CIVIL PROCEDURE

Course Outline
1. Introduction
1.1. Courts and their jurisdiction

La Naval Drug Corp v CA 236 S 78

Atwel v Concepcion Progressive Asso Inc GR 169370 April 14, 2008

Figueroa v People GR 147406 July 14, 2008

1.2. How jurisdiction is obtained and exercised:

over persons

over subject matter

over res

1.3. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc v Seludo Jr 671 S 78
2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions
2.1. Must be based on a cause of action

What is cause of action

Belle Corporation v De Leon-Banks 681 S 351

No splitting of cause of action

Read: City of Bacolod v San Miguel, 29 S 819

Jalandoni v Martir-Guanzon, 102 P 859

Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action

Test of single cause of action

Read: Joseph v Bautista, 170 S 540

2.2. Parties to civil actions

Who are parties in interest

Competency of parties

Indispensable and necessary parties

Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc 665 S 367

Joinder and misjoinder of parties

Death of party

consequence of death of party

o

Sarsaba vs Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410

Gonzales vs Pagcor 429 SCRA 533, 540

what counsel should do on death of party

2.3. Venue of actions

Real and personal actions

Read:
United Overseas Bank Phils. V Rosemoore Mining &
Development Corp. 518 S 123 (2007)

Actions against non-residents

Agreement on venue

2.4. Commencement of actions

How and when deemed commenced

Read: Magaspi v Ramolete, 115 S 193

Manchester Dev Corp v CA, 149 S 562

Sun Insurance v Asuncion, 170 S 274

Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso Jr versus CA, GR No. 116121,

July 18, 2011

When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case?

Effect of underpayment of docket fees

Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within

reglementary period
but in several cases, both CA and SC have caused the dismissal of
cases for non-payment of docket fees.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts

3.1. Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts
3.2. Pleadings in general

Kinds of pleadings
2

Formal requirements of pleadings

Parts of a pleading

Verification when required

Formal, not jurisdictional

Verification by Counsel

Definition of Forum Shopping

Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Compnay Inc. et.al v

Valdez GR No. 150107 28Jan2008

Negros Slashers v Teng 666 S 629

Counsel cannot sign certification; exception

Digital Microwave Corp. v CA GR 128550 16Mar2000

Guy v Court of Appeals GR 163707, September 15,

2006

Sy Chin v Court of Appeals GR 136233, November 23,

2000

Co-owner or Co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or coparties

In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Schwani Inc. 575 S 535 (2008)

Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory pleadings

Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)

Cavila v Heirs of Clarita Cavile 400 S 255 (2003)

Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification

against non-forum shopping requirement

Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. v Piglas Kamao

561 S 569 (2008)

Median Container Corp. v Metropolitan Bank & Trust

Co. 561 S 622 (2008)

Substantial requirements of pleadings

Sufficiency of allegations

Ultimate facts only

Remitere v Yulo 16 S 251

Philippine Stock Exchange v Manila Banking Corp. 559

S 352 (2008)

Specific Denial

Gaza v. Lim, GR 126863, January 16, 2003

Tests of sufficiency of complaint:

Can judgment be rendered if admitted?

Always reckon against grounds for dismissal

Is bill of particulars applicable?

Read Philippine Bank of Communications v Trazo 500

S 242 (2006)

Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading

Not susceptible to summary judgment

Does not amount to confession of judgment

MUST tender an issue

Must specifically deny material allegations lest they

be deemed admitted

Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either in

motion to dismiss or answer, else waived

Alternative causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even if

inconsistent with each other

Purpose of rule is to allow for complete adjudication of

any controversy

Counterclaims

Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims

Test to determine nature of counterclaim

Read: Namarco v Federation of United Namarco

Distributors Inc., 49 S 238

Bungcayao Sr v Fort Ilocandia 618 S 381

Calibre Traders Inc v Bayer Philippines 633 S 34

3.3. Effect of failure to plead

Order of default

by motion only, court cannot motu proprio declare party in default

Consequences of order of default

judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for

need for presentation of evidence

Rationale for order of default

3.4. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings

Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed

No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of action set

out in original pleading

Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion for summary

judgment or even motion for judgment on the pleadings which are not
considered responsive pleading

Rule when some but not all defendants filed responsive pleading

When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to

therule that the cause of action is not substantially changed or the theory altered

Planters Development Bank v LZK Holdings & Development Co.

