Sec. Factoran, Jr. and Judge Rosario.

● Petitioners filed before the RTC a This case, however, has a special and novel
complaint instituted as a taxpayers‘ class element. Petitioner minors assert that they
suit against respondent Factoran, Jr., represent their generation as well as
praying that the latter be ordered to generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in
cancel all existing timber license ruling that they can, for themselves, for others
agreements (TLAs) in the country, and of their generation and for the succeeding
to cease and desist from processing generations, file a class suit. Their personality
new ones. to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
● Petitioners claim that they are all citizens can only be based on the concept of
of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled intergenerational responsibility insofar as
to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
the country‘s natural resources; and that concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter
they represent their generation as well as expounded, considers the "rhythm and
generations yet unborn. harmony of nature." Nature means the created
● As their cause of action, petitioners world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony
allege, among others, that deforestation indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
brings serious injury and irreparable disposition, utilization, management, renewal
damage to their generation and to and conservation of the country's forest,
generations yet unborn; that the failure mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
and refusal to cancel existing TLAs are off-shore areas and other natural resources to
acts violative of the rights of plaintiffs to a the end that their exploration, development
balanced and healthful ecology. and utilization be equitably accessible to the
● Respondent Factoran, Jr. filed a Motion to present as well as future generations.
Dismiss, citing lack of cause of action as
one of the grounds therefore. Needless to say, every generation has a
● Petitioners filed an Opposition to the responsibility to the next to preserve that
Motion, maintaining that the complaint rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of
shows a clear and unmistakable cause of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
action. differently, the minors' assertion of their right
● Respondent Judge Rosario issued an to a sound environment constitutes, at the
order granting the Motion to Dismiss, same time, the performance of their obligation
declaring that the complaint has no cause to ensure the protection of that right for the
of action and that it raises a political generations to come.
question.
● Petitioners filed the instant special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court, asking the Court
to rescind and set aside the dismissal
order.

20. Resident TICKLER: marine mammals yung petitioners pero Whether the YES. The Rules of Procedure for
Marine Mammals represented by “stewards” pede daw ba yon - yes. petitioners have Environmental Cases allow for a “citizen suit”
of Tanon Strait v. locus standi to file and permit any Filipino Citizen to file an action
Reyes FACTS: the instant petition before our courts for violation of our
● Petitioners (toothed whales, dolphins, and environmental laws on the principle that
other cetacean species) are joined by humans are stewards of nature. Although the
NOTES: Ramos and Eisma as their legal petition was filed in 2007, years before the
Regarding if PGMA guardians, Stewards, who allegedly effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for
may be impleaded empathize with and seek the protection of Environmental Cases, it has been consistently
as unwilling the marine species. lso impleaded as an held that rules of procedure may be
co-petitioner, the unwilling co-petitioner is former President retroactively applied to actions pending and
court held in the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for her express undetermined at the time of their passage and
negative. Under declaration and undertaking in the ASEAN it will not violate any right of a person who
the Rules, if the Charter to protect the Tañon Strait, among may feel that he is adversely affected,
consent of plaintiff others. inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules
cannot be ● Two sets of petitioners filed separate of procedure.
contained, they cases challenging the legality of Service
shall be impleaded Contract No. 46 (SC-46) awarded to Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure
as a defendant. In Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. for Environmental Cases become effective,
this case, the (JAPEX) before the Supreme Court. The the SC had already taken a permissive
president cannot service contract allowed JAPEX to position on the issue of locus standi in
be impleaded as conduct oil exploration in the Tañon Strait. environmental cases. In Oposa, the SC
one, being the The first petition was brought on behalf of allowed the suit to be brought in the name
president. The resident marine mammals while the of generations yet unborn “based on the
unwilling party’s second petition was filed by a concept of intergenerational responsibility
name cannot be non-governmental organization insofar as the right to a balanced and
simply included in representing the interests of fisherfolk. healthful ecology is concerned”
the petition without
their knowledge In light of the foregoing, the need to give the
and consent as it Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has
would be denial of been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any
due process. Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring
a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It
was worth noting here that the Stewards are
joined as real parties in the petition and not
just in representation of the name cetacean
species. The Stewards, Ramos and
Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition
that there may be possible violations of laws

concerning the habitat of the resident marine

mammals, are therefore declared to possess
the legal standing to file this petition

21. In the matter of TOPIC: Indispensable Parties W/N Robles is an Yes, Robles is an indispensable party in this
the heirship of the indispensable party case.
late Hermogenes TICKER: Declaration of heirship and then may in this case. –YES
Rodriguez oppositors na sumulpot with Robles praying to be An indispensable party is a
(Resolution) the administrator of the estate. party-in-interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action, and
FACTS: who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
● A petition for Declaration of Heirship and defendants. The joinder of indispensable
Appointment of Administrator and parties is mandatory. The presence of
Settlement of the Estates of the Late indispensable parties is necessary to vest
Hermogenes Rodriguez (Hermogenes) the court with jurisdiction, which is "the
and Antonio Rodriguez (Antonio) was filed authority to hear and determine a cause,
before the RTC by Henry, Certeza, and the right to act in a case." Thus, without
Rosalina seeking to be declared as sole the presence of indispensable parties to a
surviving heirs of the subject estates. RTC suit or proceeding, judgment of a court
rendered a partial judgement declaring cannot attain real finality. The absence of
the private respondents as heirs of the an indispensable party renders all
subject estate of the decedents. subsequent actions of the court null and
void for want of authority to act, not only
● Subsequently, six groups oppositors as to the absent parties but even as to
entered their appearance and expressed those present. (Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela
opposing claim to the estate of Antonio Cruz)
while the rest claim opposing claim to the
estate of Hermogenes with Jamie Robles, In the case at bar, Robles is an indispensable
the Respondent in this case, praying that party since he stands to be injured or
he be appointed regular administrator to benefited by the outcome of the petition. He
the estates of Antonio and Hermogenes has an interest in the controversy that a final
and be allowed to sell a certain portion of decree would necessarily affect his rights,
land included in the estate of Hermogenes such that the courts cannot proceed without
covered by OCT No. 12022 located at his presence. Moreover, as provided for under
Barrio Manggahan, Pasig, Rizal. the aforequoted Section 5, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, Robles is interested in
● RTC dismissed the opposition. Robles sustaining the assailed CA Decision,
appealed which was denied. Robles considering that he would benefit from such

questioned the denial through a petition judgment. As such, his non-inclusion would
for review on certiorari which was referred render the petition for certiorari defective.
to the CA. CA rendered a judgment
annulling the previous decision of the
RTC. In a petition for certiorari, the
decision of CA was set aside. Hence, the
motion for reconsideration of Robles.

● Robles contended that he is a

party-in-interest who stands to be
adversely affected or injured or benefited
by the judgement in the instant case. He
also argued that the failure of service
upon him of a copy of the instant petition
as well as the petitioner's memorandum is
a clear denial of his right to due process.

22. Cerezo v. TOPIC: Indispensable parties Whether Foronda is Contrary to Mrs. Cerezo’s assertion, Foronda
Tuazon an indispensable is not an indispensable party to the case. An
TICKLER: Cerezo tricycle!! party to the indispensable party is one whose interest
case-NO. is affected by the court’s action in the
FACTS: In 1993, a Country Bus Lines passenger litigation, and without whom no final
bus collided with a tricycle in Mabalacat, resolution of the case is possible.
Pampanga. Thereafter, tricycle driver Tuazon filed However, Mrs. Cerezo’s liability as an
a complaint for damages against Mrs. Cerezo, as employer in an action for a quasidelict is
owner of the bus line, her husband, Atty. Cerezo, not only solidary, it is also primary and
and bus driver, Danilo Foronda. However, the direct. Foronda is not an indispensable
summons issued by the trial court were returned party to the final resolution of Tuazon’s
unserved as the Cerezo spouses no longer held action for damages against Mrs. Cerezo.
office nor resided in Makati. In 1994, the trial court
issued alias summons against the Cerezo The responsibility of two or more persons who
spouses at their address in Brgy. Sta. Maria, are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. Where
Camiling, Tarlac. there is a solidary obligation on the part of
debtors, as in this case, each debtor is liable
The Cerezo spouses subsequently filed before the for the entire obligation.
Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under
Section 1 of Rule 65. The petition questioned Hence, each debtor is liable to pay for the
whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over entire obligation in full. There is no merger or
the case considering there was no service of renunciation of rights, but only mutual

summons on Foronda, whom the Cerezo spouses representation. Where the obligation of the
claimed was an indispensable party. parties is solidary, either of the parties is
indispensable, and the other is not even a
The CA denied the petition for certiorari and necessary party because complete relief is
affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition available from either.
for relief from judgment. The Cerezo spouses also
filed before the CA a petition for annulment of Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is not
judgment under Rule 47 with prayer for restraining even necessary as Tuazon may collect
order but the same was denied. damages from Mrs. Cerezo alone.

In the present petition for review on certiorari, Mrs. Moreover, an employer’s liability based on a
Cerezo contends that the basis of the present quasi-delict is primary and direct, while the
petition for annulment is lack of jurisdiction. She employer’s liability based on a delict is merely
asserts that the trial court could not validly render subsidiary. The words “primary and direct,” as
judgment since it failed to acquire jurisdiction over contrasted with “subsidiary,” refer to the
Foronda. remedy provided by law for enforcing the
obligation rather than to the character and
limits of the obligation. Although liability under
Article 2180 originates from the negligent act
of the employee, the aggrieved party may sue
the employer directly. When an employee
causes damage, the law presumes that the
employer has himself committed an act of
negligence in not preventing or avoiding the
damage. This is the fault that the law
condemns. While the employer is civilly liable
in a subsidiary capacity for the employee’s
criminal negligence, the employer is also
civilly liable directly and separately for his own
civil
negligence in failing to exercise due diligence
in selecting and supervising his employee.

The idea that the employer’s liability is solely

subsidiary is wrong. The action can be
brought directly against the person
responsible (for another), without including the
author of the act. The action against the
principal is accessory in the sense that it

implies the existence of a prejudicial act

committed by the employee, but it is not
subsidiary in the sense that it can not be
instituted till after the judgment against the
author of the act or at least, that it is
subsidiary to the principal action; the action for
responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a
principal action. Thus, there is no need in this
case for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction
over Foronda. The trial court’s acquisition of
jurisdiction over Mrs.
Cerezo is sufficient to dispose of the present
case on the merits.

23. Foster-Gallego TOPIC: Indispensable Parties Whether or not NO, the Supreme Court defined that An
v. Spouses Galang Bernabe indispensable party is a party who has such
DOCTRINE: An indispensable party is a party who Foster-Gallego is an an interest in the controversy or subject matter
has such an interest in the controversy or subject indispensable party that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his
matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in to the action for absence, without injuring or affecting that
his absence, without injuring or affecting that quieting of title. - NO interest. A person is not an indispensable
interest. A person is not an indispensable party if party if his interest in the controversy or
his interest in the controversy or subject matter is subject matter is separable from the interest of
separable from the interest of the other parties, so the other parties, so that he will not
that he will not necessarily be injuriously affected necessarily be injuriously affected by a decree
by a decree that does complete justice between that does complete justice between the other
the other parties. He is also not indispensable if parties. He is also not indispensable if his
his presence would merely permit complete relief presence would merely permit complete relief
between him and those already parties to the between him and those already parties to the
action or will simply avoid multiple litigations. action or will simply avoid multiple litigations.

FACTS: In the case at bar, Petitioner, whose title

● Spouses Galang purchased property from RTC-Branch 138 cancelled, is not an
Vive Realty Corporation through a Deed indispensable party to the action for quieting
of absolute sale, a TCT was issued and of title. The assailed decision quieting title in
they took possession of the same. favor of the Spouses Galang has no
● When Romeo Galang returned from Saudi appreciable effect on petitioner’s title.
Arabia he discovered a hollow block fence Petitioner’s title could still be cancelled with or
built by Gallego along his property. without the trial court’s declaration that the
● Spouses Galang then field a complaint for Spouses Galang are the owners of the

quieting of title against Gallego but he Property “at this time.”

alleged that it was his brother Bernabe Further, the assailed decision does
Foster-Gallego who owned the property. not bind petitioner. The rules on quieting of
Gallego argued that the tax declaration on title expressly provide that any declaration in a
the property shows his brother’s address suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons
in the US and the the Spouses Galang who are not parties to the action. Given that
should not disturb his possession. the trial court denied petitioner’s intervention
● Bernabe Foster-Gallego then filed a and struck it off from the records, petitioner is
motion for intervention attached with an not a party to the instant case. Suits to quiet
answer in intervention but the RTC denied title are actions quasi in rem, and the
the motion but admitted the answer in judgment in such proceedings is conclusive
intervention. only between the parties to the action.
● A pre-trial conference was already set but There is also no legal basis for
did not push through because petitioner’s argument that the order declaring
Foster-Gallego filed a motion to admit Gallego in default rendered petitioner the ipso
third party complaint which was VRC. facto defendant of this case. Petitioner could
However, VRC did not file an answer to have but did not move to substitute Gallego
the third party complaint. during the proceedings before the court a quo.
● Spouses Galang then started presenting On a final note, the Court fully agrees
evidence ex parte against Gallego but a with the Court of Appeals that petitioner is not
motion to hold in abeyance the hearing without other remedy. Assuming petitioner can
was filed by Foster-Gallego because VRC prove his allegations, petitioner is at the least
or third party defendants did not filed their entitled to recover damages from the parties
answers yet. The RTC denied such that defrauded or deprived him of due process
motion.
● Gallego and Foster-Gallego filed a petition
for Certiorari to the CA but it was
dismissed and then they elevated it to the
SC.

24. Caravan Travel DOCTRINE: Whether Abehar, the Having exercised substitute parental authority,
and Tours Under the Article 216 of the Family Code, in paternal aunt, is a respondent suffered actual loss and is, thus, a
International, Inc. default of parents or a judicially appointed real party-in-interest real party in interest in this case.
v. Abejar guardian, the following persons shall exercise to file the suit. - YES
substitute parental authority over the child in the Under the Article 216 of the Family Code, in
order indicated xxx (3) The child's actual default of parents or a judicially appointed
custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless guardian, the following persons shall exercise
unfit or disqualified. substitute parental authority over the child in
the order indicated xxx (3) The child's actual

Also, Art. 233 of FC states that “the person custodian, over twenty-one years of age,
exercising substitute parental authority shall have unless unfit or disqualified.
the same authority over the person of the child as
the parents.” Also, Art. 233 of FC states that “the person
exercising substitute parental authority shall
FACTS: have the same authority over the person of
the child as the parents.”
● Jesmariane Reyes was walking along the
west-bound lane of Sampaguita St., In any case, the termination of respondent's
United Paranaque subdivision, Paranaque parental authority (Reyes was already 18
city. A Mitsubishi L-300 van was travelling years old when she died, hence she was
along the east- bound lane opposite already emancipated) is not an
Reyes. To avoid an incoming vehicle, the insurmountable legal bar that precludes the
van swerved left and hit Reyes. filing of her Complaint.
● The registered owner of the van was
Caravan, which is a corporation engaged In the case of The Receiver For North Negros
in the business of organizing travel and Sugar Company, Inc. v. Ybañez, et al., the
tours. Bautista was Caravan’s employee Court ruled that brothers and sisters may
assigned to drive the van as a service recover damages, except moral damages, for
driver. Caravan shouldered the the death of their sibling. This court declared
hospitalization expenses of Reyes, but that Article 1902 of the old Civil Code (now
Reyes died 2 days after the accident. Article 2176) is broad enough to
● Respondent Ermilinda Abejar, Reyes’ accommodate even plaintiffs who are not
paternal aunt and who raised Reyes since relatives of the deceased.
she was 9 years old, filed in RTC a
complaint for damages against Bautista NOTE:
as Caravan’s employee and Caravan as
the registered owner. Article 1902 (now Article 2176) does not limit
● After trial, the Regional Trial Court found or specify the active subjects, much less the
that Bautista was grossly negligent in relation that must exist between the victim of
driving the vehicle. Caravan filed a Motion the culpa aquiliana and the person who may
for Reconsideration, but it was denied in recover damages, thus warranting the
the Court of Appeals., hence the petition. inference that, in principle, anybody who
● Caravan argues that Abejar has no suffers any damage from culpa aquiliana,
personality to bring this suit because she whether a relative or not of the victim, may
is not a real party in interest. According to recover damages from the person responsible
Caravan, Abejar does not exercise legal therefor.
or substitute parental authority. She is
also not the judicially appointed guardian

or the only living relative of the deceased.

She is also not "the executor or
administrator of the estate of the
deceased." According to Caravan, only
the victim herself or her heirs can enforce
an action based on culpa aquiliana such
as Abejar's action for damages.

25. Spouses TICKLER: Petitioner filed an ex parte motion to Whether petitioners YES. The Court opts to reconcile Rule 3,
Algura v. City of litigate as indigent litigants. Sabi di raw sila should be Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 18 because
Naga indigent kasi may different sources of income sila considered as it is a settled principle that when conflicts are
and above sa nasa rule yung gross income daw indigent litigants seen between two provisions, all efforts must
nila. qualified for be made to harmonize them.
exemption from
FACTS: paying filing fees When an application to litigate as an indigent
● Sps. Algura filed a verified complaint for litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the
damages against the Naga City affidavits and supporting documents submitted
Government and its officers arising from by the applicant to determine if the applicant
the alleged illegal demolition of their complies with the income and property
residence and boarding house and for the standards prescribed in the present Section
payment of lost income derived from the 18 of Rule 141 — that is, the applicant's gross
fees paid by their boarders. They filed an income and that of the applicant's immediate
Ex-Parte Motion to Litigate as Indigent family do not exceed an amount double the
litigants attaching their payslip and gross monthly minimum wage of an employee; and
monthly income of more than 10,000 and the applicant does not own real property with
a net pay of more than 3,000 and also a a fair market value of more than Three
certification from the City Assessor that Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00).
petitioners had no property declared in If the trial court finds that the applicant
their name. meets the income and property
● During pre-trial, the respondents asked for requirements, the authority to litigate as
5 days within which to file a Motion to indigent litigant is automatically granted
Disqualify petitioners as indigent litigants and the grant is a matter of right.
asserting that they also had a mini store
and computer shop and that the 2nd floor However, if the trial court finds that one or
of petitioner’s residence was also used as both requirements have not been met, then it
boarding house from which they earned would set a hearing to enable the applicant to
more than 3,000 a month. prove that the applicant has "no money or
● The trial court disqualified the petitioners property sufficient and available for food,
as indigent litigants but after filing a shelter and basic necessities for himself and

motion for reconsideration, they were his family." In that hearing, the adverse party
given an opportunity to comply with the may adduce countervailing evidence to
requisites laid down in Rule 141, Section disprove the evidence presented by the
18. However, the RTC still denied the applicant; after which the trial court will rule on
motion justifying that the payslip showed the application depending on the evidence
that the gross income or total earnings of adduced.
plaintiff was more than 10,000 which was
over and above the amount in Rule 141, Thus, the trial court should have applied
Section 18. Rule 3, Section 21 to the application of the
Alguras after their affidavits and
supporting documents showed that
petitioners did not satisfy the twin
requirements on gross monthly income
and ownership of real property under Rule
141. Instead of disqualifying the Alguras as
indigent litigants, the trial court should have
called a hearing as required by Rule 3,
Section 21 to enable the petitioners to adduce
evidence to show that they didn't have
property and money sufficient and available
for food, shelter, and basic necessities for
them and their family.

26. Republic v. TOPIC: Nominal/ Pro Forma Party W/N petitioner No, petitioner Council is not a nominal party. It
Sandiganbayan Council is only a is thus required to furnish Sandiganbayan a
TICKER: Asawa ni gloria, plunder, purchase of nominal party and copy of the motion for consideration.
2nd hand helicopters. therefore not
required to furnish A nominal or pro forma party is a person
FACTS: the respondent a "who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant,
● The Office of the Special Prosecutor copy of the motion not because such party has any real
charged former First Gentleman Jose for reconsideration. interest in the subject matter or because
Miguel T. Arroyo (Arroyo) with, among –NO any relief is demanded, but merely
others, plunder for his involvement in the because the technical rules of pleadings
Philippine National Police's anomalous require the presence of such party on the
purchase of two secondhand helicopters. record. “

● The seller, Lionair, Inc. (Lionair), sold the On the other hand, an indispensable party
helicopters as brand new, as required by is "a party in interest without whom no
law, even if they were already used. final determination can be had of an action

Lionair's president Archibald L. Po (Po), without that party being impleaded." They
however, testified that Arroyo was the are parties with "such an interest in the
helicopters' real owner. He alleged that controversy that a final decree would
Lionair imported the helicopters from the necessarily affect their rights, so that the
United States and sold it to Arroyo, who, court cannot proceed without their
in turn, deposited partial payment to presence.
Lionair's account with the Union Bank.
Petitioner is not a nominal party as it claims to
● The Office of the Special Prosecutor be. It has an interest in this case, and the
presented Cruz-Dizon manager of Union relief respondent prays for is exactly
Bank and testified that the account was directed at it. This makes petitioner an
closed and its records have been indispensable party. As petitioner alleged in
disposed. The Sandiganbayan issued its pleadings, it is the agency directed to act,
Subpoena Duces tecum and Ad and it claims that it will suffer injury if the
testificandum directing Executive director Subpoena will be implemented. Without
Bacay-Abad (Council), to testify and petitioner, there can be no relief accorded. It
produce Lionair’s bank records. Council was also petitioner that filed the Motion to
moved to quash the Subpoena as it was Quash and the Motion for Reconsideration.
covered by confidentiality under RA 9160.
However, it was denied. Even if petitioner were just a nominal party, it
is still required to comply with the
● The Council moved for reconsideration, requirements under the Rules of Court. Courts
but it was likewise denied. The only dispense with the requirement of notice
Sandiganbayan noted that the Council when it will not prejudice the
was not present during the hearing of the adverse party or violate their right to due
Motion for Reconsideration, and that the process.
accused and their counsels were not
furnished copies of the pleading. Here, the lack of notice of the Motion for
Reconsideration will clearly violate
● In this case, petitioner does not deny that respondent's due process rights. The
it failed to furnish the accused or their character and tenor of the Motions filed by
counsels their copies of the Motion for petitioner precisely demand respondent's
Reconsideration. However, it contends participation. If respondent was not informed
that it is not required to follow this rule of their contents and did not appear during the
because it is merely a nominal party. hearing, it will be robbed of the opportunity to
Thus, it argues that the Sandiganbayan oppose them.
committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying its Motion on this ground.

● Respondents argue that the Anti-Money

Laundering Act does intend to preserve
the confidentiality of bank transactions, its
fundamental objective remains to prohibit
money laundering through the reporting of
covered and suspicious transactions.

● Respondent further argues that the

Subpoena complies with the requirements
laid down by the Rules of Court,as it
readily identifies the documents requested
from petitioner, namely: (1) the reports; (2)
identification documents; (3) statement of
accounts; and (4) other transaction
documents which pertain to the three
specific transactions of Lionair's Union
Bank Account No. 13133-000119-3.
Respondent belies petitioner's claim that it
was not required to furnish copies of the
Motion for Reconsideration for being a
nominal party. Citing the Rules of Court, is
required, in line with the requirements of
due process.

27. Divinagracia v. TOPIC: Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties WON Felcon’s An indispensable party is one whose interest
Parilla siblings and will be affected by the court’s action in the
TICKLER: Si Conrado maraming anak and apo. Cebeleo, Sr. and litigation, and without whom no final
Yung ibang heirs binenta yung interes nila sa Maude’s children determination of the case can be had. The
minana na lupa kay Santiago, yung iba ayaw so are indispensable party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit
naging co-owners sila. Dapat daw yung complaint parties to Santiago’s and in the relief sought are so inextricably
for judicial partition inimplead lahat na complaint for judicial intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal
indispensable parties (all heirs pati mga anak partition - YES presence as a party to the proceeding is an
nung patay na) - joinder of parties. absolute necessity. In his absence, there
WON CA should cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the
DOCTRINE: have dismissed parties before the court which is effective,
All the co-heirs and persons having an interest in Santiago’s complaint complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence of
the property are indispensable parties; as such, for his failure to an indispensable party renders all subsequent
an action for partition will not lie without the joinder implead said omitted actions of the court null and void, for want of
of the said parties. heirs - NO authority to act, not only as to the absent

parties but even as to those present.

The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy With regard to actions for partition, Section 1,
is to implead the non-party claimed to be Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that all
indispensable. persons interested in the property shall be
joined as defendants, viz.:
FACTS:
Conrado, Sr. owned a 313-square meter parcel of SEC. 1. Complaint in action for
land located in Iloilo City. During his lifetime, he partition of real estate. – A person
contracted two marriages: having the right to compel the partition
of real estate may do so as provided
(a) Lolita Palermo with 2 children in this Rule, setting forth in his
1. Cresencio complaint the nature and extent of his
2. Conrado, Jr. title and an adequate description of
the real estate of which partition is
(b) Eusela Niangar with 7 children: demanded and joining as defendants
1. Mateo, Sr. (pre-deceased Conrado, Sr. all other persons interested in the
and was survived by his children Felcon, property.
Landelin, Eusela, Giovanni, Mateo, Jr.,
Tito, and Gaylord) Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having
2. Coronacion an interest in the property are
3. Cecilia indispensable parties; as such, an action
4. Celestial for partition will not lie without the joinder
5. Celedonio of the said parties.
6. Ceruleo
7. Cebeleo, Sr. (pre-deceased his father and Conrado, Sr. has legitimate and illegitimate
was survived by his wife, Maude, and heirs, who are entitled to a pro-indiviso share
children Cebeleo, Jr. and Neobel.) in the subject land. However, both Mateo, Sr.
and Cebeleo, Sr. pre-deceased Conrado, Sr.
Conrado, Sr. also begot three (3) illegitimate and, thus, pursuant to the rules on
children: Eduardo, Rogelio, and Ricardo. representation under the Civil Code, their
respective interests shall be represented by
According to Santiago, upon Conrado, Sr.’s death, their children.
Cresencio, Conrado, Jr., Felcon (in representation
of his father, Mateo, Sr., and his siblings), The aforementioned heirs – whether in
Coronacion, Celestial, Cecilia, Rogelio, Eduardo, their own capacity or in representation of
and Ricardo sold their respective interests over their direct ascendant – have vested rights
the subject land to Santiago which was, however, over the subject land and, as such, should
not signed by the other heirs who did not sell their be impleaded as indispensable parties in

respective shares, namely, Ceruleo, Celedonio, an action for partition thereof. However,
and Maude (in representation of his husband, Santiago’s complaint shows that as regards
Cebeleo, Sr., and their children). Mateo, Sr.’s interest, only Felcon was
impleaded, excluding therefrom his siblings
The same parties executed a Supplemental and co-representatives. Similarly, with regard
Contract whereby the vendors-heirs and Santiago to Cebeleo, Sr.’s interest over the subject
agreed that out of the aforesaid consideration, land, the complaint impleaded his wife,
only P110,000 will be paid up front, and that Maude, when pursuant to Article 972 of the
Santiago will only pay the remaining balance of Civil Code, the proper representatives to his
P340,000 upon the partition of the subject land. interest should have been his children,
However, Santiago was not able to have TCT Cebeleo, Jr. and Neobel. Verily, Santiago’s
cancelled and registered because of Ceruleo, omission of the aforesaid heirs renders his
Celedonio, and Maude’s refusal to surrender complaint for partition defective.
the said title. Santiago to file a Complaint for
judicial partition and for receivership. In fine, the absence of the indispensable
parties in the instant complaint for judicial
RTC ordered the partition of the subject land partition renders all subsequent actions of the
between Santiago, and Ceruleo, Celedonio, RTC null and void for want of authority to act,
Maude, and the heirs of Mateo, Sr. and the not only as to the absent parties, but even as
cancellation of TCT and the issuance of a new to those present.
owner’s duplicate certificate in favor of Santiago
and the group of Ceruleo, Celedonio, Maude, and However, the CA erred in ordering the
the heirs of Mateo, Sr. The RTC found that dismissal of the complaint on account of
Santiago became a co-owner of the subject land Santiago’s failure to implead all the
and, as such, has the right to demand the partition indispensable parties in his complaint. The
of the same. However, the RTC held that Santiago Court definitively explained that in instances
did not validly acquire Mateo, Sr.’s share over the of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the
subject land, considering that Felcon admitted the proper remedy is to implead them and not
lack of authority to bind his siblings with regard to to dismiss the case, to wit:
Mateo, Sr.’s share.
The non-joinder of indispensable
CA set aside the RTC Rulings and, consequently, parties is not a ground for the
dismissed Santiago’s complaint for judicial dismissal of an action. At any stage of
partition. It held that Felcon’s siblings, as well a judicial proceeding and/or at such
as Maude’s children, are indispensable parties times as are just, parties may be
to the judicial partition of the subject land and, added on the motion of a party or on
thus, their non-inclusion as defendants in the initiative of the tribunal concerned.
Santiago’s complaint would necessarily result If the plaintiff refuses to implead an
in its dismissal. indispensable party despite the order

of the court, that court may dismiss

Aggrieved, the heirs of Santiago moved for the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure
reconsideration which was denied, hence, this to comply with the order. The remedy
petition instituted by herein petitioner, Ma. Elena is to implead the non-party claimed to
R. Divinagracia, as administratrix of Santiago’s be indispensable.
estate.
In view of the foregoing, the correct course of
action in the instant case is to order its
remand to the RTC for the inclusion of those
indispensable parties who were not impleaded
and for the disposition of the case on the
merits.

28. Spouses Dela TOPIC: Effect of death of a Party Litigant; Rule 3, Whether or not the NO, the Supreme Court ruled that the general
Cruz v. Joaquin Section 20 RTC lost jurisdiction rule is that a formal substitution by heirs is not
over the case upon necessary when they themselves voluntarily
DOCTRINE: The rule on the substitution by heirs the death of Pedro appear, participate in the case, and present
is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of Joaquin - NO evidence in the defense of the deceased.
due process. Thus, when due process is not Strictly speaking, the rule on the substitution
violated, as when the right of the representative or by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a
heir is recognized and protected, noncompliance requirement of due process. Thus, when due
or belated formal compliance with the Rules process is not violated, as when the right of
cannot affect the validity of a promulgated the representative or heir is recognized and
decision. protected, noncompliance or belated formal
compliance with the Rules cannot affect the
FACTS: validity of a promulgated decision. Mere failure
● Pedro Joaquin filed a complaint for recovery of to substitute for a deceased plaintiff is not a
possession and ownership, the cancellation of sufficient ground to nullify a trial court‘s
title, and damages against the petitioner spouses decision. The alleging party must prove that
in the RTC. there was an undeniable violation of due
● Joaquin alleges that he had obtained a loan process.
from the petitioners and secured the same by
executing a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land in
Pinagpanaan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. In the instant case, records reveal that a
● Moreover, a document entitled ―Kasunduanǁ ―Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiffǁ
was executed evidencing that the Deed of Sale was filed before the CA. Additionally, the heirs
was truly an equitable mortgage. of Joaquin voluntarily appeared and
● The Spouses averred that the document merely participated in the case. The CA had duly
evinced an accommodation to allow the ordered Joaquin‘s representatives to appear

repurchase of the property which right the and substitute for him. Based on the
respondent failed to exercise. foregoing, there had been no violation of due
● The RTC ruled in Joaquin‘s favor and held that process, and the issue of substitution cannot
the latter had made a valid tender of payment to be upheld as a ground to nullify the trial
exercise his right of repurchase. court‘s decision.
● The CA sustained the RTC’s ruling and ordered
a substitution by legal representatives, in view of
Joaquin’s death.
● Hence, this petition for review assailing the
appellate court’s decision on the ground that the
RTC lost jurisdiction over the case upon Joaquin’s
death.
● Petitioners contend that the RTC‘s jurisdiction
was invalid for lack of jurisdiction considering that
Joaquin died during the pendency of the case and
no substitution by the heirs took place

29. San Juan v. TOPIC: Effect of Death of Party Litigant; Rule 3, Whether a person YES.
Cruz Section 20 nominated as
”administrator” by The second paragraph of the rule is plain and
TICKLER: Substitution for heirs purported heirs of a explicit (Section 17, Rule 3): the heirs may be
devisee or legatee in allowed to be substituted for the deceased
FACTS: a will under probate without requiring the appointment of an
Loreto Samia San Juan executed a last will and may validly administrator or executor. However, if within
testament naming Oscar Casa as one of the substitute for that the specified period a legal representative fails
devisees therein. devisee or legatee in to appear, the court may order the opposing
the probate counsel, within a specific period, to process
Upon Loreto’s death on Octobe 25, 1988, Atty. proceedings despite the appointment of an administrator or
Teodorico A. Aquino filed a petition for the probate the fact that such executor who shall immediately appear for the
of the will in the RTC of Quezon City. While the “administrator” is not state of the deceased.
petition was pending, Oscar Casa died intestate the court-appointed
on May 24, 1999. On august 14, 2002, the administrator of the The heirs of the estate of Oscar de Casa do
probate court issued an order denying the entry of estate of the not need to first secure the appointment of an
appearance of the law firm of one of the heirs of deceased devisee or administrator of his estate because from the
Oscar Casa and their representative, considering legatee. very moment of his death, they stopped into
that Federico Casa, Jr. was not the executor or his shoes and acquired his rights as
administrator of the estate of the devisee, hence, devisee/legatee of the deceased Loreto San
cannot be substituted for the deceased as his Juan. Thus, a prior appointment of an
representative as required by Section 16, Rule 3, administrator or executor of Oscar Casa is not

of the Rules of Court. On November 22, 2002, the necessary for his heirs to acquire legal
court issued an order directing Aquino to secure capacity to be substituted as representatives
the appointment of an administrator or executor of of the estate. Said heirs may designate one or
the estate of Oscar Casa in order that the some of them as their representative before
appointee be substituted in lieu of the said the trial court.
deceased.

On February 26, 2003, Aquino then filed a

pleading for appointment of administrator of
Federico Casa, Jr., considering that he is the
nearest accessible heir to attend the hearing of
the probate of the will and is most competent to
assume the responsibilities and duties of the
administrator.

San Juan maintained that the heirs should present

an administrator of the estate of Oscar Casa as
the representative of the estate in the case. In his
reply, Aquino stated that under Section 16, Rule 3
of the Rules of Court, the heirs may be substituted
for the deceased without need for appointment of
an administrator or executor of the estate. He also
claimed that the court is enjoined to require the
representative to appear before the court and be
substituted within the prescribed period.

RTC denied motion of San Juan. The court held

that there was no need for the appointment of an
administrator or executor as substitute for the
deceased devisee. San Juan filed an MR but it
was subsequently denied. His second MR was
also denied. After his third MR was denied, he
filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which the
CA dismissed on the ground that it was filed
beyond the 60-day period. He filed another MR
but this was also denied. Hence, this petition for
review on certiorari.

30. Gaffney v. TOPIC: Effect of Death of Party Litigant Whether a deceased NO. A deceased person does not have the
Butler or his estate, i.e. capacity to be sued and may not be made a
TICKLER: Si Anthony nag invest sa isang Anthony, may be a defendant in a case.
[Repeated Case, corporation. Namatay siya. Hindi nagmaterialize defendant in the
different topic] yung investment. Si petitioner sinu-sue ngayon present case Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of
yung byuda ni Anthony kasi daw as the wife, she Court unequivocally states that "[o]nly natural
represents Anthony, tapos siya raw yung or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
“surviving spouse”. law may be parties in a civil action."

