UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES UPDATES ON CRITICAL AREAS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE ATTY. CHRISTIAN “KIT” VILLASIS * GENERAL PRINCIPLES ‘ 1, THE SUPREME COURT NOW HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE RULES CONCERNING PLEADING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN ALL COURTS. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SXSTEM (GSIS) VS. HEIRS OF PERNANDO F, CABALLERO, G.R. NOS. 158090, OCTOBER 4,.2010; PERALTA, J.). 2. PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY.“OF COURTS: A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly. indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's6figinal jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when thex¢ aré Special nd important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the. petition’ (CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA AND SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY.OFBALATASAN, BULALACAO, ORIENTAL MINDORO VS. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS ETAL, G.R-NO.487256, FEB. 23, 2011, VELASCO, JR., J.) 3. DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY: NO COURT CAN INTERFERE BY INJUNCTION WITH THE JUDGMENTS OR ORDERS OF ANOTHER COURT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION HAVING THE POWER TO GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE INJUNCTION. (ATTY. TOMAS ONG CABILI VS, JUDGE RASAD G, BALINDONG; AxM. NO. RTJ-10-2225, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011, PER CURIAM) Holder, Justice Arsenio Dizon Memorial Award in Remedial Law Co-Chairman, 2012 Committee of Experts in Remedial Law, UPLC MCLE Lectures Professor and BAR Reviewer in Remedial Law Member, Committee for Revision of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure “3 - University of the Philippines Law Center (UPLC), Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU, New Bra. University (NEU, University of Manila (UM, Natlonal Bar Revlew Centar (NBRG), Lex Reviews and Seminars, Inc. (LEX), Philippine Soctat Justice Foundation (PHILAIUST), Magnificus Juris BAR Review Center, Powerhaus ‘Law Revlew Center, Inc., Center for Professional Reviews and Seminare (CPRS), ISecure On-line BAR Review, Chan Robles BAR Revlew, UM Bar Revlew Program, MLQU BAR Review, JRU, ete. * www.remediatiandoctrines.blogspat.com / profuillaslsayahoo.com / atty.christian, villasisiiyahoo.com Page 14. RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THE FRESH PERIOD OF 15 DAYS: To standardize the appeal periods and afford litigants ‘fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Supreme Court ruled in Neypes v. Court of Appeals that litigants must be given a fresh period of 15 days within which to appeal, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Rules of Court. In Fil-Bstate Properties, Inc. v. Homena- Valencia, the Supreme Court held that thei principle retroactively applies "even to cases pending prior to the promulgation of Neypes on September 14, 2005, there. being no vested rights in the rules of procedure (ELENA JANE DUARTE VS. MIGUEL SAMUEL, A.B. DURAN, G.R. NO. 173038, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J). JURISDICTION 1, JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND ITS SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF DOES NOT DEPEND UPON. THE DEFENSES SET FORTH IN AN ANSWER OR A MOTION TO DISMISS. THE: SAME RATIONALE APPLIES TO AN ANSWER WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS (MONTANER VS, SHARIA DISTRICT COURT, G.R. NO. 174975, JANUARY 20, 2009, FIRST DIVISION, PUNO, C.J). 2. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER “THE, SUBJECT MATTER MAY BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS CONFERRED ONLY BY THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAW. IT CANNOT BE ACQUIRED THROUGH A WAIVER OR ENLARGED BY THE OMISSION OF THE PARTIES OR CONFERRED BY THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THE COURT. CONSEQUENTLY, QUESTIONS.OF JURISDICTION MAY BE COGNIZABLE EVEN IF RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. (KAMARUDIN K. IBRAHIM VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. NO. 192289, JANUARY 08, 2013, REYES, J.) 2.1. DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OR ESTOPPEL BY LACHES: In TIJAM V. SIBONGHANOY (13]) Phil. 556 (1968), the party-litigant actively participated in the proveedings.before the lower court and filed pleadings therein. Only 15 years thereafter, and after receiving an adverse Decision on the merits from the appellate court, did “the party-litigant question the lower court’s jurisdiction, Considering the unique facts in that case, the Supreme Court held that estoppel by Jaches had already préclyted the party-litigant from raising the question of lack of jurisdiction on appeal.In Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, 14 July 2008, 558 ‘SCRA, 63, the Supreme Court cautioned that Tijam must be construed as an exception to the general rule and applicd only in the most exceptional cases whose factual milieu is Similar toxthat in the latter case (REPUBLIC VS. BANTIGUE POINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G. R. NO, 162322, MARCH 14, 2012, SERENO, J.). 2.2. LACHES SHOULD BE CLEARLY PRESENT FOR THE SIBONGHANOY DOCTRINE TO APPLY BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED IN TIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY IS MERELY AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. (CELIA VDA. DE HERRERA VS. EMELITA AND CRISANTO BERNARDO, G.R. NO. 170251, JUNE 1, 2011, PERALTA, J). * www.remediallawdoctrines blogspot.com / profvillasls@yahoo,com / atty. Page 22.3, JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS CONFERRED BY LAW. R.A. NO. 879945 CONFERRED JURISDICTION OVER INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSIES ON COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION OR RTCS, TO. BE DESIGNATED BY THE SUPREME COURT. (VITALIANO N, AGUIRRE II VS. FQB+7, INC., G.R. NO. 170770, JANUARY 9, 2013, DBL CASTILLO, J.) 3. _IN CIVIL CASES, JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT MAY BE ACQUIRED EITHER BY SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR BY THE: DEFENDANT'S VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE IN COURT AND SUBMISSION TO ITS ~ AUTHORITY. (OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION VS. HERTZ PHIL, EXCLUSIVE CARS. INC., G. R. NO, 183085, JANUARY 9, 2013, SERENO, CJ.) os 3.1. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR TIME IS. CONSIDERED A SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT: (ALLAN C.°GO, VS. MORTIMER F. CORDERO, G.R. NO. 164703, MAY 4, 2010, VILLARAMA, JR. J.) 3.2, A DEFENDANT WHO FILES A MOTION TO DISMISS, ASSAILING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER HIS PERSON, TOGETHER WITH OTHER GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN, IS NOT DEEMED==TO..HAVE APPEARED VOLUNTARILY BEFORE THE COURT. (EDNA.DIAGO LHUILLIER vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010, DEL CASTIELO, J.) 3.3. WHEN A DEFENDANT’S.“APPEARANCE IS MADE PRECISELY TO OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER HIS PERSON, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS APPEARANCE.IN“COURT. IN THIS CASE, WHILE LIMSON AND AROLLADO GLOSSED OVER THE ALLEGED LACK OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, HOWEVER, THEY PROCEEDED TO EXHAUSTIVELY DISCUSS WHY SBC’S COMPLAINT COULD NOT PROSPER AGAINST THEM AS SURETIES. ERGO, THEY THEREBY VOLUNTARILY “SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE MAKATI RTC (JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORP., VS, SECURITY BANK CORPORATION;-G.R. NO..190107, JUNE 6, 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.) 3.4 A DEFENDANT'S VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE IN THE ACTION IS EQUIVALENT TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS. AS HELD PREVIOUSLY, THE FILING OF MOTIONS ‘SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF, SUCH AS, TO ADMIT ANSWER, FOR ADDITIONAL TIME _TO FILE ANSWER, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT WITH MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ARE CONSIDERED VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION.OF THE COURT. (DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. HON. REINATO G. ‘QUILALA, G.R!NO. 168723, JULY 9, 2008, QUISUMBING, J.) 3.5. GENERAL RULE: FILING PLEADINGS SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF CONSTITUTES VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE, AND THE CONSEQUENT SUBMISSION OF ONE’S PERSON TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. EXCEPTIONS: This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of * muw.