Justice De Leons favourite Civ Pro questions: 1. Effect of A.M. No.

03-1-09-SC on duty of the plaintiff to set the case for pre-trial Within 5 days from date of filing of reply, plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference (Sec 1, Rule 18). If plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of pre-trial (I.A.1.2, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC) [failure to set the case for pre-trial conference is no longer a ground for dismissal for failure to prosecute] 2. Fresh Period Rule (Effect of a denied Motion to for New Trial/Reconsideration on the period for filing pleadings) a. Under the Rules of Court i. Movant shall file his answer within the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to which he was entitled at the time of serving his motion, but not less than 5 days in any event, computed from his receipt of the notice of the denial. If the pleading is ordered to be amended, he shall file his answer within the period prescribed by Rule 11 counted from service of amended pleading, unless the court provides a longer period. (Sec 4, Rule 16) b. Under Neypes v. CA (469 SCRA 633) i. To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. c. Not less than 5 days in any event applies only to the following cases: i. Rule 12 Bill of Particulars ii. Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss iii. Rule 62 Interpleader iv. Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Comelec and COA 3. Appeals 4. Residual powers of Courts (Sec 9, par 5, Rule 41; Sec 8, par 3, Rule 42) ordinarily the court would no longer have jurisdiction because the appeal is already perfected, but prior to the transmittal of the original record or record on appeal, the court may IAPOA: a. Issue orders for the protection and protection of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, b. Approve compromises, c. Permit appeals of indigent litigants, d. Order execution pending appeal in accordance with sec 2 of Rule 39, e. Allow withdrawal of the appeal 5. Difference of bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company (537 SCRA 571) Bar by prior judgment or estoppel by judgment Conclusiveness of judgment Makes the judgment rendered in the first case an absolute bar to the subsequent action since that judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and received to sustain it but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could have been adjudged therein it is in this concept that the term res judicata is more commonly and generally used as a ground for a motion to The second rule of res judicata, which refers to a situation where the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to the matters actually determined or which were necessarily included therein

dismiss in civil cases

6. Difference of Rule 45 and Rule 65 Rule 45 Petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari) Involves correction of errors of judgment Mode of appeal Petition based on question of law Involves review of the judgment award or final order on the merits Must be made within the reglementary period

Rule 65 Petition for certiorari (special civil action of certiorari) Involves errors of jurisdiction Special civil action Petition raises issues as to w/n the lower court acted w/o jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with GADALEJ Directed against an interlocutory order of the court where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy Filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution appealed from Unless a writ of preliminary injunction or TRO is issued, does not stay the challenged proceeding Parties are the aggrieved party against the lower court, quasi-judicial bodies and prevailing party MR or MNT required. If MR or MNT filed, period shall not be interrupted but another 60 days shall be given to the petitioner Court exercises original jurisdiction

Stays the judgment or order appealed from Petitioner and respondent are original parties to the action, lower court or quasi-judicial agency not impleaded MR not required

Court is in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and power of review

7. Remedies before finality of judgment a. Motion for reconsideration b. Motion for new trial c. Appeal i. Rule 40 MTC to CA ii. Rule 41 RTC to CA in the exercise of RTCs original jurisdiction iii. Rule 42 RTC to CA in the exercise of RTCs appellate jurisdiction iv. Rule 43 Quasi-judicial bodies to CA v. Rule 45 Petition for review on Certiorari Remedies after finality a. Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38) b. Annulment of judgment (Rule 47) c. Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) 8. Jurisdiction of MTC in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases General Rule: MTC has jurisdiction over FEUD Exception: estoppel by laches

 Velarma vs. CA (252 SCRA 406) o The ejectment suit should have been filed before the MTC, and not the RTC. The issue of ownership, however, had been specifically raised before the RTC by petitioner himself, who at the same time did not move to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, he filed his answer and went to trial. Estoppel by laches has already set in at this point in time. Effect of claim of ownership on MTC jurisdiction Hilario vs. CA (260 SCRA 420) o At present, all forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases have to be tried pursuant to the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure regardless of whether or not the issue of ownership of the subject property is alleged by a party. o As the law now stands, inferior courts retain jurisdiction over ejectment cases even if the question of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership subject to the caveat that the issue posed as to ownership could be resolved by the court for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession. o An adjudication made therein regarding the issue of ownership should be regarded as merely provisional and therefore would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land. 9. Jurisdiction of RTC in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases The RTC does not have jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession regardless of the value of the property involved. Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals (531 SCRA 104) o The doctrine that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the RTC regardless of the value of the property no longer holds true as things now stand, a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below P20k, if outside Metro Manila, and P50k, if within. Atuel vs. Valdez (403 SCRA 517, 528) o Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction. Specifically, the RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property. o However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50k in Metro Manila, and P20k outside of Metro Manila, the MTC exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property. Moreover, the MTC exercises jurisdiction over all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.