FACTS Applying this legal provision, the Court, in

● Donald Gaffney filed a complaint against Ventura v. Militante, declared that neither a
Gina Butler for sum of money. deceased person nor his estate has capacity
● Donald alleged that sometime in to be sued, explaining thus: Neither a dead
2006-2007, Gina and her husband, person nor his estate may be a party plaintiff
Anthony, invited Donald to invest in in a court action. A deceased person does not
ActiveFun Corporation. have such legal entity as is necessary to bring
● Anthony died in December 2009. action so much so that a motion to substitute
● When the proposed investment did not cannot lie and should be denied by the court.
materialize, Donald demanded the return An action begun by a decedent's estate
of his investments from Gina. cannot be said to have been begun by a legal
● Because no full relief can be had against person, since an estate is not a legal entity;
the Estate/heirs of Anthony Richard Butler such an action is a nullity and a motion to
under the original Complaint, Donald filed amend the party plaintiff will not likewise lie,
a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended there being nothing before the court to amend.
Complaint for the purpose of impleading Considering that capacity to be sued is a
the estate or the heirs of the late Anthony correlative of the capacity to sue, to the same
Richard Butler [as additional extent, a decedent does not have the capacity
party-defendant] allegedly represented by to be sued and may not be named a party
Gina as his surviving spouse. defendant in a court action.
● Gina opposed the motion primarily on the
ground that "only natural or juridical Hence, there can be no doubt that a deceased
persons may be parties in an ordinary civil person or his estate may not be impleaded as
action." defendant in a civil action as they lack legal
personality. Thus, when Anthony died, his
legal personality ceased and he could no
longer be impleaded as respondent in the
present ordinary civil suit for collection. As
such, the complaint against him should be
dismissed on the ground that the pleading

asserting the claim states no cause of action

or for failure to state a cause of action
pursuant to Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the Rules
of Court, because a complaint cannot possibly
state a cause of action against one who
cannot be a party to a civil action.

In sum, impleading the deceased Anthony or

his estate in the present petition was improper.
The action against him must be dismissed and
the same may just be filed as a claim against
his estate in a proper proceeding. The CA
thus did not err in reversing the trial court.

31. Uy v. Del TOPIC: Effect of death of party litigant ; Rule 3, W/N respondents No, respondents should not have proceeded
Castillo Sec. 20 should have against Jaime Uy’s estate as based on the
proceeded against records, the Uy siblings were not merely
TICKER: About sa quieting of title yung case. Jaime Uy’s estate substituted in Jaime's place as defendant;
Namatay na yung original defendant so napunta instead of the rather, they were impleaded in their
sa anak niya after amendment. Namatay din yung petitioners, pursuant personal capacities.
complainant during the pendency. Hindi to Section 20, Rule
substituted yung anak ng defendants kasi 3 of the Rules of Under Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
impleaded sila in their personal capacities. Court. –NO Court, substitution of parties takes place
when the party to the action dies pending
FACTS: the resolution of the case and the claim is
● This case is an offshoot of an action filed not extinguished.
by Crispulo Del Castillo (Crispulo) for
quieting of title, reconveyance, and Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.
damages against Jaime Uy (Jaime) and - Whenever a party to a pending action dies,
his wife, Conchita, docketed as Civil Case and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it
No. MAN-2797 (Quieting of Title Case) on shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
November 12,1996. court within thirty (30) days after such death of
the fact thereof, and to give the name and
● However, since Jaime had died six address of his legal representative or
years earlier in 1990, Crispulo representatives. Failure of counsel to comply
amended his complaint and impleaded with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary
Jaime's children, the Uy siblings, as action.

defendants.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to
● Meanwhile, Crispulo died during the be substituted for the deceased, without
pendency of the action and hence, was requiring the appointment of an executor or
substituted by his heirs, respondents in administrator and the court may appoint a
this case. guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

● After due proceedings, on 2003 the RTC The court shall forthwith order said legal
rendered a Decision in respondents' representative or representatives to appear
favor, and accordingly declared them as and be substituted within a period of thirty (30)
the true and lawful owners of the lot and days from notice.
ordered petitioners to pay respondents
moral damages and litigation costs. If no legal representative is named by the
counsel for the deceased party, or if the one
● Aggrieved, petitioners appealed before so named shall fail to appear within the
the CA, and subsequently, to the SC, but specified period, the court may order the
the same were denied for lack of merit. opposing party, within a specified time to
procure the appointment of an executor or
● The ruling became final and executory on administrator for the estate of the deceased
April 8, 2010. A Writ of Execution was and the latter shall immediately appear for and
issued, to which the sheriff issued a on behalf of the deceased. The court charges
Notice of Garnishment. Threatened by the in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by
Notice of Garnishment, petitioners filed an the opposing party, may be recovered as
Omnibus Motion praying that the writ of costs.
execution be quashed and set aside this
was later on denied by the RTC. Here, Jaime died on March 4, 1990,or six (6)
years before private respondents filed the
● Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a petition for Quieting of Title Case. Thus, after Conchita
certiorari with the CA, contending that the filed an Answer informing the RTC of Jaime's
writ of execution was void because it death in 1990, the complaint was amended to
made them liable beyond their implead the Uy siblings. Accordingly, the
inheritance from Jaime. They maintain Rules of Court provisions on substitution upon
that the estate of Jaime should instead be the death of a party do not apply and the Uy
held liable for the adjudged amount and siblings were not merely substituted in place
that respondents should have brought of Jaime in the Quieting of Title Case. Instead,
their claim against the estate, in they were impleaded in their personal
accordance with Section 20, Rule 3 of the capacities. In this regard, petitioners'
Rules of Court. argument that they cannot be held solidarily
liable for the satisfaction of any monetary

● The CA affirmed the orders of the RTC, it judgment or award must necessarily fail.
held that Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules
of Court only applies to contractual In this light, petitioners can no longer invoke
money claims and not when the Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
subject matter is some other relief and which reads: Section 20. Action and
the collection of any amount is merely contractual money claims. - When the action
incidental thereto, such as by way of is for recovery of money arising from contract,
damages, as in this case. express or implied, and the defendant dies
before entry of final judgment in the court in
which the action was pending at the time of
such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of
final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained
by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these Rules for
prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person.

A cursory reading of the foregoing provision

readily shows that like Section 16, Rule 3 of
the Rules of Court, it applies in cases where
the defendant dies while the case is
pending and not before the case was even
filed in court, as in this case.

32. Nocum v. Lucio DOCTRINE: Whether or not RTC RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject
Tan acquired jurisdiction matter upon the filing of the original complaint.
A. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and over the civil case It did not lose jurisdiction over the same when
determine a case; venue is the place where the upon the filing of the it dismissed it on the ground of improper
case is to be heard or tried; original complaint for venue. The amendment merely laid down the
B. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; damages. - YES proper venue of the case. Jurisdiction is
venue, of procedural law; conferred by law based on the facts alleged in
C. Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the the complaint since the latter comprises a
court and the subject matter; venue, a relation concise statement of the ultimate facts
between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.
respondent; and, Respondent‘s cause of action is for damages
D. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is
conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred vested with the RTC.
by the act or agreement of the parties.

Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with

FACTS: venue. Hon. Florenz D.
Regalado,differentiated jurisdiction and venue
● Respondent Tan filed a complaint against as follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to
reporter Nocum, Capt. Umali, ALPAP and hear and determine a case; venue is the place
Inquirer with the RTC for the alleged where the case is to be heard or tried; (b)
malicious and defamatory imputations Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law;
contained in a news article.INQUIRER venue, of procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction
and NOCUM filed their joint answer establishes a relation between the court and
alleging that the complaint failed to state a the subject matter; venue, a relation between
cause of action; the defamatory plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
statements alleged in the complaint were respondent; and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by
general conclusions without factual law and cannot be conferred by the parties;
premises; ( the questioned news report venue may be conferred by the act or
constituted fair and true report on the agreement of the parties.
matters of public interest concerning a
public figure and therefore, was privileged The additional allegations that the article and
in nature; and malice on their part was the caricature were printed and first published
negated by the publication in the same in the City of Makati referred only to the
article of plaintiff‘s or PAL‘s side of the question of venue and not jurisdiction. These
dispute with the pilot‘s union. would neither confer jurisdiction on the RTC
● ALPAP and UMALI likewise filed their joint nor would respondent‘s failure to include the
answer alleging that the complaint stated same in the original complaint divest the lower
no cause of action; venue was improperly court of its jurisdiction over the case.
laid; and plaintiff Lucio Tan was not a real Respondent‘s failure to allege these
party in interest. It appeared that the allegations gave the lower court the power,
complaint failed to state the residence of upon motion by a party, to dismiss the
the complainant at the time of the alleged complaint on the ground that venue was not
commission of the offense and the place properly laid. By dismissing the case on the
where the libelous article was printed and ground of improper venue, the lower court had
first published. jurisdiction over the case.
● RTC of Makati issued an order dismissing
the complaint without prejudice on the
ground of improper venue.
● Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion
seeking reconsideration alleging that this
article was printed and first published in
the City of Makati.

33. Radiowealth TOPIC: When the rules on venue do not apply. WON the RTC Jurisdiction - defined as the authority to hear
Finance Co., Inc. v. Rule 4, Section 4. correctly dismissed and determine a cause or the right to act in a
Pineda, Jr. petitioner’s case. A matter of substantive law. Thus, an
DOCTRINE: complaint for lack of action may be filed only with the court or
The general rule is that the venue of real actions jurisdiction - NO tribunal where the Constitution or a statute
is the court which has jurisdiction over the area says it can be brought. Objections to
wherein the real property involved, or a portion WON the venue was jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be
thereof, is situated; while the venue of personal properly laid out brought at any stage of the proceedings, even
actions is the court which has jurisdiction where (RTC Rizal) - YES on appeal. When a case is filed with a court
the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the which has no jurisdiction over the action, the
election of the plaintiff. As an exception, court shall motu proprio dismiss the case.
jurisprudence instructs that the parties, thru a
written instrument, may either introduce another Venue - "the place of trial or geographical
venue where actions arising from such instrument location in which an action or proceeding
may be filed, or restrict the filing of said actions in should be brought." In civil cases, venue is a
a certain exclusive venue matter of procedural law. A party's objections
to venue must be brought at the earliest
Even if it appears that venue has been improperly opportunity either in a motion to dismiss or in
laid, it is well-settled that the courts may not the answer; otherwise the objection shall be
motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground deemed waived. When the venue of a civil
of improper venue. Without any objection at the action is improperly laid, the court cannot
earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in motu proprio dismiss the case.
the answer, it is deemed waived.
Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity,
FACTS: not a jurisdictional impediment. Jurisdiction is
In its Complaint dated October 12, 2015, petitioner a matter of substantive law, while venue is a
Radiowealth Finance alleged that it extended a matter of procedural law.
loan to respondents Pineda, as evidenced by a
Promissory Note, in the amount of P557,808.00 In this case, petitioner filed a complaint for,
payable in 24 equal monthly installments which inter alia, sum of money involving the amount
was secured by a Chattel Mortgage constituted on of P510,132.00. Pursuant to Section 19 (8) of
a vehicle owned by respondents. Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129, as amended
by Section 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7691,17
Notably, the Promissory Note states that "any the RTC irrefragably has jurisdiction over
action to enforce payment of any sums due under petitioner's complaint. Thus, it erred in
this Note shall exclusively be brought in the proper dismissing petitioner's complaint on the
court within the National Capital Judicial Region ground of its purported lack of jurisdiction.
or in any place where Radiowealth Finance
Company, Inc. has a branch/office, at its sole Clearly, the RTC confused the concepts of

option." jurisdiction and venue which, as already

discussed, are not synonymous with each
Due to respondents' default, petitioner demanded other. Even assuming that the RTC correctly
payment of the whole remaining balance of the pertained to venue, it still committed grave
loan. As the demand went unheeded, petitioner error in dismissing petitioner's complaint.
filed the instant suit for sum of money and
damages with application for a Writ of Replevin Rule 4 of the Rules of Court governs the rules
before the RTC Rizal, further alleging that it on venue of civil actions.
has a branch in San Mateo, Rizal.
Section 4. When Rule not applicable.
– This Rule shall not apply
(a) In those cases where a specific
rule or law provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly
agreed in writing before the filing of
the action on the exclusive venue
thereof.

In this case, the venue stipulation found in the

subject Promissory Note is indeed restrictive
in nature, considering that it effectively limits
the venue of the actions arising therefrom to
the courts of: (a) the National Capital Judicial
Region; or (b) any place where petitioner
has a branch/office. In light of petitioner's
standing allegation that it has a branch in San
Mateo, Rizal, it appears that venue has been
properly laid, unless such allegation has
been disputed and successfully rebutted later
on.

Finally, even if it appears that venue has been

improperly laid, it is well-settled that the
courts may not motu proprio dismiss the
case on the ground of improper venue.
Without any objection at the earliest
opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer, it is deemed waived.

Dismissing the complaint on the

ground of improper venue is certainly
not the appropriate course of action at
this stage of the proceeding,
particularly as venue, in inferior courts
as well as in the RTC, may be waived
expressly or impliedly. Where
defendant fails to challenge timely the
venue in a motion to dismiss as
provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the
Rules of Court, and allows the trial to
be held and a decision to be
rendered, be cannot on appeal or in a
special action be permitted to
challenge belatedly the wrong venue,
which is deemed waived.

Thus, unless and until the defendant

objects to the venue in a motion to
dismiss, the venue cannot be truly
said to have been improperly laid, as
for all practical intents and purposes,
the venue, though technically wrong,
may be acceptable to the parties for
whose convenience the rules on
venue had been devised. The trial
court cannot pre-empt the defendant's
prerogative to object to the improper
laying of the venue by motu proprio
dismissing the case.

In sum, the RTC erred in motu proprio

dismissing petitioner's complaint before it. The
complaint must be reinstated, and remanded
to the RTC for further proceedings.

MODULE 3

1. Memita v. TOPIC: Complaint, actionable document, Rule 8 1) Whether Rule 8, In his answer, Memita admitted that he

Masongsong Section 7; how to contest Rule 8, Sec. 8 Section 8, of the purchased goods from Masongsong.
Revised Rules of However, without specifying the date of
Civil Procedure, purchase or the receipt number, Memita
TICKLER: MAGNOLIA CHICKEN DELIVERY relied upon by the denied the quantities and value of the
CA does not apply purchases. Memita alleged that there were
because the answer questionable deliveries and questionable
FACTS: Masongsong, under the business name with counterclaim of number of kilos per crate. Memita further
of RM Integrated Services, was the distributor of Memita was verified alleged that he discovered short deliveries and
San Miguel Foods, Inc.’s Magnolia chicken and under oath. discrepancies. Through these unsubstantiated
products. Masongsong supplied Magnolia chicken allegations, Memita concluded that
products on a 25-day payment credit to Memita’s 2) Whether Rule 8, Masongsong might have manipulated the
Vicor Store in Burgos Public Market, Bacolod City. Section 8, of the delivery receipts.
Revised Rules of
Masongsong filed a complaint before the trial Procedure is Memita insists that the trial court should not
court and alleged that from March 11, 1996-June inapplicable as have admitted the sales invoices attached to
25, 1996, Memita’s credit on goods purchased petitioner does not Masongsong’s complaint. In its decision, the
already reached the amount of P603,520.50, appear to be a party trial court stated that “Memita failed to point
which was not paid despite repeated demands. A to all of the 72 sales out any particular sales invoice which
writ of attachment was served against Memita. invoices admitted in substantiates his claim of short deliveries or
evidence by the questionable deliveries.
When the case proceeded, Memita failed to testify lower court.
in his own behalf. Memita and his counsel, Atty. Section 8, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Allan L. Zamora failed to appear for the hearing on Procedure reads as follows:
January 22, 1998. Atty. Zamora filed an urgent
motion for postponement on January 21, 1998 Section 8. How to contest such
because he had to “proceed to Iloilio City to attend documents-when an action or defense is
to an urgent personal matter that requires his founded upon a written instrument, copied
personal attendance.” The trial court however, in or attached to the corresponding
agreed with the reasons given by Masongsong’s pleading as provided in the preceding
counsel, Atty. Sabornay, who stated that the section, the genuineness and due
parties and their counsels expressly agreed in the execution of the instrument shall be
December 9, 1997 hearing that the setting for deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
January 22, 1998 was intransferable in character. under oath, specifically denies them, and
Moreover, the motion for postponement did not sets forth what he claims to be the facts
conform to the three-day notice rule and that xxx
Memtia’s settlement offer was not acceptable to
Masongsong. The trial court thus denied the Section 10 of the same rule further describes
motion for postponement and deemed the case how a specific denial should be made: A
submitted for decision. defendant must specify each material

allegation of fact the truth of which he

does not admit, and whenever practicable,
shall set forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial.

Memita, in alleging "questionable" and "short"

deliveries, in effect alleges that Masongsong
committed fraud. As the party invoking fraud,
Memita has the burden of proof. Whoever
alleges fraud or mistake affecting a
transaction must substantiate his allegation,
since it is presumed that a person takes
ordinary care of his concerns and private
concerns have been fair and regular.
Memita chose to present evidence which did
not "set forth the facts" nor the "substance of
the matters upon which he relies to support
his denial." Memita chose to present the
concepts of the load order manifest and the
issue form. He also presented witnesses who
are current and former employees of San
Miguel Foods, Inc. However, per the
explanation of Mr. Alberto Valenzuela, a
former issuer/receiver and route salesman of
San Miguel Foods, Inc., the load order
manifest shows the goods ordered by
Masongsong from San Miguel Foods, Inc. But
the load order manifest cannot be considered
as the only basis of a customer's order as the
customer is not precluded from calling up the
San Miguel Foods, Inc. office and make
additional orders. Mr. Reynaldo Geaga, an
employee in charge of the warehouse of San
Miguel Foods, Inc., explained that the issue
form reflects the quantity of goods actually
obtained by Masongsong from San Miguel
Foods, Inc. San Miguel Foods, Inc. then uses
the issue form as basis for billing
Masongsong.

The best evidence of the transaction between

Memita and Masongsong are the sales
invoices. The sales invoices show that Memita
or his representative acknowledged receipt of
Masongsong's deliveries without protest.
Memita aired his doubts about the amounts
only after Masongsong asked him to pay his
credit. Moreover, although Memita confronted
Masongsong with a check dated 1 July 1996
in the amount of P127,238.40 payable to RM
Integrated Services, Masongsong stated that
the said amount did not include any
transaction in the present case. Memita's
evidence reveal that Memita failed to prove
fraud on Masongsong's part. Therefore, the
trial court is correct in stating that Memita is
liable to Masongsong in the amount of
P603,520.50 plus interest of 12% per annum
as agreed upon by the parties and as stated in
the sales invoices. Memita is further liable for
attorney's fees in the amount of 10% of the
principal claim and costs of litigation.
||

2. Ridao v. TICKLER: $4000 utang sa brother-in-law/agent ISSUE: Whether the On whether the ledger is an actionable
Handmade Credit ng Handmade Credit ledger presented is document
and Loans, Inc. an actionable No. A document is actionable when an action
FACTS: In February 2004, Gemma Ridao document (not or defense is grounded upon such written
obtained a $4,000.00 loan from respondent, stated in the full text, instrument or document. Section 7, Rule 8 of
evidenced by a promissory note. Ridao’s nilagay ko lang the Rules of Court provides for the two ways
brother-in-law, Teofilo Manipon, was the duly since relevant sa of pleading an actionable document while
authorized representative of Handmade Credit. topic) Section 8, Rule 8 provides for the rule on
implied admission (by failure to make a sworn
In August 2004, Ridao obtained: a) an additional Whether the CA specific denial) of the genuineness and due
loan which increased her obligation to $6,167, erred in ordering execution of a document or instrument subject
evidenced by the same promissory note before; Ridao to pay the of an action or defense.
and b) a P40,000 loan, evidenced by another remaining balance
promissory note. Both loans had 4% monthly of the loan In the present case, the complaint filed by
interest and payable within a year. Handmade Credit is an action for collection of

sum of money arising from a loan obligation.

Ridao failed to pay despite repeated demands. The cause of action is on the alleged
Thus, in 2013, Handmade Credit filed a complaint non-payment of loan obligation by Ridao. In
for collection of sum of money with damages her Answer, Ridao attached her late
against Ridao. In her defense, Ridao stated that husband's payment record, a copy of a page
the $4,000-loan from Teofilo was extended to her of a ledger, as proof that she had fully paid for
as a relative, and not as a creditor of Handmade her obligation.
Credit.
Handmade Credit did not file a reply to
With regard to her obligations, Ridao already paid Ridao's Answer. Ridao asserts that since
the same through Avelino, her late husband and Handmade Credit failed to file a reply
Teofilo’s brother. As proof, Ridao attached specifically denying under oath the ledger
Avelino’s payment record consisting of a copy of a which she attached to her Answer, then
page of a ledger captioned “Payment for Loan @ Handmade Credit is deemed to have admitted
Handmade Credit & Loans, Inc.,” and that all the said actionable document. The Court
payments had been duly acknowledged by Teofilo disagrees.
and his daughter, Zoraida, as the two signed the
same. A copy of a page of a ledger is not an
actionable document. The ledger merely
Ridao denied the additional loans allegedly indicates that money was received as
procured in August 2004 and argued that the payment, but it is not an evidence of the
promissory notes and statements of loan release transaction between the parties. The ledger
were materially altered, and the signatures therein does not provide for the terms and conditions
were forged. During the trial, Teofilo admitted this of the loan transaction from which a right or
alteration. Further, Teofilo admitted, based on obligation may be established.
Avelino’s ledger, that he received payments but
only in the total amount of $1,100. It has been held before that to qualify as an
actionable document pursuant to Section 7,
RTC: held that the ledger, not specifically denied Rule 8 of the Rules, the specific right or
under oath by Handmade Credit, was deemed obligation which is the basis of the action or
admitted. defense must emanate therefrom or be
evident therein. If the document or instrument
CA: found that the promissory notes were void as so qualifies and is pleaded in accordance with
it showed traces of material alterations, tampering, Section 7 — the substance set forth in the
and superimpositions. However, since Ridao pleading, and the original or a copy is
admitted borrowing $4,300.00 from Handmade attached to the pleading as an exhibit — then
Credit and its representatives, Teofilo and Zoraida, the genuineness and due execution are
where only the total amount of $1,100.00 was deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
acknowledged received by them as payments, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets

then Ridao has the burden to prove payment of forth what he claims to be the facts pursuant
the remaining balance of the loan. to Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.

Ridao contends that Handmade Credit had Thus, since the copy of the ledger is not an
impliedly admitted the genuineness and due actionable document, Handmade Credit's
execution of the ledger where payment had been non-filing of a reply, specifically denying the
acknowledged by Handmade Credit when genuineness and due execution of the ledger,
Handmade Credit failed to file a Reply and cannot be considered as an implied
specifically deny the actionable document admission. Nevertheless, even if the ledger is
attached by Ridao in her Answer in accordance not an actionable document, it is admissible
with Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. as evidence and is sufficient to prove that
Ridao made payments for her loan obligation
and that such payments were received by
Handmade Credit.

On whether the CA erred in ordering Ridao

to pay the alleged remaining balance
Yes. Since Ridao had shown evidence of
payment, upon presentation of Avelino's
payment record, then the burden to go forward
with the evidence and to prove non-payment
shifted to Handmade Credit. During the trial,
Handmade Credit, through Teofilo, denied
receiving the last three payments in the total
amount of $3,200.00 invoking that some had
no dates of payment, signatures were not his
and there were no dollar bill serial numbers
indicated. However, aside from the denial,
Handmade Credit did not produce any other
sufficient evidence to support the allegations.

Handmade Credit could not produce any

receipt of past payments to counter the
contents of the ledger since it also relied on
the ledger as its proof that it received the
individual payments. Having acknowledged
that receipts were not issued and that they
relied on the ledger as proof of payment on
account of relationship, Handmade Credit

cannot now allege non-payment by merely

denying that it did not receive or collect the
money in the absence of clear and competent
evidence.

Further, based on the CA's findings that

Handmade Credit caused material alterations,
tampering and superimpositions on the
Promissory Notes, Handmade Credit's
credibility is in question.

3. Go Tong TOPIC: Negative Defenses– Specific Denial, Rule W/N CA erred in No, CA did not in upholding the RTC's ruling
Electrical Supply 8, Sec. 8 upholding the RTC's that the genuineness and due execution of the
Co., Inc. v. BPI ruling that the loan documents were deemed admitted by
Family Savings TICKLER: Go Tong as a Gaslighter– Nangutang genuineness and petitioners Go Tong Electrical and Go under
Bank si Go Tong sa DBS Bank (na succeeded na by due execution of the the parameters of Section 8, Rule 8 of the
BPI). Tapos nag-execute ng PN & CSA si Go Tong loan documents Rules of Court.
specifying yung magiging default penalty interest were deemed
niya and stuff pag di siya nagbayad. Dineny admitted by Under Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court:
naman sa counterclaim ni Go Tong yung petitioners Go Tong “When an action or defense is founded
execution ng PN & CSA kasi daw self-serving. Electrical and Go upon a written instrument, copied in or
Ang catch ay nakalimutan niyang i-deny under under the attached to the corresponding pleading as
oath so deemed admitted na meron talagang PN parameters of provided in the preceding Section, the
and CSA pursuant to Rule 8 Sec.8. Section 8, Rule 8 of genuineness and due execution of the
the Rules of Court. instrument shall be deemed admitted
FACTS: Respondent filed a complaint against –NO unless the adverse party, under oath,
petitioners Go Ong Electrical and its President specifically denies them, and sets forth
seeking that the latter be held jointly and severally what he claims to be the facts; but the
liable to it for the payment of their loan obligation. requirement of an oath does not apply
Respondent alleged that as early as 1996, Go when the adverse party does not appear to
Tong Electrical had applied for and was granted be a party to the instrument or when
financial assistance by then Bank of South East compliance with an order for an inspection
Asia (BSA). DBS Bank of the Philippines of the original instrument is refused.”
subsequently became the successor in interest of
BSA. The application for financial assistance was A reading of the Answer shows that Go Tong
renewed through a Credit Agreement. Electrical and Go failed to specifically deny the
execution of the Credit Agreement, promissory
On even date, Go Tong Electrical, represented by note, and CSA under Section 8, Rule 8 of the

Go, among others, obtained a loan from DBS for Rules of Court. The mere statement that
which Go Tong Electrical executed a Promissory they "specifically deny" the pertinent
Note for the same amount in favor of DBS, allegations of the Complaint "for being
maturing on February 5, 2000. Under the PN’s self-serving and pure conclusions
terms, Go Tong Electrical bound itself to pay a intended to suit plaintiff's purposes," does
default penalty interest at the rate of one not constitute an effective specific denial
percent (1%) per month in addition to the as contemplated by law. A denial is not
current interest rate, as well as attorney’s fees specific simply because it is so qualified by the
equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the defendant. A general denial does not become
amount sought to be recovered. As additional specific by the use of the word "specifically."
security, Go executed a Comprehensive Surety Neither does it become so by the simple
Agreement (CSA) covering any and all obligations expedient of coupling the same with a broad
undertaken by Go Tong Electrical, including the conclusion of law that the allegations
aforesaid loan. contested are "self-serving" or are intended "to
suit plaintiff's purposes."
Upon default of petitioners, DBS – and later, its
successor-in-interest, BPI Family Savings Bank Citing the case of Permanent Savings & Loan
demanded payment from petitioners, but to no Bank v. Velarde, the Court expounded that the
avail. Hence the BPI Family Savings Bank filed a defendant must declare under oath that he
complaint. did not sign the document or that it is
otherwise false or fabricated. To add,
In its Answer with Counterclaim, petitioners Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
denied the execution of the loan agreement, further requires that the defendant "sets
the PN, and the CSA "for being self-serving forth what he claims to be the facts," which
and pure conclusions intended to suit requirement, likewise, remains absent from
purposes." By way of special and affirmative the Answer in this case.
defenses, it argued that: (a) the real
party-in-interest should be DBS and not Thus, with said pleading failing to comply with
respondent; (b) no demand was made upon them; the "specific denial under oath" requirement
and (c) Go cannot be held liable under the CSA under Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules, the
since there was supposedly no solidarity of proper conclusion, as arrived at by the CA, is
debtors. Respondent presented Sunio, the that Go Tong Electrical and Go had impliedly
Account officer handling petitioners’ loan admitted the due execution and genuineness
accounts, as its witness. He attested the existence of the documents evidencing their loan
of petitioner’s loan obligation and admitted that he obligation to respondent.
had no knowledge of how the PN was prepared,
executed, and signed, nor did he witness its The admission of the genuineness and due
signing. execution of a document effectively eliminated
any defense relating to the authenticity and

The RTC ruled in favor of respondent and found due execution of the document. Accordingly,
that respondent had amply demonstrated by with Go Tong Electrical and Go’s admission of
competent evidence that it was entitled to the the genuineness and due execution of the
reliefs it prayed for. On appeal, the CA discredited loan documents, the competence of
petitioners’ argument that respondent’s sole respondent’s witness Suñio to testify in order
witness, Sunio, was incompetent to testify the loan to authenticate the same is therefore of no
documentary evidence given that the petitioners moment.
did not deny under oath the genuineness and due
execution of the PN and the CSA thus, are While petitioners insisted that they had
deemed admitted under Sec. 8, Rule 8 of the partially paid their loan obligation, the fact of
Rules of Court. Petitioners filed a motion for such payment was never established by them
reconsideration but was subsequently denied. in this case. Jurisprudence abounds that, in
Hence, this petition. civil cases, one who pleads payment has the
burden of proving it. Respondent’s possession
of the Credit Agreement, promissory note, and
CSA supports the claim that the obligation of
petitioners has not been extinguished.
Wherefore, the petition was denied.

4. Trans Industrial Trans Industrial President, Rodolfo Tiu applied Whether or not the S No. The issues raised by petitioners are
Utilities Inc. v. and was granted loans by Metrobank on several admission as to the questions of fact. The determination of the
Metropolitan Bank occasions. As security for the loans, Trans genuineness and genuineness and due execution of the
& Trust Co. Industrial, through its authorized officers and with due execution of a Secretary's Certificate and the Debt
the consent of Mandaue Realty and Resources document for failure Settlement Agreement, the limitations of
NOTE: Corporation, assigned its rights and title over a to specifically deny Rodolfo's authority to contract a loan with
parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of under oath refers Metrobank, and the issue on overpayment
Rule 8 of the Rules Title. Considering that the property subject of the only to the invite the Court to review the pieces of
of Court deed of assignment was insufficient to secure admission of the evidence presented by the parties. It is not the
SECTION 8. How Trans Industrial's obligations, the petitioners, document as function of the Court to assess and evaluate
to Contest Such Trans Industrial, Spouses Tiu, and Juanita T. Tiu evidence and does all over again the evidence, testimonial and
Documents. - executed a Continuing Surety Agreement in favor not make the evidentiary, adduced by the parties particularly
When an action or of Metrobank to secure the loans in the amount of document valid where the findings of both the trial court and
defense is founded P16.3 million plus interest and charges. Likewise, the appellate court on the matter coincide.
upon a written petitioners executed another Continuing Surety While it is true that there are recognized
instrument, copied Agreement to secure the loan in the amount of US exceptions to the general rule that only
in or attached to $626,000.00. questions of law may be entertained in a Rule
the corresponding 45 petition, the Court finds that there is none
pleading as Petitioners defaulted in the payment of the obtaining in this case. Still, after a judicious
provided in the obligations at their respective maturity dates. So review of the records of the case, the Court

preceding section, the parties agreed to have a Debt Settlement concludes that petitioners failed to show that
the genuineness Agreement. Again, petitioners failed to pay the the lower courts committed errors in
and due execution monthly amortizations. When petitioners failed to appreciating the pieces of evidence presented
of the instrument pay despite demand, Metrobank filed an action for by the parties.
shall be deemed collection of sum of money against petitioners.
admitted unless Petitioners already admitted the genuineness
the adverse party, After the presentation of evidence for Metrobank, and due execution of the Secretary's
under oath, petitioners filed a Demurrer to Evidence and Certificate and the Debt Settlement
specifically denies argued therein that the aggregate amount that the Agreement when they failed to specifically
them, and sets Trans Industrial was authorized by the Board of deny under oath their genuineness and due
forth what he Directors to borrow was only P15 million; but the execution. Section 8 of Rule 8 of the Rules of
claims to be the bank allowed Trans Industrial to borrow in US court provides how to contest an actionable
facts; but the Dollars; hence, Rodolfo exceeded his authority in document. Records show that petitioners
requirement of an borrowing the amounts. failed to specifically deny under oath the
oath does not documents (Secretary's Certificate and Debt
apply when the Settlement Agreement) attached in the
adverse party does amended complaint. As established in the
not appear to be a proceedings, petitioners' Amended Answer
party to the was not verified as noted in the PreTrial Order.
instrument or when Failure to verify the pleading is tantamount to
compliance with an failure to specifically deny under oath the
order for an documents upon which the amended
inspection of the complaint was based. There is no doubt that
original instrument petitioners admitted the genuineness and due
is refused. execution of these documents.

Having failed to specifically deny under oath

the genuineness and due execution of the
Secretary's Certificate, and thus admitted its
genuineness, due execution and authenticity,
petitioners cannot successfully interpose the
statement of the Corporate Secretary who
signed the Secretary's Certificate, that there
was no quorum when the Stockholders'
Resolution and the Debt Settlement
Agreement dated were passed and approved.
Significantly, the Secretary's Certificate itself
provides that the resolution was "unanimously
approved, a legal quorum being present and

voting." The Secretary's Certificate confirmed

the resolution that a meeting was held with a
quorum and that the resolution was approved
authorizing Trans Industrial's negotiation and
request for the restructuring of the loan with
Metrobank. This resulted in the execution of
the Debt Settlement Agreement, the
genuineness and due execution of 'which
were likewise admitted by petitioners

5. Ridao v. TOPIC: Specific Denial Actionable Documents, Whether respondent NO. A copy of a page of a ledger is not an
Handmade Credit Rule 8, Sec. 8; Reply, Rule 6, Sec. 10; Rejoinder, had impliedly actionable document. The ledger merely
Loans, Inc. Rule 6, Sec. 10 admitted the indicates that money was received as
[repeating case, genuineness and payment, but it is not an evidence of the
different doctrine] FACTS: due execution of the transaction between the parties. The ledger
Petitioner obtained 2 loans ($4,000 and an ledger where does not provide for the terms and conditions
additional loan increasing her loan to $6,167) payment had been of the loan transaction from which a right or
evidenced by a promissory note with respondent acknowledged by obligation may be established.
corporation. Later, respondent filed a complaint Handmade Credit
with the RTC against petitioner for collection of when Handmade In Young Builders Corp. v. Benson Industries,
sum of money with damages for the latter’s failure Credit failed to file a Inc., we held that to qualify as an actionable
to pay on the due dates despite several demands. Reply and document pursuant to Section 7, Rule 8 of the
In the complaint, Handmade attached the PNs, specifically deny the Rules, the specific right or obligation which is
Statement of Loan Release and other documents actionable document the basis of the action or defense must
relating to the loan transactions. In her answer, attached emanate therefrom or be evident therein. If the
petitioner admitted that she obtained a loan in the document or instrument so qualifies and is
amount of $4,000 but denied the additional loan pleaded in accordance with Section 7 — the
which increased her obligation to $6,167. Ridao substance set forth in the pleading, and the
pointed out that the annexes attached were original or a copy is attached to the pleading
materially altered and the signatures were forged. as an exhibit — then the genuineness and due
The RTC ruled in favor of Ridao stating that the execution are deemed admitted unless the
ledger where payment had been acknowledged by adverse party, under oath, specifically denies
respondent, not specifically denied under oath by them, and sets forth what he claims to be the
respondent, was deemed admitted. facts pursuant to Section 8, Rule 8 of the
Rules of Court.

Thus, since the copy of the ledger is not an

actionable document, Handmade Credit's
non-filing of a reply, specifically denying

the genuineness and due execution of the

ledger, cannot be considered as an implied
admission. Nevertheless, even if the ledger is
not an actionable document, it is admissible
as evidence and is sufficient to prove that
Ridao made payments for her loan obligation
and that such payments were received by
Handmade Credit.