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com / profulliasls@yahoo.com / atty.christlan.villasisfiyahoo.com Page 3jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included: (2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest, The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court process foreing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest. (JOSE C. MIRANDA VS. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO, GRAN: 158763, MARCH 31, 2006, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.) 3.6. THE RTC HAD INDEED ACQUIRED JURISDICTION. OVER “THE PERSON OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHEN THE LATTER'S COUNSEL ENT! HIS__APPEARANCE ON PRIVATE RESPONDENTS BEHALF, “WITHOUT QUALIFICATION AND WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE PROPRIETY .OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS, AND EVEN FILED TWO MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER, (LEAH PALMA VS. HON. DANILO. GALVEZ, G.R. NO. 165273, MARCH 10, 2010, PERALTA, J.) 3.7 DEFENDANT'S FILING OF A MOTION FOR_RE-SETTING OF THE HEARING EFFECTIVELY CURED THE DEFECT.OF THE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS. (VIRGILIO P. CEZAR VS. HON. HELEN*RIGAFORT-BAUTISTA, G.R. NO. 136415, OCTOBER 31, 2006, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.) 4. _ THE EXCLUSION OF THE TERM “DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND” IN DETERMINING THE JURISDICTIONAL“AMOQUNT UNDER SECTION 19 (8) AND SECTION 33 (1) OF B.P. BLG. 129, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 7691, APPLIES TO CASES WHERE THE DAMAGES ARE.MERELY INCIDENTAL TO OR A CONSEQUENCE OF THE MAIN. CAUSE OF ACTION. HOWEVER, IN CASES WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS-THE MAIN CAUSE OF ACTION, OR ONE OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION, THE“AMOUNT OF SUCH CLAIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THEJURISDICTION OF THE COURT (Administrative Circular No. 09- 94) (IRENE SANTE AND REYNALBOSANTE vs. HON, EDILBERTO T. CLARAVALL, G.R. NO. 173915, FEBRUARY 22;.2010;:VILLARAMA, JR., J). 5. “THE PAYMENT IN FULL OF THE DOCKET FEES WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD IS MANDATORY. (THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, ‘SR., VS! COURT OP APPEALS, G.R. NO, 116121, JULY 18, 2011, MENDOZA, J}. ~, 5.1. THE'DOCKET FEES ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT SHOULD BE PAID AT THE TIME OF THE FILING THEREOF. HENCE THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT SHOULD BE EXPUNGED IF THE DOCKET FEES THEREON WERE NOT PAID. THE TRIAL COURT NONETHELESS DOES NOT LOSE THE MURISDICTION IT HAD ACQUIRED OVER THE CASE WITH THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. (DO-ALL METAL INDUSTRIES, INC. V. SECURITY BANK CORP., JANUARY 10, 2011, ABAD., J.) * wow.remediallandoctrines blogspot.com / profvillasisdivahoo.com / atty.christlan villasis@ivahoo.com Page 48.2, DUE TO THE NON-PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES ON PETITIONER'S PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM, THE TRIAL COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER IT. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) VS. HEIRS OF FERNANDO F. CABALLERO, G.R. NOS, 158090, OCTOBER 4, 2010, PERALTA, J.). 6. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION OVER ORDERS, DIRECTIVES AND DECISIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN’ ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY CASES ONLY. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. HEIRS OF MARGARITA VDA. DE VENTURA, G.R. NO. 151800, NOVEMBER 5, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, PERALTA, J.). 7. EFFECT OF A PARTY'S RELIANCE ON THE CLERK OF COURT'S INSUFFICIENT ASSESSMENT OF THE DOCKET FEES: IF THE PARTY FILING THE CASE PAID LESS THAN THE CORRECT AMOUNT. FOR THE°DOCKET FEES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE AMOUNT ASSESSED BY THE CLERK OF COURT, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT LIES WITH THE SAME CLERK OF COURT. IN SUCH A CASE, THE LOWER COURT CONCERNED WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY LOSE JURISDICTION, BECAUSE OF A PARTY’S RELIANCE ON THE CLERK OF COURT’S INSUFFICIENT ASSESSMENT OF THE DOCKET FEES. HOWEVER, THE PARTY CONCERNED. WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE DEFICIENCY (MONTANER VS, SHARIA DISTRICT COURT, G.R. NO. 174975, JANUARY 20, 2009, FIRST DIVISION, PUNO, C.J.). 8. _A PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S RESIGNATION DOES NOT RENDER MOOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE THAT. WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE OFFICIAL’S RESIGNATION. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., G.R. NO. 16467, JULY 27,2011, BRION, J). 9. THE METC CAN NOW ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER ACCION PUBLICIANA CASES. (BF CITILAND’ CORPORATION VS, MARILYN B. OTAKE, G.R. NO. 173351, JULY 29, 2010, CARPIO, J.). RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE 1, _ IF THE EXTENSION FOR THE FILING OF PLEADINGS CANNOT BE ALLOWED, IT IS ILLOGICAL AND INCONGRUOUS TO ADMIT A PLEADING THAT IS ALREADY FILED LATE. TO ADMIT A LATE ANSWER IS TO PUT A PREMIUM ON DILATORY MEASURES, THE VERY MISCHIEF THAT THE RULES SEEK TO "REDRESS. (TERANA VS, DESAGUN, G.R. NO, 152131, APRIL 29, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.). 1.1, THE FAILURE OF ONE PARTY TO SUBMIT HIS POSITION PAPER DOES NOT BAR AT ALL THE MTC FROM ISSUING A JUDGMENT ON THE EJECTMENT COMPLAINT. (TERANA VS. DESAGUN, G.R. NO. 152131, APRIL 29, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.). * wrwu.remedialiaudoctrines. blogspot.com / profvillesisiivahoo.com / atty.christian_villasisfivahoo.com Page 52. THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A JUDGMENT PROHIBITED UNDER SEC. 19(C) OF THE RSP IS THAT WHICH SEEKS RECONSIDERATION OF A JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS. THE DISMISSAL ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR IN THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE IS NOT A JUDGMENT ON. THE MERITS AFTER TRIAL OF THE CASE. (LUCAS V. PABROS, 324 SCRA 1). CIVIL PROCEDURE ACTIONS 1, _ PERSONAL ACTION AND REAL ACTIONS: In & peréonat action, the plaintiff secks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of damages. Real actions, on the other hand,are those affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 154096, AUGUST 22, 2008, 2ND DIVISION, VELASCO, JR,, J.) 1.1. AN ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED A REAL ACTION WHERE ITSEEKS=THE CONVEYANCE OR ‘TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY, OR ULTIMATELY, THE EXECUTION OF DEEDS OF CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY::(GOCHAN i" GOCHAN, 423 PHIL, 491, 501 (2001}; COPIOSO VS. COPIOSO, 391 SERA 325/202). 2, _ IN PERSONAM, IN“REM AND QUASI IN REM ACTIONS: An action in ersonam is lodged against a:persom. baséé’bn personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself insteadof the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but'tts object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding ‘ien or ¢bligation. A petition directed against the “thing” itself or the res, which»concerng.thé status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, of correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem. (JESSE U, LUCAS ts. JESUS S, LUCAS, G.R. No. 190710, SECOND DIVISION, June 6, 2011 NACHURA, J.) 2,1. ACTION IN PERSONAM: THE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE PERSONAL RIGHTS“AND OBLIGATIONS AND IN WHICH PERSONAL JUDGMENTS ARE’ RENDERED. ADJUSTING THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE AFFECTED PARTIES IS IN PERSONAM. HENCE, ACTIONS FOR RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY ARE IN PERSONAM.” (EMERITA MUNOZ VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR. AND SAMUEL GO CHAN, G.R. NO. 142676, JUNE 6, 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. 