456 S 366

Young v Sy 503 S 151 (2006)

Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented during trial is

allowed:

when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the consent of the
parties

when, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will befall the
objecting party

Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right

Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989)

Effect of amended pleadings

supersedes original pleading

as a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need to

be offered in evidence.

Read Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94

The amendment may now substantially alter the cause of action or
defense

Philippine Ports Authority v. William Gothong & Aboitiz Inc., GR

158401, January 28, 2008

3.5. Responsive pleadings

What is responsive pleading

Answer Judicial admissions binding on party

Read Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007)

Answer Judicial admissions NOT binding on party

Read Gardner v CA 131 S 585

Bill of particulars, motion to dismiss interrupt period to file responsive pleading

Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be set up in responsive

pleading. However, it may be set up anytime thereafter (but before judgment) if
omitted through oversight, inadvertence or excusable negligence

Remedies of party declared in default

Otero v Tan 678 S 583

3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers

Service on counsel is mandatory unless otherwise ordered by court

Improper service is ineffectual and does not bind party

Read: Cabili v Badelles, 6 S 190

Service of pleadings and court papers (other than judgments, final orders and
resolutions) may be done by substituted service if personal service and service
by mail not successful

Service of judgments, final orders and resolutions must be personal or by

registered mail only (or by publication where summons is served by publication)

Service must be on counsel as service on party not permitted

Where final order or judgment not served on party or lawyer, said

judgment cannot become final or executory.

3.7. Summons

Rules on service is strictly construed, hence:

For actions in personam

against residents, service must be personal first then substituted

if unsuccessful or publication if whereabouts unknown or
temporarily outside the country

against non-residents, only personal service within the state can

confer jurisdiction over the defendant

For actions in rem or quasi in rem

against residents, same as above

against non-residents, personal service outside the country, with

leave of court, or publication with leave of court

For actions against domestic juridical persons, service only on those

enumerated in the statute is allowed
6

For actions against foreign juridical entity, service must be on resident

agent, government regulator, or any of officers, agents within the country

Venturanza v CA 156 S 305

Samartino v Raon 383 S 664

Valmonte v CA 252 S 92

Asiavest v CA 296 S 539

Philam Gen vs Breva 442 S 217

BPI v Santiago 519 S 389

San Pedro v Ong GR 177598 10/17/08

Guiguinto v Torres GR 170926 9/15/06

Potenciano v Barnes GR 159421 8/20/08

3.8. Dismissal of action

Grounds

lack of jurisdiction over person

lack of jurisdiction over subject matter

Read La Naval v CA, 236 S 78

Ilocos Sur Electric v NLRC 241 S 36

Andaya v Abadia 228 S 705

Republic v Bantigue Point Development Corp 668 S 158

pendentia litis

Read Amigo v CA, 253 S 382

Read Andersons Group v CA. 266 S 423

Ramos v Peralta, 203 S 412

Yap v Chua 672 S 411

res judicata

Read Vda de Cruzo v Cariaga, 174 S 330

Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Chavez 618 S 559

no cause of action

Read San Lorenzo v CA, 288 S 115

Calalang v IAC, 194 S 514

Perpetual v Fajardo, 233 S 720

City of Cebu v CA, 258 S 175

Remedy in case of granting/denial of motion to dismiss

Order denying motion to dismiss is interlocutory, hence proper remedy is

to appeal after a decision has been rendered

Read: Indiana Aerospace University v Commission On Higher

Education, 356 S 367

Bangko Silangan v CA, 360 S 322

Yutingco v CA, 386 S 85

Order granting motion to dismiss disposes of the case hence, appeal

under Rule 41 is applicable.