In civil cases, only a preponderance of

evidence or "greater weight of the evidence" is
required. In determining where the
preponderance of evidence or superior weight
of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witness'
manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
which they are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability of
their testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so
far as the same may legitimately appear upon
the trial

6. Casent Realty TOPIC: Reply Whether failure to YES. We agree with petitioner. Rule 8, Section
Development Corp. file a Reply and 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses
v. Philbanking TICKLER: deny the Dacion and founded upon a written instrument and
Corporation Confirmation provides the manner of denying it. It is more
FACTS: Statement under controlling than Rule 6, Section 10 which
● Casent Realty Development Corp. oath constitute a merely provides the effect of failure to file a
executed two promissory notes in favor of judicial admission of Reply.
Rare Realty. These promissory notes the genuineness
were used by Rare Realty as a security and due execution Thus, where the defense in the Answer is
for a loan that Rare Realty obtained from of these document - based on an actionable document, a Reply
Philbanking wherein a Deed of YES. specifically denying it under oath must be
Assignment was executed. made; otherwise, the genuineness and due
● When Rare Realty failed to pay its debt, execution of the document will be deemed
the bank went after the security of the admitted. Since respondent failed to deny the

loan. The bank demanded payment based genuineness and due execution of the Dacion
on the promissory notes issued by Casent and Confirmation Statement under oath, then
Realty Corp to Rare Realty by virtue of these are deemed admitted and must be
the deed of assignment. considered by the court in resolving the
● On a separate loan with Philbanking, demurrer to evidence. We held in Philippine
Casent Realty satisfied its obligation by American General Insurance Co., Inc. v.
executing a Dacion en pago. Sweet Lines, Inc. that "When the due
● Philbanking filed for a complaint for the execution and genuineness of an instrument
collection of payment against Casent are deemed admitted because of the adverse
based on the promissory notes. Casent party's failure to make a specific verified
Realty, in its answer, raised that a Dacion denial thereof, the instrument need not be
en pago was already executed which presented formally in evidence for it may be
extinguished its obligation. Philbanking considered an admitted fact."
failed to file a reply.
● Casent Realty points out that the defense Admission of the genuineness and due
of Dacion and Confirmation Statement, execution of the Dacion and Confirmation
which were submitted in the Answer, Statement does not prevent the introduction of
should have been specifically denied evidence showing that the Dacion excludes
under oath by respondent in accordance the promissory notes. Petitioner, by way of
with Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of defense, should have presented evidence to
Court. It’s failure constituted an admission show that the Dacion includes the promissory
on the part of the bank. notes.
● Philbanking claimed that even though it
failed to file a Reply, all the new matters On Motion to Dismiss based on Demurrer to
alleged in the Answer are deemed Evidence:
controverted anyway, pursuant to Rule 6,
Section 10: What should be resolved in a motion to
dismiss based on a demurrer to evidence is
Section 10. Reply.--A reply is a pleading, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
the office or function of which is to deny, based on the facts and the law. The evidence
or allege facts in denial or avoidance of contemplated by the rule on demurrer is
new matters alleged by way of defense in that which pertains to the merits of the
the answer and thereby join or make case, excluding technical aspects such as
issue as to such new matters. If a party capacity to sue. However, the plaintiff’s
does not file such reply, all the new evidence should not be the only basis in
matters alleged in the answer are deemed resolving a demurrer to evidence. The "facts"
controverted referred to should include all the means
sanctioned by the Rules of Court in
ascertaining matters in judicial proceedings.

7. Serrano DOCTRINE: Evidently, this particular denial had 1) Whether the 1) Yes, the petitioner’s complaint states a
Mahilum v. the earmark of what is called in the law on complaint of the cause of action.
Spouses Ilano pleadings as a negative pregnant, that is, a denial petitioner sufficiently In granting demurrer, the CA failed to consider
pregnant with the admission of the substantial states a cause of that title to the property remained in
facts in the pleading responded to which are not action? petitioner's name and that the TCT was never
squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of canceled and no new title was issued in
the averments it was directed at. Stated 2) Whether the respondents' name. In this case, it is petitioner
otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of respondents' who must be protected under the Torrens
negative expression which carries with it an defense constitute a system — as the registered owner of the
affirmation or at least an implication of some kind negative pregnant, subject property. "A certificate of title serves
favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial which is in effect an as evidence of an indefeasible and
pregnant with an admission of the substantial admission? incontrovertible title to the propertyin favor of
facts alleged in the pleading. the person whose name appears therein. The
real purpose of the Torrens system of land
FACTS: Petitioner Ruby Ruth Serrano Mahilum is registration is to quiet title to land and put a
the registered owner of a parcel of land covered stop forever to any question as to the legality
by TCT of the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas City. of the title."
She entrusted the original owner's duplicate copy
to Teresa Perez (Perez) — a purported real estate In the case before the court, there are
broker — who claimed that she can assist circumstances which lead one to believe that
petitioner in obtaining a loan, with the subject TCT respondents are not exactly innocent of the
as the collateral. After several months, petitioner charge. Their failure to register the
demanded the return of the title, but Perez failed unnotarized and undated deed of absolute
to produce the same; after much prodding, Perez sale is at the very least unusual; it is contrary
admitted that the title was lost. Thus, prompted to experience. It is uncharacteristic of a
petitioner to execute an affidavit of loss and conscientious buyer of real estate not to cause
caused the same to be annotated upon the the immediate registration of his deed of sale
original registry copy of the TCT. as well as the issuance of a new certificate of
title in his name. Having supposedly paid a
The Registry of Deeds informed petitioner that the considerable amount (P250,000.00) for the
owner’s duplicate copy TCT was not lost but was property, respondents certainly would have
presented to the registry by respondent Sps Ilano protected themselves by immediately
who claimed that the property covered by said title registering the sale and obtaining a new title in
was sold to them. In this connection, respondents their name; but they did not. Even after
— instead of registering the supposed sale in their petitioner caused the annotation of her
favor — executed an Affidavit of Non- Loss, which affidavit of loss, respondents did not register
was entered on TCT. Petitioner confronted their supposed sale, but merely annotated an

respondents, who showed her a notarized "affidavit of non-loss."

Agreement with right of repurchase and an
unnotarized and undated Deed of Absolute Sale, Since respondents never acquired a new
on which documents petitioner's purported certificate of title in their name, the issue of
signatures were affixed, indicating that petitioner their good or bad faith which is central in an
sold the property to respondents. annulment of title case is of no consequence.
Petitioner's case is for annulment of the
Petitioner instituted a complaint for annulment of Agreement and Deed of Absolute Sale, and
agreement and deed of absolute sale, specific not one to annul title since the certificate of
performance with damages against Perez and the title is still in her name.
respondents for their execution of falsified
documents and refusal to return the duplicate 2) Yes, the court held that the respondents
original owner’s copy of title, which were all done ambiguous allegations constitute a
with bad faith. negative pregnant, which is in effect an
admission.
Respondents answered with compulsory
counterclaim alleged and admitted the petitioner’s Evidently, this particular denial had the
allegation but countered the same, stating that earmark of what is called in the law on
Perez accompanied by one Corazon Tingson and pleadings as a negative pregnant, that is, a
a “female person who introduced herself as Ruby denial pregnant with the admission of the
Ruth Serrano” offered to sell to them the property substantial facts in the pleading responded to
covered by the TCT supported by several which are not squarely denied. It was in effect
documents such as declaration of real property, an admission of the averments it was directed
tax clearance, barangay clearance and a at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a
community tax certificate with a picture of Ruby form of negative expression which carries with
Ruth Serrano; that "the person who introduced it an affirmation or at least an implication of
herself as Ruby Ruth Serrano" that after some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is
verification confirmed that the property is indeed a denial pregnant with an admission of the
owned by and registered in the name of Ruby substantial facts alleged in the pleading.
Ruth Serrano, respondent — "believing in good Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or
faith that the person with whom he is dealing is modifying language and the words of the
indeed the real Ruby Ruth Serrano" — entered allegation as so qualified or modified are
into the sale transaction and paid full literally denied, it has been held that the
consideration price of 250,000 and signed the qualifying circumstances alone are denied
agreement. Thus, the petitioners affidavit of loss while the fact itself is admitted. "If an
filed with the registry of deeds is false as the TCT allegation is not specifically denied or the
was never lost but was entrusted to Perez, denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is
together with Tingson and another person named deemed admitted." "Where a fact is alleged
as Jane Doe whose identity is yet to be with some qualifying or modifying language,

established who introduced herself as Ruby Ruth and the denial is conjunctive, a 'negative
Serrano, came to respondents to obtain a loan, pregnant' exists, and only the qualification or
thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint by modification is denied, while the fact itself is
way of counterclaim and sought indemnity for admitted." "A denial in the form of a negative
damages against petitioners. pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it
cannot be ascertained whether it is the fact or
Pre-trial and presentation of evidence ensued and only the qualification that is intended to be
petitioner rested her case. Respondents filed a denied." "Profession of ignorance about a fact
demurer to evidence arguing that the complaint which is patently and necessarily within the
failed to state a cause of action. RTC denied pleader's knowledge, or means of knowing as
respondents demurer stating that the question of ineffectual, is no denial at all."
whether respondents are purchasers in bad faith
can only be resolved after the parties present their The allegations in respondents' pleadings are
evidence. The respondents filed a Motion for certainly revealing. They already knew
Reconsideration but was denied by the same petitioner's identity and how she looked,
court. Thus, an appeal before CA via an original having met her even before the filing of the
petition for certiorari, alleging that since complaint — when petitioner confronted them
petitioner’s complaint failed to allege bad faith, and they showed her the agreement and deed
then her complaint for annulment failed to state a of sale. Thus, they should not have referred to
cause of action against the respondents which the supposed seller as "another person herein
entitled them to a dismissal on demurrer. named as 'Jane Doe' whose identity is yet to
be established who introduced herself as
The CA granted the petition which nullified the Ruby Ruth Serrano" or "the person who
orders of RTC Las Pinas for failure to state a introduced herself as Ruby Ruth Serrano" if
cause of action, on the ground that the complaint indeed it was petitioner herself who appeared
alleges that private respondents did not sell the and signed the agreement and deed of sale in
subject property to petitioners but does not allege question. They should have categorically
that the latter were purchasers in bad faith or with alleged that they bought the property from
notice of the defect in the title of their vendors. petitioner herself if indeed this was so.

8. Colmenar v. TOPIC: Affirmative Defenses ISSUE: Whether the RULING:

Colmenar trial court was No. The application of the 2019 amendments
[repeating case; FACTS: Petitioner filed a Complaint, alleging, correct in applying to resolve the affirmative defenses pleaded by
different doctrine among others, that he is the legitimate and lawful the 2019 respondent companies should not have been
heir of his father, when his father died, he left real amendments to done because it was both not feasible and
properties and that Respondents pollo, Jeannie resolve the would work injustice, as provided under
and Victoria executed Extrajudicial Settlement of affirmative defenses Rule 144 of the 2019 Rules, which provides
Estate of his father, where it was made to appear pleaded by that the amendments shall govern all
that only the Respondents Appollo, Jeannie and respondent cases after their effectivity on 1 May 2020,

Victoria were the surviving heirs of his father, and companies. NO. and also all pending proceedings, except
allocating unto themselves the interests of his to the extent that in the opinion of the
father over said properties. court, their application would not be
feasible or would work injustice, in which
● Respondents Apollo, Jeannie and Victoria case, the procedure under which the cases
then sold the properties in separate were filed shall govern.
contracts of sale to Respondents PEC,
ProFriends and Crisanta Realty. Sec. 12, Rule 8 provides that the court shall
motu proprio resolve the affirmative defenses
● Respondent PEC then sold the property it within 30 calendar days from the filing of the
purchased to Respondent Amaia. Answer. Here, the said 30-day period from the
Petitioner claimed that the sale to PEC, filing of the answer had long expired when the
Crisanta Realty, Profriends and Amaia trial court issued the resolution on the
were void because the respondents affirmative defenses on 22 May 2020.
Appollo, Jeannie and Victoria were not the ProFriends filed its answer in December 2018,
rightful heirs of his father, and therefore PEC and Crisanta Realty on 3 January 2019
had no right of claim over his father’s and Amaia on 27 February 2020. The trial
properties, thereby making the sale to the court should have desisted from applying the
said respondents companies void. 2019 amendments because when it did, the
same was no longer feasible, as it was
● Apollo and Amaia filed their respective already more than 30 days from the filing of
Motion to Dismiss. Amaia claimed in the the answer.
Motion to Dismiss that the Complaint
stated no cause of action against it as it The application of the 2019 rules also caused
was allegedly a buyer in good faith. injustice for as a consequence, petitioner lost
his substantial right to be heard on the
● ProFriends, in its Answer, invoked as common affirmative defense of PEC, Crisanta
affirmative defense lack of cause of Realty and Amaia, and his right to seek a
action. In their Answer, PEC and Crisanta reconsideration of the order of dismissal,
Realty claimed that the complaint failed to which were both granted him under the 1997
state a cause of action against them, Rules.
claiming they were innocent purchasers
for value and that Petitioner’s claim had It was also inaccurate for the trial court to say
prescribed. They also invoked common that it was motu proprio acting on the
defenses of being innocent purchasers for affirmative defenses. In truth, the trial court
value, and that the claim is barred by had already resolved this common affirmative
laches and/or prescription. defense of failure to state a cause of action,
together with the other affirmative defenses in
● PEC and Crisanta Realty then filed a the Omnibus Order dated 12 February 2020,

Motion for Leave of Court to Set the Case where it held that the issues were complex
for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative and would be better threshed out in trial. PEC,
Defenses. Crisanta Realty and Amaia also had filed their
respective motions for reconsideration to
● In an Order dated a April 2019, the trial assail that Omnibus Order, which motions for
court through then Assisting Judge reconsideration were pending when the trial
Pascua granted the motion to set the court motu proprio resolved their common
affirmative defenses for hearing, and affirmative defenses and dismissed the
deferred the resolution of the motion to complaint. This rendered the pending motions
dismiss. for reconsideration as moot. Instead of
applying the 2019 amendments, the trial court
● In an Order dated 26 December 2019, should have resolved the pending motions for
Assisting Judge Gill set aside the Order reconsideration of PEC, Crisanta Realty and
dated 1 April 2019 which set the Amaia.
affirmative defenses for hearing and
deferred the ruling on the motion to
dismiss and instead, deemed that the
Motion for Leave of Court and Motions to
Dismiss were submitted for Resolution.

● In an Omnibus Order dated 12 February

● PEC, Crisanta Realty and Amaia filed

their respective motions for
reconsideration. Amaia also filed its
answer, pleading failure to state a cause
of action as an affirmative defense.

● In the meantime, the 2019 Amendments

to the Rules of Court took effect on 1 May

2020. The affirmative defenses were set
for hearing.

● On 22 May 2020, the trial court issue an

● Since Sec. 12, Rule 15 of the 2019 Rules

9. Metropolitan TICKLER: ISSUE: RULING:

Bank v. CPR Spouses Reynoso and CPR Promotions umutang Did the respondents MBTC was not able to prove the amount
Promotions kay MetroBank. Nung hindi nakabayad, the REMs timely set up their claimed, however respondents were not able
claim for refund? - to timely set up their claim for refund.
were foreclosed. MBTC: kulang pa rin binayad
NO. Respondents belatedly raised their
niyo; di kayo nag file ng counterclaim for refund. compulsory counterclaim.

DOCTRINE: A counterclaim is compulsory if:

A defending party's compulsory counterclaim (a) it arises out of or is necessarily

should be interposed at the time he files his connected with the transaction or
Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively occurrence which is the subject matter
bar such claim. of the opposing party's claim;
(b) it does not require for its adjudication
FACTS: the presence of third parties of whom
Respondent CPR Promotions obtained loans from the court cannot acquire jurisdiction;
petitioner MBTC. These loans were covered by 15 and
promissory notes all signed by respondents, (c) the court has jurisdiction to entertain
spouses Reynoso (Treasurer and President) of the claim both as to its amount and
CPR Promotions, respectively. To secure the nature, except that in an original
loans, the spouses Reynoso executed two deeds action before the RTC, the
of REM. The first mortgage, secured the amount counterclaim may be considered
of PhP 6,500,000 while the other secured PhP compulsory regardless of the amount.
2,500,000.
A claim for recovery of an excess in the bid
Thereafter, spouses Reynoso executed a price should be set up in the action for
payment of a deficiency as a compulsory
continuing surety agreement binding themselves
counterclaim – respondents failed to timely
solidarity with CPR Promotions to pay any and all raise the same.
loans CPR Promotions may have obtained from
petitioner MBTC, but not to exceed P13,000,000. It is elementary that a defending party's
compulsory counterclaim should be interposed
Respondents defaulted, prompting MBTC to file a at the time he files his Answer, and that failure
petition for extra-judicial foreclosure of the real to do so shall effectively bar such claim. As it
appears from the records, what respondents
estate mortgages. MBTC won as highest bidder of
initially claimed herein were moral and
the two public auction sales. Notwithstanding the exemplary damages, as well as attorney's
foreclosure for the total amount of PhP fees. Then, realizing, based on its
13,614,000, petitioner MBTC alleged a deficiency computation, that it should have sought the
balance of PhP 2,628,520.73, plus interest and recovery of the excess bid price, respondents
charges. However, respondents failed to settle the set up another counterclaim, this time in their
alleged deficiency. Thus, petitioner filed an action Appellant's Brief filed before the CA.
Unfortunately, respondents' belated (assertion
for collection of sum of money against
proved fatal to their cause as it did not cure
respondents. their failure to timely raise such claim in their
Answer. Consequently, respondents' claim for

RTC Makati: ruled in favor of petitioner that there the excess, if any, is already barred.
was a balance of PhP 2,628,520.73, plus interest
and charges The CA ruled in favor of respondents NOTES:
- that petitioner failed to prove that there was a Tests in determining whether a counterclaim is
deficiency, since the records failed to corroborate compulsory or permissive:
the claimed amount. (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by
the claim and the counterclaim largely
Petitioner asserts that the CA's grant of a refund the same?
valued at PhP 722,602.22 plus 6% legal interest in (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent
favor of respondents is erroneous: respondents suit on defendant's claims, absent the
never set up a counterclaim for refund of any compulsory counterclaim rule?
amount. Respondents argued that in their Answer (3) Will substantially the same evidence
with Compulsory Counterclaim, they laid-down in support or refute plaintiffs claim as
detail the excess of the prices of the foreclosed well as the defendant's counterclaim?
properties over their obligation. (4) Is there any logical relation between
the claim and the counterclaim, such
that the conduct of separate trials of
the respective claims of the parties
would entail a substantial duplication
of effort and time by the parties and
the court? This test is the "compelling
test of
compulsoriness."29chanrobleslaw

Based on the above tests, it is evident that a

claim for recovery of the excess in the bid
price vis-a-vis the amount due should be
interposed as a compulsory counterclaim in an
action for recovery of a deficiency filed by the
mortgagee against the debtor-mortgagor.
First, in both cases, substantially the same
evidence is needed in order to prove their
respective claim. Second, adjudication in
favor of one will necessarily bar the other

since these two actions are absolutely

incompatible with each other; a debt cannot
be fully paid and partially unpaid at the same
time. Third, these two opposing claims arose
from the same set of transactions. And finally,
if these two claims were to be the subject of
separate trials, it would definitely entail a
substantial and needless duplication of effort
and time by the parties and the court, for said
actions would involve the same parties, the
same transaction, and the same evidence.
The only difference here would be in the
findings of the courts based on the evidence
presented with regard to the issue of whether
or not the bid prices substantially cover the
amounts due.

10. Tiongson v. TOPIC: Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after Whether the In the case at bar, the trial court dismissed
National Housing answer, Rule 11 counterclaim should NHA’s complaint for expropriation upon
Authority be dismissed-YES. determination that its acquisition is not for
TICKLER: NHA tagal magbayad public purpose. Along with the dismissal of the
complaint, the trial court also dismissed the
FACTS: counterclaim for actual, moral, and exemplary
On April 3, 1987, respondent National Housing damages and attorney’s fees.
Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for eminent
domain with the RTC of Manila against petitioners A counterclaim presupposes the existence
who are owners of several lots located in Tondo, of a claim against the party filing the
Manila. Instead of an answer, petitioners filed counterclaim. Hence, where there is no
motions to dismiss with prayer for actual, moral claim against the counterclaimant, the
and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. counterclaim is improper and it must be
dismissed. More so where the complaint is
On March 11, 1988, NHA depicted the amount of dismissed at the instance of the
P21 Million with the PNB as provisional just counterclaimant. In other words, if the
compensation for the subject lots. The RTC then dismissal of the main action results in the
dismissed the complaint and the counterclaims of dismissal of the counterclaim already filed,
the defendants were also dismissed. The CA it stands to reason that the filing of a
affirmed the decision of the lower court. motion to dismiss the complaint is an

implied waiver of the compulsory

NHA then filed a motion for leave of court to counterclaim because the grant of the
withdraw deposit but failed to specify a hearing motion ultimately results in the dismissal
date, then filed a second motion for leave to of the counterclaim.
withdraw deposit which set the hearing on
November 10, 2000. The aforementioned doctrine is in consonance
with the primary objective of a counterclaim
On appeal, the CA held that the dismissal of which is to avoid and prevent circuity of action
petitioners’ counterclaim barred them from by allowing the entire controversy between the
presenting evidence to prove damages. It ruled parties to be litigated and finally determined in
that the trial court’s assessment that they suffered one action, wherever this can be done with
damages is conjectural and inconsistent with the justice to all parties concerned.
dismissal of the counterclaim.
The court dismissed petitioners’ counterclaim
without reservation as to their claim for
damages. Petitioners did not adduce evidence
as to the extent of damage caused by NHA.
NHA appealed the dismissal of the complaint
while petitioners opted not to appeal the
dismissal of their counterclaim. The dismissal
of the complaint for expropriation became final
and executory on July 26, 1993. Plainly, the
same is already beyond review.

11. Alday v. FGU TICKLER: Permissive Counterclaim vs. ISSUE: What is the HELD: It must be qualified.
Insurance Corp. Compulsory Counterclaim nature of Alday’s
counterclaim – For commissions, bonuses, and
FACTS: FGU Insurance filed a complaint alleging compulsory or accumulated premium reserves,
that Evangeline Alday owed it P114,650.76 permissive? petitioner's counterclaim is merely
representing unliquidated cash advances, permissive. The evidence required to prove
unremitted costs of her work as an insurance petitioner's claims differs from that needed to
agent for respondent. establish respondent's demands for the
recovery of cash accountabilities from
By way of counterclaim, Alday asserted her right petitioner, such as cash advances and costs
for the payment of P104,893.45 representing of premiums. The recovery of respondent's
direct commissions, profit commissions, claims is not contingent or dependent upon
contingent bonuses, and accumulated premium. establishing petitioner's counterclaim, such
In addition, petitioner prayed for attorney's fees, that conducting separate trials will not result in
litigation expenses, moral damages and the substantial duplication of the time and

exemplary damages for the allegedly unfounded effort of the court and the parties. This
action filed by respondent. conclusion is further reinforced by petitioner's
own admissions since she declared in her
FGU Insurance filed a motion to dismiss answer that respondent's cause of action,
petitioner’s counterclaim, contending that the trial unlike her own, was not based upon the
court never acquired jurisdiction over the same Special Agent's Contract.
because of the non-payment of docket fees by
petitioner. However, petitioner's claims for damages,
allegedly suffered as a result of the filing
In response, petitioner asked the trial court to by respondent of its complaint, are
declare her counterclaim as exempt from payment compulsory. There is no need for petitioner
of docket fees since it is compulsory, and that to pay docket fees for her compulsory
respondent be declared in default for having failed counterclaim. On the other hand, in order for
to answer such counterclaim. the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over her
permissive counterclaim, petitioner is bound to
RTC: granted respondent’s motion to dismiss. pay the prescribed docket fees.
Found petitioner's counterclaim to be merely
permissive in nature and held that petitioner's Petitioner asserts that the trial court should
failure to pay docket fees prevented the court from have declared respondent in default for having
acquiring jurisdiction over the same. failed to answer her counterclaim. Insofar as
the permissive counterclaim of petitioner is
CA: sustained RTC’s decision. concerned, there is obviously no need to file
an answer until petitioner has paid the
prescribed docket fees for only then shall the
court acquire jurisdiction over such claim.
Meanwhile, the compulsory counterclaim of
petitioner for damages based on the filing by
respondent of an allegedly unfounded and
malicious suit need not be answered since it is
inseparable from the claims of respondent. If
respondent were to answer the compulsory
counterclaim of petitioner, it would merely
result in the former pleading the same facts
raised in its complaint.

12. Caprio v. Rural TOPIC: Omitted counterclaim/crossclaim, Rule 11, W/N the No, counterclaim does not require a
Bank of Sto. Sec. 10 counterclaim certification against forum shopping.
Tomas Batangas, requires a

Inc. TICKLER: Initiatory Pleading vs. Responsive certification against Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Pleading–Nangutang sina Carpio secured by forum shopping. Procedure provides that: "The plaintiff or
REM and di nakabayad so finoreclose ng RBST principal party shall certify under oath in the
and then foreclosure sale. Sabi nina Carpio di raw complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting
sila ininform pero sabi ni RBST ininform naman a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
daw. Wala na maisip na dahilan sina Carpio so annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
sabi nila wala daw certification against forum therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
shopping yung counterclaim nila. Sabi ng SC ay commenced any action or filed any claim
need lang ng certification sa initiatory pleading. In involving the same issues in any court,
this case, responsive pleading naman ito so di na tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
need ng certification against forum shopping. best of his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such
FACTS: Petitioners Spouses Rodolfo Carpio and other pending action or claim, a complete
Remedios Orendain, filed with the RTC, a statement of the present status thereof; and
Complaint for annulment of foreclosure sale and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same
damages against the Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas, or similar action or claim has been filed or is
Batangas, Inc., and Jaime Ozaeta, clerk of court pending, he shall report that fact within five (5)
and ex-officio sheriff of the same court. days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
In their Complaint, petitioners alleged that they are been filed."
the absolute owners of a parcel of land located at
Barangay San Vicente, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. This means that the required certification
They obtained a loan from respondent bank in is intended to cover an initiatory pleading –
the amount of P515,000.00, payable on meaning an incipient application of a party
January 27, 1996 secured by a real estate asserting a claim for relief. The rationale of
mortgage over the same property in favor of this provision is to curb the malpractice of
respondent bank. forum shopping - “an act of a party against
whom an adverse judgment has been
Respondent bank filed a Petition for rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly
Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage getting a favorable opinion in another forum,
without prior demand or notice to petitioners. other than by appeal or the special civil action
Sheriff Jaime Ozaeta conducted a public of certiorari, or the institution of two or more
auction sale of the mortgaged property. actions or proceedings grounded on the same
Respondent bank was the only bidder. cause on the supposition that one or the other
court would make a favorable disposition."
Petitioners alleged that the sale was conducted
without proper publication as the sheriff’s In the case, the Bank’s Answer with
notice of sale was published in a newspaper Counterclaim is a responsive pleading,
which is not of general circulation. On the filed to counter petitioner’s complaint that

same day the property was sold, the sheriff issued initiates the civil action. The provision
a certificate of sale in favor of respondent bank. does not contemplate a defendant’s claim
The respondent bank executed an affidavit of for relief that is derived from the main
consolidation of ownership over petitioners’ action or complaint. In fact, upon failure by
property. They claimed that they were not the plaintiff to comply with such requirement,
notified of the foreclosure sale and were not Section 5, quoted above, directs the
given an opportunity to redeem their property. "dismissal of the case without prejudice," not
the dismissal of respondent’s counterclaim.
Respondent bank filed its Answer denying
specifically the material allegations of the
complaint. It alleged that:
● Oral and written demands were made
upon petitioners to pay their loan but they
ignored the same;
● They were properly notified of the filing of
the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of
the mortgage;
● There was proper publication and notices
of the scheduled sale through public
auction; and
● Petitioners were actually given more than
two (2) years to redeem the property but
they failed
to do so.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the

counterclaim on the ground that respondent
bank’s counterclaim was not accompanied by
a certification against forum shopping.

Respondent bank filed an opposition to the

motion, contending that its counterclaim, which is
compulsory in nature, is not a complaint or
initiatory pleading that requires a certification
against forum shopping. The RTC issued an
Order denying the motion to dismiss the
counterclaim for lack of merit. Ca affirmed.

13. Sy-Vargas v. TOPIC: Omitted counterclaim/crossclaim,Rule 11, Whether the CA Respondents’ counterclaim is permissive in
Estate of Osgos Sec. 10 correctly ruled that nature because: (a) the issue in the main
respondents’ case, i.e., whether or not respondents are
TICKLER: Nirent ni Osgos Sr yung lupa ng heirs counterclaim for liable to pay lease rentals, is entirely
NOTES: ni Fermina. Nagfile ng counterclaim respondents damages is different from the issue in the
A compulsory tas sabi ng petitioners permissive raw yon di pa compulsory and not counterclaim, i.e., whether or not petitioner
counterclaim is din bayad daw docket fees yung respondent dapat permissive in nature, and Kathryn are liable for damages for taking
one which, being idismiss raw yung counterclaim. and thus, no over the possession of the leased premises
cognizable by the payment of docket and harvesting and appropriating respondents'
regular courts of FACTS: fees is required - crops planted therein; (b) since petitioner and
justice, arises out ● Osgos Sr. leased the agricultural land NO. respondents' respective causes of action
of or is connected owned by the heirs of Fermina Pepico. arose from completely different
with the transaction Petitioner Elizabeth and Kathryn, who are occurrences, the latter would not be barred
or occurrence among the heirs of Fermina, filed a by res judicata had they opted to litigate its
constituting the complaint for specific performance and counterclaim in a separate proceeding; (c) the
subject matter of damages against respondents claiming evidence required to prove petitioner's
the opposing that the lease rentals for a two-crop year claim that respondents failed to pay lease
party’s claim and period were not paid. rentals is likewise different from the
does not require ● In their answer, respondents alleged that evidence required to prove respondents'
for its adjudication they had faithfully complied with their counterclaim that petitioner and Kathryn are
the presence of obligations as stated in the lease contract. liable for damages for performing acts in bad
third parties of They also claimed that petitioner faith; and (d) the recovery of petitioner's
whom the court unlawfully took possession of the leased claim is not contingent or dependent upon
cannot acquire premises and appropriated for themselves proof of respondents' counterclaim, such
jurisdiction. A the sugarcane ready for harvest under the that conducting separate trials will not result in
compulsory pretext that they would apply the the substantial duplication of the time and
counterclaim is proceeds thereof to the unpaid rent. effort of the court and the parties.
barred if not set up ● Respondents also averred that they lost
in the same action. profits when petitioner took possession of Since the counterclaim is permissive, and not
the leased premises. Accordingly the compulsory as held by the courts a quo,
A counterclaim is respondents filed a counterclaim for the respondents are required to pay docket fees.
permissive if it lost profits plus damages. The case filed However, it must be clarified that respondents'
does not arise out by petitioner was dismissed and now failure to pay the required docket fees, per se,
of or is not respondents moved for the hearing of should not necessarily lead to the dismissal of
necessarily their counterclaim, petitioner filed a their counterclaim. It has long been settled
connected with the motion to dismiss respondents’ that while the court acquires jurisdiction over
subject matter of counterclaim, arguing that the same were any case only upon the payment of the
the opposing permissive and that the respondents had prescribed docket fees, its non-payment at the
party’s claim. It is not paid the appropriate docket fees. time of filing of the initiatory pleading does not

essentially an ● The RTC denied said motion and automatically cause its dismissal provided
independent claim declared respondents’ counterclaim as that: (a) the fees are paid within a reasonable
that may be filed compulsory; thus, holding that the period; and (b) there was no intention on the
separately in payment of the required docket fees was part of the claimant to defraud the
another case. no longer necessary. The RTC granted government.
respondents’ counterclaim and ordered
petitioner to pay respondents.

14. Casent Realty DOCTRINE: Rule 8, Section 8 specifically applies Whether or not YES, respondent’s failure to file a Reply and
Development Corp. to actions or defenses founded upon a written respondent’s failure deny the Dacion and Confirmation Statement
v. Philbanking instrument and provides the manner of denying it. to file a Reply and under oath constitute a judicial admission of
Corporation It is more controlling than Rule 6, Section 10 deny the Dacion and the genuineness and due execution of these
which merely provides the effect of failure to file a Confirmation documents.
Reply. Thus, where the defense in the Answer is Statement under
based on an actionable document, a Reply oath constitute a Rule 8, Section 8 specifically applies to
specifically denying it under oath must be made; judicial admission of actions or defenses founded upon a written
otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the genuineness instrument and provides the manner of
the document will be deemed admitted and due execution denying it. It is more controlling than Rule 6,
of these documents. Section 10 which merely provides the effect of
FACTS: failure to file a Reply. Thus, where the defense
in the Answer is based on an actionable
In 1984, petitioner Casent Realty Development document, a Reply specifically denying it
Corporation executed two promissory notes in under oath must be made; otherwise, the
favor of Rare Realty Corporation (Rare Realty) genuineness and due execution of the
involving the amounts of P 300,000.00 and document will be deemed admitted.
P681,500.00. On 8 August 1986, these
promissory notes were assigned to respondent Since respondent failed to deny the
Philbanking through a Deed of Assignment. genuineness and due execution of the Dacion
and Confirmation Statement under oath, then
Petitioner failed to pay the promissory notes these are deemed admitted and must be
despite demands. Thus, respondent filed a considered by the court in resolving the
complaint for the collection of sum of money. demurrer to evidence. We held in Philippine
Petitioner raised the defense of extinguishment of American General Insurance Co., Inc. v.
obligation, stating that on 27 August 1986, the Sweet Lines, Inc. that “[w]hen the due
parties executed a Dacion en Pago which execution and genuineness of an instrument
conveyed petitioner’s property to respondent with are deemed admitted because of the adverse
the intention of extinguishing petitioner’s party’s failure to make a specific verified
outstanding accounts with the respondent. denial thereof, the instrument need not be
Petitioner presented a Confirmation Statement presented formally in evidence for it may be

stating that petitioner no longer had loans with the considered an admitted fact.”
respondent.
Therefore, respondent’s failure to file a Reply
Respondent presented its evidence and formally and deny the Dacion and Confirmation
offered its exhibits. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Statement under oath constitute a judicial
Motion for Judgment on Demurrer to Evidence, admission of its genuineness and due
pointing out that respondent’s failure to file a execution.
Reply to the Answer which raised the Dacion and
Confirmation Statement constituted an admission NOTES:
of the genuineness and due execution of said
documents, and that since the Dacion obliterated Petitioner remains liable on the promissory
petitioner’s obligation, respondent no longer had notes.
the right to collect from petitioner. Respondent, on
the other hand, filed an Opposition stating that Nevertheless, petitioner remains liable to
since it did not file a Reply, all new matters alleged respondent. In this case, the Dacion and
in the Answer are deemed controverted, pursuant Confirmation Statement do not sufficiently
to Rule 6, Section 10 of the Rules of Court. prove that petitioner’s liability was
Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the extinguished. In executing the Dacion¸ the
complaint on the ground of extinction of obligation intention of the parties was to settle only the
by Dacion en Pago. The Court of Appeals loans of petitioner with respondent, not the
reversed, ruling that in resolving petitioner’s obligation of petitioner arising from the
Demurrer, the trial court erred in considering the promissory notes that were assigned by Rare
affirmative defenses raised in the Answer Realty to respondent. When petitioner and
respondent executed the Dacion on 27 August
1986, what was then covered was petitioner’s
subsequent loan from the respondent in the
amount of P3,921,750.00. It must be noted
that the promissory notes subject of the case
were given as security for the loan granted by
respondent to Rare Realty. Through the Deed
of Assignment, respondent stepped into the
shoes of Rare Realty as petitioner’s creditor.
Thus, in 1989, when Rare Realty defaulted in
its payment to respondent, respondent
proceeded against the security assigned to it,
that is, the promissory notes issued by the
petitioner. Under these promissory notes,
petitioner is still liable for the amount of
P300,000.00 with interest thereon.

On Motion to Dismiss based on Demurrer

to Evidence:

What should be resolved in a motion to

dismiss based on a demurrer to evidence is
whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
based on the facts and the law. The evidence
contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that
which pertains to the merits of the case,
excluding technical aspects such as capacity
to sue. However, the plaintiff’s evidence
should not be the only basis in resolving a
demurrer to evidence. The "facts" referred to
should include all the means sanctioned by
the Rules of Court in ascertaining matters in
judicial proceedings. These include judicial
admissions, matters of judicial notice,
stipulations made during the pre-trial and trial,
admissions, and presumptions, the only
exclusion being the defendant’s evidence.