2.1.1, ACTION IN PERSONAM: THE ACTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN JUDGMENT IS AN ACTION IN PERSONAM BECAUSE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE SUING TO ENFORCE THEIR PERSONAL RIGHTS UNDER SAID JUDGMENT. (SPOUSES DOMINGO M. BELEN, ET. AL, VS. HON, PABLO R. CHAVEZ, ET AL. G.R. NO, 175334, MARCH 26, 2008, SECOND DIVISION, TINGA, J.). * www.romediallamdoctrines blogspot.com / profvillasisizyahoo.com / atty.christian_villasis@iyahoo.com Page 62.2, ACTION IN REM: A PETITION DIRECTED AGAINST THE "THING" ITSELF OR THE RES, WHICH CONCERNS THE STATUS OF A PERSON, LIKE A PETITION FOR ADOPTION, ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE, OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS AN ACTION IN REM. (JESSE U. LUCAS VS. JESUS 8. LUCAS, G.R. NO. 190710, 2ND DIVISION, JUNE 6, 2011, NACHURA, J.). CAUSE OF ACTION 1, CAUSE OF ACTION; A cause of action is the act or omission. by which a party violates a right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it contains three essential elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and whatever law it arises; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to’ respect: such right; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff. If any of these elements is absent, the complaint becomes viilnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILS. VS. HON. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO & CRISTINA TRINIDAD ZARATE ROMERO, G.R. NO. 163827, AUGUST 17, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., <). 2. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.VS. LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION: Failure to state a cause of action rejérs to ‘tie insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal undef Rile"6, of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action refers to a sittiation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading..x.x x If the allegations of the complaint_do_not_aver_the concurrefiée “uf the elements of cause of action, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a jnotion=to. dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Evidently, it'is not the lack or absence of a cause of action that is a ground for the dismissalinf the comiplaint but the fact that the complaint states no cause of action. Failure to-state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of an action through.a thotion to dismiss, but lack of cause of action may be raised at any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of the stipulations, admissions, or evidence presented (DOLORES ADORA MACASLANG VS. RENATO & MELBA, ZAMORA, ‘R, NO, 156375, MAY 30, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.). 3, AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT CHANGES THE PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION IS. TECHNICALLY A NEW COMPLAINT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTION IS DEEMED FILED ON THE DATE OF THE FILING OF SUCH AMENDED PLEADING, NOT ON.“THE DATE OF THE FILING OF ITS ORIGINAL VERSION. THUS, ‘THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION RESUMES ITS RUN UNTIL IT IS ARRESTED. BY THE FILING OF THE AMENDED PLEADING. (SPOUSES VICENTE DIONISIO ATANITA DIONISIO VS. WILFREDO LINSANGAN, G.R. NO. 178159, MARCH 2, 2011, ABAD, d.). 4, SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions upon them. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or more different actions (CATALINA CHU ET AL. VS. SPS. FERNANDO CUNANAN & TRINIDAD CUNANAN, GR. NO. 156185, SEPTEMBER 12, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.). * wow.romediallawdoctrinos. blogspot.com / profvillasis@yahoo.com / atty.chrlstian villasis@yahoo.com Page 75, JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: THE RULE ON JOINDER OF ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 5, RULE 2 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, REQUIRES THAT THE JOINDER SHALL NOT INCLUDE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS GOVERNED BY SPECIAL RULES. (ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA VS. FERNANDO SORIANO JR, ET AL., G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST 17, 2011,VILLARAMA, JR., J.). PARTIES 1, REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST: EVERY ACTION « MUST . “BE” PROSECUTED OR DEFENDED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL, PARTY;IN- INTEREST: A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue.vipo proof that the plaintiff is not the real party- terest, hence grounded on failure to state acause of action (ALLAN C. GO, VS. MORTIMER F. CORDERO, GR. NO. 164703, MAY 4, 2010, VILLARAMA, JR,, J,). 2 Sy 1.1, IN A DERIVATIVE SUIT, THE CORPORATION IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WHILE THE STOCKHOLDER FILING. SUIT FOR THE CORPORATION’S BEHALF IS ONLY A NOMINAL PARTY. THE CORPORATION: SHOULD THEREFORE BE INCLUDED AS A PARTY IN THE SUIT. (SANTIAGO-CUA, JR., ET. AL, VS, MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN ET. AL,, G.R, NO. 181455-56, DECEMBER 4; 2009, CHICO-NAZARIO, J). 1.2, IN PROCEEDINGS TO SPT°ASIDE AN EXECUTION SALE, THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IS THE PERSON WHO HAS AN INTEREST EITHER IN THE PROPERTY SOLD OR THE PROCEEDS THEREOF. (PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [PEA-PTGWO] VS! NLRC, G.R. NO. 170689, MARCH 17, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, NACHURA, J). . : 2. _LACK OF LEGAL:CAPACITY TO SUE” DISTINGISHED FROM “THE LACK OF PERSONALITY TO SUE”, Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in theexercise.ofvhis civil rights, or does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the casé, or does not have the character or representation he claims. On the other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is.not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause df.action, The term "lack of capacity to sue" should not be confused with the term "Iaek of personality to sue.” While the former refers to a plaintifi's general disability to.sue, such as on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridicél personality or any other general disqualifications of a party, the latter refers.to thé-fact that the plaintiff is not the real party- in-interest. Correspondingly, the first can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of legal capacity to-sue; whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of action. (VEMENCIO C, EVANGELISTA VS. CARMELINO M. SANTIAGO, G.R. NO. 157447, APRIL 29, 2005, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.) * www.remediallawdocts cs.blogspot.com / profvillasisyahoo.com / atty.christian villasisvahoo.com Page 83, THE GENERAL RULE WITH REFERENCE TO THE MAKING OF PARTIES IN A CIVIL ACTION REQUIRES, OF COURSE, THE JOINDER OF ALL NECESSARY PARTIES WHERE POSSIBLE, AND THE JOINDER OF ALL INDISPENSABLE PARTIES UNDER ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS, THEIR PRESENCE BEING A SINE QUA NON FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER. (MAXIMINA A. BULAWAN VS, EMERSON B, AQUENDE, G.R. NO. 182819, JUNE 22, 2011, CARPIO, J.). 4, __NON-JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IS NOT A GROUND FOR: THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. PARTIES MAY BE ADDED BY ORDER OFTHE COURT ON MOTION OF THE PARTY OR ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE AT ANY STAGE OF THE ACTION AND/OR SUCH TIMES AS ARE JUST. IF THE PETITIONER OR PLAINTIFF REFUSES TO IMPLEAD AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY DESPITE THE ORDER OF THE COURT, THE LATTER MAY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OR PETITION FOR THE PETITIONER OR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY THEREFOR. THE REMEDY IS TO IMPLEAD THE NON-PARTY CLAIMED TO BE INDISPENSABLE. (NOCOM VS. CAMERINO, G.R. NO. 182984FEBRUARY 10, 2009, FIRST DIVISION, AZCUNA, J). 4.1. INDISPENSABLE PARTIES: WHERE, THE EJECTMENT SUIT IS BROUGHT BY A CO-OWNER, WITHOUT REPUDIATING"THE CO-OWNERSHIP, ‘THEN THE SUIT IS PRESUMED TO BE FILED FOR:THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER CO-OWNERS AND MAY PROCEED WITHOUT=IMPLEADING THE OTHER CO- OWNERS. THE OTHER CO-OWNERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. On the other hand, where the eo- owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole ownership of the property or where the suit is brought against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded as party-defendants, as the suit affects the rights and interesis of these other co-owners..