- The dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily
carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim

Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago, GR 170354, June 30, 2006

- A dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication on the merits,
and operates as res judicata, particularly when the court did not direct that the
dismissal was without prejudice

Filinvest Land, Inc. v. CA, GR 142439, December 6, 2006

Dismissal without prejudice

Heirs of Juana Gaudiane v. CA, GR 119879, March 11, 2004

- Unless there be a qualification in the order of dismissal that it is without prejudice,

the dismissal should be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and is with
prejudice.

Cruz v. CA, GR 164797, March 13, 2006

Notice of dismissal prevails over motion to dismiss

Dael v. Sps. Beltran, GR 156470, April 30, 2008

- Where the defendant has interposed a counterclaim (whether compulsory or

permissive) or is seeking affirmative relief by a cross-complaint, the plaintiff
cannot dismiss the action so as to affect the right of the defendant in his
counterclaim or prayer for affirmative relief.

Mendoza v. Paule, 579 SCRA 341, February 13, 2009

Effect

Benedicto v. Lacson, 620 SCRA 82, May 5, 2010

3.9. Pre-trial

Definition

Anson Trade Center v Pacific Banking, GR No. 179999 17 Mar 2009

Interlining Corp. v Philippine Trust Co. 428 S 583 (2002)

Setting for Pre-Trial

Espiritu v Lazaro, GR. No.181020 20 Nov 2009

Polanco v Cruz, GR. No. 182426 13 Feb 2009

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

Failure to have Pre-trial

Madrid v Spouses Mapoy, GR. 150887 14 Aug 2009

Failure of defendant to appear

Will result in plaintiff presenting his evidence ex parte and for the court to
render judgment thereon.

This is dissimilar to default from failure to plead where the sanction is for
the court to render judgment based on the complaint

Summary judgment or judgment on pleadings possible if facts are discovered in

pre-trial to warrant such action

Effect of Pre-trial Order

General Rule: Binding on all parties, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

Exception: Read Heirs of Reyes v CA, 519 S 250 (2007)

Rule 19 Intervention
Requirements
Nordic Asia Limited v. CA, 403 SCRA 390, June 10, 2003
When to Intervene
Salandanan v. Sps. Mendez, 581 SCRA 182, March 13, 2009
Mactan-Cebu Intl Airport Authority v. Heirs of Mioza, 641 SCRA 520,
February 2, 2011
Who may Intervene
GSIS v. Nocom, 543 SCRA 676, February 04, 2008
Ombudsman v. Maximo Sison, 612 SCRA 702, February 16, 2010
3.10.

Discovery

Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders,

to disgorge private information to adverse party

Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the

knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties; obtain admissions from
adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents, objects and property.

What are discoverable?

Limitations on discoverability

Modes of discovery

Deposition

Function

When may be availed of

01 Pajarilla v CA 570 S 347 (2008)

De bene esse (pending action)

Perpetuam rei memoriam (prior to action)

Who do you depose

Admissibility of Deposition
02 Sales v. Sabino, 477 SCRA 101, December 09, 2005

Deposition under oral examination to be used in criminal

cases

Interrogatories to parties

Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories

Requests for admission

03 Rosete v. Lim, 490 SCRA 125, June 8, 2006

04 Sime Darby Employees Association v NLRC 510 S 204

Production and inspection of things

Examination of persons

Read 05 Republic v Sandiganbayan, 204 S 212

06 Dasmarinas Garments v Reyes 225 S 622

07 Ayala Land vs Tagle 466 S 521

08 Hyatt Industrial v Ley Construction GR 147143 Mar 10, 2006

Sime Darby v CA 510 S 204

09 Security Bank v CA 323 S 330

10 Solidbank v Gateway GR 164805 April 30, 2008

Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)

------- COURT VISIT -------

3.11.