15. Bangko Sentral DOCTRINE: While the Court has excused strict Whether there was HELD: No, there is no substantial compliance
ng Pilipinas v. BF compliance in the past, it did so only on sufficient substantial by respondents as regards the requirements
Homes, Inc. and justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal compliance by of verification and certification against forum
approach while avoiding the effective negation of respondents as shopping.
the intent of the rule on non-forum shopping. In regards the
other words, the rule for the submission of a requirements of Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Court
certificate of non-forum shopping, proper in form verification and provides the requirement of verification, while
and substance, remains to be a strict and certification against Section 5 of the same Rule provides the
mandatory rule; any liberal application has to be forum shopping? requirement of certification against forum
justified by ample and sufficient reasons that shopping. As a general rule, a pleading need
maintain the integrity of, and do not detract from, not be verified, unless there is a law or rule
the mandatory character of the rule. specifically requiring the same. Since the
Petition before the RTC prays that a writ of
prohibition be issued commanding the Clerk of
FACTS: BF Homes, Incorporated (BF Homes) Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC of Las
filed a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition Piñas to desist from conducting further
against BSP, Banco Filipino Savings and proceedings in the foreclosure case, the

Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino), the Philippine Petition, as provided under Rule 65, is
Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Ex-Officio required to be verified. That said, the
Sheriff of RTC Las Piñas. The Petition alleged that requirement regarding verification of a
Tierra Grande Farms, Inc. (Tierra Grande) pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such
obtained several loans from Banco Filipino and to requirement is simply a condition affecting the
secure the loan, Tierra Grande executed a Deed form of pleading, the non-compliance of which
of Mortgage over BF Homes' properties by virtue does not necessarily render the pleading
of a SPA issued by BF Homes in favor of Tierra fatally defective. Verification is simply intended
Grande; that Banco Filipino, through its Board of to secure an assurance that the allegations in
Directors, applied for a Special Liquidity Facility the pleading are true and correct and not the
Loan from BSP and as security thereof, delivered product of the imagination or a matter of
to BSP the alleged Deed of Assignment of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in
Mortgage of its Credits over a Negotiable good faith. The court may order the correction
Promissory Note and their corresponding of the pleading if the verification is lacking or
mortgages on real properties, including the act on the pleading although it is not verified, if
properties in the name of BF Homes mortgaged the attending circumstances are such that
by Tierra Grande to Banco Filipino; and BF strict compliance with the rules may be
Homes found out that BSP applied for extrajudicial dispensed with in order that the ends of justice
foreclosure and sale of real estate mortgage may thereby be served.
(REM) of its real properties mortgaged by Tierra
Grande to Banco Filipino. On the other hand, the lack of certification
against forum shopping is generally not
BF Homes prayed that the RTC make a curable by the submission thereof after the
declaration of its rights and duties under the Deed filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the
of Assignment of Mortgage between Banco Rules of Court provides that the failure of the
Filipino and BSP and whether the property in the petitioner to submit the required documents
name of BF Homes mortgaged by Tierra Grande that should accompany the petition, including
to Banco Filipino can be mortgaged by the latter to the certification against forum shopping, shall
BSP. be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The same rule applies to certifications against
BSP filed a motion to dismiss ad cautelam, forum shopping signed by a person on behalf
alleging that BF Homes had not authorized the of a corporation which are unaccompanied by
filing of the Petition, it was not verified and it did proof that said signatory is authorized to file a
not contain the requisite certification against forum petition on behalf of the corporation. Hence,
shopping. BSP maintained that Luwalhati Cruz - even if the Court excuses the non-compliance
the person authorized to institute the Petition does as regards the requirement of verification, the
not have the authority because the Secretary's issue of whether the certification against forum
Certificate attached to the Petition states that Cruz shopping is defective remains.
is authorized "to represent the corporation. Said

Secretary's Certificate was signed by an Atty. In the present case, it is undisputed that BF
Mendoza, identified as the associate corporate Homes is a corporation. A corporation has no
secretary. BF Homes averred that the mention of power, except those expressly conferred on it
BF Town Corporation in the secretary’s certificate by the Corporation Code and those that are
is a mere typographical error that should not be implied or incidental to its existence. A
interpreted to mean that the corporation did not corporation exercises said powers through its
authorize the filing of the Petition. board of directors and/or its duly-authorized
officers and agents. Thus, it has been
RTC ordered the dismissal of the case for lack of observed that the power of a corporation to
authority to file the Petition. BF Homes filed a sue and be sued in any court is lodged with
Motion for Reconsideration (MR)/Motion with the board of directors that exercises its
Leave of Court to Amend Petition/Motion to Admit corporate powers. In sum, physical acts of the
Amended Petition. BF Homes submitted that such corporation, like the signing of documents, can
typographical error was an excusable negligence. be performed only by natural persons duly
RTC denied the MR. Aggrieved, BF Homes filed authorized for the purpose by corporate
an appeal with the CA. by-laws or by a specific act of the board of
directors. It necessarily follows that "an
The CA reversed and set aside the Orders of the individual corporate officer cannot solely
RTC. It held that BF Homes substantially complied exercise any corporate power pertaining to the
with the requirements of verification and corporation without authority from the board of
certification against forum shopping when it directors." Hence, an officer or representative
attached in its Amended Petition the revised of the corporation can only validly sign the
Secretary's Certificate which now refers to BF certification against forum shopping if he or
Homes instead of BF Town Corporation. she is authorized by the board of directors
through a board resolution or secretary's
certificate. A scrutiny of the 2013 GIS of BF
Homes reveals that Atty. Mendoza is neither
the corporate secretary nor associate
corporate secretary of BF Homes. Instead,
Atty. Mendoza is the President/Chairman of
BF Homes while Atty. Jose Luis V. Agcaoili
and Atty. Ferdinand Raymund J. Navarro are
the corporate secretary and associate
corporate secretary, respectively. Meanwhile,
the 2013 GIS of BF Town Corporation shows
that Atty. Mendoza is its corporate secretary.
Therefore, it is obvious that Atty. Mendoza
was the corporate secretary of BF Town
Corporation and not BF Homes. In other

words, what had occurred was not a mere

typographical error as BF Homes would want
the Court to believe, but really the result of
careless and reckless behavior resulting in the
attaching of the wrong secretary's certificate to
the Petition. The secretary's certificate must
have been really intended for the case BF
Town Corporation v. Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas and was erroneously appended to
the present Petition.

While the Court has excused strict compliance

in the past, it did so only on sufficient and
justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal
approach while avoiding the effective negation
of the intent of the rule on non-forum
shopping. In other words, the rule for the
submission of a certificate of non-forum
shopping, proper in form and substance,
remains to be a strict and mandatory rule; any
liberal application has to be justified by ample
and sufficient reasons that maintain the
integrity of, and do not detract from, the
mandatory character of the rule.

16. Jorgenetics TOPIC: Rule 7 Parts and Contents of a Pleading - WON petitioner Jurisprudence provides that certain officials
Swine Verification Jogenetics failed to or employees of a corporation can sign the
Improvement Corp. comply with the verification and certification on its behalf
v. Thick & Think TICKLER: Hog livestock mortgaged by rules on verification. without need of a board resolution, such
Agri-Products, Inc. Jorgenetics. Kinuha ng TTAI upon failure of - NO. as but not limited to the chairperson of the
(TTAI) Jorgenetics to pay… Chairperson and president of board of directors, the president of a
a corporation may sign the verification and corporation, the general manager or acting
certification without need of board resolution. general manager, personnel officer, and an
employment specialist in a labor case.
FACTS: Moreover, the "lack of authority of a
Respondent TTAI alleged in its complaint that it corporate officer to undertake an action on
entered into an agreement with petitioner behalf of the corporation may be cured by
Jorgenetics where TTAI would supply, on credit, ratification through the subsequent
feeds and other supplies necessary for issuance of a board resolution,

Jorgenetics' hog raising business. As security for recognizing the validity of the action or the
payment of their obligation, Jorgenetics executed authority of the concerned officer."
a chattel mortgage over its hog livestock
inventories in favor of TTAI. TTAI delivered feeds In this case, Mr. Jorge, as the chairperson
and supplies pursuant to the agreement. However, and president of the petitioner, is
Jorgenetics failed to pay for the same despite sufficiently authorized to sign the
demand. Thus, TTAI contends that, as mortgagee, verification and certification on behalf of
it was entitled to take immediate possession of the Jorgenetics. Any doubt on his authority to
livestock subject of the mortgage, which was sign the verification and certification is likewise
wrongfully withheld by Jorgenetics to avoid obviated by the secretary's certificate it
compliance of its obligation. The complaint was submitted upon the orders of this Court, which
raffled to the RTC of QC, Branch 92. The next ratified Mr. Jorge's authority to represent
day, the trial court issued a writ of replevin and petitioner and file the Petition in G.R. No.
required Jorgenetics to post a bond in the amount 201044.
of Php40,000,000.00.
The purpose of a verification in the petition is
Jorgenetics moved to dismiss the complaint for to secure an assurance that the allegations of
replevin on the ground of invalid service of a pleading are true and correct, are not
summons, since service was made on its farm in speculative or merely imagined, and have
Rizal instead of its place of business in QC, and in been made in good faith. To achieve this
view of the lack of justification from the sheriff for purpose, the verification of a pleading is made
availing of substituted service to the person of through an affidavit or sworn statement,
Almirol. In its motion to dismiss, Jorgenetics confirming that the affiant has read the
likewise prayed for the quashal of the writ of pleading whose allegations are true and
replevin and for the replevin bond to be made correct of the affiant's personal knowledge or
wholly answerable for the damages it allegedly based on authentic records.
suffered… The trial court directed the dismissal of
the complaint for replevin for failure to acquire In connection thereto, a variance in the date of
jurisdiction over the person of Jorgenetics by the verification with the date of the petition is
reason of the invalid service of summons. TTAI not necessarily fatal to Jorgenetics' case since
moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the the variance does not necessarily lead to the
trial court. conclusion that no verification was made, or
that the verification was false. It does not
Jorgenetics then filed a Motion for the Issuance of necessarily contradict the categorical
a Writ of Execution with Application for Damages declaration made by Jorgenetics in its affidavit
against the replevin bond, alleging that it incurred that its representatives read and understood
damages on account of the alleged wrongful the contents of the pleading.
seizure of the hogs. The trial court set the hearing
on the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of To demand the litigants to read the very same

Execution with Application for Damages. document that is to be filed in court is too
rigorous a requirement.
Aggrieved, TTAI filed a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 against Jorgenetics and Judge The Rules require for a party to read the
Balut in his capacity as presiding judge of Branch contents of a pleading without any specific
75. TTAI faulted the trial court for taking requirement on the form or manner in which
cognizance of the Motion for the Issuance of a the reading is to be done. What is important is
Writ of Execution with Application for Damages that efforts were made to satisfy the objective
and continuing to conduct trial on the merits in the of the Rule, that is, to ensure good faith and
guise of execution proceedings despite the veracity in the allegations of a pleading,
dismissal of the case. TTAI prayed for the thereby allowing the courts to act on the case
annulment of the Feb 4, 2010 and May 6, 2010 with reasonable certainty that the petitioners'
Orders of the trial court, which dismissed the real positions have been pleaded.
complaint for replevin, in view of Jorgenetics'
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial
court.

While CA G.R. SP No. 114682 was pending

before the appellate court, proceedings before the
trial court continued. TTAI filed a petition for
extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage
covering the hogs. After winning the bid at public
auction, a certificate of sale of the hogs subject of
the chattel mortgage was issued in TTAI's favor.

The trial court opined that the Feb 4, 2010 order

dismissing the complaint for replevin became final
and executory in view of TTAI's failure to appeal,
and that the application for damages was corollary
to the motion to issue writ of execution under Sec
6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

TTAI moved for reconsideration of the Oct 6, 2010

Order and the voluntary inhibition of Judge Balut
but was denied. TTAI then moved to quash the
writ of execution and alleged that it was already
the rightful owner of the property subject of the
writ of replevin as the winning bidder in the
foreclosure sale for the hogs subject of the chattel

mortgage, as evidenced by the Certificate of Sale.

In turn, Jorgenetics filed an urgent ex-parte Motion
for deposit of the auction proceeds with the court.
Judge Balut granted the latter motion on the basis
of the final and executory nature of the Feb 4,
2010 Order. He also ordered the deposit of the
proceeds of the sale of the hogs with the Office of
the Clerk of Court and set the hearing date for the
reception of evidence in support of Jorgenetics'
application for damages. TTAI moved for
reconsideration of the said Order.

The appellate court issued the Decision in

CA-G.R. SP No. 114682 now G.R. No. 201044,
nullifying the order of dismissal and reinstating
TTAI's complaint for replevin. It noted that
Jorgenetics voluntarily submitted itself to the
jurisdiction of the trial court in filing the application
for damages against the bond and motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution without objecting to
the trial court's jurisdiction.

Jorgenetics moved for reconsideration, which was

denied. It then filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari before the SC. TTAI now contends
that Mr. Romeo J. Jorge, the chairperson and
president of petitioner, had no authority to file
the Petition in G.R. No. 201044 on behalf of
Jorgenetics at the time of the filing thereof,
and that the belated submission of the Board
Resolution indicating Mr. Jorge's authority and
ratifying the filing of the Petition will not cure
the defect.

TTAI also alleged that the Petition in G.R. No.

222691 should be dismissed outright, since
the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping was signed by Mr. Jorge and
notarized a day prior to the date of the

Petition.

17. Victory Liner, TOPIC: Rule 7 Parts and Contents of a Pleading – W/N CA erred in Yes, the CA erred in dismissing the petition
Inc. v. Malinias Verification dismissing outright outright on the ground that petitioner failed to
the petition for comply with the requisites of verification.
TICKLER: Collision ng Victory Liner and Isuzu annulment of
Truck, di nag submit verification, di naman daw judgment on the The requirement regarding verification of a
nagiging fatally detective kung di nag submit ground that pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such
verification sabi ng SC kasi formal siya , not petitioner failed to requirement is simply a condition affecting
juriosdictional comply with the the form of pleading, the non-compliance
requirements for of which does not necessarily render the
FACTS: verification. –YES pleading fatally defective. Verification is
A collision occurred in La Union between Victory simply intended to secure an assurance
Liner and an Isuzu Truck owned by a certain that the allegations in the pleading are true
Malinias. While nobody died, both vehicles would and correct and not the product of the
be damaged. A complaint for damages would be imagination or a matter of speculation, and
filed by Malinias against Victory Liner and its that the pleading is filed in good faith. The
driver, Bulaong, alleging pecuniary damage to the court may order the correction of the
truck in the amount of P47,180.00, representing pleading if verification is lacking or act on
lost income for the non-use of the truck as it the pleading although it is not verified, if
underwent repairs in the amount of P15,000.00. the attending circumstances are such that
The case would be filed before the MTC of strict compliance with the rules may be
Benguet. dispensed with in order that the ends of
justice may thereby be served."
During the trial, a hearing would be scheduled on [Valdecantos v. People, supra; citing Uy v.
27 October 1997 but the bus company did not Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303,
appear. Respondent Malinias moved that 312 (2000)]
petitioner should be declared to have waived its
right to adduce evidence in its favor. The MTC The Supreme Court stated that petitioner
granted the aforementioned motion and deemed validly authorized its counsel to file the appeal.
the case submitted. A judgment would be The Supreme Court did not agree with the
rendered in favor of Malinias, awarding him the ruling of the CA that the counsel was merely
sum of 82,180 pesos. constrained to file the appeal because the
initial certificate of authority that was granted
Through its new counsel, petitioner filed a Motion to petitioner’s station manager was misplaced.
for Reconsideration. The Notice of Hearing therein The Supreme Court stated that it failed to
stated: "Please submit the foregoing Motion for understand the significance attached by the
Reconsideration for hearing before the Honorable Court of Appeals on the prior authority of the

Court at a schedule and time convenient to this Baguio station manager to perform the same
Honorable Court and the parties." acts.

The MTC ruled in an Order dated 23 February The fact that the previous authority may have
1998 that the notice did not conform with the been misplaced or lost, thus causing petitioner
mandatory requirements of Section 5, Rule 15 of to authorize a new person to file the
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the necessary pleadings or petitions in the case
motion was thus a mere scrap of paper which did involving the respondent, is of no
not suspend the period to appeal. The MTC’s consequence if the new authority is issued
decision then became final and executory. before the filing of the pleading that requires
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a motion of verification or certification against
inhibition against the judge who rendered the forum-shopping.
decision.
The Supreme Court also stated that it is clear
The new MTC judge, however, still ruled that the from the certificate of authority that the
appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period counsel of the petitioner was indeed
which served to make the MTC decision final and authorized to execute the verification and
executory. While an appeal would be brought to certification requirements. The only failure of
the RTC, the same would be denied. the counsel is that it did not attach the
certificate of authority with the petition;
The petitioner filed on 17 July 2001 with the Court however, it was noted that counsel submitted
of Appeals a "Petition for Certiorari to Annul the certificate a day after the petition.
Judgment" under the aegis of Rule 47 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner imputed grave The fact that the counsel was able to submit
abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC and the the certificate a day after is already substantial
MTC. The petition for annulment of judgment was compliance with the verification requirement.
accompanied by a Verification and Certification
Against Forum Shopping which was signed by Hence, the CA erred in dismissing the petition
counsel for petitioner. outright on this ground.

On that basis, the Court of Appeals dismissed the

petition outright in a Resolution 18 dated 26 July
2001, stressing the rule that it should be the
petitioner, not its counsel, which should
execute the verification and certification
against forum shopping.

While a certificate of authority would subsequently

be presented, the Court of Appeals ruled that

subsequent compliance such as petitioner's

counsel's subsequent submission of her authority
to represent the petitioner, would not excuse
petitioner's failure to comply with the required
certification against forum-shopping in the first
instance. Hence, the present petition.

18. Bangko Sentral TOPIC: Parts and contents of pleading Whether there was There was no substantial compliance by the
ng Pilipinas v. BF verification; Verification substantial respondent regarding the requirements of
Homes, Inc. G.R. compliance by BF certification against forum shopping. Said lack
No. 228239, June
TICKLER: Sabi ni BSP di raw authorized yung Homes - NO. of certification, generally, is not curable by the
10, 2019
inutusan ng BF Homes to file the petition tapos submission thereof after filing the petition.
sabi ng BF Homes “typo lang yon” pero sabi ng Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
court different entities daw ang BF Town sa BF provides that the failure of the petitioner to
Homes submit the required documents that should
accompany the petition, including the
FACTS: certification against forum shopping, shall be
● Respondent filed a petition for declaratory sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The
relief and prohibition against petitioners. It same rule applies to certifications against
prayed that the RTC make a declaration forum shopping signed by a person on behalf
of its rights and duties under the Deed of of a corporation which are unaccompanied by
Assignment of Mortgage between Banco proof that said signatory is authorized to file a
Filipino and BSP and whether the petition on behalf of the corporation. Hence,
property in the name of respondent even if the Court excuses the
mortgaged by Tierra Grande to Banco non-compliance as regards the
Filipino can be mortgaged by the latter to requirement of verification, the issue of
BSP. whether the certification against forum
● Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss ad shopping is defective remains.
cautelam, alleging that respondent had
not authorized the filing of the petition. The verification of a complaint and the
That it was not verified and did not contain attachment of a certificate of non-forum
the requisite certification against forum shopping are requirements that — as pointed
shopping. It maintained that the person out by the Court, time and again — basic,
authorized, Cruz, to institute the petition necessary and mandatory for procedural
does not have the authority because the Orderliness. BF Town Corporation is an

Secretary’s Certificate attached to the entirely different corporation from BF Homes.

petition states that Cruz is authorized to Thus, the Court agrees with the RTC that the
represent the corporation in the case of absence of a valid authorization to sign the
BF Town v BSP et al. verification and certification against forum
● Respondent averred that the mention of shopping would make the Petition of no legal
BF Town in the certificate is a mere effect.
typographical error that should not be
interpreted to mean that the corporation
did not authorize the filing of the petition.

19. Tanyag v. TOPIC: Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court - Whether the Petition YES. Respondent's Property Case is
Tanyag, G.R. No. Rule of Forum Shopping for Declaration of barred by litis pendentia.
231319, November Paraphernal
10, 2019 TICKLER: Nullity of marriage granted, Dolores is Property must be As she committed forum shopping, the
guilty of forum shopping dismissed on the Property Case should be dismissed.
ground of litis
FACTS: pendentia. It has come to this Court's attention that the
On July 31, 1979, Arturo (petitioner) married CA has since resolved to grant the Petitions
Dolores (respondent). Having been married for Certiorari. CA attributed grave abuse of
before the effectivity of the Family Code, their discretion to the trial court in the Nullity Case
property relations were governed by conjugal for denying the Motion to Liquidate, Partition,
partnership of gains. In 2004 Dolores filed a and Distribute and "failing to proceed with the
Petition to declare their marriage null and void due partition and distribution of the parties'
to Arturo's psychological incapacity before the properties in the same action, in contravention
RTC of QC. of Sections 19 (4) and 21 of A.M. No.
02-11-10- SC and the prevailing jurisprudence
During the pendency of the Nullity Case, Dolores on the matter." It remanded the case to the
filed a separate Petition for Declaration of trial court in the Nullity Case for further
Paraphernal Property before the RTC of La proceedings.
Trinidad, Benguet (Property Case). In this
Petition, she prayed that the trial court declare The parties have not informed this Court of
as her exclusive paraphernal property two further developments in the Nullity Case,
parcels of land, and that Arturo be ordered to including whether the RTC of QC has fully
surrender to her the owner's duplicate of the resolved the matter of partition. Depending on
titles. the status of the liquidation, partition, and
distribution in the Nullity Case, the Property
RTC rendered a Decision, declaring the marriage Case will be barred by litis pendentia or res
between Dolores and Arturo null and void. Dolores judicata.

thus moved to liquidate, partition, and distribute

their properties in the Nullity Case. However, her In any event, respondent is guilty of forum
motion was denied. She thus filed a Motion for shopping.
Reconsideration and Arturo joined her by filing a
Manifestation. Both parties elevated the matter to The rule on forum shopping is provided for
the CA. in Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court:

Meanwhile, Arturo filed a Motion for Preliminary Section 5. Certification against forum
Hearing on Affirmative Defenses in the Property shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party
Case, seeking to have the Petition dismissed on shall certify under oath in the complaint or
the ground of primary jurisdiction, litis pendentia, other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
and deliberate forum shopping. RTC and CA relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
denied Arturo's motion. thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a)
that he has not theretofore commenced any
Thus, this Petition for Review. 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.

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. (n)

The Property Case should be dismissed for

litis pendentia if the liquidation, partition,
and distribution are still pending in the
Nullity Case, or for res judicata if the
liquidation, partition, and distribution have
already been finally resolved in the Nullity
Case.

20. Victory Liner, TOPIC: Certification against Forum Shopping ISSUE: RULING:
Inc. v. Malinias, Whether or not the YES, the Supreme Court ruled that the CA’s
G.R. No. 151170, DOCTRINE: CA erred in reasoning in dismissing the petition for
May 29, 2007 dismissing outright annulment of judgment is incorrect. The SC
FACTS: the petition for ruled that the the Certificate of authority
There was a vehicular collision that occurred in La annulment of executed by the Petitioner’s Corporate
Union between Victory Liner and Malinias and a judgment by reason Secretary was authorized by the Board of
complaint for a sum of money and damages was of the failure to directors to prepare and file the petition was
instituted by Malinias. When Malinias finished comply with the executed 7 days before the Petition itself was
presenting his evidence and rested his case, Certification against filed. There is no significance in the reasoning
Victory Liner filed a motion to withdraw as counsel forum shopping. of the CA that there should have been prior
but was denied by the MTC because there was no authority from the Bagui Station first before
signature from Victory Liner. When it was time for performing such actions.
Victory Liner to present evidence there was no
appearance in which the MTC was forced to rule The fact that the previous authority may
on Malinias’ contention and ruled in favor of him. have been misplaced or lost, thus causing
petitioner to authorize a new person to file
An MR was file by Victory Liner’s new counsel but the necessary pleadings or petitions in the
it was denied by the MTC for already being final case involving the respondent, is of no
and executory. Petitioner then filed a petition for consequence if the new authority is issued
relief of judgment from MTC but it was denied. before the filing of the pleading that
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under requires verification or certification against
rule 65 with the RTC but it was dismissed. Thirdly, forum-shopping.|||

the petitioner filed with the CA a petition for

certiorari to annul judgment which was The appellate court cited the rule that
accompanied by a Verification and certification substantial compliance could not cure the
against Forum Shopping but the CA dismissed the defect in the verification or certification
petition because it should be the petitioner and not requirements. Yet the bare fact remains that
its counsel who should execute the verification counsel for petitioner was authorized to
and certification against forum shopping. prepare the petition and to execute the
verification and certification requirements at
Petitioner contended that the MR was prepared by the time the petition was filed with the Court of
their corporate secretary and certified that the Appeals, a fact borne out by the Certificate of
Petitioner’s board of directors authorized the Authority itself. The error consisted in
counsel to file all necessary actions or petitions. petitioner counsel's failure to attach such
However, the CA still denied the MR because they certificate to the petition, but she did submit
observed that the Petitioner’s counsel was said certificate to the Court of Appeals the
constrained to sign the verification and very next day. Petitioner emphasizes that the
certification against forum shopping because the certificate of authority submitted on 18 July
the authority given to him has been misplaced and 2001 was filed "on the 15th day of the 60-day
the one that is really authorized to represent reglementary period to file appeal," perhaps to
Victory Liner is the Operations Manager. stress the point that if the petition itself was
filed on the same day as the certificate of
authority, the petition would have still been
timely. However, petitioner seems to forget
that under Rule 47, its petition for annulment
of judgment based on extrinsic fraud actually
had a term of four (4) years as "reglementary
period." AEDHST
In any event, the observation of the
Court of Appeals that substantial compliance
"will not suffice in the matter involving strict
observance" of the certification requirement
on non-forum shopping contradicts our recent
jurisprudence which holds that "[t]he rule of
substantial compliance may be availed of with
respect to the contents of the certification
[against forum shopping]." While the lack of
certification against forum shopping is
generally not cured by its submission after the
filing of the petition, and the submission of a

certificate against forum shopping is deemed

obligatory, the requirement has been relaxed
under justifiable circumstances under the rule
on substantial compliance. The same
characteristics hold true as to the verification
requirement.
We hold and so rule that the appellate
court's utilization on petitioner's belated
submission of the complete verification and
certification requirements as anchor for the
dismissal of the petition for annulment of
judgment does not merit affirmance.
||

21. Heirs of Gabriel TOPIC: Rule 7-parts and contents of a pleading Whether the CA Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court
v. Cebrero verification erred in its provides that the certification against
decision-NO. forum shopping must be executed by the
TICKLER: Mga tagapagmana ni Gabirel plaintiff or principal party. The reason for
this is that the plaintiff or the principal
FACTS: knows better than anyone, whether a
On January 24, 1991, Segundina Cebrero, petition has previously been filed involving
through her attorney-in-fact Remedios Muyot, the same case or substantially the same
executed a real estate mortgage over the subject issues. If for any reason, the principal
property located in Sampaloc, Manila, registered party cannot sign the petition, the one
under the name of Cebrero’s late husband, Virgilio signing on his behalf must have been duly
as security for the payment of P8 Million pursuant authorized.
to an amicable settlement dated January 11,
1991, entered into by the parties in the case of The complaint filed before the RTC was filed
annulment of revocation of donation. In the said in the name of Gabriel, however, it was Cañiza
settlement, Josefina Gabriel recognized Cebrero’s who executed the verification and certification
absolute ownership of the subject property and of forum shopping, alleging that he was
relinquished all her claims over the property in Gabriel’s attorney-in-fact.
consideration of the payment. It was held that when an SPA was
constituted precisely to authorize the agent
Upon Cebrero’s failute to pay the amount within to file and prosecute suits on behalf of the
the period of extension until December 31, 1991, principal, then it is such agent who has
Gabriel filed in 1993 an action for foreclosure of actual and personal knowledge whether he
the real estate mortgage. The RTC of Manila ruled or she has initiated similar actions or

in Gabriel’s favor and ordered Cebrero to pay the proceedings before various courts on the
P8 Million and interest, or subject the property same issue on the principal's behalf, thus,
shall be sold at public auction in default of satisfying the requirements for a valid
payment. certification against forum shopping. The
rationale behind the rule that it must be the
On November 27, 1996, Eduardo Cañiza allegedly "petitioner or principal party himself" who
in behalf of Gabriel instituted a complaint for should sign such certification does not
declaration of nullity of sale and of the TCT of the apply. Thus, the rule on the certification
subject property registered under Progressive, a against forum shopping has been properly
single proprietorship represented by its President complied with when it is the agent or
and Chairman, respondent Manuel Chua. They attorney-in-fact who initiated the action on
alleged that Gabriel has no legal capacity to sue the principal's behalf and who signed the
as she was bedridden and confined at the MMC certification against forum shopping.
since 1993. The complaint should be dismissed However, there was no duly executed SPA
because Cañiza signed the verification and appended to the complaint to prove
certification of the complaint without proper Cañiza's supposed authority to file and
authority. Gabriel died during the pendency of the prosecute suits on behalf of Gabriel. The
case and her heirs substituted her Court cannot consider the mere mention in
the December 15, 1993 Decision that he
The RTC ruled in favor of Gabriel and held that was Gabriel's attorney-in-fact as evidence
Chua cannot be considered the true and lawful that he was indeed authorized and
owner of the subject property as he was not a empowered to initiate the instant action
purchaser in good faith. The CA reversed and set against respondents. There was also no
aside the decision of the RTC, because there was evidence of substantial compliance with the
no SPA attached to the complaint to substantiate rules or even an attempt to submit an SPA
Cañiza’s authority to sign the complaint and its after filing of the complaint.
verification and certification of non-forum This Court expounded that the complaint
shopping. filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff by one
who is unauthorized to do so is not deemed
filed. An unauthorized complaint does not
produce any legal effect. Hence, the court
should dismiss the complaint on the ground
that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint
and the plaintiff.|

22. Cosco DOCTRINE: ISSUE: RULING:

Philippines Certification against forum shopping must be Is Atty. Lat properly Since Atty. Lat was not properly authorized to
Shipping, Inc. v. signed by the principal parties. If, for any reason, authorized by sign the certification against forum shopping,
Kemper Insurance the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one respondent (of the petition is subject to dismissal.

Co. signing on his behalf must have been duly Kemper Insurance)
authorized. The petition is subject to dismissal if a to sign the Certification against forum shopping must be
certification was submitted unaccompanied by certification against signed by the principal parties. If, for any
proof of the signatory's authority. forum shopping on reason, the principal party cannot sign the
its behalf? - NO. petition, the one signing on his behalf must
The lack of certification against forum shopping is have been duly authorized. With respect to a
generally not curable by mere amendment of the corporation, the certification against forum
complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of shopping may be signed for and on its behalf,
the case without prejudice. by a specifically authorized lawyer who has
personal knowledge of the facts required to be
FACTS: disclosed in such document. A corporation
Respondent Kemper Insurance Company is a has no power, except those expressly
foreign insurance company in Illinois, USA with no conferred on it by the Corporation Code and
license to engage in business in the Philippines; those that are implied or incidental to its
while petitioner Cosco is a domestic shipping existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said
company. Kemper insured the shipment of powers through its board of directors and/or its
imported frozen boneless beef (owned by duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, it
Genosi, Inc.), loaded in Australia, for shipment to has been observed that the power of a
Genosi in the Philippines. However, upon arrival corporation to sue and be sued in any court is
at Manila, a portion of the shipment was rejected lodged with the board of directors that
by Genosi because of spoilage from temperature exercises its corporate powers. In turn,
fluctuations of Cosco’s reefer containers. physical acts of the corporation, like the
signing of documents, can be performed only
Genosi filed a claim against both Cosco and by natural persons duly authorized for the
Kemper. Respondent Kemper Insurance paid the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific
claim of Genosi, Inc. (the insured) in the amount act of the board of directors.
of $64,492.58. Thus, Kemper is subrogated to the
claims of Genosi from Cosco - but the latter failed Only individuals vested with authority by a
and refused to pay the said amount. valid board resolution may sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping on
Respondent filed a Complaint for Insurance Loss behalf of a corporation. We also required
and Damages against petitioner due to the latter’s proof of such authority to be presented.
fault and negligence on the fluctuations in the The petition is subject to dismissal if a
temperature of the reefer container beyond the certification was submitted
required setting which was caused by the unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's
breakdown in the electronics controller assembly. authority.

Petitioner insisted that respondent had no In the present case, since respondent is a
capacity to sue since it was doing business in the corporation, the certification must be executed

Philippines without the required license; that the by an officer or member of the board of
complaint has prescribed and/or is barred by directors or by one who is duly authorized by a
laches; that no timely claim was filed; that the loss resolution of the board of directors; otherwise,
or damage sustained by the shipments, if any, the complaint will have to be dismissed. The
was due to causes beyond the carrier's control lack of certification against forum shopping is
and was due to the inherent nature or insufficient generally not curable by mere amendment of
packing of the shipments and/or fault of the the complaint, but shall be a cause for the
consignee or the hired stevedores or arrastre dismissal of the case without prejudice. The
operator or the fault of persons whose acts or same rule applies to certifications against
omissions cannot be the basis of liability of the forum shopping signed by a person on behalf
carrier; and that the subject shipment was of a corporation which are unaccompanied by
discharged under required temperature and was proof that said signatory is authorized to file
complete, sealed, and in good order condition. the complaint on behalf of the corporation.

During the pre-trial proceedings, respondent's There is no proof that respondent, a private
counsel proffered and marked its exhibits, while corporation, authorized Atty. Lat, through a
petitioner's counsel manifested that he would board resolution, to sign the verification and
mark his client's exhibits on the next scheduled certification against forum shopping on its
pre-trial. However, petitioner filed a Motion to behalf. Accordingly, the certification against
Dismiss, contending that the same was filed forum shopping appended to the complaint is
by one Atty. Rodolfo A. Lat, who failed to show fatally defective, and warrants the dismissal of
his authority to sue and sign the respondent's complaint for Insurance Loss
corresponding certification against forum and Damages against petitioner.
shopping. It argued that Atty. Lat's act of signing
the certification against forum shopping was a NOTES:
clear violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 The circumstances of this case do not
Rules of Court. necessitate the relaxation of the rules. There
was no proof of authority submitted, even
RTC Manila: granted petitioner's Motion to belatedly, to show subsequent compliance
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, with the requirement of the law.
ruling that it is mandatory that the certification
must be executed by the petitioner himself, and If a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the
not by counsel. Since respondent's counsel did plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the
not have a SPA to act on its behalf, hence, the complaint is not deemed filed. An
certification against forum shopping executed by unauthorized complaint does not produce any
said counsel was fatally defective and constituted legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss
a valid cause for dismissal of the complaint. the complaint on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff.
CA: while certificate of non-forum shopping is Accordingly, since Atty. Lat was not duly

mandatory, the facts of the case warranted liberal authorized by respondent to file the complaint
application of the rules. and sign the verification and certification
against forum shopping, the complaint is
considered not filed and ineffectual, and, as a
necessary consequence, is dismissible due to
lack of jurisdiction.

Since the court has no jurisdiction over the

complaint and respondent, petitioner is not
estopped from challenging the trial court's
jurisdiction, even at the pre-trial stage of the
proceedings. This is so because the issue of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost
by waiver or by estoppel.