(MARMO VS. ANACAY, G.R. NO. 182585, ‘NOVEMBER 27, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.). 5. _ JOINDER OF PARTIES: WHERE THE OBLIGATION OF THE PARTIES IS SOLIDARY, EITHER ‘OF THE-PARTIES IS INDISPENSABLE, AND THE OTHER IS NOT EVEN A NECESSARY {PARTY BECAUSE COMPLETE RELIEF IS AVAILABLE FROM EITHER. (HERMANA R-CERBZO VS. DAVID TUAZON, G.R. NO. 141538, MARCH 23, 2004, CARPIO, J.) 6:1, WHENEVER IT APPEARS TO THE COURT IN THE COURSE OF A PROCEEDING THAT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY HAS NOT BEEN JOINED, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO STOP THE TRIAL AND TO ORDER THE INCLUSION OF SUCH PARTY. (ELPIDIO S. UY VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 157065, JULY 11, 2006, QUISUMBING, J.) *s... 6. AN UNLICENSED FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE ‘PHILIPPINES CAN SUE BEFORE PHILIPPINE COURTS. AN EXPORTER IS NOT DEEMED TO BE DOING BUSINESS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY BY THE SIMPLE FACT OF EXPORTING PRODUCTS TO SUCH FOREIGN COUNTRY. (B. VAN ZUIDEN BROS, LTD., V. GIVL MFG. INDUSTRIES, INC., G.R. NO. 147905, 28 MAY 2007). * wow.romedlallawdoctrines. blogspot.com / profvillasisayahoo.com / atty.chrietian villasisiivahoo.com Page 97. THERE IS NO LAW WHICH VEST JURIDICAL OR LEGAL PERSONALITY UPON A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP NOR EMPOWER IT TO FILE OR DEFEND AN ACTION IN COURT. (ROGER V. NAVARRO, VS. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, G.R. NO. 153788, NOVEMBER 27, 2009, BRION, J). 8. _IN A CASE INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, “STANDING”. OR LOCUS STANDI MEANS PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE CASE SUCH THAT THE PARTY HAS SUSTAINED OR WILL SUSTAIN DIRECT INJURY AS A RESULT-OF THE GOVERNMENT ACTION BEING CHALLENGED. TO HAVE LEGAL:STANDING, THE PETITIONER MUST HAVE DIRECT, PERRSONAL AND SUBSTANTIAL’ INTEREST TO PROTECT. (EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO VS. HON.“GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE, G.R. NO. 161065, APRIL 15, 2005, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J} P 8.1, ISSUES OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE ARE CONSIDERED EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON STANDING: The Court, through Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano (now retired), provided the following’ instructive guides as determinants in determining whether a matter is of transcendental importance: (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a dleer_case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory=prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the governments and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct_and_specific_interest “ithe questions being raised. (CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION:(ERC) AND“MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY QIERALCO), G.R. NO. 174697, JULY8, 2010, BRION, J). 9. A CLASS SUIT IS_NOT PROPER WHERE THERE IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THERE IS A DIVERGENCE OF OPINIONS AND VIEWS AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS SOUGHT TO BE REPRESENTED, AND NOT ALL ARE IN FAVOR OF FILING THE:PRESENT SUIT. In Ibanes v. Roman Catholic Church, 413 Phil. 281 (2001);'the Supreme Court held that where the interests of the plaintifis and the other. members ofthe class they seek to represent are diametrically opposed, the class suit will not prosper. (ATTY. SILVIA BANDA, ET.AL. V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO. ERMITA, G.R. NO. 166620, APRIL 20, 2010, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J). 10. SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED FROM THE MERE FILING OF A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF A NEW LAWYER, (SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION VS. ANGEL C. PONTILLAS, G.R. NO. 155178, MAY 7, 2008, CARPIO, J.) VENUE 1. VENUE: WHERE THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO EITHER FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF IMPROPER VENUE OR INCLUDE THE SAME AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, HE IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO OBJECT TO IMPROPER VENUE (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, ET AL. VS. indoctrines.blogspot.com / profuilisalsyahoo.com / atty.christian villasisfiyahoo.com Page 10COURT OF APPEALS ET AL. G.R. NO. 154096, AUGUST 22, 2008, SECOND DIVISION, VELASCO, JR,, J.) 1.1, VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS INVOLVING SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS: WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL ACTION CASE, THE RESIDENCES OF THE PRINCIPAL PARTIES SHOULD BE THE BASIS:-FOR DETERMINING PROPER VENUE. (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, ET AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL, G.R. NO, 154096, AUGUST 22, 2008, SECOND DIVISION, VELASGO; JR, J. 2 2, _ VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS: REAL ACTIONS SHALL BE.COMMENCED AND TRIED IN THE COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA WHERE THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED. HOWEVER, THE RULES: PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION, IN THAT REAL ACTIONS CAN BE COMMENCED “AND TRIED IN A COURT OTHER THAN WHERE THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN INSTANCES WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE PREVIOUSLY AND VALIDLY AGREED IN WRITING ON THE EXCLUSIVE VENUE THEREOF. (PAGLAUM MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND HEALTH MARKETING. TECHNOLOGIES, INC. VS, UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES ET AL., G.R. NO. 179018, YUNE@S, 2012, SERENO, J). 3. STIPULATIONS ON VENUE: THE°GENERAL RULES ON VENUE OF ACTIONS SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE PARTIES, BEFORE THE FILING OF THE ACTION, HAVE VALIDLY AGREED:IN WRITING'ON AN EXCLUSIVE VENUE. (PAGLAUM MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP, AND HEALTH MARKETING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. VS. UNION BANK=OF THE PHILIPPINES ET AL., G.R. NO. 179018, JUNE 18, 2012, SERENO;il,). 3.1, WRITTEN STIPULATIONS AS TO VENUE MAY BE RESTRICTIVE IN THE SENSE THAT THE SUIT MAYBE FILED ONLY IN THE PLACE AGREED UPON, OR MERELY PERMISSIVE IN THAT THE PARTIES MAY FILE THEIR SUIT NOT ONLY IN THE PLACE-AGREED UPON BUT ALSO IN THE PLACES FIXED BY LAW. (JESUSITO D, LEGASPI” VS..REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 160653, JULY 23, 2008, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, WJ). 3.2, UNDER |THE — “COMPLEMENTARY-CONTRACTS-CONSTRUED- TOGETHER” DOCTRINE, AN ACCESSORY CONTRACT MUST BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY AND TOGETHER WITH THE PRINCIPAL AGREEMENT. THUS, THE SURETYSHIP AGREEMENT CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ‘THE: PROMISSORY NOTE. ERGO, THE VENUE STIPULATION IN THE PROMISSORY NOTE ALSO APPLIES TO THE SURETYSHIP AGREEMENT AS AN ANCILLARY CONTRACT OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE. (PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS V. LIM, ET.AL., G.R. 158138, APRIL 12, 2005, PANGANIBAN, J.) 3.3. STIPULATION ON VENUE: THE EXCLUSIVE VENUE OF MAKATI CITY, AS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES AND SANCTIONED BY SECTION 4, RULE 4 OF THE RULES OF COURT, CANNOT BE MADE TO APPLY TO THE PETITION FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE FILED BY RESPONDENT BANK BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 4 PERTAIN TO VENUE OF ACTIONS, WHICH AN * www.remediallawdoctrines. blogspot.com / profuillasisiivahoo.com / atty.christian_villasismyahoo.com Page 11EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE IS NOT. (SPOUSES HERMES P. OCHOA AND ARACELI D, OCHOA CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 192877; MARCH 23, 2011, NACHURA, J). : 4, _ THE VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS AFFECTING PROPERTIES FOUND IN DIFFERENT PROVINCES IS DETERMINED BY THE SINGULARITY OR PLURALITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING SAID PARCELS OF LAND. (UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. (FORMERLY WESTMONT BANK) VS. ROSEMOORE MINING: = DEVELOPMENT CORP,, G.R. NOS. 159669 & 163521, MARCH 12, 2007, TINGA, J.) PLEADINGS * 1. THE REQUIREMENTS OF VERIFICATION AND: CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING ARE NOT JURISDICTIONAL. (SPOUSES EUGENE L. LIM VS, THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 192615, JANUARY 30,2013, BRION, J) f : 2, WAYS OF COMMITTING FORUM SHOPPING: Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on'the-Same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not‘Having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is tis pendentia); (2) filing, multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous*case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judieata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with @ifferent. prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is glso-either litis pendentia or res judicata). x x xf the forum shopping is not considéred willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the giottnd of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is willfwl_and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be. disuiissed with prejudice. (CHUA VS. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. NO; 182351, AUGUST 19, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, CHICO- NAZARIO, J.). . see 2.1. THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING IS REQUIRED ONLY IN A COMPLAINT OR OTHERINITIATORY PLEADING. THE EX PARTE PETITION FOR. THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF POSSESSION IS NOT AN INITIATORY PLEADING AND THEREFORE NO CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. (SPOUSES GODOFREDO AND REMEDIOS ARQUIZA VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO, 160479, JUNE 8, 2005, CALLEJO, SR., J.) ‘2.1.1. ANSWER IS NOT AN INITIATORY PLEADING WHICH REQUIRES A CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING. (KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. VS. HON, ALBERTO A. LERMA, G.R. NO. 143581, JANUARY 7, 2008, VELASCO, JR., J.) 2.2. THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ALL THE PETITIONERS OR PLAINTIFFS IN A CASE SHOULD SIGN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING. However, the signature of any of the principal petitioners or principal parties,, would constitute a substantial compliance with the rule on verification and certification of non-forum shopping should there exist a commonality of interest + worw.remediallawdoctrines. blogspot.com / profvillasisiiyahoo.com / atty.christian villasisfiyahoo.com Page 12among the parties, or where the parties filed the case as a collective, raising only one common cause of action or presenting a common defense, then the signature of one of the petitioners or complainants, acting as representative, is suificient compliance. (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, ET AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL, G.R. No. 154096, AUGUST 22, 2008, SECOND DIVISION, VELASCO, JR., J.). 2.3. EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING BY THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PARTIES MUST PERSONALLY SIGN THE SAME: (ANITA MONASTERIOPE# ET AL. VS, JOSE JUAN TONG, G.R, NO. 151369, MARCH 23, 2011, PERALTA; J). 2.4. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE RULE NOT APPLICABLE “WHERE A PARTY COMMITTED AN ACT OF DISHONESTY IN FILING-THE CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING, AS BY MAKING IT APPEAR THAT. A PERSON HAD SIGNED THE SAME WHEN HE WAS ALREADY DEAD. (HEIRS OP.RETUYA V. CA, APRIL 6, 2011). 2.5. A CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING SIGNED BY COUNSEL AND NOT BY THE PRINCIPAL PARTY HIMSELF IS:NO CERTIFICATION AT ALL. (WILSON GO VS. ANITA RICO, G.R. NO. 140862; APRIL‘25, 2006, SANDOVAL- GUTIERREZ, J.) Ts 2.6. A DEFECTIVE CERTIFICATION IS GENERALLY NOT CURABLE BY ITS SUBSEQUENT CORRECTION. (BAWK’ OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS, COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 168313, OCTOBER.6/201 0) 2.7. WHEN A COMPLAINT.IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, RULE 17 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE;:THERE IS NO NEED TO STATE IN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM “SHOPPING IN A SUBSEQUENT RE-FILED COMPLAINT THE FACT OF THE PRIOR FILING AND DISMISSAL OF THE FORMER I ee ae ei ala PDRALTA, J,). 2.8. “A.CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING IS NOT APPLICABLE, TO A PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION. (SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS V. SAMMA CORP., MARCH 3, 2009). 2.9.. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING OF A-CORPORATION: GENERAL RULE: ONLY INDIVIDUALS VESTED WITH AUTHORITY BY A VALID BOARD RESOLUTION MAY SIGN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IN BEHALF OF A CORPORATION, IN ADDITION, THE ‘COURT HAS REQUIRED THAT PROOF OF SAID AUTHORITY MUST BE ATTACHED, (PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. VS. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), G.R. NO. 143088, JANUARY 24, 2006, AZCUNA, J.) www remedialiandoctrines,blogspot.com / profvillasisayaboo.com / atty.christian villasisaiyahoo.com Page 13,EXCEPTION: IN THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE PETITIONER SUBSEQUENTLY ATTACHED A BOARD RESOLUTION STATING THAT THE SIGNATORY OF THE CERTIFICATION HAD BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO. (VICAR INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS. FEB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 157195, APRIL 22, 2005, PANGANIBAN, J.) 2.9.1. CORPORATE OFFICERS WHO CAN SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING WITHOUT NEED OF..;AN° AUTHORIZING BOARD RESOLUTION: (1) Chairperson of the board of directors, (2) President, (3) General Manager or acting general manager, (4) Persontiel Officer,.and (5) Employment Specialists in a labor case, (MID-PASIG LAND " yw romediallandoctrines, blogspot.com / profvillasisfivahoo.com / atty christian villasipiivahoo,com Page 4011.2, TENANCY RELATIONSHIP IS A QUESTION OF FACT THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45, (STATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON VS. MERCEDES R. SUSANO & NORBERTO R, SUSANO, G.R. NO. 179024, MAY 30, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR,, J). 11.3. QUESTIONS OF FACT MAY NOT BE RAISED IN A PETITION BROUGHT UNDER RULE 45, AS SUCH PETITION MAY ONLY RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW. THIS RULE APPLIES IN EXPROPRIATION CASES. (REPUBLIC OF THE’ PHILIPPINES VS. HEIRS OF SPOUSES PEDRO BAUTISTA, GR. NO. 181218), JANUARY 28, 2013, DEL CASTILLO, J.) 11.4, DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI REMEDIES. UNDER RULES 45 AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT: The proper remedy of a‘party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review undef Rule.45, whith is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules.of CourtAs, provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resohutions 6f the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e, regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Supreme Court by-filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process ovér.the, original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule-65.is ah, independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a genefalitule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. (SANTIAGO CUA, JR,, ET. AL. VS. MIGUBL.OCAMPO TAN ET. AL., G.R. NO. 181455-56, DECEMBER 4, 2009, CHICO-NAZARIO} J.) 12. PETITION FOR RELIEF: IT IS A REMEDY PROVIDED BY LAW TO ANY PERSON AGAINST WHOM A DECISION“OR:ORDER 1S ENTERED INTO THROUGH FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE OR. EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE. THE RELIEF PROVIDED FOR IS OF EQUITABLE CHARACTER, ALLOWED ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES AS° WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER AVAILABLE OR ADEQUATE REMEDY..(SAMONTE VS. S.F. NAGUIAT, INC. G.R. NO, 165544, OCTOBER 2, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, BERALTA, J.). 