23. Lara’s Gifts TOPIC: Names of Witnesses, summary of Whether the CA No, the trial court did not gravely abuse its
and Decors, Inc. v. testimonies, judicial affidavits, documentary and erred in disallowing discretion in allowing the questioned
PNB General object evidence the introduction of documents to be presented in court and in
Insurers additional admitting the 2nd supplemental judicial
TICKLER: Hindi agad binigay documents as documentary affidavit of petitioner’s witness.
evidence so bawal na raw exhibits during trial
and the filing of the The JA rule and the guidelines on pre-trial
2nd supplemental do not totally proscribe the submission of
FACTS: Petitioner Lara’s Gifts and Decors, Inc. is judicial affidavit of additional evidence even after trial had
engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, Mrs. Villafuerte. already commenced.
and exporting various handicraft items and
decorative products and leased buildings and The parties are mandated under Section 2 of
warehouses, which served as production and the JA Rule to file and serve the judicial
storage areas of its goods and stocks. affidavits of their witnesses, together with their
documentary or object evidence, not later than
These were insured against fire and other allied 5 days before pre-trial or preliminary
risks with respondent PNB General Insurers Co., conference. The documentary and testimonial
Inc. in the total amount of P582 Million covering evidence submitted will then be specified by
the period of February 19, 2007 to February 18, the trial judge in the pre-trial order.
2008. The insurance policy was in the nature of an Concomitant thereto, Section 10 of the same
“open policy.” rule contains a caveat that the failure to timely
submit the affidavits and documentary
4 years before the policy was about to expire, a evidence shall be deemed to be a waiver of

fire broke out and razed 3 buildings of the their submission.

compound. Petitioner immediately claimed from
the respondents for the loss and damage of its However, it bears to note that Section 10 does
insured properties. not contain a blanket prohibition on the
submission of additional evidence but the
CPLI, an independent adjuster, required petitioner submission of evidence beyond the mandated
to submit supporting documents material for the period in the JA Rule is strictly subject to the
proper determination of the actual amount of loss, conditions that: a) the court may allow the late
but the latter failed to comply with the request. submission of evidence only once; b) the party
ESTEBAN undertook the valuation of the loss, representing the evidence proffers a valid
and similarly found petitioner’s documents reason for the delay; and c) the opposing
insufficient to properly evaluate and assess the party will not be prejudice thereby.
amount of the loss claimed.
Corollary thereto, the Guidelines on Pre-Trial
Petitioner filed a complaint for specific instructs the parties to submit their respective
performance and damages against respondents. pre-trial briefs at least 3 days before the
In its notice of pre-trial conference, the RTC pre-trial, containing the documents or exhibits
directed the parties to submit their briefs, to be presented and to state the purposes
accompanied by the documents or exhibits thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing
intended to be presented, at least 3 days before procedural prescription, the same rule confers
the scheduled PTC. it also contained a stern upon the trial the discretion to allow the
warning that “no evidence shall be allowed to introduction of additional evidence during trial
be presented and offered during the trial in other than those that had been previously
support of a party’s evidence-in-chief other marked and identified during the pre-trial,
than those that had been earlier identified and provided there are valid grounds.
pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if
allowed by the Court for good cause shown.” The trial court precisely exercised this
discretion. It allowed the introduction of the
After the termination of the PTC, the RTC issued a questioned documents during the re-direct
pre-trial order dated September 12, 2013, in which examination of Mr. Villafuerte upon petitioner’s
the parties were given the opportunity to amend or manifestation that the same are being
correct any errors found within five days from presented in response to the questions
receipt thereof. In the same order, all the parties propounded by PNB Gen’s counsel.
made a reservation for the presentation of
additional documentary exhibits in the course The 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of
of trial. Mrs. Villafuerte was properly admitted by
the trial court. Both parties reserved the right
The parties filed their respective motions to to present additional evidence. The foregoing
amend/correct pre-trial order. None of the reservation is tantamount to a waiver of the

parties, however, sought to amend the pre-trial application of Sections 2 and 10 of the JA rule.
order for the purpose of submitting additional
judicial affidavits of witnesses or the
admission of additional documentary exhibits
not presented and pre-marked during the PTC.

During the trial, petitioner’s counsel produced the

questioned documents in open court, seeking to
introduce and mark them as exhibits.
Respondents objected in open court to the
introduction and presentation of the questioned
evidence on the grounds that they were neither
touched upon nor covered by the witness’
cross-examination. They argued that since
these documents were not presented,
identified, marked and even compared with the
originals during the PTC, they should be
excluded pursuant to the guidelines on
pre-trial and JA Rule.

RTC: Overruled the objections of the respondents.

MR was denied for lack of merit and allowed
witness to testify on the contested documentary
exhibits.

CA: Dismissed the appeal, citing that the RTC

had discretion to allow the documents to be
presented.

Hence, this instant petition.

24. Lazaro v. TICKLER: Ultimate Facts vs. Evidentiary Facts ISSUE: Whether HELD: Yes. Contrary to petitioner's stance, we
Brewmaster Int’l Brewmaster find that the Complaint sufficiently states a
Inc., G.R. No. FACTS: Brewmaster International, Inc. filed a International’s cause of action. The following allegations in
182779, 23 August complaint for sum of money against Prescillo complaint sufficiently the complaint adequately make up a cause of
2010 Lazaro and petitioner, Victorina Alice Lazaro with stated a cause of action for collection of sum of money against

the MeTC of Makati City. The complaint alleged action petitioner: (1) that petitioner and her husband
Prescillo and Victorina obtained on credit, beer obtained beer and other products worth a total
and other products in the total amount of of P138,502.92 on credit from respondent;
P138,502.92, evidenced by sales invoices and (2) that they refused to pay the said
photocopies attached therein. Despite repeated amount despite demand.
demands, the two failed and refused to pay their
obligation. As correctly held by the CA, the sales invoices
are not actionable documents. They were not
Prescillo filed an answer with counterclaim, the bases of respondent's action for sum of
denying any knowledge of the obligation sued money but were attached to the Complaint
upon. According to Prescillo, he and Victorina had only to provide details on the alleged
lived separately since January 15, 2002 and he transactions. They were evidentiary in
never authorized petitioner to purchase anything nature and not even necessary to be stated
from respondent. He pointed out that the or cited in the Complaint.
purchaser of the items, as borne out by the sales
invoices attached to the complaint, was Total, At any rate, consideration of the attached
which should have been the one sued by sales invoices would not change our
respondent. Victorina also denied having conclusion. The sales invoices, naming Total
transacted with respondent and averred that the as the purchaser of the goods, do not
documents attached to the complaint showed that absolutely foreclose the probability of
it was Total which purchased goods from petitioner being liable for the amounts
respondent reflected thereon. An invoice is nothing more
than a detailed statement of the nature,
MeTC: dismissed the complaint, ratiocinating that quantity, and cost of the thing sold and has
respondent, as plaintiff, failed to meet the burden been considered not a bill of sale. Had the
of proof required to establish its claim by case proceeded further, respondent could
preponderance of evidence. The court a quo have presented evidence linking these sales
noted that the sales invoices attached to the invoices to petitioner.
complaint showed that the beer and the other
products were sold to Total and were received by The basic requirement under the rules of
a certain Daniel Limuco; they did not indicate, in procedure is that a complaint must make a
any way, that the goods were received by plain, concise, and direct statement of the
petitioner or her husband. ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for
his claim. Ultimate facts mean the important
RTC: found no reversible error in the assailed and substantial facts which either directly
decision. form the basis of the plaintiff's primary
right and duty or directly make up the
CA: reversed the decision. Held that: “xxx The wrongful acts or omissions of the
evidentiary matters and facts are to be required defendant. They refer to the principal,

only upon the termination of the preliminary determinative, constitutive facts upon the
conference and only if further proceedings existence of which the cause of action rests.
become necessary to establish factual issues The term does not refer to details of probative
defined in the order issued by the court.” Thus, the matter or particulars of evidence which
CA ordered petitioner and her husband to pay the establish the material elements.
said amount plus interests.
The test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in a
Petitioner points out that the sales invoices formed complaint to constitute a cause of action is
part of the complaint and should be considered in whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court
determining whether respondent has a cause of could render a valid judgment upon the same
action against her. Consideration of the said sales in accordance with the prayer of the petition or
invoices, she avers, would show that there is no complaint. To determine whether the
contractual relationship between her and complaint states a cause of action, all
respondent; the invoices did not indicate in any documents attached thereto may, in fact, be
way that petitioner was liable for the amount considered, particularly when referred to in the
stated therein. Petitioner argues that the complaint complaint. We emphasize, however, that the
fails to state a cause of action since reference to inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity
the sales invoices attached to and cited in of the material allegations in the complaint.
paragraph six of the Complaint shows that it was Thus, consideration of the annexed
not her who purchased and received the goods documents should only be taken in the context
from respondent. of ascertaining the sufficiency of the
allegations in the complaint.

25. Reyes v. RTC TOPIC: Rule 8 - Manner of Making Allegations in W/N RTC, sitting as No, RTC has no jurisdiction over Rodrigo's
of Makati Pleadings; Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind a special complaint.
commercial court,
TICKLER: Away sa shares ng dalawang has jurisdiction over The Court ruled that whether as an individual
magkapatid – Si Oscar ay diumano ilegal na Rodrigo’s complaint. or as a derivative suit, the RTC – sitting as
kinuha ang shares sa kompanya ng kanilang –NO special commercial court – has no jurisdiction
namayapang ina ni Rodrigo na hindi pa nahahati. to hear Rodrigo’s complaint since what is
Ngunit sabi ng SC ay wala ito sa jurisdiction ng involved is the determination and
RTC dahil hindi raw na-elaborate ang diumanong distribution of successional rights to the
“fraud” at walang factual allegations na nakalagay shareholdings of Anastacia Reyes.
sa complaint na kinakailangan ng batas kapag Rodrigo’s proper remedy, under the
pagdedesisyon tungkol sa corporate schemes. circumstances, is to institute a special
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
FACTS: Oscar and private respondent Rodrigo the deceased Anastacia Reyes, a move that is
are two of the four children of the spouses Pedro not foreclosed by the dismissal of his present

and Anastacia Reyes. Pedro, Anastacia, Oscar, complaint.

and Rodrigo each owned shares of stock of Zenith
Insurance Corporation, a domestic corporation Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case
established by their family. Pedro died in 1964, is conferred by law and is determined by the
while Anastacia died in 1993. Although Pedro’s allegations of the complaint, irrespective of
estate was judicially partitioned among his heirs whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of
sometime in the 1970s, no similar settlement the claims asserted therein. The rule is that a
and partition appear to have been made with complaint must contain a plain, concise, and
Anastacia’s estate, which included her direct statement of the ultimate facts
shareholdings in Zenith. Zenith and Rodrigo filed a constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action and
complaint with the SEC against Oscar. must specify the relief sought.

Oscar denied the charge that he illegally Section 5, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of
acquired the shares of Anastacia Reyes, and Court provides that in all averments of
stated that he purchased the shares with his fraud or mistake, the circumstances
own funds from the unissued stocks of Zenith. constituting fraud or mistake must be
He further questioned the SEC’s jurisdiction stated with particularity. These rules find
because the complaint pertains to the specific application to Section 5(a) of P.D.
settlement of the estate of Anastacia Reyes. No. 902-A which speaks of corporate
devices or schemes that amount to fraud
With the effectivity of R.A. 8799, the SEC’s or misrepresentation detrimental to the
exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases in public and/or to the stockholders.
Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the RTC Allegations of deceit, machination, false
as a special commercial court. Thus, the records pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats
of Rodrigo’s SEC case were turned over to the are largely conclusions of law that, without
RTC Makati. Oscar filed a Motion to Declare supporting statements of the facts to
Complaint as Nuisance or Harassment Suit which the allegations of fraud refer, do not
claiming that the complaint should be sufficiently state an effective cause of
dismissed, and that the complaint is not a action.
bona fide derivative suit as it partakes of the
nature of a petition for the settlement of estate Tested against these standards, the Court
of the deceased Anastacia that is outside the find that the charges of fraud against
jurisdiction of a special commercial court. The Oscar were not properly supported by the
RTC denied the motion. The CA affirmed the RTC required factual allegations. While the
Order and denied the petition. complaint contained allegations of fraud
purportedly committed by him, these
allegations are not particular enough to
bring the controversy within the special
commercial court’s jurisdiction; they are

not statements of ultimate facts, but are

mere conclusions of law: how and why the
alleged appropriation of shares can be
characterized as "illegal and fraudulent"
were not explained nor elaborated on. In
ordinary cases, the failure to specifically allege
the fraudulent acts does not constitute a
ground for dismissal since such defect can be
cured by a bill of particulars.

In cases governed by the Interim Rules of

Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies,
however, a bill of particulars is a prohibited
pleading. It is essential, therefore, for the
complaint to show on its face what are
claimed to be the fraudulent corporate acts if
the complainant wishes to invoke the court’s
special commercial jurisdiction.

Reading the complaint will not show any

specifically alleged corporate fraud that
will call for the exercise of the court’s
special commercial jurisdiction. Thus, the
RTC’s assumption of jurisdiction over
Rodrigo’s complaint on the basis of Section
5(a) of P.D. No. 902-A cannot be affirmed.

26. Momarco DOCTRINE: Whether or not the The appeal lacks merit. Under Section 3, Rule
Import Co., Inc. v. CA gravely erred in 9 of the Rules of Court, the three requirements
Villamena A default judgment is frowned upon because of upholding the to be complied with by the claiming party
Crisologo-Jose v. the policy of the law to hear every litigated case default judgment of before the defending party can be declared in
Land Bank of the on the merits. But the default judgment will not be the RTC; in ordering default are: (1) that the claiming party must file
Phils. vacated unless the defendant satisfactorily its answer stricken a motion praying that the court declare the
explains the failure to file the answer, and shows off the records; in defending party in default; (2) the defending
that it has a meritorious defense. allowing the party must be notified of the motion to declare
respondent to it in default; (3) the claiming party must prove
FACTS: adduce her that the defending party failed to answer the
evidence exparte; complaint within the period provided by the
On September 23, 1997, plaintiff filed against and in rendering the rule. It is plain, therefore, that the default of

defendant a complaint for "Nullification of Deed of default judgment the defending party cannot be declared motu
Sale and of the Title Issued" pursuant thereto based on such proprio.
alleging that she is the owner of a parcel of land evidence.
with improvements located in Caloocan City. A Although the respondent filed her motion to
letter from defendant corporation dated June 12, declare the petitioner in default with notice to
1997, informed plaintiff that TCT No. 204755 over the petitioner only on August 19, 1998, all the
aforesaid property had been cancelled and TCT requisites for properly declaring the latter in
No. C319464 was issued in lieu thereof in favor of default then existed. On October 15, 1998,
defendant corporation on the strength of a therefore, the RTC appropriately directed the
purported Special Power of Attorney executed by answer filed to be stricken from the records
Dominador Villamena, her late husband, and declared the petitioner in default. It also
appointing her, plaintiff Felicidad Villamena. received ex parte the respondent's evidence,
However, the SPA dated May 21, 1997 is a pursuant to the relevant rule.
forgery. Her husband Dominador died on June 22,
1991. The deed of sale in favor of defendant The petitioner's logical remedy was to have
corporation was falsified. moved for the lifting of the declaration of its
default but despite notice it did not do the
On August 19, 1998, plaintiff filed a motion to same before the RTC rendered the default
declare defendant corporation in default for failure judgment on August 23, 1999. Its motion for
of aforesaid defendant to file its answer as of said that purpose should have been under the oath
date despite the filing of an Entry of Appearance of one who had knowledge of the facts, and
by its counsel dated May 4, 1998. On September should show that it had a meritorious defense,
10, 1998 defendant corporation filed its Answer and that its failure to file the answer had been
with Counterclaim which denied the allegations in due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
the complaint. Under the order dated October 15, negligence. Its urgent purpose to move in the
1998, the petitioner was declared in default, and RTC is to avert the rendition of the default
its answer was ordered stricken from the records. judgment. Instead, it was content to insist in its
Thereafter, the RTC allowed the respondent to comment/opposition vis-a-vis the motion to
present her evidence ex parte. declare it in default that: (1) it had already filed
its answer; (2) the order of default was
On August 23, 1999, the RTC rendered the generally frowned upon by the courts; (3)
default judgment nullifying the assailed deed of technicalities should not be resorted to; and
absolute sale and the TCT issued pursuant (4) it had a meritorious defense. It is notable
thereto; and ordering the Register of Deeds of that it tendered no substantiation of what was
Caloocan, City to cancel the petitioner's TCT No. its meritorious defense, and did not specify the
C-319464, and to reinstate the respondent's TCT circumstances of fraud, accident, mistake, or
No. 204755. excusable negligence that prevented the filing
of the answer before the order of default
The petitioner appealed the default judgment to issued - the crucial elements in asking the

the CA. On January 14, 2010, the CA court to consider vacating its own order.
promulgated the assailed decision affirming the
default judgment upon finding that the RTC did not In implementation of the policy against
commit any error in declaring the petitioner in defaults, the courts have admitted answers
default and in rendering judgment in favor of the filed beyond the reglementary periods but
respondent who had successfully established her before the declaration of default. Verily,
claim of forgery by preponderance of evidence. Defendant-Appellant's temerity for delay is
On May 31, 2010, the CA denied the petitioner's also betrayed (sic) by the fact that it had
motion for reconsideration. waited for a judgment to be rendered by the
court a quo before it challenged the order
declaring it in default.

Procedural rules are not to be disregarded as

mere technicalities that may be ignored at will
to suit the convenience of a party. x x x.

The petitioner was insincere in assailing the

default judgment, and its insincerity became
manifest from its failure to move for the lifting
of the order of default prior to the rendition of
the default judgment. The CA rightly observed
that the petitioner had apparently forsaken its
"expeditious remedy" of moving soonest for
the lifting of the order of default in favor of
"wagering" on obtaining a favorable judgment.
The petitioner would not do so unless it
intended to unduly cause delay to the
detriment and prejudice of the respondent.
The RTC’s actions were fully within its
discretion. While the courts should avoid
orders of default, and should be, as a rule,
liberal in setting aside orders of default, they
could not ignore the abuse of procedural rules
by litigants like the petitioner, who only had
themselves to blame.

27. Crisologo-Jose TOPIC: Effect of failure to plead; Rule 11, Section Whether the CA On the procedural angle, petitioner faults the
v. Land Bank of the 11, Extension of Time to File Answer erred in admitting appellate court for relying on and lending
Phils., G.R. No. credence to the allegations and defenses that

167399, June 22, TICKLER: respondent’s answer respondent averred in its answer which it filed
2006 - NO beyond the 15-day period prescribed under
FACTS: Section 1, Rule 11 of the ROC. Petitioner also
● Petitioner is the owner of hectares of land blames the trial court for admitting, instead of
which used to form part of a larger expunging from the records, said answer and
expanse situated in Talavera, Nueva Ecija for not declaring the respondent in default.
and covered by a TCT. She is also the
owner of several parcels of land situated To admit or to reject an answer filed after the
in the same municipality and covered by prescribed period is addressed to the sound
12 separate titles. According to the discretion of the court. In fact, Section 11,
petitioner, respondent Land Bank of the Rule 11 of the Rules authorizes the court to
Philippines (LBP) gave these landholdings accept answer though filed late, thus:
– which she inherited from her uncle Lim
– a measly valuation of P9,000.00 per SECTION. 11. Extension of time to plead. –
hectare (regarding implementation of the Upon motion and on such terms as may be
agrarian reform program which partakes just, the court may extend the time to plead
of the exercise of the power of eminent provided in these Rules.
domain)
● Excepting from the valuation purportedly The court may also, upon like terms, allow
thus given, petitioner filed a PETITION for an answer or other pleading to be filed
determination of just compensation after the time fixed by these Rules. And as
respecting her landholdings Indiana Aerospace University vs.
aforementioned. Commission on Higher Education teaches,
● It appears that in the midst of the an answer should be admitted where it had
petitioner's presentation of her evidence, been filed before the defendant was declared
the trial court admitted LBP’s in default and no prejudice is caused to the
ANSWER.The trial court, after due plaintiff, as here. Indeed, petitioner has not
proceedings, rendered judgment fixing the demonstrated how the admission by the trial
fair market value of the land in question. court of respondent’s answer was prejudicial
● Following the denial of its MR, respondent to her case which, at bottom, involves only the
LBP went on appeal to the CA. determination of the fair market value of her
Eventually, the CA reversed that of the property.
trial court. In time, petitioner moved for
reconsideration but the CA denied her

motion. Hence this petition for review What is more, a declaration of default, if
under Rule 45, on both procedural and proper, shall not issue unless the claiming
substantive grounds. party asked for it. As we said in Trajano vs.
Cruz, applying what is now Section 3, Rule
9 of the Rules of Court “the court cannot
motu proprio declare a party in default.” In
the words of Justice Regalado “there must
be a motion [for a declaration of default] by
the plaintiff with proof of failure by the
defendant to file his responsive pleading
despite due notice.”

Not lost on the Court, of course, is the fact that

petitioner, after securing the desired ruling
from the trial court, never brought up the
matter of respondent’s belated filing of an
answer before the CA. Needless to belabor,
issues not raised below cannot, as a rule, be
raised for the first time before the Court.

28. Commissioner FACTS: On 30 March 2017, AZ Contracting Whether or not the When a defendant is served with summons
of Internal System Service, Inc. (ACSSI) filed a petition for court acted with and a copy of the complaint, he or she is
Revenue v . Third review before the CTA seeking review of grave abuse of required to answer within 15 days from its
Division of the petitioner's denial through inaction of ACSSI's discretion in receipt. The defendant may also move to
Court of Tax claim for refund of excess and unutilized declaring petitioner dismiss the complaint "[w]ithin the time for but
Appeals creditable withholding taxes for the year 2014, in in default. - NO before filing the answer." Fifteen days is
the amount of Php15,352,600.00. Accordingly, on sufficient time for a defendant to prepare his
06 April 2017, the CTA issued Summons, directing defenses against the plaintiffs allegations in
petitioner to submit his Answer within fifteen (15) the complaint. Thus, a defendant who fails to
days from receipt thereof. Petitioner, however, answer within 15 days from service of
failed to file an Answer. As such, on 28 July 2017, summons either presents no defenses or was
or more than three (3) months since the period for prevented from filing his or her answer within
petitioner to file an Answer had lapsed, ACSSI the required period due to fraud, accident,
filed a Motion to Declare Respondent in Default. mistake or excusable negligence.
This was granted by the CTA in its Resolution
dated 22 August 2017. In either case, the court may declare the

defendant in default on plaintiffs motion and

The CTA denied petitioner's Motion on 09 notice to defendant. The court shall then try
November 2017. It held that petitioner failed to the case until judgment without defendant's
show that his failure to file an Answer was due to participation and grant the plaintiff such relief
excusable negligence and that he has a as his or her complaint may warrant.
meritorious defense. The CTA underscored that
the grounds raised by petitioner did not prevent Under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of
him from asking for additional time to file an Court, there are three (3) requirements
Answer or to file an Opposition to ACSSI's Motion before the claiming party may have the
to Declare Respondent in Default. Such failure to defending party declared in default: (1) that
file the relevant pleadings manifests petitioner's the claiming party must file a motion
negligence in attending the present case. praying that the court declare the
defending party in default; (2) the
Further, the CTA also noted that the Summons defending party must be notified of the
was personally served on petitioner on 10 April motion to declare it in default; (3) the
2017 and on the Solicitor General on 11 April claiming party must prove that the
2017. However, it took petitioner six (6) months to defending party failed to answer the
finally participate in the court proceedings. Such complaint within the period provided by
actions contradict the assertions of petitioner's the rule.
counsel that she exerted diligence in handling the
case, and should therefore not be countenanced. ACSSI filed the Motion to Declare Respondent
in Default on 28 July 2017. The same was
served by personal service to petitioner, as
evidenced by the stamp "Received" by the
BIR-NOB-Litigation Division on 28 July 2017.
Thus, the first and second requirements have
been met.

Anent the third requirement, We note that it

took six ( 6) months from receipt of summons
for petitioner to participate in the court
proceedings. In all that time, petitioner did not
seek an extension of time to file an Answer or
even inform the CTA that they cannot file the
same on time. Thus, We find that all the
elements for a valid declaration of default are
present in the instant case. The CTA was
correct in granting ACSSI's Motion and
declaring petitioner in default.

29. Rodriguez v . DOCTRINE: The consequence of an order of 1. Whether the CA 1) The Court in the case of Otero v. Tan ruled
Government of the default is the defendant’s loss of standing in court, erred in disregarding that the consequence of an order of default
United States of the forfeiture of one’s right as a party litigant, the issue on the is the defendant’s loss of standing in court,
America contestant or legal adversary. This does not mean validity of the RTC’s the forfeiture of one’s right as a party
however that he is left sans any recourse order declaring litigant, contestant or legal adversary. This
whatsoever. petitioner in default does not mean however that he is left sans
when it rendered the any recourse whatsoever. In Otero, the
There are three requirements which must be assailed decision? Court enumerated the remedies under the
complied with by the claiming party before the NO. 1997 Rules of Court available to party who
court may declare the defending party in default, has been declared in default, to wit:
to wit: (1) the claiming party must file a motion 2. Whether the RTC i) The defendant in default may, at any time
asking the court to declare the defending party in wrongfully declared after discovery thereof and before judgment,
default; (2) the defending party must be notified of the petitioner in file a motion, under oath, to set aside the
the motion to declare them in default; and (3) the default? YES. order of default on the ground that his failure
claiming party must prove that the defending party to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake
has failed to answer within the period provided by or excusable neglect, and that he has
the Rule. meritorious defenses; (Sec 3, Rule 18);
ii) If the judgment has already been rendered
when the defendant discovered the default,
FACTS: Respondent represented by the DOJ, but before the same has become final and
filed before the RTC a Petition for Extradition executory, he may file a motion for new trial
against spouses Eduardo Rodriguez (Eduardo) under Section 1(a) of Rule 37);
and and petitioner (collectively, spouses iii) If the defendant discovered the default after
Rodriguez). The petition sought for the extradition the judgment has become final and executory,
of spouses Rodriguez from the Philippines to the he may file a petition for relief under Section 2
United States of America (US) after they allegedly of Rule 38; and
fled from US jurisdiction where they are wanted to iv) He may also appeal from the judgment
stand trial in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles rendered against him as contrary to the
for the offenses of: 1) Presenting fraudulent claim evidence or to the law, even if no petition to
in violation of the California Insurance Code, 2) set aside the order of default has been
Grand Theft of Personal Property, 3) and presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41)
attempted grand theft of personal property. In v) A petition for certiorari to declare the nullity
addition, the petitioner was also alleged to have of a judgment by default is also available if the
been charged with 2 counts of bribery. trial court improperly declared a party in
Respondent further averred that the offenses for default, or even if the trial court properly
which spouses Rodriguez were charged are declared a party in default, if grave abuse of
extraditable offenses pursuant to Article 2 of the discretion attended such declaration.
RP-US Extradition Treaty.
The Court emphasize in the case of Calipan,

Spouses Rodriguez did not file an Answer to the the well entrenched conflict between the
petition for extradition. Instead, they filed several remedies of an appeal and a petition for
motions on various dates from 2001 to 2009 certiorari. With regard to the remedy of
touching matters they alleged as necessary for appeal, it must be noted, that while the
them to file an answer, will warrant the dismissal defending party declared in default retains the
of the petition for extradition, for inhibitions of the right to appeal from the judgment by default,
presiding judges, and in matter of bail. the grounds that may be raised in such an
appeal are restricted to any of the following:
RTC repeatedly ordered petitioner to file her first, the failure of the plaintiff to prove the
answer and warned that failure to file the same material allegations of the complaint; second,
within 15 days from receipt of the Order shall the decision is contrary to law; and third, the
constitute a waiver thereof. Still, petitioner did not amount of judgment is excessive or different in
file her answer and, instead, filed motions on kind from that prayed for. In these cases, the
various dates on the matters of procedural rules to appellate tribunal should only consider the
be observed in the extradition proceedings. pieces of evidence that were presented by the
Respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner in plaintiff during the ex parte presentation of his
default for her continuous and deliberate refusal to evidence.
file an answer to the petition for extradition
Meanwhile, in the petition for certiorari filed by
RTC issued an Order reiterating its directive for petitioner, the issues therein pertain to the
petitioner to submit her responsive pleading and validity of the RTC orders declaring petitioner
that, with or without said pleading, presentation of in default, denying her motion to set aside
evidence shall proceed. Nevertheless, counsel for order of default, and the related orders, which
respondent was found to be unprepared. in effect deprived her of the opportunity to file
Petitioner's counsel moved for the dismissal of the answer, present evidence, object to the
petition which was granted by the RTC, however, evidence offered by plaintiff or petitioner,
the RTC issued a Resolution granting examine or cross-examine witnesses among
respondent's motion for reconsideration of the other acts of participation in the proceedings,
previous dismissal order. which petitioner lost when she was declared in
default. If the certiorari petition is granted in
Petitioner filed several motions, these motions petitioner's favor, she would have been
were denied by the RTC on the ground that allowed, among others, to file her answer and
petitioner has already been declared in default. present evidence in the trial court. Relatedly, if
RTC explained that the oral motion made by petitioner is found to have been wrongfully
respondent's counsel in open court was but a declared in default, the ex parte reception of
reiteration of an earlier written motion praying that evidence and the decision rendered thereon,
petitioner be considered in default. predicated on a void order of default rendered,
are themselves a nullity which will result to a
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with violation of her right to due process.

Motion to Dismiss, however, the same was

denied. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari Accordingly, the rendition of the RTC decision
assailing the Orders of the RTC. alone does not render moot and academic the
issue on the validity of the default order which
Shortly after the petition for certiorari was filed, the was raised in petitioner's certiorari petition.
RTC rendered a Decision granting the petition for
extradition.
2) Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of
Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA. CA Court provides: If the defending party fails to
dismissed the petition for certiorari, ratiocinating answer within the time allowed therefor, the
that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of court shall, upon motion of the claiming party
discretion in declaring petitioner in default. 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. As can
be observed from the above provision, there
are three requirements which must be
complied with by the claiming party before the
court may declare the defending party in
default, to wit: (1) the claiming party must file a
motion asking the court to declare the
defending party in default; (2) the defending
party must be notified of the motion to declare
them in default; and (3) the claiming party
must prove that the defending party has failed
to answer within the period provided by the
Rule.

The Court rejects the contention of respondent

that the RTC had the authority and discretion
to motu proprio declare petitioner in default
and that the motion and notice requirement
should not be strictly applied in extradition
cases on the justification that the Rules of
Court applies in the said petition insofar as

practicable and not inconsistent with the

summary nature of extradition proceedings.
Such suggestion would be clearly violative of
a person's right to due process — the right to
be heard — for which the Court cannot agree.
It is likewise repugnant to the policy of the law
which is to have every litigant's case tried on
the merits as much as possible and that
judgments by default are frowned upon. The
rule on default is clear in that it requires the
filing of a motion and notice of such motion to
the defending party. In this case, there was no
existing motion filed which could be validly
acted upon by the RTC when it declared
petitioner in default. To recall, while
respondent previously filed a motion to
declare petitioner in default back on August
13, 2013, the same, however, was already
denied by the RTC in its Order dated January
15, 2015. What is clear, on the other hand, is
that during the hearing on June 15, 2017,
respondent's counsel again sought to declare
petitioner in default by making an impromptu
and oral motion that petitioner be declared in
default for failure to file her responsive
pleading despite repeated orders. This oral
motion, however, falls short of the
requirements under the rules on declaring
a defendant in default. To stress, a motion
filed for the declaration of default is expressly
required by the rules. Said motion cannot be
made verbally during a hearing such as what
respondent's counsel did in this case.

30. Gajudo v. TICKLER: Nagkasunog (conflagration) WON the CA erred NO. The CA did not err. Between the two
Traders Royal in failing to apply the rules, there is no incompatibility that would
Bank TOPIC: Rule 9 Effect of Failure to Plead, provisions of Section preclude the application of either one of
Declaration of Default 3, Rule 9 of the them.
1997 Rules of Civil

FACTS: Procedure and in Section 3 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court

● The complaint sought the annulment of applying instead the provides that:
the extra-judicial foreclosure and auction rule on “If the defending party fails to answer within
sale made by [the] city sheriff of Quezon preponderance of the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon
City of a parcel of land covered, the evidence under motion of the claiming party with notice to the
conventional redemption thereof, and Section 1, Rule 133 defending party, and proof of such failure,
prayed for damages and the issuance of a of the Rules of declare the defending party in default.
writ of preliminary injunction. Court. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
judgment granting the claimant such relief as
● Petitioner Danilo Chua obtained a loan his pleading may warrant, unless the court in
from respondent bank in the amount of its discretion requires the claimant to submit
P75,000.00 secured by a real estate evidence. Such reception of evidence may be
mortgage over a parcel of land and owned delegated to the clerk of court.
in common by the other petitioners. When
the loan was not paid, respondent bank "(a) Effect of order of default. — A party in
commenced extra-judicial foreclosure default shall be entitled to notice of
proceedings on the property. The Sheriff subsequent proceedings but not to take part in
sold the property to the respondent bank, the trial”
the highest bidder for the sum of
P24,911.30 Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court
provides that:
● The petitioners argue that the auction sale In civil cases, the party having the burden of
was tainted with irregularity because, proof must establish his case by a
amongst others, the bid price was preponderance of evidence. In determining
shockingly or unconscionably low; that where the preponderance or superior weight
the other petitioners failed to redeem the of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
property due to their lack of knowledge of court may consider all the facts and
their right of redemption. circumstances of the case, the witnesses'
manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
● However, a big conflagration hit the means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
City Hall of Quezon City, which which they are testifying, the nature of the
destroyed, amongst other things, the facts to which they testify, the probability or
records of the case. After the records improbability of their testimony, their interest
were reconstituted, petitioners discovered or want of interest, and also their personal
that the foreclosed property was sold by credibility so far as the same may legitimately
to the Ceroferr Realty Corporation, and appear upon the trial. The court may also
that the notice of lis pendens annotated consider the number of witnesses, though the
on the certificate of title of the foreclosed preponderance is not necessarily with the
property, had already been cancelled. greater number."

● Upon proof that petitioners had indeed To begin with, Section 3 of Rule 9 governs the
served respondent bank with a copy of procedure which the trial court is directed to
said motion, the Trial Court issued an take when a defendant fails to file an answer.
Order of default against respondent According to this provision, the court "shall
bank.The trial court thumbed down the proceed to render judgment granting the
motion to set aside the partial decision by claimant such relief as his pleading may
default. CA favored the respondent bank. warrant," subject to the court's discretion on
The CA ruled that the erroneous whether to require the presentation of
docket number placed on the Answer evidence ex parte. As in other civil cases,
filed before the trial court was not an basic is the rule that the party making
excusable negligence by the bank’s allegations has the burden of proving them by
counsel. a preponderance of evidence. Moreover,
parties must rely on the strength of their own
evidence, not upon the weakness of the
defense offered by their opponent.

Regarding judgments by default, it was

explained in Pascua v. Florendo that
complainants are not automatically entitled to
the relief prayed for, once the defendants are
declared in default. Favorable relief can be
granted only after the court has ascertained
that the relief is warranted by the evidence
offered and the facts proven by the presenting
party. In sum, while petitioners were
allowed to present evidence ex parte under
Section 3 of Rule 9, they were not excused
from establishing their claims for damages
by the required quantum of proof under
Section 1 of Rule 133. Stated differently, any
advantage they may have gained from the ex
parte presentation of evidence does not lower
the degree of proof required. Clearly then,
there is no incompatibility between the two
rules. Hence, the CA still validly ruled against
petitioners even if respondent was indeed in
default.

31. Alpha Plus TOPIC: Effect of Amended Pleadings ISSUE: RULING:

International Whether or not the NO, the Supreme Court ruled that Prescription
Enterprises Corp. FACTS: CA erred in holding is a ground for the dismissal of a complaint
v. Philippine Alpha Plus is engaged in the business of optical that the prescriptive without going into trial on the merits.
Charter Insurance media who obtained two fire insurance policies. period should be Prescription is based on a fixed time and is
Corp. The petitioner’s warehouse was then gutted by counted from the concerned with the fact of delay. When it
fire in which the petitioner wanted to recover from time the amended appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
their insurance but it was denied. Petitioner then complaint was filed. record that an action is barred by prescription,
filed a complaint for specific performance and - NO. the court is mandated to dismiss the same.
collection of a sum of money with damages.
In the present case, We agree with the CA's
However, the Petitioner filed an Amended
finding that petitioner's insurance claim had
Complaint which prayed for similar reliefs but
already prescribed and that the RTC should
claimed the amount of P300M for actual damages.
dismiss the complaint before it based on
The Respondent contended that in their answer
said ground. Nonetheless, We differ with the
Ad Cautelam, the claim of the petitioner is already
appellate court in the computation of the
barred by prescription based on their insurance
prescriptive period. Instead of the 360-day
policy.
period used by the CA in computing whether
or not petitioner's action has already
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the
prescribed, We find that the 365-day period
ground of lack of cause of action and insufficient
should be utilized instead.
payment of docket fees but it was denied by the
RTC. Respondent filed a motion for preliminary ||
hearing of affirmative defenses and motion to ||| An amended complaint supersedes an
dismiss for failure to acquire jurisdiction due to original one. As a consequence, the original
insufficient payment of docket fees. The RTC complaint is deemed withdrawn and no longer
denied the motions and has set a pre-trial considered part of the record.
conference.
The settled rule is that the filing of an
amended pleading does not retroact to the
The reposndents filed an MR but it was denied
which led to the filing of a petition for certiorari date of the filing of the original pleading;
hence, the statute of limitation runs until the
under Rule 65 before the CA. The CA ruled in
submission of the amendment. It is true that
favor of the respondents and found that since the
petitioner raised new demands in its amended as an exception, this Court has held that an
amendment which merely supplements and
complaint, the period for prescription will be
counted from the filing of it and not the filing of the amplifies facts originally alleged in the
complaint relates back to the date of the
original complaint.
commencement of the action and is not
barred by the statute of limitations which
expired after the service of the original
complaint. Thus, when the amended

complaint does not introduce new issues,

cause of action, or demands, the suit is
deemed to have commenced on the date
the original complaint was filed.
In the present case, We find that the
exception does not apply to petitioner's case
as to allow the period of prescription to run
and for prescription to ultimately set in. A
perusal of petitioner's Complaint and
Amended Complaint reveals that the latter
pleading introduced new demands that were
not specified and averred expressly in the
original complaint. In paragraph 26 of the
original complaint, what was merely claimed
was actual damages against respondents
without specifying therein any definite
amount. Legal interest was also claimed by
petitioner.
|||

32. DOCTRINE: ISSUE: RULING:

Marcos-Araneta v. Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a Is the CA wrong in RTC’s admission of Amended Complaint was
Court of Appeals matter of right, i.e., without leave of court, before ruling that the proper.
any responsive pleading is filed or served. amended complaints
Responsive pleadings are those which seek in the lower court Sec. 2 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court
affirmative relief and/or set up defenses, like an should be dismissed provides:
answer. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive because, at the time
pleading for purposes of Sec. 2 of Rule 10. it was filed, there SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of
was no more original right. -- A party may amend his
FACTS: complaint to amend pleading once as a matter of right
- YES at any time before a responsive
Ambassador Roberto Benedicto (+) and his pleading is served or in the case of
business associates organized Far East a reply, at any time within ten (10)
Managers and Investors, Inc. (FEMII) and days after it is served.
Universal Equity Corporation (UEC). Petitioner
Irene Marcos-Araneta alleged, both corporations Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a
were organized pursuant to a contract whereby matter of right, i.e., without leave of court,
Benedicto Group holds in trust the shares and before any responsive pleading is filed or

fruits for the benefit of Irene to the extent of 65% served. Responsive pleadings are those which
shares. Years after, Irene demanded the seek affirmative relief and/or set up defenses,
reconveyance of said 65% stockholdings, but the like an answer. A motion to dismiss is not a
Benedicto Group refused to oblige. responsive pleading for purposes of Sec. 2 of
Rule 10. Assayed against the foregoing
Irene instituted before the RTC two similar perspective, the RTC did not err in admitting
complaints for conveyance of shares of stock, petitioners' amended complaint, Julita and
accounting and receivership against the Benedicto Francisca not having yet answered the original
Group. complaints when the amended complaint was
filed. At that precise moment, Irene, by force
Respondent Francisca Benedicto-Paulino, of said Sec. 2 of Rule 10, had, as a matter of
Benedicto's daughter and Benedicto filed two right, the option of amending her underlying
Motions to Dismiss. Irene filed a Consolidated reconveyance complaints. As aptly observed
Opposition, which Benedicto and Francisca by the RTC, Irene's motion to admit amended
countered with a Joint Reply to Opposition. Upon complaint was not even necessary. The Court
Benedicto's motion, both cases were notes though that the RTC has not offered an
consolidated. explanation why it saw fit to grant the motion
to admit in the first place.
In the meantime, Benedicto died and was
substituted by his wife, Julita C. Benedicto, and Settled is the rule that a motion to dismiss is
Francisca. not a responsive pleading for purposes of
Section 2, Rule 10. As no responsive pleading
The RTC dismissed both complaints, stating that
had been filed, respondent could amend her
these partly constituted "real action," and that
complaint in Civil Case No. C-20124 as a
Irene did not actually reside in Ilocos Norte, and,
matter of right. Following this Court's ruling in
therefore, venue was improperly laid. Irene
Breslin v. Luzon Stevedoring Co. considering
interposed a Motion for Reconsideration8 which
that respondent has the right to amend her
Julita and Francisca duly opposed.
complaint, it is the correlative duty of the trial
Pending resolution of her motion for court to accept the amended complaint;
reconsideration, Irene filed on July 17, 2000 a otherwise, mandamus would lie against it. In
Motion (to Admit Amended Complaint), attaching other words, the trial court's duty to admit the
a copy of the Amended Complaint in which the amended complaint was purely ministerial. In
names of Daniel Rubio, Orlando G. Reslin, and fact, respondent should not have filed a
Jose G. Reslin appeared as additional plaintiffs. motion to admit her amended complaint.
As stated in the amended complaint, the added
plaintiffs, all from Ilocos Norte, were Irene's new It may be argued that the original complaints
trustees. The amended complaint stated had been dismissed through the June 29,
practically the same cause of action but, as 2000 RTC order. It should be pointed out,
however, that the finality of such dismissal

couched, sought the reconveyance of the FEMII order had not set in when Irene filed the
shares only. amended complaint on July 17, 2000, she
having meanwhile seasonably sought
The RTC denied Irene's motion for reconsideration thereof. Irene's motion for
reconsideration, but deferred action on her motion reconsideration was only resolved on August
to admit amended complaint and the opposition. 25, 2000. Thus, when Irene filed the amended
RTC’s premise: Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 10 of complaint on July 17, 2000, the order of
the Rules of Court, Irene may opt to file, as a dismissal was not yet final, implying that there
matter of right, an amended complaint. was strictly no legal impediment to her
amending her original complaints.
In time, Julita and Francisca moved to dismiss the
amended complaint, but RTC stood pat on its
holding on the rule on amendments of pleadings.
And scoffing at the argument about there being no
complaint to amend in the first place as of October
9, 2000 (when the RTC granted the motion to
amend) as the original complaints were dismissed
with finality earlier, i.e., on August 25, 2000 when
the court denied Irene's motion for reconsideration
of the June 29, 2000 order dismissing the original
complaints, the court stated thusly: there was
actually no need to act on Irene's motion to admit,
it being her right as plaintiff to amend her
complaints absent any responsive pleading
thereto. Pushing its point, the RTC added the
observation that the filing of the amended
complaint on July 17, 2000 ipso facto superseded
the original complaints, the dismissal of which, per
the June 29, 2000 Order, had not yet become final
at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.

Julita and Francisca, in a bid to evade being

declared in default, filed their Answer to the
amended complaint. But on the same day, they
went to the CA via a petition for certiorari, seeking
to nullify the following RTC orders: the first,
admitting the amended complaint; the second,
denying their motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

CA rendered a Decision set aside the RTC orders

and dismissed the amended complaints for being
null and void.

33. Biglang-awa v. TOPIC: Rule 10 Amendment and Supplemental Whether the RTC No.
Philippine Trust Pleadings; Amendment as a matter of right should have allowed
Company the petitioners to In the present case, prior to petitioners’ filing
TICKLER: 8 parcels of land in Novaliches, QC amend their of their motion for leave to amend complaint
acquired through misrep and fraud complaint against and to admit attached amended complaint,
herein respondent. respondent already filed its answer with
FACTS: On November 22, 2000, petitioners, counterclaim. Hence, since respondent had
together with their mother Cleofas Vda. de already filed its answer, it follows that
Biglang-awa filed a complaint for declaration of petitioners may no longer amend their
nullity of deeds, cancellation of titles, complaint against the former as a matter of
reconveyance and recovery with damages before right. They may do so only upon leave of
the RTC of Quezon City against Robert B. court, as provided under Section 3, Rule 10, of
Tolentino. They alleged that they are the legitimate the same Rules, which they did by filing their
owners of 8 parcels of land, all located along motion for leave to amend complaint.
Quirino Highway, Novaliches, Quezon City.
The denial of petitioners’ motion for leave to
Petitioners averred that in 1977, without the amend complaint on the ground that the
knowledge and consent of Encarnacion and amendment “drastically altered the causes of
through fraudulent manipulations, action of the parties plaintiffs and parties
misrepresentations and the use of falsified defendants between and among themselves”
documents, Tolentino succeeded in having 4/8 is erroneous. The RTC did not make any
subject parcels of land, encumbered by way of finding that the motion was filed with intent to
mortgage to secure a loan, and that he was able delay.
to secure in his name new Torrens titles over all 8
subject parcels of land. Petitioners caused the Nonetheless, the Court finds that the RTC
annotation of a notice of lis pendens on all the correctly denied petitioners’ motion for leave
titles registered in the name of Tolentino. to amend complaint, although for a different
reason.
Tolentino filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that Ligaya lacked capacity to sue on behalf of the In their original complaint, petitioners claimed
other plaintiffs; and that she had no cause of that the subject properties were owned
action considering that she sold the property to exclusively by Encarnacion. There was no
Tolentino. mention of Encarnacion’s titles over these
parcels of land were obtained through fraud or

Encarnacion filed a notice of dismissal claiming any other illegal means. However in their
that the complaint was filed without her permission amended complaint, they sought the
and that she freely and satisfactorily sold the nullification of Encarnacion and Liwayway’s
lands to Tolentino. titles over the lots.
RTC: Dismissed the complaint. MR was filed with
the RTC. Petitioners also filed a motion for leave It should be noted that the basis of the order
to amend complaint and to admit attached and resolution, both of which had already
amended complaint, which seeks to implead become final and executory, is its finding that
Encarnacion and her sister Liwayway as part the 4 parcels of land were exclusively owned
defendants. They contend that through by Encarnacion. Petitioners are already
manipulations and misrepresentations, Tolentino, precluded from claiming otherwise. Settled is
Encarnacion, and Liwayway were able to secure a the rule that a decision that has acquired
partition of and titles over the disputed properties. finality becomes immutable and unalterable.
The RTC still dismissed the complaint. The RTC
denied petitioners’ MR and Tolentino’s motion for
cancellation of notice of lis pendens.

CA: Cancelled the notice of lis pendens and

denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.

34. National Mines TICKLER: Judge granted motion to admit ISSUE: Whether HELD: Yes. Under the Rules of Court, a party
and Allied Workers amended complaint despite finality of the respondent judge may amend his pleading once as a matter of
Union v. dismissal acted without right at any time before a responsive pleading
Calderon-Bargas jurisdiction and with is served, or in the case of a reply, at any time
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and grave abuse of within ten (10) days after it is served. At this
prohibition seeking the annulment of the Order of discretion in issuing stage, a party has the absolute right to amend
Hon. Calderon-Bargas of RTC of Morong, Rizal, herein assailed his pleading and may introduce a new cause
for want of jurisdiction in granting private order and allowing of action or change in theory. On the other
respondent’s motion to admit amended complaint. Mitra’s amended hand, substantial amendments after the
complaint answer had been filed may be made only
Petitioner, representing the workers of private upon leave of court; but such leave may be
respondent, filed a complaint with the NLRC for refused if it appears to the court that the
unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, motion was made with intent to delay.
underpayment of wages, nonpayment of holiday
pay and 13th month pay against private In the present case, however, the motion to
respondent, Norma G. Mitra. A decision was file an amended complaint was filed one
rendered in favor of the workers. NLRC Sheriff month after the Order of the trial court
Juanito Atienza levied upon a parcel of land dismissing private respondent's complaint
belonging to private respondent. became final due to the latter's failure to

perfect an appeal. As a rule, the aggrieved

Mitra filed a complaint for Annulment of Final party must perfect his appeal within the period
Deed of Sale, Certificate of Sale, Notice of Levy as provided for by law. The rule is mandatory
on Execution and Cancellation of TCT against the in character. A party's failure to comply with
Sheriff and ROD. The case was assigned to the law will result in the decision becoming
herein respondent judge. final and executory and, as such, can no
longer be modified or reversed. Thus, it is
Petitioner averred that the RTC had no jurisdiction beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court
over the subject matter of the case because it is which rendered the decision or order to
an offshoot of a labor dispute that had been amend or revoke the same after the lapse of
decided by the NLRC. Respondent judge issued the fifteen- day reglementary period to file an
an Order dismissing the complaint for lack of appeal.
jurisdiction and ruling that any decision in the civil
case may render ineffective the decision rendered Thus, petition is granted.
in the labor case. Mitra’s MR was denied.

Later, Mitra filed a motion to admit amended

complaint (Cancellation of TCT No. M-105453 &
Reinstatement of TCT No. M-56298; Damages
with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and/or Restraining Order). Petitioner opposed the
aforesaid motion on the following grounds that: 1)
it was filed out of time; 2) the amendment
substantially changed the cause of action,
defense or theory of the case; 3) the amendment
will result in the alteration of a final judgment on a
substantial matter; 4) the amendment sought to
confer jurisdiction upon the court when none had
existed before; and 5) the amendment was
intended to delay the proceedings.

Hon. Calderon-Bargas issued an Order granting

Mitra’s motion to admit amended complaint.

35. Limbauan v. TOPIC: Rule 10- Amended and Supplemental W/N CA committed No, CA did not commit grave abuse of
Acosta Pleadings; Amendment as a Matter of Right grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the amendment of
discretion when it complaint by respondent Acosta.
TICKLER: Karapatang Mag-File ng allowed the

Amendment– Lessee si Limbauan ni Acosta amendment of Under Rule 10, Section 2 of the Rules of
tapos di siya nakapagbayad ng rent so nag file ng complaint by Court, a party has the absolute right to
UD si Acosta. Pero dapat accion publiciana so respondent Acosta. amend his pleading whether a new cause
nag-amend si Acosta. Inassert naman ni Limbuan –NO of action or change in theory is introduced,
na bawal na raw mag-amend lalo na kung at any time before the filing of any
makakapapekto sa jurisdiction at nag-cite pa sya responsive pleading.
ng kaso. Sabi ng SC ay pwede daw kasi absolute
right mag-amend at saka liberally construed daw Undoubtedly, when respondent filed his
dapat to avoid necessary eme saka wala naman Amended Complaint, no responsive pleading
daw jurisdictional flaw sa UD kasi MTC ang may had yet been filed by petitioner, thus, the MTC
jurisdiction nun so ayon pwede daw i-amend. validly admitted the said amended complaint.
It is well-settled that amendment of
FACTS: pleadings is favored and should be
In 1938, the Government acquired the Tala liberally allowed in the furtherance of
Estate, located in Kalookan, primarily for a justice in order to determine every case as
leprosarium. However, under RA 4085, it was no far as possible on its merits without regard
longer mandatory for the segregation of to technicalities. This principle is generally
hansenite, so, the State needed a lesser portion of recognized in order that the real controversies
the property for the leprosarium. In the meantime, between the parties are presented, their rights
the State found it necessary to establish new determined and the case decided on the
residential areas within a 20-kilometer radius from merits without unnecessary delay to prevent
the center of the Metropolitan Manila. President circuity of action and needless expense.
Marcos issued Proclamation allocating the
property to the DOH, the National Housing Moreover, as earlier discussed, respondent's
Corporation, the PHHC and DSWD. original complaint was free from any
jurisdictional flaw and the MTC had
In the meantime, respondent Acosta took jurisdiction over the case to begin with.
possession of a vacant portion of the Tala Thus, the cited cases are not applicable in
Estate and constructed his house thereon. He the instant case. Hence, the MTC was
executed a deed styled "Registration of Property", correct in allowing the amendment.
over another vacant portion of the Estate, with an
area of 150 square meters. However, in 1984, Likewise, petitioner's allegation in his petition
Paulino took possession of the said property that he received respondent's second demand
without the consent of Acosta, constructed an letter on May 8, 1996 was belied by the
edifice thereon and used the same as a records of this case, the truth being that, the
beerhouse. Later, Paulino conveyed the said demand letter dated March 7, 1996 was
beerhouse to Roces. The latter and Acosta received by petitioner on March 13, 1996. The
entered into an oral contract of lease over the letter granted petitioner fifteen (15) days within
parcel of land. About a year thereafter, Juanita which to pay and vacate the subject property.

conveyed the beerhouse to her nephew, Respondent's Amended Complaint was filed
petitioner Limbauan, who forthwith assumed on May 16, 1996 which was obviously two (2)
the lease from his aunt. However, in November, months from the time petitioner had notice of
1987, petitioner stopped paying rentals to Acosta the demand, and again more than 15 days as
claiming that, since the property was government required by Section 2, Rule 70.
property.
In sum, respondent clearly satisfied the
Sometime in February, 1995, the Congress jurisdictional requirement of prior demand to
approved RA 7999 under which the State vacate within the period set by the rules. The
converted a portion of the Estate, with a total MTC validly acquired jurisdiction over both the
area of 120 hectares, for use as a housing site original complaint and the amended
for residents and employees of the DOH, with complaint.
the National Housing Authority as the leading
implementing agency.

Acosta, through law interns of Legal Aid of UP,

sent a letter to Limbauan demanding that the latter
vacate the property within 5 days from notice for
his failure to pay the monthly rentals but the latter
refused to vacate the property. Acosta, forthwith,
filed a complaint for "Unlawful Detainer"
against petitioner with the Metropolitan Trial
Court. Upon suggestion of the Court, Acosta,
through the Law Interns, sent another letter of
demand to Limbauan, demanding that the latter
vacate the property this time within 15 days from
notice, but still, petitioner did not heed the letter.
Faustino forthwith filed a "Motion to Approve
Attached Amended Complaint" with the Court
which was granted by the MTC.

In his Answer to the Complaint, petitioner

alleged, that Acosta had no cause of action
against him because the property is owned by
the government since the government is the
owner of the property, Acosta had no right of
possession over the property and collect
rentals therefore. The Defendant interposed the
defense that the Court had no jurisdiction over the

action of the Plaintiff as it was one of accion

publiciana and not one for unlawful detainer.

RTC ruled in favor of Acosta and directed

Limbauan to vacate the premises. CA dismissed
the petition for review and affirmed the decision of
the RTC.

Petitioner contended that the Court committed

grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction when it allowed amendment under
Section 2, Rule 10, Rules of Court. The MTC's
purpose for admitting the amended complaint was
to eliminate the jurisdictional defect of the original
complaint. Petitioner cites the cases of Rosario v.
Carandang and Gaspar v. Dorado which
declared that the amendment of the complaint
could not be allowed when its purpose is to confer
jurisdiction upon the court, since the court must
first acquire jurisdiction over the case in order to
act validly therein.

36. Sante v. DOCTRINE: While it is a basic jurisprudential Whether or not the The Court ruled in the negative.
Claravall principle that an amendment cannot be allowed RTC commit grave
when the court has no jurisdiction over the original abuse of discretion The Court found no error, much less grave
complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to in allowing the abuse of discretion, on the part of the Court of
confer jurisdiction on the court, here, the RTC amendment of the Appeals in affirming the RTC’s order allowing
clearly had jurisdiction over the original complaint complaint? the amendment of the original complaint from
and amendment of the complaint was then still a P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 despite the
matter of right. pendency of a petition for certiorari filed before
the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
On April 5, 2004, respondent filed before the RTC While it is a basic jurisprudential principle that
of Baguio City a complaint for damages against an amendment cannot be allowed when the
petitioners. respondent alleged that while she was court has no jurisdiction over the original
inside the Police Station of Natividad, Pangasinan, complaint and the purpose of the amendment
and in the presence of other persons and police is to confer jurisdiction on the court, here, the
officers, petitioner Irene Sante uttered words, RTC clearly had jurisdiction over the original
which when translated in English are as follows, complaint and amendment of the complaint

"How many rounds of sex did you have last night was then still a matter of right.
with your boss, Bert? You fuckin' bitch!" Bert refers
to Albert Gacusan, respondent's friend and one
(1) of her hired personal security guards detained
at the said station and who is a suspect in the
killing of petitioners' close relative. Petitioners also
allegedly went around Natividad, Pangasinan
telling people that she is protecting and cuddling
the suspects in the aforesaid killing. Thus,
respondent prayed that petitioners be held liable
to pay moral damages in the amount of
P300,000.00; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
P50,000.00 attorney's fees; P20,000.00 litigation
expenses; and costs of suit.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground

that it was the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC) and not the RTC of Baguio, that had
jurisdiction over the case. They argued that the
amount of the claim for moral damages was not
more than the jurisdictional amount of
P300,000.00, because the claim for exemplary
damages should be excluded in computing the
total claim, which the trial court denied, as the
total claim of respondent amounted to
P420,000.00 which was above the jurisdictional
amount for MTCCs outside Metro Manila.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed on August 2, 2004, a

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, before the
Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, on July 14, 2004,
respondent and her husband filed an Amended
Complaint increasing the claim for moral damages
from P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00. Petitioners
filed a Motion to Dismiss with Answer Ad
Cautelam and Counterclaim, but the trial court
denied their motion. Petitioners again filed a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the
Court of Appeals, claiming that the trial court

committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing

the amendment of the complaint to increase the
amount of moral damages from P300,000.00 to
P1,000,000.00.

37. Spouses TICKLER: Whether the YES. while it is a basic jurisprudential principle
Lambino v. amendment of the that an amendment cannot be allowed when
PresidingJudge, DOCTRINE: complaint is valid the court has no jurisdiction over the original
RTC, Br. 172, complaint and the purpose of the amendment
Valenzuela City Respondent filed before the RTC complaint for is to confer jurisdiction on the court, here, the
damages against petitioners. Respondent alleged RTC clearly had jurisdiction over the original
that while she was inside a Police Station and in complaint and amendment of the complaint
the presence of other persons and police officers, was then still a matter of right.
petitioner Irene Sante uttered words, which when
translated in English are as follows, "How many In this case, the complaint filed is for the
rounds of sex did you have last night with your recovery of damages for the alleged malicious
boss, Bert? You fuckin' bitch!". Bert refers to Albert acts of petitioners. Hence, the other forms of
Gacusan, respondent's friend and one of her hired damages being claimed by respondent, e.g.,
personal security guards detained at the said exemplary damages, attorney's fees and
station and who is a suspect in the killing of litigation expenses, are not merely incidental
petitioners' close relative. Petitioners also to or consequences of the main action but
allegedly went around Natividad, Pangasinan constitute the primary relief prayed for in the
telling people that she is protecting and cuddling complaint. The claim being P420,000, now
the suspects in the aforesaid killing. Petitioners falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it was
the MTCC and not the RTC that had jurisdiction
over the case. They argued that the amount of the
claim for moral damages was not more than the
jurisdictional amount of P300,000.00. Respondent
then filed an amended complaint increasing the
claim.

38. Ada v. Baylon DOCTRINE: A supplemental pleading only serves Whether or not a CA opined that the action for rescission could
to bolster or add something to the primary party may assert a not be lumped with the action for partition thru
pleading. The purpose of the supplemental new cause of action a mere supplemental pleading. We do not
pleading is to bring into the records new facts in a supplemental agree. S6, R10 provides:
which will enlarge or change the kind of relief to pleading. - YES.
which the plaintiff is entitled; hence, any Sec. 6. Supplemental Pleadings. —

supplemental facts which further develop the Upon motion of a party the court may,
original right of action, or extend to vary the relief, upon reasonable notice and upon
are available by way of supplemental complaint such terms as are just, permit him to
even though they themselves constitute a right of serve a supplemental pleading setting
action. Thus, a supplemental pleading may allege forth transactions, occurrences or
transactions, events, etc. which transpired after events which have happened since
the filing of the pleading sought to be the date of the pleading sought to be
supplemented, even if the supplemental facts supplemented. The adverse party
constitute another cause of action. may plead thereto within ten (10) days
from notice of the order admitting the
FACTS: This case involved the estate of Spouses supplemental pleading.
Baylon who are dead. They are survived by their
legitimate children, among whom are Rita, As its very name denotes, a supplemental
Ramon, Victoria Baylon, Panfila Gomez, et al. pleading only serves to bolster or add
Victoria died, survived by her daughter petitioner something to the primary pleading. A
Luz Adanza. Ramon died and is survived by supplement exists side by side with the
respondent Florante Baylon, petitioner Flora original. It does not replace that which it
Baylon and their children. supplements. Moreover, a supplemental
pleading assumes that the original pleading is
Petitioners filed in RTC a complaint for partition to stand and that the issues joined with the
against Florante, Rita, and Panfila. They alleged original pleading remained an issue to be tried
that Rita possessed the 43 lands owned by Sps. in the action. It is but a continuation of the
Baylon and appropriated the income therefrom complaint. Its usual office is to set up new
and purchased from said income Lot 4709 and facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind
half of Lot 4706. During the pendency of the case, of relief with respect to the same subject
thru a deed of donation, Rita conveyed Lot 4709 matter as the controversy referred to in the
and half of 4706 to Florante, then Rita died. original complaint.
Learning of the donation, petitioners filed a
supplemental pleading, praying that the donation The purpose of the supplemental pleading is
be rescinded under Art. 1381 (4) of NCC. to bring into the records new facts which will
enlarge or change the kind of relief to which
The RTC ordered the donation rescinded CA the plaintiff is entitled; hence, any
reversed and remanded the case to the trial court supplemental facts which further develop the
to determine ownership of Lot 4709 and half of original right of action, or extend to vary the
4706, ruling that before petitioners may file an relief, are available by way of supplemental
action for rescission, they must first obtain a complaint even though they themselves
favorable judicial ruling that the 2 lots actually constitute a right of action.
belonged to the estate of Sps. Baylon and not to
Rita. Hence, this petition. Thus, a supplemental pleading may properly

allege transactions, occurrences or events

which had transpired after the filing of the
pleading sought to be supplemented, even if
the said supplemental facts constitute another
cause of action.

Here, the issue of the validity of the donation

by Rita to Florante is a new cause of action
that occurred after the filing of the original
complaint. Petitioners’ prayer for rescission of
the donation in the supplemental pleading is
germane to and intertwined with the cause of
action in the partition case. The petitioners’
supplemental pleading merely amplified the
original cause of action, on account of the
gratuitous conveyance of Lot No. 4709 and
half of Lot No. 4706 after the filing of the
original complaint and prayed for additional
reliefs, i.e., rescission. Indeed, the petitioners
claim that the said lots form part of the estate
of Spouses Baylon, but cannot be partitioned
unless the gratuitous conveyance of the same
is rescinded. Thus, the principal issue raised
by the petitioners in their original complaint
remained the same.

39. Roa vs. DOCTRINE: When parties seek a bill of Whether the filing of Yes. The filing of the motion for a bill of
Spouses Sy, G.R. particulars, they in effect admit that the complaint motion for a bill of particulars, which in truth is a request for
No. 221586, bears the ultimate facts comprising a valid cause particular negates written interrogatories negates the claim of
September 14, of action. What they ask for though is simply a the claim of Spouses Sy that the complaint states no
2021 specification of these ultimate facts to enable Spouses Sy that the cause of action against them.
them to properly prepare their responsive pleading complaint states no
or to prepare for trial. Consequently, any cause of action A cause of action is defined as an act or
challenge against the complaint based on its against them? omission by which a party violates a right of
supposed failure to state a cause of action is no another. A complaint states a cause of action
longer feasible after the parties have sought a bill if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three
of particulars. (3) essential elements of a cause of action,
namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it

FACTS: Petitioner Zenaida Roa filed a complaint arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the
against respondents Marie Antoinette Francisco part of the named defendant to respect or not
(Francisco), Spouses Sy and Register of Deeds of to violate such right; and (c) an act or
Makati City (RD Makati), as evidenced by TCT, omission on the part of the named defendant
she and her sister are the legitimate owners of a violative of the right of the plaintiff or
property located at 73 Amorsolo Street, San constituting a breach of the obligation of
Lorenzo Village, Makati City. defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of
She learned from a relative that their title had damages. If, however, the complaint contains
been cancelled by the RD Makati, and by virtue of ambiguity, indefiniteness, or uncertainty, a
a deed of sale, a new TCT was issued in the party may move for a more definite statement
name of Francisco. The deed of sale was or for a bill of particulars of any matter which is
purportedly executed between her and her sister not averred with sufficient definiteness or
Amelia, on the one hand, and their niece particularity to enable him or her to properly
Francisco, on the other. prepare his or her responsive pleading or to
prepare for trial. It is not the office of a bill of
She alleged that it was impossible for her to have particulars to supply material allegations
signed the deed since she was in Washington necessary to the validity of a pleading, or to
D.C. at the time it was purportedly executed, as change a cause of action or defense stated in
evidenced by her arrival and departure record the pleading, or to state a cause of action or
issued by the Bureau of Immigration. On the other defense other than the one stated. Also, it is
hand, her sister Amelia could not have signed the not the office or function of a bill of particulars
same on her own volition since she had been to set forth the pleader's theory of his cause of
suffering from Alzheimer's disease for the last 10 action or a rule of evidence on which he
years already prior to the supposed date of the intends to rely or to furnish evidential
sale. Francisco subsequently sold the property to information whether such information consists
Spouses Sy. Consequently, a new TCT was of evidence which the pleader proposes to
further issued in the name of Spouses Sy. introduce or of facts which constitute a
defense. This means that when parties seek a
Francisco was able to secure a title in her name bill of particulars, they in effect admit that the
only on July 16, 2012, while the sale of the same complaint bears the ultimate facts comprising
property to Spouses Sy was supposedly done on a valid cause of action. What they ask for
July 20, 2012. At the time Francisco and Spouses though is simply a specification of these
Sy started negotiating on the sale, the Sps Sy ultimate facts to enable them to properly
already knew of the existence of her title prepare their responsive pleading or to
considering the close proximity between the date prepare for trial. Consequently, any challenge
the sale to Spouses Sy took place and the date against the complaint based on its supposed
Francisco secured a certificate of title in her name. failure to state a cause of action is no longer
During respondents' initial negotiation, petitioner feasible after the parties have sought a bill of

and Amelia were still the registered owners of the particulars.

property.
As to the requests for written interrogatories of
Instead of filing an answer, Spouses Sy filed a the Spouses Sy. Under Section 1, Rule 25 of
motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state the Rules of Court, a request for written
a cause of action. The complaint allegedly rested interrogatories is a mode of discovery by
on conjectures and contained no specific which a party serves on the other party written
averments of bad faith on their part. Spouses Sy interrogatories to be answered by the party
further claimed that they acted in good faith when served. It seeks to elicit material and relevant
they relied on Francisco's title and noted no facts from the adverse party. Therefore, that
suspicious circumstances attending the sale when parties avail of any mode of discovery
transaction. under the Rules, in this case, a request for
written interrogatories (albeit erroneously
The trial court denied Spouses Sy's motion to referred to by Spouses Sy here as a bill of
dismiss for lack of merit. It noted that the particulars), they are deemed to have
complaint stated that petitioners were the recognized the existence and sufficiency of
registered owners of the property. Francisco the allegations of the adverse party's cause of
fraudulently registered the property in her name action in the complaint. They no longer put in
by presenting a spurious and forged deed of sale. issue the sufficiency of the allegations of the
Ultimately, Spouses Sy purchased the property adverse party's cause of action. Rather, they
from Francisco despite her fraudulent title. A ask that evidentiary matters be unveiled so
Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied that better preparation for the subsequent trial
by the Trial Court. Thereafter, they filed a "Motion on the merits of the case may be had.
for Bill of Particulars dated April 14, 2014 and later
an "Amended Motion for Bill of Particulars”. In the present case, Spouses Sy filed their
so-called motion for bill of particulars which in
The trial court granted the motion under Order and reality is a request for written interrogatories.
ordered petitioner to submit her bill of particulars. For the questions they posed were not meant
Petitioner promptly complied. Meantime, on to clarify the averments or statements found in
Spouses Sy's motion, the presiding judge of petitioner's complaint, much less, inquire into
Branch 66 inhibited from the case. Thereafter, the the existence and sufficiency of petitioner's
case got re-raffled to Branch 148. While the cause of action. In truth, their questions
proceedings were ongoing, Spouses Sy also sought to discover evidentiary matters relating
pursued a petition for certiorari, assailing the to their defense that they are buyers in good
earlier denial of their motion to dismiss. faith and that petitioner failed to exercise
reasonable diligence in protecting her title to
CA reversed RTC’s decision stating that petitioner the property. As stated, these questions or the
failed to particularly allege when Spouses Sy answers sought already delve on matters of
started to negotiate with Francisco for the evidence which by law and jurisprudence

purchase of the property. This is allegedly an would generally establish the good faith of a
ultimate fact necessary to determine whether buyer in purchasing a property. Thus, by
Spouses Sy exercised due diligence in seeking answers to these interrogatories,
ascertaining the genuineness of Francisco's title. Spouses Sy effectively acknowledged the
The lack of this particular averment supposedly existence and sufficiency of the allegations in
calls for the dismissal of the complaint on the the complaint pertaining to petitioners' cause
ground of lack of cause of action against Spouses of action against them. The filing of the
Sy. Further, Spouses Sy were supposedly not request for written interrogatories, therefore, is
obliged to look beyond the face of Francisco's title a supervening event which bars Spouses Sy
which contained no annotation of any adverse from pursuing their theory of failure to state a
claim. They had no notice of any defect in her title, cause of action.
hence, they are essentially buyers in good faith.

Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the

Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She
maintains that her complaint sufficiently states a
cause of action against Spouses Sy. Any defect or
uncertainty in her complaint had already been
cured by the bill of particulars she subsequently
filed. Even assuming her complaint was deficient,
the Court of Appeals, instead of ordering its
dismissal, should have required her to file an
amended complaint.

MODULE 4

TOPIC: Rule 13 Filing and Service of Pleadings, ISSUE: HELD:

Judgments and Other Papers Whether the RTC No.
Judge
TICKLER: “Lote, bahay at lahat ng aking Patrimonio-Soriaso Rule 13, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
maiiwan.” committed grave Procedure defines service as “the act of
1. Abutin v. San abuse of discretion providing a party with a copy of the pleading
amounting to lack or or paper concerned.” it further stipulates that
Juan
FACTS: excess of jurisdiction unless otherwise ordered, service upon a
Corazon was in a same-sex relationship with in reversing her own party’s counsel effectively works as service
Purita Dayao who passed away on March 23, December 28, 2015 upon the actual party.
2008. She died without any surviving ascendants order allowing
or descendants. She left behind a 108-square probate of the When a party is represented by counsel,
meter lot in Tondo, Manila, on which a residential holographic wills “notice of all kinds, including motions,

house was constructed. Corazon and Purita lived dated December 23, pleadings, and orders must be served on said
on this house for 48 years, along with Purita’s 2006 and March 10, counsel and notice to him is notice to client.”
daughter, Filipina. 2008.
Under Rule 13, Section 5, service may either
On July 7, 2008, Purita and Filipina filed before be personal or by mail. However, should
the RTC of Manila, a petition for the probate of 3 personal service or service by mail be
holographic wills ostensibly executed and left by unavailable, service may be made through
Corazon. The first two wills were dated but the substituted service. When resorted to, service
third was not. Each of the wills bequeathed to by mail or substituted service “must be
Purita and Filipina all of Corazon’s properties accompanied by a written explanation why the
which she referred to as “Lote, bahay at lahat ng service or filing was not done personally.” this
aking maiiwan.” requirement applies except with respect to
papers emanating from the court. Registered
The RTC admitted the wills for probate. Julita, mail is then complete upin actual receipt or 5
Corazon’s sister filed an opposition to Purita and days after the postmaster’s initial notice. An
Filipina’s petition for probate. At around this point, addressee is given only a limited period to act
Julita passed away. Purita and Filipina filed their on a notice as “the purpose is to place the
rejoinder. Sometime after this, Purita passed date of receipt of pleadings, judgments and
away. The RTC likewise denied Filipina’s motion processes beyond the power of the party
to admit record on appeal. being served to determine at his pleasure.”