12.1. THE PETITION MUST BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE PETITIONER “LEARNS “OF THE JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER, OR OTHER PROCEEDING TO.BE SET ASIDE, AND NOT MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS AFTER SUCH JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER WAS ENTERED. (JAIME T. TORRES VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO, 165408, JANUARY 15, 2010, PERALTA, J). “42.1.1;;RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: THE 60-DAY PERIOD IS RECKONED FROM THE TIME THE PARTY ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE OF. THE ORDER, JUDGMENT OR PROCEEDINGS AND NOT FROM THE DATE HE ACTUALLY READ RUFINA LIM, ‘THE:SAME. (CORAZON L, ESCUETA VS 2007, AZCUNA, J.) NO. 137162, JANUARY 24,12.2, PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: A PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OR THE SUPREME COURT. (JULIO B, PURCON, JR. VS. MRM PHILIPPINES, INC., GR. NO. 182718, SEPTEMBER 26, 2008, REYES, R.T., J.). 13. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 47 OF THE RULES. OF COURT IS A RECOURSE EQUITABLE IN CHARACTER AND ALLOWED ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THE ORDINARY REMEDIES OF NEW: TRIAL,” APPEAL, PETITION FOR RELIEF OR OTHER APPROPRIATE REMEDIES ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE THROUGH NO FAULT OF PETITIONER” (PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY VS. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT & EQUIPMENT, INC., G.R. NO. 176628, MARCH 19, 2012, BRION, J,). 13.1. WHILE UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 47 OF THE RULES OF COURT A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT MAY BE,BASED'ONLY ON THE GROUNDS OF EXTRINSIC FRAUD AND LACK JURISDICTION, JURISPRUDENCE RECOGNIZES LACK OF DUE PROCESS: AS ADDITIONAL GROUND TO ANNUL A JUDGMENT. (LETICIA DIONA VS; ROMEO A. BALANGUE, G.R, NO. 173559, JANUARY 7, 2013, DEL CASTILLO, J.) 13.2, IN A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT.OF “JUDGMENT BASED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION, PETITIONER MUST SHOW..NOT MERELY AN ABUSE OF JURISDICTIONAL DISCRETION BUTAN ABSOLUTE LACK OF JURISDICTION. (SPS. EULOGIA MANILA & RAMON MANILA VS. SPS. -EDERLINA’ GALLARDO-MANZO AND DANIAL MANZO, G.R. NO. 163602, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR, J.). 13.3. SECTION 4, RULE “47 OFTHE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT “A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE PETITION INTENDED FOR THE COURT AND INDICATED AS SUCH BY THE PETITIONER. (BAGUIO TRINITY DEVELOPERS, INC., VS. THE HEIRS OF JOSE RAMOS, G.R. NO. 188381, DECEMBER 14,2011, ABAD, J}. 13.4. UNDER B.P. BLG. 129, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL “JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OF. THE RTC. (ESTATE OF THE LATE JESUS YUJUICO V. REPUBLIC, GR, NO. 168861, OCTOBER 26, 2007, VELASCO, JR,}. 13.5:.THE RTC HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NEW OWNER’S DUPLICATE TITLE IF THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE TITLE WAS, NOT ACTUALLY LOST BUT WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF A PERSON WHO HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. THE ORDER OF THE RTC MAY BE SET ‘ASIDE UNDER RULE 47 OF THE RULES OF COURT AND CANNOT BECOME FINAL AND°EXECUTORY AS THE ORDER IS VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. (VICTORIANO VILLANUEVA V. FRANCISCO VILORIA, G.R. NO. 155804, MARCH 14, 2008, AZCUNA, J). * won remediallandoctrines, blogspot.com / profvUlasisfivahoo.com / atty.chrlstian_vilasisiivahoo.com Page 4213.6. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 47 DOES NOT APPLY TO CRIMINAL CASES, (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RAFAEL BITANGA, G.R. NO. 159222, JUNE 26, 2007, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.) 13.7, ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 47 DOES NOT APPLY TO QUASI JUDICIAL AGENCIES, Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals or administrative bodies suchas the National Labor Relations Commission; the Ombudsman, (Macalalag vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 147995, March 4, 2004) the Civil: Service Commission, (Aguilar vs. Civil Service Commission, ...G.Re~ No. = 144001, September 26, 2000) the Office of the President, (Denina us. Sps. Cuaderno, GR. No, 139244, July 24, 2000) and, in this case, the PARAD, are ndt susceptible to petitions for annulment under Rule 47. (VALENTIN P, FRAGINAL WS, THE HEIRS OF TORIBIA, BELMONTE PARANAL, G.R. NO. 150207, FEBRUARY:23, 2007; AUSTRIA- MARTINEZ, J.) 13.8. RULE 47 APPLIES ONLY TO PETITIONS-FOR:THE NULLIFICATION OF JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY REGIONAL TRIAL:COURTS, FILED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS. IT DOES NOT PERTAIN. TO, THE NULLIFICATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. (POC. GRANDES. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R, NO, 148456, SEPTEMBER.15, 2006, TINGA, J.) 14, RULE 64: DECISIONS, ORDERS OR-RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. (CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA, JR. VS. GUILERMO N, CARAGUE, G.R. NO. 157838, MARCH 8, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR.). 18. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.UNDER RULE 65: OVER AND ABOVE OUR STATUTES IS THE-CONSTITUTION WHOSE SECTION 1, ARTICLE VII EMPOWERS THE COURTS OF..JUSTICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN A GRAVB‘ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF ANY BRANCH OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF, THE” GOVERNMENT. THIS IS AN OVERRIDING AUTHORITY THAT CUTS ACROSS ALL BRANCHES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF GOVERNMENT AND JS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI THAT RULE:65 OF THE RULES OF COURT PROVIDES. (REYES, UR., VS. BELISARIO G,R. NO. 154652 AUGUST 14, 2009 BRION, J.) 15.1. AS EXTRAORDINARY WRITS, BOTH SECTIONS 1 (CERTIORARI) AND 3. {MANDAMUS), “RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT REQUIRE, AS A PRE- CONDITION FOR THESE REMEDIES, THAT THERE BE NO OTHER PLAIN, ‘SPEEDYAND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW. (ERDITO QUARTO VS. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO, ET AL, G.R. NO. 169042, OCTOBER 5, 2011, BRION, J.) 15.2, PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65: A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS THE PROPER REMEDY WHEN ANY TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR OFFICER EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF * wcuw.remediallandoctrines.blogspot.com / protvillasisayahoo.com / atty.christian villasisityah:DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND THERE IS NO APPEAL, NOR ANY PLAIN SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. (HENRY CHING TIU, ET AL., VS.PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, G.R. NO. 151932, AUGUST 19, 2009, PERALTA, J.) 15.3, UNDER RULE 46, SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO BE VERIFIED AND ACCOMPANIED BY A SWORN CERTIFICATION OF NON: FORUM SHOPPING. (CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA, JR. VS. GUILERMO N. Cpa GR, NO. 157838, MARCH 8, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR,, J). - 15.4, THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF A MOTION TO. DISMISS CANNOT BE QUESTIONED IN A CERTIORARI PROCEEDING UNDER RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS. RULE 18 WHEN THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION. (ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN <"ERNANDO PAMPANGA VS. FERNANDO SORIANO JR, ET AL. G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST % 2011: VILLARAMA, UR, J). 