The incidents of this case are acutely similar

with those in Land Bank. Capuno was certified
by the Office of the Postmaster to have
actually received a copy of Judge
Patrimonio-Soriaso's December 28, 2015
Order on February 9, 2016. Petitioner and her
mother attached "several registry return
receipts of service of pleadings which were
addressed to Atty. Ginete, but were actually
received for him by [Capuno]" to the
Opposition they filed to respondent and her
mother's Motion for Reconsideration. The
Court of Appeals itself noted that, while Atty.
Ginete disclaimed Capuno's authority to
receive mail matter for him, "he did not refute
the evidence presented by [petitioner] that
several registry return receipts . . . bore
Capuno's name and signature." The Court of

Appeals was even constrained to concede

that this "indicat[ed] that [Capuno] has been
customarily receiving decisions or orders from
the courts." How the Court of Appeals could
make the observations that it did — on top of
the evidence adduced by petitioner and her
mother, against which Atty. Ginete could offer
nothing but bare denials — and yet proceed to
deny petitioner's Rule 65 Petition, is
perplexing. From all indications, Capuno had
long been authorized by Atty. Ginete to
receive papers and processes on his behalf.
Consistent with this, Capuno effectively and
validly received a copy of Judge
Patrimonio-Soriaso December 28, 2015 Order
on Atty. Ginete's behalf. Rule 13's standards
on what amounts to completed service by
registered mail were satisfied the moment
Capuno received the Order on February 9,
2016.
|
2. Spouses Maltha
Gonzales v.
Marmaine Realty
Corp.

TOPIC: Rule 13- Filing and Service of Pleadings; Whether or not the Yes, the cancellation of the Notice of Lis
Notice of Lis Pendens cancellation of the Pendens on all the TCTs of the Royal South
Notice of Lis Subdivision Project is proper.
TICKLER: Marcos Alvarez Avenue, public road, Pendens on all the
3. Equitable PCI BDO properties TCTs of the Royal In the case of Republic of the Philippines v.
Bank, Inc. v. South South Subdivision Ravelo et al., the Court explained that “lis
FACTS: The Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City Project is proper. pendens” literally means ‘a pending suit,’ while
Rich Acres, Inc. of Las Pinas enacted City Ordinance No. 343-97 –YES a notice of lis pendens, inscribed in the
which declared Marcos Alvarez Avenue as a certificate of title, is “an announcement to the
public road in July 1997. Subsequently, South whole world that the covered property is in
Rich Acres, Inc. (SRA) and Top Service filed a litigation, serving as a warning that one who
Petition for Declaratory Relief and Damages acquires interest in the property does so at his

with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction with own risk and subject to the results of the
Branch 253, RTC Las Pinas City against the City litigation.” A notice of lis pendens is “founded
of Las Pinas alleging that SRA is the present legal upon public policy and necessity” and “is
owner of the 7 parcels of land which formed the intended to keep the properties in litigation
private road network collectively referred to as within the power of the court until the litigation
Marcos Alvarez Avenue. The City of Las Pinas in is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the
its Answer did not deny that the subject lots were judgment or decree by subsequent alienation.”
private properties but asserted that Marcos
Alvarez Avenue was already government The rules governing the notice of lis pendens
property having been withdrawn from the are found in Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules
commerce of man. of Court, and Sections 76 and 77 of PD 1529.
A litigant may avail himself of the notice of
In the meantime, the Royal South Subdivision lis pendens in any of the following cases:
makes use of the avenue for ingress and (a) an action to recover possession of real
egress. Thus, the Royal Asia Multi-Properties, estate; (b) an action to quiet title thereto;
Inc. (RAMPI) filed a Motion for Leave of Court to (c) an action to remove clouds thereon; (d)
File Answer in Intervention on the ground that it an action for partition; and (e) any other
has legal interest in the upholding of the validity of proceedings of any kind in Court directly
the City Ordinance because SRA and Top Service affecting the title to the land or the use or
had been unjustifiably demanding payment for occupation thereof or the building thereon.
their use of the avenue. Although the RTC
denied this motion, it was reconsidered and set In the case at bar, SRA's argument that the
aside in another Resolution. RTC granted SRA order of the RTC to annotate the notice of
and Top Service’s prayer for issuance of writ lis pendens on BDO's titles has attained
of preliminary injunction. SRA and Top Service finality, and thus, can no longer be
then filed a Motion for Substitution of Parties cancelled, is erroneous. As expressly
with Motion to Annotate Lis Pendens which provided under Section 77 of PD 1529,
were granted by the RTC. Consequently, EPCIB before final judgment, the notice of lis
substituted RAMPI as intervenor-defendant pendens may be cancelled upon order of the
because all the rights and interests over RSS had court after proper showing that the notice is for
already been assigned by RAMPI to EPCIB. the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or
Likewise, the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas was that it is not necessary to protect the rights of
directed to annotate a notice of lis pendens in all the party who caused it to be recorded. On the
the titles of RSS project. other hand, after final judgment, the notice of
lis pendens is rendered functus officio. Thus,
RTC declared the City Ordinance invalid and under Section 77 of PD 1529, in cases
unconstitutional and denied SRA and Top where there is already a final judgment, the
Service’s claim for damages against EPCIB. SRA notice of lis pendens may be cancelled
and Top Service filed a Motion for Partial upon the registration of a certificate of the

Reconsideration while EPCIB file an appeal and a clerk of court in which the action or
Motion to Cancel Notice of Lis Pendens which proceeding was pending stating the
were all denied. EPCIB then file a Motion for manner of disposal thereof.
Partial Reconsideration which was denied.
Before final judgment, the CA ordered the
CA dismissed SRA and Top Service’s appeal and cancellation of the annotation of the notice of
found EPCIB’s (now BDO) appeal partially lis pendens on BDO's titles. The lots owned
meritorious finding the annotation of notice of lis by BDO are not the properties subject of
pendens on the titles of BDO’s property improper litigation in this case and the annotation of
because only the particular properties subject of the notice of lis pendens on BDO's titles is
litigation may be covered by a notice of lis not necessary to protect the rights of SRA.
pendens. Both parties filed their respective As correctly ruled by the CA, the issue
petitions before the SC which were consolidated involved in this case is the constitutionality of
in this case. City Ordinance No. 343-97 which declared
Marcos Alvarez Avenue as a public road.
Thus, the properties in litigation in this case
are the subject lots where Marcos Alvarez
Avenue is situated and not the lots in the
Royal South Subdivision project which are
owned by BDO.

Doctrine: Whether or not there Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ by

was an improper which the defendant is notified that an action
Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ by which service of summons was brought against him or her. In an action in
the defendant is notified that an action was - NO personam, brought to enforce personal rights
brought against him or her. In an action in and obligations, jurisdiction over the person of
personam, brought to enforce personal rights and the defendant is mandatory. In such actions,
obligations, jurisdiction over the person of the therefore, summonses serve not only to notify
4. Sabado v. defendant is mandatory. In such actions, the defendant of the filing of an action, but
therefore, summonses serve not only to notify the also to enable acquisition of jurisdiction over
Sabado
defendant of the filing of an action, but also to his person.
enable acquisition of jurisdiction over his person.
A protection order is not a procedural
FACTS: mechanism, which is imperative for the
progression of an initiated action. Rather, it is
● Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ itself a substantive relief which "prevents
by which the defendant is notified that an further acts of violence against a woman or
action was brought against him or her. In her child specified in Section 5 of [the

an action in personam, brought to enforce Anti-VAWC Law] and granting other necessary
personal rights and obligations, relief."
jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is mandatory. In such actions, Summons and temporary protection orders
therefore, summonses serve not only to are entirely different judicial issuances. It is
notify the defendant of the filing of an true that the latter also serves the purpose of
action, but also to enable acquisition of conveying information. However, this
jurisdiction over his person. information pertains not to the filing of an
● Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ action but merely to the schedule of an
by which the defendant is notified that an upcoming hearing. The similarities of a
action was brought against him or her. In summons and a protection order begin and
an action in personam, brought to enforce end with their informative capacity. At no point
personal rights and obligations, does the Anti-VAWC Law intimate that the
jurisdiction over the person of the temporary protection order is the means for
defendant is mandatory. In such actions, acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the
therefore, summonses serve not only to respondent.
notify the defendant of the filing of an
action, but also to enable acquisition of Clearly, jurisdiction over the person of the
jurisdiction over his person. respondent in a petition for TPO/PPO under
● Tina prayed for the issuance of a RA 9262 can be acquired through any of the
Temporary Protection Order (TPO), the means of serving summons under the Rules
grant of P120,000.00 monthly support to of Court.
be remitted automatically by Jay's
employer, and the eventual issuance of a In an action in personam such as a petition
Permanent Protection Order (PPO). for TPO/PPO under RA 9262, the purpose
● A TPO was issued by the trial court in of summons is two-fold:
favor of Tina. The court sheriff made 1. to notify the defendant that an action
several attempts to personally serve the has been brought against him; and
summons, petition, and TPO to Jay at his 2. to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
address but the security guard said he the defendant
was not around. He also tried to serve
them at the office of his employer, only to When the defendant does not voluntarily
be told that the appellant was abroad for submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there
deployment. is no valid service of summons, any judgment
● Atty. Palmero, counsel of Jay in a criminal of the court which has no jurisdiction over the
case for violation of Republic Act No. person of the defendant is null and void.
9262 (RA 9262), went to Branch 136 and
received a copy of the Order and Petition In the case at bar, the sheriff attempted to
as evidenced by the latter's signature personally serve the summons, petition, and

therein. Jay filed an Entry of Appearance TPO in Jay's residence and place of
with Opposition to the Issuance of employment as per the Sheriffs Return.
Permanent Protection Order. He claimed
that the couple acquired four (4) However, records show that Jay was out of
properties during their marriage, and that the country due to his overseas employment.
the condominium unit and parking slot are Since personal service could not be effected
under the name of Tina. upon him, summons should be served through
● The trial court issued an Order denying substituted service, extraterritorial service, or
the admission of appellant's Opposition by publication in accordance with Sections 7,
for having been belatedly filed two (2) 15 and 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
months after the issuance of the TPO.
Aggrieved, Jay elevated the case to the Notably, none of these modes of service were
CA. The CA affirmed the findings of the resorted to by Tina. Granting arguendo that
trial court. Jay knew of the pending TPO case against
him, whether through Atty. Palmero or another
person, the requirement of summons cannot
be dispensed with. Jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant cannot be acquired
notwithstanding his knowledge of the
pendency of a case against him, unless he
was validly served with summons. Thus,
serving the order and TPO to Atty. Palmero
cannot be considered a valid service of
summons.

However, the court note that Jay voluntarily

submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial
court when he filed the Entry of Appearance
with Opposition to the Issuance of the
Permanent Protection Order. By seeking
affirmative relief in his opposition without
objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court, he
thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction.

In effect, this cured the invalid service of

summons. In a catena of cases, this Court has
ruled that voluntary appearance by the
defendant results to his submission to the
court's jurisdiction.

Clearly, the trial court acquired jurisdiction

over Jay through his voluntary appearance
when he sought the lifting of the TPO and the
denial of the issuance of PPO in his
opposition, without raising the issue of lack of
jurisdiction over his person. By such conduct,
he can no longer subsequently object to the
court's jurisdiction.

TICKLER: Whether the No; the preferred mode of service of summons

summons in the shall be done personally upon the defendant
DOCTRINE: case at bar is valid or respondent. However, our rules set out
other modes of service. The Rules of Court
Petitioner Sarol purchased from a certain Claire allows the substituted service of summons if,
Chiu a parcel of land which is adjacent to the land for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
of Spouses Diao. However, the area, as surveyed, served within a reasonable time. It shall be
is erroneous because it included certain square effected by leaving copies of the summons:
meters of Spouses Diao's property. When (a) at the defendant's residence with some
Spouses Diao learned of this overlap, they person of suitable age and discretion residing
immediately demanded Claire Chiu and Sarol to therein; or (b) at the defendant's place of
return their portion of the property but to no avail. business with some competent person in
Hence, Spouses Diao filed a complaint with the charge thereof.
5. Sarol v. Spouses RTC. Summons was issued for service to Claire
Chiu, her husband Ginghis Chiu, the Register of In this case, the Court found that the address
Diao
Deeds of Negros Oriental, and Sarol. The address in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zarnboanguita,
of Sarol indicated in the summons states Negros Oriental is not Sarol's place of
"Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros residence. Therefore, service of summons to
Oriental," or the location of the property she Sarol, even by substituted service, should
purchased from Claire Chiu. Respondent Sheriff have been effected in Tamisu, Bais City,
Tale issued a Sheriffs Return of Summons, which Negros Oriental, as evidenced by the deed of
states that summons was served on Claire Chiu sale and TCT. Assuming that Guinsuan,
but could not be served to Sarol "on the ground Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental is
that she is out of the country." Spouses Diao then Sarol's regular place of business, the Court
moved that summons be served by publication in finds that there was no substituted service
a newspaper of general circulation in the City of effected.
Dumaguete and in the Province of Negros
Oriental pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the It must be noted that Spouses Diao are not
Rules of Court on extraterritorial service of totally without recourse as the rules allow

summons. Claire Chiu filed her answer to the summons by publication and extraterritorial
complaint but failed to appear at the pre-trial service. These are extraordinary modes which
proceedings. Sarol, on the other hand, failed to file require leave of court. In fact, Spouses Diao
any pleadings with the RTC. Upon motion of moved for the extraterritorial service of
Spouses Diao, Claire Chiu and Sarol were summons by publication under Section 15,
declared in default in an Order which then became (now Sec 17) Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
final and executory allowing Spouses Diao to Under this rule, one of the modes to effect the
present their evidence ex-parte. extraterritorial service of summons is 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
correct address of the defendant. However, in
this case, the circulation should have been
done in Tamisu, Bais City, Negros Oriental.

To avail this mode, the action or complaint

filed against a nonresident defendant:
- affects the personal status of the
plaintiff or relates to
- the subject of which, is property
within the Philippines, in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or
interest, actual or contingent
- in which the relief demanded
consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any
interest therein
- the property of the defendant has
been attached within the
Philippines.

The service of summons is vital and

indispensable to defendant's right to due
process. A violation of this due process is a
jurisdictional defect which renders null and
void all subsequent proceedings and
issuances in relation to the case. Thus, the

judgment and the Writ of Execution issued by

the RTC is null and void.

FACTS: Respondent Lagtapon nstituted a civil Whether or not the No. It is axiomatic that a public official
suit against petitioner Yap for a sum of money with CA erred in enjoys the presumption of regularity in the
the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental. dismissing the discharge of one's official duties and
Summons were issued and as per return of Petition for functions. Here, in the absence of clear
service of summons dated November 4, 1997, Annulment and in indicia of partiality or malice, the service of
prepared by the process server in the person of ruling that the RTC Summons on petitioner Yap is perforce
Ray Precioso, the petitioner refused to had validly acquired deemed regular and valid. Correspondingly,
acknowledge receipt thereof. jurisdiction over the Return of Service of Precioso as process
petitioner’s person server of the RTC constitutes prima facie
As no answer was filed, respondent Lagtapon filed through service of evidence of the facts set out therein.
a motion to declare petitioner Yap in default. The summons. - YES.
said motion was granted by the respondent court Hence, as far as the circumstances attendant
in an order declaring petitioner Yap in default and to the service of Summons are concerned, the
allowing respondent Lagtapon to present her Court has the right to rely on the factual
evidence ex-parte. representation of Precioso that service had
indeed been made on petitioner Yap in
In September 25, 2000, the Ex-Officio Provincial person. A contrary rule would reduce the
6. Yap v. Lagtapon, Sheriff for Negros Occidental issued a Notice of Court to a mere fact-finding tribunal at the
Sale on execution. Setting the auction of the expense of efficiency in the administration of
petitioner’s property. Joey Dela Paz, who justice, which, as mentioned earlier, is beyond
mortgaged the property, found out that the the ambit of the Court's jurisdiction in a Rule
annotated title of the said property is in a Notice of 45 petition.
Embargo. Upon having knowledge to this,
petitioner resorted to the court for the truth and To successfully overcome such presumption
she found out that she was sued by the of regularity, case law demands that the
respondent. evidence against it must be clear and
convincing; absent the requisite quantum of
Proceeding from such developments, petitioner proof to the contrary, the presumption stands
Yap filed the subject Petition for Annulment with deserving of faith and credit. In this case, the
the CA, assailing the RTC Decision on the ground burden of proof to discharge such
that Summons was not validly served on her, presumption lay with petitioner Yap.
which thus prevented the RTC from acquiring
jurisdiction over her person. Petitioner Yap wholly Finally, the Court hereby upholds the finding of
denied the fact of service of Summons, as the CA in its questioned Decision that
reflected in the Return of Service. petitioner Yap' s evidence does not constitute
On the other hand, respondent Lagtapon denied clear and convincing evidence to overturn the

all the factual allegations in the Petition for presumption of regularity attendant to the
Annulment to the effect that petitioner Yap was Return of Service. Following Umandap v.
never served with Summons on the date Sabio, Jr., self-serving assertions made by an
indicated, and claimed that petitioner Yap was aggrieved party are insufficient to disregard
indeed aware of the proceedings, as borne out by the statements made in the sheriff's certificate
the records of the RTC. after service of Summons. In light of petitioner
Yap's failure to rebut such presumption, the
The CA denied the Petition for Annulment and Court finds that the RTC properly acquired
upheld the validity of the service of Summons on jurisdiction over petitioner Yap's person, which
petitioner Yap. The CA held that petitioner Yap's renders the RTC Decision valid. Accordingly,
evidence failed to rebut the presumption of the CA correctly dismissed the subject Petition
regularity, i.e., that she failed to satisfactorily for Annulment.
establish the fact that she was residing elsewhere
during the time of the service of Summons,
contrary to what was stated in the Return of
Service.

TICKLER: Out of town; extraterritorial service of ISSUE: Is there a HELD: Yes, there is a defective service of
summons; Mali yung address niya sa summons defective service of summons.
kasi nag assume sila na residence niya yung kung summons?
nasaan yung subject property (beach resort). The proper service of summons is important
because it serves to acquire jurisdiction over
DOCTRINE: The failure to strictly comply with the the person of the defendant, or to notify said
requirements of the rules regarding the mailing of person of the action filed against them and to
copies of the summons and the order for its afford an opportunity to be heard on the
publication is a fatal defect in the service of claims made against them. Logicaly, in order
summons. to effect the proper service of summons, it is
7. Sarol v. Spouses crucial to furnish the correct address of the
Diao FACTS: Petitioner Sarol purchased from a certain defendant or respondent in the complaint. The
Claire Chiu a parcel of land in Guinsuan, foregoing is in consonance with the doctrine of
Pobalcion, Negros Oriental. A deed of sale over due process and a violation of due process
the property was executed, as such, a TCT was would be a jurisdictional defect. Thus, absent
issued in the name of petitioners. Subsequently, proper service of summons, the trial court
the petitioner possessed the property and does not acquire jurisdiction and renders null
developed therein a beach resort. Eventually, she and void all subsequent proceedings and
left the Philippines to reside in Germany. Her issuances in relation to the case.
father and Marie Alanta-ol was made to manage
the beach resort and the said lot. In the present case, the summons and alias
summons issued by the court a quo to

The respondents, spouses Diao, whose property petitioner indicated her residential address at
was adjacent to the subject lot, made a claim on “Guinsuan, Poblacion, Negros Oriental.” The
the property, alleging that the survey made on the address is undisputedly the location of the
subject lot was errouneous as it included 464 property which is the subject matter of this
sq/m of the respondents property. They case. As found, the complaint for
demanded the petitioner and Claire Chiu to return reconveyance filed by the respondents with
to them a portion of their property but to no avail, RTC where petitioner was included as a
hence they filed a complaint before RTC. party-defendant for being the purchaser of the
disputed property. To our mind, as petitioner
During the trial, Claire Chiu filed her answer to the purchased the property in said address, the
complaint but failed to appear at the pre-trial respondents considered the location of the
proceedings. Sarol on the other hand, failed to file property to be petitioners residence. However,
any pleadings with the RTC. Thus, upon motion of the deed of sale and the transfer certificate of
the respondent spouses, the petitioners were title show that petitioner’s residence is in
declared in default, and such order became final Tamisu, Bais City. Thus, as Sarol is out of the
and executory, allowing the respondents to country and the action pertains to her interest
present evidence ex-prate. RTC then ruled in over a parcel of land located in the
favor of the respondents. Philippines, the RTC granted the
extraterritorial service on Sarol by publication
Upon appeal, the CA dismissed the petition for in a newspaper of general circulation in the.
annulment of judgement by the petitioners, stating City of Dumaguete and in the Province of
that Sarol is a Filipino resident whow as Negros Oriental, for two consecutive weeks
temporarily out of the country and that there is a and to send copies of the summons and of the
valid service of summons when the same was order of the court a quo by registered mail to
published. Petitioner having failed to timely file an the last known address of Sarol in Guinsuan,
answer to the complaint, she was declared in Poblacion, Zamboanguita Negros Oriental.
default. Following the provisions of Section 15, Rule
14 of the Rules of Court and the
Hence the present petition. Petitioner now aforementioned order of the court, publication
contends that her place of residence is in Tamisu, must be duly observed and copies of the
Bais City, Negros Oriental and not in Guisan, summons and order of the court be served at
Poblacion, Negros Oriental, where the subject Sarol's last known correct address by
property is located. registered mail, as a complement to the
publication.

The failure to strictly comply with the

requirements of the rules regarding the
mailing of copies of the summons and the
order for its publication is a fatal defect in the

service of summons. Considering that Sarol's

last known address is in Tamisu, Bais City,
Negros Oriental, copies of the summons and
order of the court must be sent to this
address.
8. BDO Unibank, Karmela
Inc. v. Spouses
Chang
9. EUCDI United Harold
Construction and
Development, Inc. v.
De Guzman

DOCTRINE: ISSUE: RULING:

Rule 14, Section 13 of the 1964 Rules of Court, Was the summons Summons was validly served upon FFMCCI.
which was then in force, allowed the service of allegedly served to
summons upon a director of a private domestic FFMCCI valid to While summons was validly served upon
corporation. It does not require that service on the declare RTC with FFMCCI, the Third-Party Complaint of CCCIC
private domestic corporation be served at its jurisdiction? - YES. against FFMCCI is dismissed on the ground of
principal office in order for the court to acquire lack of cause of action.
jurisdiction over the same.
The Court disagrees with the ruling of the
FACTS: Court of Appeals that there was no proper
10. CCC Insurance Kawasaki and F.F. Mañacop Construction service of summons upon FFMCCI. The
Corp. v. Kawasaki Company, Inc. (FFMCCI), represented by its appellate court overlooked the fact that the
President, Florante F. Mañacop, executed a service of summons on FFMCCI at its
Steel Corp. Consortium Agreement for Pangasinan Fishing principal address at #86 West Avenue,
Port Network Project for the purpose of Quezon City failed because FFMCCI had
contracting with the Philippine Government for the already vacated said premises without
construction of a fishing port network in notifying anyone as to where it transferred.
Pangasinan. Kawasaki and FFMCCI undertook to For this reason, the RTC, upon the motion of
perform and accomplish their respective and CCCIC, issued an Order, directing the
specific portions of work in the intended contract issuance and service of Alias Summons to the
with the Philippine Government. individual directors of FFMCCI. Eventually, the
Alias Summons was personally served upon
In accordance with Article 10 of the Consortium FFMCCI director Vicente Concepcion on
Agreement, Kawasaki secured from the Philippine September 25, 1991.

Commercial International Bank (PCIB) Letter of

Credit in the amount of P6.2 million in favor of Rule 14, Section 13 of the 1964 Rules of
DPWH to guarantee the faithful performance by Court, which was then in force, allowed the
Kawasaki-FFMCCI Consortium of its obligation service of summons upon a director of a
under the Construction Contract. The Republic private domestic corporation:
made an advance payment for the Project to the
Kawasaki-FFMCCI Consortium. Sec. 13. Service upon private
domestic corporation or partnership. -
For the release of its share in the advance If the defendant is a corporation
payment made by the Republic, FFMCCI secured organized under the laws of the
from CCCIC the following bonds in favor of Philippines or a partnership duly
Kawasaki: (a) Surety Bond to counter-guarantee registered, service may be made on
the amount of advance payment FFMCCI would the president, manager, secretary,
receive from Kawasaki; and (b) Performance cashier, agent, or any of its directors.
Bond to guarantee completion by FFMCCI of its
scope of work in the Project. In turn, FFMCCI and The aforementioned rule does not require that
Mañacop executed two Indemnity Agreements service on the private domestic corporation be
promising to compensate CCCIC for any damages served at its principal office in order for the
the insurance company might incur from issuing court to acquire jurisdiction over the same.
the Surety and Performance Bonds. The Court, in Talsan Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Baliwag Transit, Inc., citing Baltazar v. Court of
The Project commenced in 1988, however Appeals, affirmed that:
FFMCCI ceased performing its work in the Project
after suffering financial problems and/or business Service on respondent's bus terminal
reverses. They agreed that Kawasaki will take at the address stated in the summons
over the work left by FFMCCI and any profit or and not in its main office in Baliwag do
benefit shall accrue to Kawasaki. not render the service of summons
invalid. In Artemio Baltazar v. Court of
Kawasaki informed CCCIC about the cessation of Appeals, we held:
operations of FFMCCI. Kawasaki demanded that
CCCIC, as surety, pay Kawasaki the amounts "The regular mode, in other words, of
covered by the Surety and Performance Bonds. serving summons upon a private
Because CCCIC did not act upon its demand, Philippine Corporation is by personal
Kawasaki filed before the RTC a Complaint service upon one of the officers of
against CCCIC to collect on Surety Bond and such corporation identified in Section
Performance Bond. 13. Ordinarily, such personal service
may be expected to be made at the
CCCIC denied any liability on its Surety and principal office of the corporation.
Performance Bonds since the bonds have not yet Section 13, does not, however,

accrued being mere counter guarantees and that impose such requirement, and so
Kawasaki and FFMCCI entered into agreement personal service upon the corporation
without the consent of CCCIC. may be effected through service upon,
for instance, the president of the
CCCIC subsequently filed before the RTC a corporation at his office or residential
Third-Party Complaint against FFMCCI and its address." x x x.
President Mafiacop. The RTC issued
summonses but FFMCCI and Mañacop failed In fine, the service of summons upon
to file any responsive pleading to the respondent Baliwag Transit is proper.
Third-Party Complaint of CCCIC. Upon motion Consequently, the trial court validly
of CCCIC, the RTC declared FFMCCI and acquired jurisdiction over respondent
Mañacop in default. Baliwag.

The RTC agreed with CCCIC that the Surety and Hence, the personal service of the Alias
Performance Bonds issued by the insurance Summons on an FFMCCI director was
company were mere counter-guarantees and the sufficient for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction
cause of action of Kawasaki based on said Bonds over FFMCCI itself.
had not yet accrued.

Kawasaki appealed before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the appealed RTC
Decision.

The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration of

CCCIC. However, it partially granted the
Third-Party Complaint of CCCIC by holding
Mafiacop liable under the Indemnity Agreements
he executed in favor of the insurance company,
while declaring the RTC was without
jurisdiction over FFMCCI due to invalid service
of summons.

Petitioner CCCIC insists that there was proper

service of summons upon FFMCCI, through one
of its directors, as authorized by the Rules of
Court.

11. Integrated Micro TOPIC: Rule 14 Summons (Exclusive List) Whether the service No.
Electronics, Inc. v. of summons is

Standard Insurance TICKLER: Insurance; fire proper. The CA is correct in finding that the service of
Co., Inc. summons upon the legal assistant of Standard
FACTS: Insurance’s in-house counsel is improper.
On May 24, 2009, a fire broke out at Integrated Rule 14, Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of Court
Micro’s building causing damage to its production provides the manner of serving summons to a
equipment and machineries. Thus, on May 25, corporation, thus—
2009, Integrated Micro filed a claim for indemnity
from Standard Insurance but was rejected on Section 11. Service upon domestic private
February 24, 2010 on the ground that the cause of juridical entity.--- When the defendant is a
the loss was an excluded peril. Aggrieved, corporation, partnership or association
Integrated Micro sought reconsideration. In a letter organized under the laws of the Philippines
dated April 12, 2010, Standard Insurance denied with a juridical personality, service may be
the reconsideration which Integrated Micro made on the president, managing partner,
received on April 15, 2010. Almost a year general manager, corporate secretary,
thereafter, on April 11, 2011, Integrated Micro filed treasurer, or in-house counsel.
a complaint for specific performance and
damages against Standard Insurance before the Notably, this provision allowed service to an
RTC asking actual damages. agent of a corporation. The new rule, however,
has specifically identified and limited the
Standard Insurance moved to dismiss the persons to whom service of summons must be
complaint for invalid service of summons, lack of made. Contrary to Integrated Micro’s
cause of action, and prescription. Allegedly, the assertion, the amendment effectively
summons was served upon the legal assistant or abandoned the substantial compliance
the secretary of Standard Insurance’s in-house doctrine and restricted the persons authorized
counsel, who was not authorized to received to receive summons for juridical entities.
summons under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997
Rules of Court.

12. Heirs of Maltha

Manguiat v. Court of
Appeals
13. Roxas v. TOPIC: Rule 14- Summons; Service when identity Whether or not Yes, jurisdiction was acquired over the
Asiatrust or whereabouts of defendant is unknown jurisdiction was petitioners.
Development Bank, acquired over the

Inc. TICKLER: Credit Line of 13million, Suretyship, petitioners. –YES Jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is
Loan. Promissory Notes, Demands, Summons acquired either through service of summons or
published in Saksi Ngayon through voluntary appearance in court. Here,
the sheriff attempted several times to serve
FACTS: In 1999, Kamakura Food Corporation the summons on petitioners personally, but
was granted a Credit Line in the amount of failed since petitioners' address could not be
P13,000,000.00 by the Asiatrust Development found and no one can give their possible
Bank, Inc. In consideration thereof, its location. The impossibility of personal service
Vice-President, Nancy Dy, along with its of summons warranted the resort to service by
authorized signatories, Alfredo and Cecilia Roxas, publication pursuant to Section 14, Rule 14 of
executed a Continuing Suretyship on May 19, the Rules.
1999, whereby they jointly and severally bound
themselves with Kamakura and guaranteed the The present Sec. 14, Rule 14 of the Rules
full and due payment and performance of all the expressly states that service of summons
obligations of Kamakura. by publication applies "in any action."
Thus, service of summons by publication
Subsequently, on May 30 and September 23, may now be made in any action, whether in
2000, Kamakura, through Nancy Dy, Alfredo and personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
Cecilia Roxas, obtained a loan from Asiatrust in
the amount of P7,000,000.00 and P1,000,000.00 In any event, as correctly held by the CA,
evidenced by Promissory Note Nos. 37839 and even assuming that the service of summons in
38380, respectively. Upon maturity of the this case was defective, the RTC acquired
promissory notes and despite several demands, jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners
Kamakura failed to pay its indebtedness. when they made a voluntary appearance in
Consequently, on August 15, 2003, Asiatrust filed the proceedings. Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the
a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages Rules provides that the defendant's voluntary
against Kamakura, Nancy Dy, Alfredo and Cecilia appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
Roxas before the Regional Trial Court. service of summons.

Summonses were issued by the court. Several Here, petitioners voluntarily appeared in the
attempts were made by the sheriff to serve the action when they filed an entry of appearance
summonses and the copies of the complaint to and very urgent omnibus motion to: (a) set
Kamakura, Nancy Dy, Alfredo and Cecilia Roxas, aside order of default; and (b) admit appended
but to no avail. With prior leave of court, Asiatrust answer. The entry of appearance was made
caused the publication of the summons in without qualification or objection to the RTC's
Saksi Ngayon on July 23 &30 and August 6, jurisdiction. This in itself amounts to voluntary
2004. Thereafter, it submitted the affidavit of appearance in the proceedings.
publication of the publisher/editor-in-chief
thereof and an affidavit of mailing of

Asiatrust's employee to the effect that he sent

a copy of the summons by registered mail to
the last known addresses of Kamakura and
Alfredo and Cecilia Roxas. However, Nancy Dy
and the petitioners failed to file their Answers
within the prescribed period and they were
declared in default.

DOCTRINE: Whether or not the On Jurisdiction over the person of Cohen, the
RTC had jurisdiction Court must first characterize the nature of the
The complaint filed by the heirs of Magdayao over the complaint - complaint which will determine the required
presented an action in personam for which NO procedure for service of summons. The CA
personal service was required. The Sheriff’s return ruled that the action is one quasi in rem, for
of summons showed how personal service was which jurisdiction over the res is sufficient. On
attempted. However, the heirs of Magdayao this issue, the Court sustains Cohen.
stopped and no longer attempted substituted
service of summons and immediately resorted to When the proceeding is strictly in personam
service by publication. Neither did they brought to determine the personal rights and
demonstrate in their motion their diligent inquires obligations of the parties, personal service
to ascertain Cohen’s whereabouts. The RTC within the state or voluntary appearance in the
should not have ordered service by publication. case is essential to acquisition of jurisdiction.
The RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her Nevertheless, then Rule 14 section 14,
14. person. permitted service by publication upon persons
Procianos-Cohen v. whose whereabouts are unknown. In Pua v.
Heirs of Magdayao FACTS: Deyto, this court clarified that service by
publication may be effected even in
● A complaint for cancellation and/or actions in personam, provided that
Annulment of Deed of Absolute sale and personal and substituted service were first
Transfer with damaged was filed by availed of but failed, and diligent inquiries
respondents Heirs of Magdayao againt were made as to defendant’s whereabouts.
Cohen and ROD of Palawan. They
averred in their complaint that upon that The complaint filed by the heirs of Magdayao
upon the death of their grandfather Miguel presented an action in personam for which
Magdayao, his heirs one of whom was personal service was required. The Sheriff’s
their father Anacito, executed an return of summons showed how personal
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. service was attempted. However, the heirs of
● Controversy arose when Cohen and Magdayao stopped and no longer attempted
Felomina Magdayao, supposedly substituted service of summons and
executed a deed of Absolute sale of the immediately resorted to service by publication.

latter’s share in the even if the certificate Neither did they demonstrate in their motion
of death has indicated she had already their diligent inquires to ascertain Cohen’s
died when such sale was executed. An whereabouts. The RTC should not have
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate wa ordered service by publication. The RTC
purportedly executed among the heirs of never acquired jurisdiction over her person.
Miguel wherein Lot A was apportioned to Even if the court were to subscribe to the rule
Felomina but a number of signatories CA’s ruling that the action is quasi in rem, lack
therein had already died. of notice to Cohen would still be a denial of
● Claiming that Cohen’s fabrication of the due process. To satisfy the requirements of
foregoing documents have deprived them due process, jurisdiction over the parties in
of their property rights over Lot A, a rem and quasi in rem is required and
complaint was filed by the heirs of regardless of the action, proper service of
Magdayao. summons is imperative. A decision rendered
● The RTC issued summons and a without proper service of summons suffers a
Sherriff’s Return of Summons showed defect in jurisdiction.
that it was unserved with regard to
defendant Ann Procianos-Cohen. The The RTC did not have jurisdiction to entertain
sheriff attempted to personally serve the the complaint since it involve title to real
Summons to cohen but according to her property for which the assessed value is
sisters, Cohen already migrated to the jurisdiction.
US. The heirs of MAgdayao filed a motion
to Leave of court to serve summons by
publication which was granted by the
RTC. The newspaper PINOY TEXT
published the complaint but not the
summons. The heirs of Magdayao filed a
motion to declare defendants in default
and set the pre-trial conference. Cohen
was declared in default and the heirs were
allowed to present evidence ex-parte.
● The RTC declared the Deed of Absolute
sale and partition agreement as void.
Cohen filed a petition for Annulment of
Judgement under Rule 47 before the CA.
She argued that the decision was
rendered with extrinsic fraud and without
jurisdiction over her person.
● The CA found that the service of
summons by publication was procedurally

flawed since the motion was not

supported by an affidavit justifying service
by publication and the affidavit of
publication did not mention the summons.
It failed to allege the element of
publication. It found that the RTC has
acquired jurisdiction over the res for it
being an action quasi in rem.