18.5. TRADITIONAL RULE: PRINCIPLE.OF “JUDICIAL COURTESY: Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical arid ethitaliconsiderations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying:to render moot exactly what was before this court. This Court explained, howevef, that the rule on "judicial courtesy” applies where “there is a strong probability that..the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as-4 result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court [or court of origin, (REPUBLIC:QR:THE PHILIPPINES VS, SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), G.R. NO. 166859, JUNE 26, 2006, CARPIO MORALES, J.) - 15.5.1. PRESENT RULE: THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SHALL NOT INTERRUPT THE COURSE OF THE PRINCIPAL CASE, UNLESS A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER“OR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HAS BEEN ISSUED, ENJOINING THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT FROM FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE. (AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7, RULE 65 BY A.M, NO. 07-7-12-SC, DECEMBER" 12,, 2007}: {SPOUSES ROGELIO MARCELO AND MILAGROS MARCELO VS.LBC BANK, GR, NO, 183575, APRIL 11, 2011, CARPIO, J). “15:6. A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR. THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. The rule is, however, clrcumscribed:by well-defined exceptions, such as (I) where the order is a patent nullity, ag.where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in thé certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, ‘orale the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an-urgent_ necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances; a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of + www zemediallawdoctrines. blogspot.com / profvillasisivahoo.com / atty. christian villasistyahoo.com Poge 44arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved, (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG VS. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. NO, 162978, DECEMBER 15, 2010, PERALTA, J). 15.7. THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER“REMEDY. IS/ AVAILABLE. To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for-eing the wrong remedy. Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general mule, to wit: 1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate.) when the broader interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null aid.void; 4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; 5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieved litigant of an‘injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed protedure; or 6) in other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are present in the instant case: hence, we apply the general rule, Respondent not having availed hhimself.of the proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case against petitioners, the disiiissal has become fina and executory. (SANTOS VS. ORDA, G.R. NO. 18D "MAY.6, 2010, NACHURA, J). 15.8. THIS COURT NOTES. THAT “GSIS FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65:0F THE RULES OF COURT TO ASSAIL THE DECISION. AND RESOLUTION OF THE=COURT OF APPEALS, PETITIONER AVAILED OF THE IMPROPER REMEDY AS THE APPEAL FROM A FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS‘IS A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45 AND NOT A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION UNDER RULE 65. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VS..COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL, G.R. NO. 189206, JUNE 8, 2011, PERBZ, J.) 15.9. IN A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS AMPLE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE NEW EVIDENCE AND PERFORM ANY ACT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE FACTUAL ISSUES (SPOUSES ROGELIO MARCELO AND MILAGRQS MARCELO VS.LBC BANK, G.R. NO. 183575, APRIL 11, 2011, CARPIO, 31). 16.10.» ERRORS OF JUDGMENT ARE NOT PROPER SUBJECTS OF A SPECIAL ‘CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI. (ARTISTICA CERAMICA, INC. VS. CIUDAD DEL°CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. NOS. 167583, JUNE 16, 2010,. PERALTA, J.). 15.11. NOTICE OF APPEAL IS. THE PROPER MODE OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE RTC IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65. (BF CIPILAND CORPORATION VS, MARILYN B. OTAKE, G.R. NO. 173351, JULY 29, 2010, CARPIO, J). + wuw.remediallawdoctrines blogspot.com / profvlllasis@yahoo.com / atty. christian villasisfivahoo,com Page 4515.12. THE GENERAL RULE IS TO FILE THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITHIN THE 60-DAY REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. A 15 DAY EXTENSION IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND THE REQUEST MAY ONLY BE GRANTED FOR COMPELLING REASON. . THE DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY SAID REQUEST LIES SOLELY IN THE COURT. CONSEQUENTLY, HEAVY PRESSURE OF WORK IS NOT CONSIDERED COMPELLING REASON TO JUSTIFY A REQUEST FOR. AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. (HEIRS OF RAMON B. GAYARES, VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION, AND: KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO., S.A.K., G.R. NO. 178477, JULY 16, 201, DBL CASTILLO, J). : 16. DIRECT AND COLLTERAL ATACK ON THE TITLE: The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjin.its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in‘gn actiorrto obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless madé as‘an incident thereof (ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA*VS, FERNANDO SORIANO JR., ET AL, G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST 17, 201, EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS 1, _ EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.AND DISCRETION: Normally, execution will issue as a matter of right only (a) when the-judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor has “renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c} when the period for appeal haé‘lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or (d} when, having been filed, the appeal,has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the eoutt-of origin. Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general rule. ‘Aé.such exception, the court's discretion in allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly gfoiiiided on the existence of good reasons. "Good reasons,” it has beén held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judisient becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injtity or damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the,judgment.;Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity” (ROSARIO 1..FLORENDO VS. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. G.R. NO. 167976, JANUARY 20, 2010, ABAD, J.). 1,1, MOTION FOR EXECUTION: THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE A MOTION FOR EXECUTION IN AN AMPARO OR HABEAS CORPUS DECISION, (LT. COL. ROGELIO“BOAC, ET AL. VS. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN AND CONCEPCION E. EMPENO, GR.NOS. 184461-62, MAY 31, 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.) 1.2. VARIANCE IN THE TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT AND THE WRIT OF EXECUTION: IF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION VARIED THE TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT AND EXCEEDED THEM, IT HAD NO VALIDITY. (KKK FOUNDATION, INS. VS. HON. ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS, ET AL. G.R, NO. 163785, DECEMBER 27, 2007, SECOND DIVISION, QUISUMBING). * wwu.remediallamdoctrines blogspot.com / profvillasisayahoo,com / atty.christian villasiszyahoo.com Page 462, EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDING. (TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION. VS. LUIS FAJARDO & THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PINAS CITY, G.R. NO, 150462, JUNE 15, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR,, J). 2.1, WHEN THERE IS A PENDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AN ORDER GRANTING EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS IMPROPER AND PREMATURE, (JP LATEX TECHNOLOGY, INC. VS. BALLONS GRANGER BALLOONS INC., G.R. NO. 177121, MARCH 16, 2009, TINGA, J, 2.2, AN ALLEGED ADMISSION BY THE DEFENDANT OF ITS LIABILITY IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR ALLOWING DISCRETIONARY APPEAL. (GEOLOGISTICS, INC. VS. GATEWAY ELECTRONICS, G.R. NOS. 174256-57, MARCH 25, 2009, TINGA, J.). ry : 2.3, EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL APPLIES ‘TO. ELECTION CASES. (ELENITA I BALAJONDA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIGNS (FIRSE DIVISION), G.R. NO. 166032, FEBRUARY 28, 2005, TINGA, J.) e 3. GENERAL RULE: THE RULE ON.