TICKLER: Whether the service Yes; Under Section 15 (now Sec 17), Rule 14
of summons on of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
DOCTRINE: petitioner was there are only four instances wherein a
defective defendant who is a non-resident and is not
Dakila Trading Corporation entered into a found in the country may be served with
Distribution entered into a Distribution Agreement summons by extraterritorial service, to wit:
with Perkin-Elmer Instruments Asia Pte Ltd. 1. when the action affects the
(PEIA), organized under Singapore laws. By virtue personal status of the plaintiff
of the said agreement, PEIA appointed the 2. when the action relates to, or the
respondent as the sole distributor of its products in subject of which is property, within
the Philippines. However, PEIA unilaterally the Philippines, in which the
terminated the Distribution Agreement, prompting defendant claims a lien or an
respondent to file before the RTC, a Complaint for interest, actual or contingent
15. Perkin Elmer Collection of Sum of Money and Damages with 3. when the relief demanded in such
Singapore Pte Ltd. Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment action consists, wholly or in part,
v. Dakila Trading against PEIA and PEIP. Respondent then filed in excluding the defendant from
Corp. Ex-Parte Motions for Issuance of Summons and any interest in property located in
for Leave of Court to Deputize Respondent's the Philippines
General Manager, Richard A. Tee, to Serve 4. when the defendant
Summons Outside of the Philippines which the non-resident's property has been
RTC granted. But the said Alias Summons was attached within the Philippines.
served and received by Perkin-Elmer Asia, In these instances, service of summons may
different from PEIA. Perkinelmer Asia, on the be effected by (a) personal service out of the
other hand, through its counsel, sent letters to the country, with leave of court; (b) publication,
respondent and to the RTC to inform them of the also with leave of court; or (c) any other
wrongful service of summons upon Perkinelmer manner the court may deem sufficient.
Asia. Respondent filed an Ex-Parte Motion to
Admit Amended Complaint, together with the Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of
Amended Complaint claiming that PEIA had summons applies only where the action is in
become a sole proprietorship owned by the rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in

petitioner, and subsequently changed its name to personam. In the case at bar, there can never
Perkinelmer Asia. be a valid extraterritorial service of summons
upon petitioner because the case is for
collection of a sum of money and damages is,
indeed, an action in personam. Hence,
personal service of summons within the
Philippines is necessary in order for the RTC
to validly acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner, and this is not possible in this
case because the petitioner is a non-resident
and is not found within the PH.

FACTS: Sometime in 2007, petitioner Sarol Whether or not the The preferred mode of service of summons
purchased from a certain Claire Chiu a parcel of summons in the shall be done personally upon the defendant
land located in Guinsuan, Poblacion, case at bar is valid. - or respondent. However, our rules set out
Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental. The parcel of NO. other modes of service. Section 7, Rule 1443
land has an area of 1,217 square meters and is of the Rules of Court allows the substituted
designated as Lot No. 7150. On the other hand, service of summons if, for justifiable causes,
Spouses Diao claim that their property is adjacent the defendant cannot be served within a
to Lot No. 7150. Prior the sale of said property to reasonable time. It shall be effected by leaving
Sarol, Claire Chiu caused to survey the property copies of the summons: (a) at the defendant's
yielding an area of 1,217 square meters. However, residence with some person of suitable age
the area, as surveyed, is erroneous because it and discretion residing therein; or (b) at the
included 464 square meters of Spouses Diao's defendant's place of business with some
16. Sarol v. Spouses property. In 2009, Spouses Diao learned of this competent person in charge thereof. "Dwelling
overlap. They immediately demanded Claire Chiu house" or "residence" refers to the place
Diao
and Sarol to return their portion of the property, where the person named in the summons is
but to no avail. In 2015, Spouses Diao filed a living at the time when the service is made,
complaint with the RTC Branch 44, Dumaguete even though he may be temporarily out of the
City docketed as Civil Case No. 2015-15007. country at the time. Similarly, the terms "office"
or "regular place of business" refer to the
Summons was issued for service to Claire Chiu, office or place of business of defendant at the
her husband Ginghis Chiu, the Register of Deeds time of service. The Court found that the
of Negros Oriental, and Sarol. The address of address in Guinsuan, Poblacion,
Sarol indicated in the summons states "Guinsuan, Zarnboanguita, Negros Oriental is not Sarol's
Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental," or place of residence. Therefore, service of
the location of the property she purchased from summons to Sarol, even by substituted
Claire Chiu. On April16, 2015, respondent Sheriff service, should have been effected in Tamisu,
Tale issued a Sheriffs Return of Summons, which Bais City, Negros Oriental, as evidenced by

states that summons was served on Claire Chiu the deed of sale and TCT. Assuming that
but could not be served to Sarol "on the ground Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros
that she is out of the country." Spouses Diao then Oriental is Sarol's regular place of business,
moved for the issuance of alias summons. In the the Court finds that there was no substituted
Sheriffs Return dated July 25, 2015, Sheriff Tale service effected. The Sheriff's Return of
stated his three failed attempts to personally serve Summons dated April 16, 2015 and Sheriff's
the alias summons to Sarol at Guinsuan, Return of Alias Summons dated July 25, 2015
Poblacion, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental. Sheriff report the unsuccessful service to Sarol
Tale narrates that on July 10, 2015, the alias because she is out of the country. Sheriff Tale
summons was not served because nobody was accounted in the Return of Alias Summons
around the location. In the evening of the same that he merely inquired from the caretaker the
date, he, again, failed to serve the alias summons whereabouts of Sarol. From the foregoing, the
after receiving information from the caretaker that returns of the sheriff do not state that
Sarol left a few days ago. Early morning of July substituted service of summons was made to
11, 2015, Sheriff Tale spoke with the caretaker the designated persons provided under
and learned that Sarol arrived the Philippines on Section 7, Rule 14.
July 3, 2015 and left for Germany on July 7, 2015;
that the caretaker had no idea of Sarol's return. It must be noted that Spouses Diao are not
For this reason, Spouses Diao moved that totally without recourse as the rules allow
summons be served by publication in a summons by publication and extraterritorial
newspaper of general circulation in the City of service. These are extraordinary modes which
Dumaguete and in the Province of Negros require leave of court. In fact, in view of Sheriff
Oriental pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Tale's reports of failure to serve summons on
Rules of Court on extraterritorial service of Sarol, Spouses Diao moved for the
summons. In an Order dated February 5, 2016, extraterritorial service of summons by
the RTC directed service of summons on Sarol by publication under Section 15, Rule 14 of the
publication in a newspaper of general circulation Rules of Court. Under this rule, one of the
in the City of Dumaguete and in the Province of modes to effect the extraterritorial service of
Negros Oriental, for two consecutive weeks and to summons is by publication in a newspaper of
send copies of the summons and of the order by general circulation in such places and for such
registered mail to the last known address of Sarol time as the court may order, in which case a
in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita Negros copy of the summons and order of the court
Oriental. shall be sent by registered mail to the last
known correct address of the defendant.
Claire Chiu filed her answer to the complaint, but Furthermore, to avail this mode, the action or
failed to appear at the pre-trial proceedings. Sarol, complaint filed against a non-resident
on the other hand, failed to file any pleadings with defendant: (1) affects the personal status of
the RTC. Upon motion of Spouses Diao, Claire the plaintiff or relates to; or (2) the subject of
Chiu and Sarol were declared in default in an which, is property within the Philippines, in

Order dated January 25, 2017. The Order became which the defendant has or claims a lien or
final and executory allowing Spouses Diao to interest, actual or contingent; or (3) in which
present their evidence ex-parte. On December 13, the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part,
2017, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of in excluding the defendant from any interest
Spouses Diao. therein; or (4) the property of the defendant
has been attached within the Philippines. The
The Decision of the RTC attained finality. Court emphasize that it is the duty of the court
Thereafter and on motion of Spouses Diao, the to require the fullest compliance with all the
RTC issued a Writ of Execution dated May 2, requirements of the statute permitting service
2018. In view of the finality of the Decision of the by publication. Where service is obtained by
RTC, Sarol filed a Petition for Annulment of publication, the entire proceeding should be
Judgement under Rule 47 of the Rules Court with closely scrutinized by the courts and a strict
the CA. She sought to invalidate the Decision of compliance with every condition of law should
the RTC because the court a quo did not acquire be exacted.
jurisdiction over her person. Sarol argued that she
was not served with any summons relating to the Here, as Sarol is out of the country and the
case instituted by Spouses Diao. action pertains to her interest over a parcel of
land located in the Philippines, the RTC
he CA dismissed the petition for annulment of granted the extraterritorial service on Sarol by
judgment. The CA held that Sarol is a Filipino publication in a newspaper of general
resident, who was temporarily out of the country. circulation in the. City of Dumaguete and in
Thus, the rules on service of summons under the Province of Negros Oriental, for two
Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is consecutive weeks and to send copies of the
applicable. Under Section 16, service of summons and of the order of the court a quo
summons, to a resident defendant, who is by registered mail to the last known address of
temporarily out of the country, may be effected by Sarol in Guinsuan, Poblacion, Zamboanguita
modes provided for in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Negros Oriental. Following the provisions of
Rules of Court. Following Section 15 on Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and
extraterritorial service of summons, one of the the aforementioned order of the court,
modes of service may be "effected x x x by publication must be duly observed and copies
publication in a newspaper of general circulation, of the summons and order of the court be
in which case a copy of the summons and order of served at Sarol's last known correct address
the court shall be sent by registered mail to the by registered mail, as a complement to the
last known address of the defendant x x x". The publication. The failure to strictly comply with
CA found that personal service of the summons the requirements of the rules regarding the
and the alias summons could not be effected at mailing of copies of the summons and the
Sarol's address in Guinsuan, Poblacion, order for its publication is a fatal defect in the
Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental because Sarol service of summons. Considering that Sarol's
was out of the country. Thus, Spouses Diao last known address is in Tamisu, Bais City,

moved for the service of summons by publication Negros Oriental, copies of the summons and
which the RTC granted in an Order dated order of the court must be sent to this
February 5, 2016. The CA held that summons was address. As Spouses Diao furnished an
clearly served on the person of Sarol by address in Guinsuan, Poblacion,
publication. Having failed to timely file an answer Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, service of
to the complaint, Sarol was declared in default. summons by publication is defective in view of
Further, the CA held that Sarol failed to show clear the failure to mail the requirements of Section
facts and laws for the petition for annulment of 15, Rule 14 to the correct address of Sarol.
judgment to prosper. Relatedly, the findings of the CA on service of
summons by publication under Section 16,
Sarol then filed the instant petition before this Rule 14 of the Rules of Court cannot be
Court reiterating that the RTC did not acquire considered proper because this rule also
jurisdiction over her person. Sarol argued that follows the same procedures set out in
there was a defective service of summons by Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court on
Sheriff Tale. While she is named a recipient of the publication and mailing to the last known
summons, the address, Guinsuan, Poblacion, correct address of the defendant or
Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, was incorrect. respondent. Spouses Diao only assert
Sarol argued that she never became a resident at compliance with publication of summons in
said address. Her last known address in the Dumaguete City and Negros Oriental. There
Philippines was in Barangay Tamisu, Bais City, were no records presented showing proof of
Negros Oriental. She claimed that after her service by registered mail of the summons
purchase of the subject property from Claire Chiu, and the order of the court to the last known
she migrated to Germany. Hence, personal address of Sarol as required under the rules
service of the summons could not have validly by the court a quo in this case.
been effected.

TICKLER: Initially, no valid service of summons ISSUE: Is there an HELD: No, there is no improper service of
because substituted service was not resorted to. improper service of summons.
Nag appear kasi si petitioner w/o objecting to the summons?
jurisdiction of the court, in effect, he waived his Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ by
right. which the defendant is notified that an action
17. Sabado v. was brought against him or her. In an action in
DOCTRINE: By seeking affirmative relief in an personam brought to enforce personal rights
Sabado
opposition without objecting to the jurisdiction of and obligations, jurisdiction over the person of
the trial court, a person voluntarily submits himself the defendant is mandatory. In such actions,
to its jurisdiction. In effect, this cures the invalid therefore, summons serve not only to notify
service of summons. the defendant of the filing of an action, but
also to enable acquisition of jurisdiction over
FACTS: Respondent Tina Sabado and petitioner his person. In an action in personam such as

Jay Sabado were married, their marriage bore two a petition for TPO/PPO under RA 9262, the
children. Tina is a bank employee while Jay works purpose of summons is two-fold: (1) to notify
overseas as a ship captain. Tina claims that there the defendant that an action has been brought
came a time when respondent abandoned her and against him; and (2) to acquire jurisdiction
their children, thereby depriving them of financial over the person of the defendant. When the
support. She then tried to contact the petitioner defendant does not voluntarily submit to the
numerous times to settle their issues but her court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid
efforts were futile. She even tried to reach out to service of summons, any judgment of the
her mother-in-law but the latter refused to court which has no jurisdiction over the person
intervene. As a result of the petitioner's of the defendant is null and void.
abandonment, Tina suffered psychological and
emotional abuse. In the case at bar, the sheriff attempted to
personally serve the summons, petition, and
Tina then filed a petition for Temporary and TPO in Jay's residence and place of
Permanent Protection Order, Support and Support employment as per the Sheriffs Return.
pendente lite against respondent. The trial court However, records show that Jay was out of
issued a TPO in favor of Tina. The court sheriff the country due to his overseas employment.
made several attempts to personally serve the Since personal service could not be effected
summons, petition and TPO to petitioner's upon him, summons should be served through
address but the security guard claims that he was substituted service, extraterritorial service, or
not around. He also tried to serve them at the by publication. Notably, none of these modes
office of his employer but he was told that the of service were resorted to by Tina. Granting
petitioner was abroad for deployment. arguendo that Jay knew of the pending TPO
case against him, whether through Atty.
Subsequently, the counsel of petitioner received a Palmero or another person, the requirement of
copy of the order and petition. Thus, he filed an summons cannot be dispensed with.
entry of appearance with Opposition to the Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
issuance of the PPO but the same was denied of cannot be acquired notwithstanding his
admission for having been belatedly filed 2 knowledge of the pendency of a case against
months after the issuance of the TPO. The trial him, unless he was validly served with
court then issued a PPO in favor of Tina. summons. Thus, serving the order and TPO to
Atty. Palmero cannot be considered a valid
Petitioner then appealed to CA arguing that there service of summons. However, Jay voluntarily
was improper service of summons. The CA submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial
denied the same, ordering that there was no court when he filed the Entry of Appearance
improper service of summons. Hence, the petition. with Opposition to the Issuance of the
Permanent Protection Order. By seeking
affirmative relief in his opposition without
objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court, he

thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction.

In effect, this cured the invalid service of
summons. Clearly, the trial court acquired
jurisdiction over Jay through his voluntary
appearance when he sought the lifting of the
TPO and the denial of the issuance of PPO in
his opposition, without raising the issue of lack
of jurisdiction over his person.

By such conduct, he can no longer

subsequently object to the court's jurisdiction.

18. Barber v. Chua Karmela

19. BDO Unibank, Harold
Inc. v. Spouses
Chang

DOCTRINE: ISSUE: RULING:

Resort to substituted service is allowed only if, for Was there a At the outset, petitioner no longer questions
justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be defective service of the appellate court's finding with regard to the
personally served with summons within a summons to the invalidity of the service of summons upon
reasonable time. respondent? - YES respondent. The SC is one with the CA in
ruling that there was a "defective, invalid,
Before the sheriff may resort to substituted and ineffectual" substituted service of
service, he must first establish the impossibility of summons in this case. It is settled that resort
prompt personal service. To do so, there must be to substituted service is allowed only if, for
20. Belo v. at least three best effort attempts, preferably on at justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
least two different dates, to effect personal service personally served with summons within a
Marcantonio
within a reasonable period of one month or reasonable time. As substituted service is in
eventually result in failure derogation of the usual method of service -
personal service is preferred over substituted
FACTS: service - parties do not have unbridled right to
Felicita Z. Belo (petitioner) filed a complaint for resort to substituted service of summons.
foreclosure of mortgage against Carlita C.
Marcantonio (respondent). The clerk of court then In the landmark case of Manotoc v. CA, the
issued summons addressed to respondent's Court ruled that before the sheriff may
known address at 155 Haig St., Mandaluyong resort to substituted service, he must first
City. Per the Sheriff's Return, copies of said establish the impossibility of prompt

summons and the complaint along with its personal service. To do so, there must be
annexes were left to a certain Giovanna at least three best effort attempts,
Marcantonio, respondent's "niece," allegedly preferably on at least two different dates,
because respondent was not at the given address to effect personal service within a
at that time. The Sheriff's Return reads: reasonable period of one month or
eventually result in failure. It is further
This is to certify that on January 28, 2015, required for the sheriff to cite why-such efforts
a copy of Summons with Complaint, were unsuccessful. It is only then that
Annexes dated January 26, 2015 issued impossibility of service can be confirmed or
by the Honorable Court in connection with accepted.
the above-entitled case was caused to be
served by substituted service (Sec. 7 - Here, as correctly found by the CA, the sheriff
Rule 14). The defendant/s cannot be merely made a single attempt to personally/
served within a reasonable time as serve summons upon respondent. Further, he
provided for in Sec. 8 - Rule 14 because merely made a general statement in the
the defendant is not around and cannot Return that earnest efforts were made to
be found at the given address located at personally serve the summons, without any
155 Haig Street, Mandaluyong City at the detail as to the circumstances surrounding
time of the service of summons and that such alleged attempted personal service.
earnest efforts were exerted to serve Clearly, this does not suffice. In addition, this
summons personally to the defendant and Court observed that the sheriff even made a
service was effected by leaving a copy of mistake in the identity of the person who
summons at the defendant's given received the summons, stating in his Return
address thru Giovanna Marcantonio — that the same was left lo respondent's niece,
Niece of the defendant and a person of when it turned out that the recipient is
suitable age and discretion who respondent's daughter.
acknowledged receipt thereof the copy of
summons as evidenced by her signature Despite the defective service of summons,
located at the lower portion of the original petitioner insists that such defect has already
copy of summons. been cured by respondent's filing of a Motion
to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and to
No responsive pleading was, however, filed. Thus, Re-Open Trial, which is deemed as a
upon petitioner's motion, respondent was declared voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
in default. Petitioner was then allowed to present trial court.
evidence ex parte, and thereafter, the case was
submitted for decision. Contrary to the appellate court's ruling,
respondent has indeed already submitted
Before judgment was rendered, respondent herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when
learned about petitioner's case against her. she moved for the setting aside of the order of

Respondent immediately, thus, filed a Motion to default against her and asked the trial court for
Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and to Re-Open an affirmative relief to allow her to participate
Trial on the ground of defective service of in the trial. Such voluntary submission actually
summons. She averred therein, among others, cured the defect in the service of summons.
that she learned about the case only on April 5, Contrary, however, to petitioner's theory, while
2016 through petitioner's niece, a certain Mae the defect in the service of summons was
Zamora; that she was not able to file a responsive cured by respondent's voluntary submission to
pleading as she did not receive a copy of the the RTC's jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to
summons; that she is currently a resident of make the proceedings binding upon the
Cavite and no longer a resident of Mandaluyong respondent without her participation. This is
where the summons was served; and that said because the service of summons or, in this
summons was received by her daughter (not case the voluntary submission, merely
niece as stated in the Sheriff's Return) Giovanna, pertains to the "notice" aspect of due process.
who never sent the same to her, being unaware of Equally important in the concept of due
the significance thereof. Respondent further process is the "hearing" aspect or the right to
averred that she has good and meritorious be heard. This aspect of due process was not
defenses to defeat petitioner's claim for satisfied or "cured" by respondent's voluntary
foreclosure of mortgage as the same was pursued submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court
through fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated when she was unjustifiably disallowed to
by one Maria Cecilia Duque, and that at any rate, participate in the proceedings before the RTC.
certain payments have already been made, which
controverted the amount claimed in the complaint. The service of summons is a vital and
indispensable ingredient of a defendant's
RTC held that the substituted service of summons constitutional right to due process, which is
upon respondent was validly made per Sheriff's the cornerstone of our justice system. Due
Return. process consists of notice and hearing. Notice
means that the persons with interests in the
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration to litigation be informed of the facts and law on
said Order, reiterating her averment that there was which the action is based for them to
a defective substituted service of summons and adequately defend their respective interests.
asserting her right to file a responsive pleading. Hearing, on the other hand, means that the
This motion for reconsideration was denied, parties be given an opportunity to be heard or
wherein the RTC ruled that respondent's filing of a chance to defend their respective interests.
the motion to lift default order and to re-open trial,
as well as the MR of the order denying said
motion, amounted to a voluntary appearance
which already vested it with jurisdiction over her
person.

The CA ruled that there was improper resort to

substituted service of summons. It held that the
sheriff's single attempt to effect personal service,
as well as the mere statement in the Sheriff's
Return that "earnest efforts were exerted to serve
summons personally to the defendant" without
describing the circumstances surrounding the
alleged attempt to personally serve the summons,
did not justify resort to substituted service. Thus,
the appellate court held that petitioner's reliance
upon the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties of public officers was
misplaced due to said lapses on the part of the
sheriff.

Petitioner: The defect in the service of summons

was already cured by respondent's filing of a
Matter; to Set Aside/Lift Order of Default and
Re-open Trial as by such motion. Respondent is
deemed to have already voluntarily submitted to
the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, the entire
proceedings before the RTC is already binding
upon respondent.

Respondent: She explicitly questioned the

jurisdiction of the trial court over her person,
consistently and categorically stating in detail the
circumstances surrounding the defective service
of summons, and asserting her right to file a
responsive pleading before the case. Respondent
further points out in her Comment to the violation
of her right to due process.

TOPIC: Service when identity or whereabouts of Whether the RTC Yes, the RTC acquired jurisdiction.
21. Roxas v. defendant is unknown did not acquire
Asiatrust jurisdiction over their As correctly held by the CA, the RTC acquired
Development Bank, TICKLER: Improper service of summons kasi persons due to jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners
Inc. nawawala ibang mga defendant improper service of when they made a voluntary appearance in
summons. the proceedings. Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the

FACTS: Rules provides that the defendant’s voluntary

On March 31, 1999, Kamakura Food Corporation appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
was granted a credit line in the amount of P13M service of summons. Here, petitioners
by the Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. in voluntarily appeared in the action when they
consideration thereof, its Vice President, Nancy filed an entry of appearance and very urgent
Dy, along with its authorized signatories, Alfredo omnibus motion to: a) set aside order of
and Cecilia Roxas, executed a continuing default; and b) admit appended answer.
suretyship on May 19, 1999, whereby they jointly
and severally bound themselves with kamakura The entry of appearance was made without
and guaranteed the full and due payment and qualification or objection to the RTC's
performance of all the obligations of Kamakura. jurisdiction. This in itself amounts to voluntary
They also guaranteed that if such obligation was appearance in the proceedings. The motion,
not fully or duly paid or performed on due date on the other hand, mainly alleged that
thereof, they shall pay and perform the same summons, together with copies of the
together with any and all interests, penalties, and complaint and annexes, were published in
other fees and charges thereon. Saksi Ngayon, which is not a newspaper of
general circulation. Petitioners argued that
Asiatrust filed a complaint for sum of money and had plaintiff published the summons in a
damages against Kamakura. Summons were newspaper of general circulation, they would
issued by the court. Several attempts were made have read it and could have filed the
by the sheriff to serve the summons and copies of necessary pleading. Petitioners urged the
the complaint but to no avail. They were RTC to take a liberal view of the rules in light
eventually substituted through service while the of their "valid and meritorious defense," and
summons for Kamakura, Alfredo, and Cecila, prayed, among others, for the order of default
remain unserved. The affidavit was publicized. dated February 17, 2005 to be set aside and
their answer admitted "in the broader interest
of justice." Notably, petitioners sought
affirmative relief from the RTC without raising
the issue of lack of jurisdiction over their
persons. We have held that seeking an
affirmative relief is inconsistent with the
position that no voluntary appearance had
been made, and to ask for such relief without
the proper objection necessitates submission
to the Court's jurisdiction. Hence, petitioners'
entry of appearance with motion amounts to
service of summons and vested the trial court
with jurisdiction over their persons.

Petitioners argue that they raised the issue of

the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over their
persons due to improper service of summons
in their Answer with Compulsory
Counter-claim. They allegedly did not waive
their defense of lack of jurisdiction since the
rule is that any form of appearance in court is
equivalent to service of summons except
when such appearance was made precisely to
object to the jurisdiction of the court. Indeed, a
party who makes a special appearance to
challenge the court's jurisdiction over his
person cannot be considered to have
submitted himself to the trial court's authority.
However, petitioners' answer with
counterclaim is not equivalent to a special
appearance.

Petitioners lost sight of the fact that they have

been declared in default by the RTC and had
consequently lost their standing in court. A
party in default loses his right to present his
defense, control the proceedings, and
examine or cross-examine witnesses. He has
no right to expect that his pleadings will be
acted upon by the court, nor may he object to
or refute evidence or motions filed against
him. Having lost their standing in court,
petitioners had no right to file an Answer with
counterclaim, more so, expect the RTC to act
upon it. Their recourse was to file a Motion to
set aside the order of default under Rule 9,
Sec. 3 (b) of the Rules. Since this is the
pleading that they are authorized to file under
the Rules, it should have been in their very
urgent motion to set aside order of default and
admit appended Answer that petitioners raised
their objection to the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Having failed to do so, they are deemed to

have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction

of the court by the very filing of that Motion.

A special appearance operates as an

exception to the general rule on voluntary
appearance. Hence, objections to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
defendant must be explicitly made. Failure to
do so constitutes voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances
where a pleading or motion seeking
affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the
court for resolution, such as petitioners' very
urgent motion.

In view of the foregoing, the RTC validly

acquired jurisdiction over the persons of
petitioners as defendants in the complaint.

22. Uy v. Del Castillo Maltha

MODULE 5

1. Heirs of
Sadhwani v.
Sadhwani, G.R.
No. 217365,
August 14, 2019 Pat
2. Blay v. Baña,
G.R. No. 232189,
March 7, 2018 Gian
3. Heirs of Sanchez
v. Abrantes, G.R.
No. 234999, August
4, 2021 Recel
4. Philippine
National Bank v. KC

Daradar, G.R. No.

180203, June 28,
2021

MODULE 6
1. Dela Cruz v. Victa Angela
Realty &
Development Corp.,
G.R. No. 218627,
June 14, 2021
2. Dela Cruz v. Victa *check doctrine since repeating case
Realty & Karmela
Development Corp.,
G.R. No. 218627,
June 14, 2021
3. Domingo v. Harold
Spouses Singson,
G.R. Nos. 203287 &
207936, April 5,
2017
4. Dela Cruz v. Victa Steffi
Realty &
Development Corp.,
G.R. No. 218627,
June 14, 2021
5. Pulgar v. RTC of Micah
Mauban, Quezon,
Branch 64, G.R. No.
157583, September
10, 2014
6. Office of the Maltha
Ombudsman v.

Cerna, G.R. No.

195134, March 24,
2021
7. Rabe-Valeros v. Pat
Heirs of Marinas,
G.R. No. 196148,
October 2, 2019
MODULE 7 (MODES OF DISCOVERY)
1. Santamaria v. Gian
Cleary, G.R. Nos.
197122 &197161,
June 15, 2016
2. People v. Sergio, Recel
G.R. No. 240053, 9
October 2019
3. Ng Meng Tam v. KC
China Banking
Corp., G.R. No.
214054 , August 5,
2015
4. Spouses Angela
Afulugencia v.
Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Co., G.R.
No. 185145,
February 5, 2014
5. Duque v. Spouses Karmela
Yu, G.R. No.
226130, February
19, 2018

6. Lañada v. Court Harold

of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 102390 &
102404, February 1,
2002
7. Air Philippines Steffi
Corp. v. Pennswell,
Inc., G.R. No.
172835, December
13, 2007
8. Castillo v. Micah
Torres-Aquino, G.R.
No. 190034,
November 20, 2017
— END OF MIDTERM COVERAGE —-

KAPOLI Compiled
No ratings yet
KAPOLI Compiled
563 pages
CIVPRO Mod 1 Compilation
No ratings yet
CIVPRO Mod 1 Compilation
33 pages
1st Year Prof Primer
100% (1)
1st Year Prof Primer
19 pages
SAn Juan vs. PP - G.R. No. 236628. January 17, 2023 - Full Text Case
No ratings yet
SAn Juan vs. PP - G.R. No. 236628. January 17, 2023 - Full Text Case
15 pages
(REMREV) 3 - Colmenar v. Colmenar - Angeles
100% (2)
(REMREV) 3 - Colmenar v. Colmenar - Angeles
6 pages
FILIPINA D. ABUTIN, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE SAN JUAN, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 247345, July 06, 2020
No ratings yet
FILIPINA D. ABUTIN, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE SAN JUAN, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 247345, July 06, 2020
3 pages
Civpro Module 1 Outline Draft
50% (2)
Civpro Module 1 Outline Draft
93 pages
Lara v. PNB General Insurers
No ratings yet
Lara v. PNB General Insurers
2 pages
Admin Law Digests
100% (1)
Admin Law Digests
11 pages
Digest G.R. No. 197022 Philippine-Japan Active Carbon Corporation vs. Habib Borgaily
100% (1)
Digest G.R. No. 197022 Philippine-Japan Active Carbon Corporation vs. Habib Borgaily
2 pages
RemRev - Señga Case Digests (Leonen) (4E1920)
100% (3)
RemRev - Señga Case Digests (Leonen) (4E1920)
1,121 pages
Civ Pro 1 Mod 1 Case Digests
No ratings yet
Civ Pro 1 Mod 1 Case Digests
35 pages
A.C. No. 13630
No ratings yet
A.C. No. 13630
3 pages
LABREL Digests Usita
No ratings yet
LABREL Digests Usita
41 pages
Civ Pro 1 Rules 1-8 Digests by Almeyda ECM
No ratings yet
Civ Pro 1 Rules 1-8 Digests by Almeyda ECM
59 pages
Trust (Atty. Bugayong) : Jndomingo
No ratings yet
Trust (Atty. Bugayong) : Jndomingo
2 pages
Civpro Support Group Finals Case Digests
No ratings yet
Civpro Support Group Finals Case Digests
290 pages
PAHILA-GARRIDO vs. TORTOGO Et. Al. - TALAGA
100% (1)
PAHILA-GARRIDO vs. TORTOGO Et. Al. - TALAGA
3 pages
Maniebo Digest
No ratings yet
Maniebo Digest
1 page
Tax I Syllabus-1
No ratings yet
Tax I Syllabus-1
11 pages
Libeel
No ratings yet
Libeel
8 pages
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Third Division of The Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 238093
No ratings yet
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Third Division of The Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 238093
8 pages
PEOPLE v. LARA G.R. No. 199938, 28 January 2013
No ratings yet
PEOPLE v. LARA G.R. No. 199938, 28 January 2013
1 page
Clarion Printing House vs. NLRC
100% (1)
Clarion Printing House vs. NLRC
1 page
8 TAN Vs CINCO
No ratings yet
8 TAN Vs CINCO
2 pages
ATP Bugayong Agency
No ratings yet
ATP Bugayong Agency
6 pages
BP. 22 Dela Cruz Vs People
No ratings yet
BP. 22 Dela Cruz Vs People
2 pages
Locsin V
No ratings yet
Locsin V
2 pages
Heirs of Telesforo Julao Vs
No ratings yet
Heirs of Telesforo Julao Vs
2 pages
232 People V de La Piedra (ABATA)
No ratings yet
232 People V de La Piedra (ABATA)
2 pages
Civpro Digests
No ratings yet
Civpro Digests
4 pages
Labor Review: 77 Essential Labrev Questions by Atty. Usita
No ratings yet
Labor Review: 77 Essential Labrev Questions by Atty. Usita
56 pages
Limbauan Vs Acosta
No ratings yet
Limbauan Vs Acosta
3 pages
19 Roman Catholic V Marcos
No ratings yet
19 Roman Catholic V Marcos
2 pages
Castillo Vs Torres-Aquino
100% (1)
Castillo Vs Torres-Aquino
2 pages
People Vs Tumimpad
No ratings yet
People Vs Tumimpad
3 pages
LABOR-REVALIDA Review Guide
No ratings yet
LABOR-REVALIDA Review Guide
12 pages
Colmenar Vs Colmenar - Summary (Balt)
No ratings yet
Colmenar Vs Colmenar - Summary (Balt)
3 pages
Khitri V People Digest
0% (1)
Khitri V People Digest
1 page
ATP Buggy Notes 2
No ratings yet
ATP Buggy Notes 2
32 pages
Political Law Admin Atty. Sorianos Finals Reviewer
No ratings yet
Political Law Admin Atty. Sorianos Finals Reviewer
9 pages
Atp Bugayong - Questions (Whole Sem) PDF
100% (1)
Atp Bugayong - Questions (Whole Sem) PDF
5 pages
Spouses Roxas Vs Asia United Bank (Aub)
No ratings yet
Spouses Roxas Vs Asia United Bank (Aub)
3 pages
Berba Vs Heirs of Palanca and Foster Gallego Vs Spouses Galang
0% (1)
Berba Vs Heirs of Palanca and Foster Gallego Vs Spouses Galang
2 pages
Ruby Ruth S. Serrano Mahilum vs. Spouses Edilberto Ilano and Lourdes Ilano, G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015
100% (4)
Ruby Ruth S. Serrano Mahilum vs. Spouses Edilberto Ilano and Lourdes Ilano, G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015
2 pages
LABSTAND - Usita MT Qs Compilation With Suggested Answers (Inc)
No ratings yet
LABSTAND - Usita MT Qs Compilation With Suggested Answers (Inc)
4 pages
SBU Admin Law Final Exam (For 22 June 2020)
No ratings yet
SBU Admin Law Final Exam (For 22 June 2020)
3 pages
Ridao Vs Handmade Home Credit
No ratings yet
Ridao Vs Handmade Home Credit
2 pages
Topic Date: Criminal Procedure 2E
No ratings yet
Topic Date: Criminal Procedure 2E
2 pages
Avito Yu v. Atty. Cesar Tajanlangit (Adm. Case No. 5691, March 13, 2009)
No ratings yet
Avito Yu v. Atty. Cesar Tajanlangit (Adm. Case No. 5691, March 13, 2009)
2 pages
Dulpo V Sandigan Digest
No ratings yet
Dulpo V Sandigan Digest
1 page
Usita Lecture Transcript
No ratings yet
Usita Lecture Transcript
34 pages
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. vs. Hon. Legasto, GR No. 169108 (2006)
100% (1)
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. vs. Hon. Legasto, GR No. 169108 (2006)
2 pages
Sps. Lambino v. Hon. Presiding Judge
100% (1)
Sps. Lambino v. Hon. Presiding Judge
3 pages
BORROMEO Vs MINA Digest PDF
No ratings yet
BORROMEO Vs MINA Digest PDF
1 page
Case Digest GR 196047 MBella
No ratings yet
Case Digest GR 196047 MBella
2 pages
People V Abarca
No ratings yet
People V Abarca
12 pages
Digest
No ratings yet
Digest
87 pages
Gaffney V Butler (CivPro)
No ratings yet
Gaffney V Butler (CivPro)
1 page
Heirs of Tomas Dolleton V Fil-Estate
No ratings yet
Heirs of Tomas Dolleton V Fil-Estate
6 pages
Bangollata V Castillo
No ratings yet
Bangollata V Castillo
2 pages
5
No ratings yet
5
24 pages
Revised Corp Code
No ratings yet
Revised Corp Code
15 pages
Valarao V CA
No ratings yet
Valarao V CA
13 pages
GR No 183373 Ulep Digested
No ratings yet
GR No 183373 Ulep Digested
2 pages
Envi Cases 2
No ratings yet
Envi Cases 2
6 pages
PALE
No ratings yet
PALE
4 pages
People V Puig
No ratings yet
People V Puig
1 page

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.