-EXECUTION BY MOTION OR BY INDEPENDENT ACTION UNDER SECTION 6, RULE"39,APPLIES ONLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS AND NOT TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS AN EX PARTE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION AS IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF A CIVIL ACTION. (SPOUSES ERNESTO AND VICENTA TOPACIO, VS. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND.:WIORTGAGE BANK, G.R. NO. 157644, NOVEMBER 17, 2010, BRION, Ji). ~~ 3.1. EXCEPTION: SECTION 6, RULE 39 REFERS TO CIVIL ACTIONS AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, SUCH AS A LAND REGISTRATION CASE. (ROLANDO* TING VS. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIRIO, G.R. NO. 168913, MARCH 14, 2007, CARPIO MORALES, J). 3.1.1 EXCEPTION: UNDER SECTION 6, RULE 39, A FINAL JUDGMENT MAY BE ENFORCED BY MOTION WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTRY, BUT NOT THEREAFTER. THE RULE HOWEVER IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND ADMITS OF EXCEPTIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS WHEN THE DELAY IN ENFORCING THE JUDGMENT 1SCAUSED BY THE PARTY ASSAILING THE FILING OF THE MOTION. (CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. V. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., G.R. 149053, MARCH®7, 2007, CORONA, J.). 3.2., THE PROPER VENUE DEPENDS ON THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PRESENT ACTION FOR REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT IS A REAL ACTION OR A PERSONAL ACTION. (ADELAIDA INFANTE VS. ARAN BUILDERS, INC., G.R-NO, 156596, AUGUST 24, 2007, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.) 4, EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MONEY JUDGMENTS BY THE SHERIFF: MONEY JUDGMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE ONLY AGAINST PROPERTY UNQUESTIONABLY BELONGING TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR. (CRISPIN + www.remediallawdoctrines. blogspot.com / profvillasis@vahoo.com / atty.chrlstian_villasisfivahoo.com Page 47SARMIENTO VS. ABAD AND LUISITO P. MENDIOLA, AM. NO, P-07-2383, 15 DECEMBER 2010, CARPIO, J). 4.1, THE LAW MANDATES THAT IN THE EXECUTION OF A MONEY JUDGMENT, THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR SHALL PAY EITHER IN CASH, CERTIFIED BANK CHECK PAYABLE TO THE JUDGMENT OBLIGEE, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PAYMENT ACCEPTABLE TO THE LATTER. NOWHERE DOES THE LAW MENTION PROMISSORY NOTES AS A FORM OF PAYMENT. THE. ONLY’ EXCEPTION IS: WHEN SUCH FORM OF PAYMENT IS ACCEPTABLE..TO° THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR, (MERLINDA L. DAGOOC VS. ROBERTO A. ERLINA, A.M. NO,,P- 04-1857, MARCH 16, 2005, CORONA, J.) 4.2, _IN DETERMINING PROPERTIES TO BE LEVIED: UPON, THE RULES REQUIRE THE SHERIFF TO LEVY ONLY ON THOSE “PROPERTIES ‘OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR” WHICH ARE “NOT OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION.” (GOLDEN SUN FINANCE CORP. VS. RIGARDO ALBANO, A.M. NO. P- 11-2888, JULY 27, 2011 BRION, J.). s 5. _ EXECUTION SALE: THE JUDGMENT:DEBTOR ALLEGING LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE POSTING AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUCTION SALE (SECTION 15, RULES 39 OF ‘THE RULES OF COURT) IS BEHOOVED TO PROVE SUCH ALLEGATION. (RUBEN C. REYES VS. TANG SOAT ING & ANDO G. SY, G.R. NO. 185620, DECEMBER 14, 201%,,PBREZ, J). 5.1. WHEN THE TITLE IS CONSOLIDATED IN THE NAME OF THE MORTGAGEE, THE WRIT OF POSSESSION BECOMES A MATTER OF RIGHT ON THE PART OF THE MORTGAGEE, AND IT_IS‘A MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT ISSUE:THE’ SAME. (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SPOUSES WILFREDQGATAL AND AZUCENA GATAL, GR. NO. 138567, MARCH 04, 2005, ‘SANDOVALGUTIERREZ, J) 6. _ INSTANCES: WHERE"A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE APPEALED: 1) the writ of execution varies thejudgment; 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties.making execution inequitable or unjust; 3) execution is sought to be enforced agaliist property:exempt from execution; 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court; 5) the terms of the judgment are not cleat enough éhd-there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it appears that.the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment débt has been paid ‘or, othetwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority. (GENERAL MILLING, CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO, 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ, J: 7. _ TERCERIA: THE REMEDY OF TERCERIA IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO A THIRD PERSON OTHER THAN THE JUDGMENT OBLIGOR OR THE LATTER'S AGENT WHO CLAIMS A PROPERTY LEVIED ON. HENCE, NOT BEING A THIRD PARTY TO THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS, THE REMEDY OF TERCERIA IS NOT + wou remedialiaudoctrinos blogspot.com / profulllasisayahoo.com / atty.christian villasisaivahoo.com Page 48AVAILABLE, (PENTA CAPITAL FINANCE CORP. VS. HON. TEODORO BAY ET AL, G.R. NO, 162100, JANUARY 18, 2012, SERENO, J.) 7.1. HUSBAND CAN FILE A THIRD-PARTY CLAIM OR SEPARATE ACTION IF CONJUGAL PROPERTY IS BEING LEVIED UPON TO ANSWER FOR THE SEPARATE OBLIGATION OF THE WIFE WHICH DID NOT REDOUND TO .THE BENEFIT OF THE FAMILY. (SPOUSES BUADO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G:R. NO. 145222, APRIL 24, 2009, TINGA, J.). 8. RES JUDICATA: For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be'enforced, the following requisites must be present: (1) the judgment or order sought to bar the néw action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered-by 4 court Having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the first case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first action, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. As,to the fourth element, it is important to note that the doctrine of res judieata has'two aspects: first, “bar by prior judgment” which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules of Court and second, “conclusiveness of judgment” which is provided in Section 47 (c} of the same Rule, There is “bar by prior judgmerit”. when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that'i8 sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and catises.of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive onl¥-as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined, atid ‘not as to matters merely involved therein. ‘On the other hand, under the doctrine of conclustveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved fit=4 former suit cannot again be raised in anv future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action, The identity.of catises of action is not required but merely identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL-BANK VS. SIA, G.R. NO. 165836, FEBRUARY 18, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, .QUISUMBING, J.). 9. _ LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE APPLIES IN A SITUATION WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT HAS MADE A RULING ON A QUESTION ON APPEAL AND THEREAFTER REMANDS THE CASE TO THE LOWER COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; THE QUESTION SETTLED BY THE APPELLATE COURT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE CASE AT THE LOWER COURT AND IN ANY SUBSEQUENT APPEAL. (VIOS VS. PANTANGCO, JR., G.R. NO. 163103, FEBRUARY 6, 2009, ‘SECOND: DIVISION, BRION, J). 10. “REDEMPTION: THE GENERAL RULE IN REDEMPTION IS THAT IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT A PERSON OFFERING TO REDEEM MANIFESTS HIS DESIRE TO DO SO. THE STATEMENT OF INTENTION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ACTUAL AND SIMULTANEOUS TENDER OF PAYMENT. (CHINA BANKING CORPORATION VS, SPS, MARTIR, GR. NO, 184252, SEPTEMBER 11, 2009, .3RD DIVISION, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J). * eww.romediallawdoctrines. blogspot.com / profeillasistiyahoo.com / atty.chrlstlan villasisfiyahoo.com Page 4911. DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT: _WELL-SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT A DECISION THAT HAS ATTAINED FINALITY CAN NO LONGER BE MODIFIED EVEN IF THE MODIFICATION IS MEANT TO CORRECT ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW. (DOMINIC GRIFFITH VS, ANGELITO ESTUR, JUAN OPALSA, AND ROLANDO EREVE, G.R. NO. 161777, MAY 7, 2008, CARPIO, J.). wow remediallawdoctrines blogspot. / profvillaaisyahoo.com / atty.christian villasis@yahoo.com Page 50