Trial

Order of trial

Reverse trial when complaint is admitted

10

Reverse trial also in criminal cases

When trial can be dispensed with

Sps. Calo v. Sps. Tan, 476 SCRA 426, November 29, 2005

Consolidation

Test is common questions of fact or of law

Active v CA, 181 S 774

Superlines v Victor, 124 S 939

Steel Corporation of the Philippines v Equitable PCI Bank 635 S 403

Deutsche Bank AG vs Court of Appeals 667 S 82

Producers Bank of the Philippines v Excelsa Industries 669 S 470

Consolidation of civil and criminal cases

Consolidation of cases on appeal

Consolidation of actions

Teston v. DBP, 474 SCRA 597, November 11, 2005

The proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession should not be

consolidated with the case for the declaration of nullity of a foreclosure
sales the glarying difference in the nature of the two militates against
their consolidation

3.13.

Republic v. Vda. De Neri, 424 SCRA 676, March 04, 2004

Absence of party

3.12.

Read Yu v Magpayo 44 S 163

Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils, 616 SCRA 353, March 22,
2010

Demurrer to Evidence

Concept of demurrer

Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence

Nepomuceno v Comelec, 126 S 472

Effect of filing demurrer

Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Del Rosario, 335 SCRA 288, July 06, 2000

- What evidence
Casent Realty Devt Corp. v. Philbanking Corp., 533 SCRA 390,
September 19, 2007

11

3.14.

Judgment on the pleadings

Generally applicable when there is no tender of issue

Denial in answer may not amount to tender of issue

Manufacturers v Diversified, 173 S 357

Pacific Rehouse Corporation v EIB Securities 633 S 214

In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue

at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue.

A judgment on the pleadings may be rendered only when an answer fails to

tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
partys pleadings.

Ong v. Roban Lending Corporation, 557 SCRA 516, July 09, 2008

Who files

3.15.

Reillo v. San Jose, 589 SCRA 458, June 18, 2009

Sunbanun v. Go, 611 SCRA 320, February 02, 2010

Summary Judgments

Distinguished from judgment on the pleadings

Vergara v Suelto 156 S 753

Diman v Alumbres, 299 S 459

How motion for summary judgment is considered

Hearing on motion is only for determining whether issues are genuine or

not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings

The crucial question in a motion for summary judgment is where

the issues raised in the pleadings are genuine or fictitious.

Motion is proven through affidavits, depositions and admissions submitted

by movant

Requisites for summary judgment to be proper.

Evangelista v. Mercator, 409 S 410

Monterey v. Eserjose, 410 S 627

Propriety of summary judgment

Natalia v Vallez, 173 S 536

Grand Farms v CA, 193 S 748

12

When a case should not be decided via a summary judgment

3.16.

NOCOM v. Camarino, G.R. 182984

Movant may be either party

Judgments

Requirements

written and signed by judge

must contain findings of facts and law applied

Elementary due process demands that the parties to a litigation be

given information on how the case was decided as well as an

explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court.

Velarde v. SJS, G.R. 159357

must contain a dispositive portion

filed with the clerk of court

Rendition reckoned from filing with clerk

Must be served on parties

May be amended before finality upon motion or motu proprio

Entry upon finality

entry determines prescriptive periods

Final judgment not subject to amendment

As a general rule, final and executory judgments are immutable

and unalterable, exceptions. A nunc pro tunc judgment cannot
correct judicial error nor supply nonaction by the court.

Briones-Vasquez v. CA, G.R. 144882

Immutability of Judgments; No other procedural law principle is

indeed more settled than that once a judgment becomes final, it is
no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal,
except only for correction of clerical errors, or the making of nunc
pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or where
the judgment itself is void.

Navarro v. Metrobank, G.R. 165697 and G.R. 166481

Separability of judgments

Effect of Judgment; Judgment at various stages; Definitive Judgment; Test to

determine whether judgment or order final or interlocutory; Final Judgment

Miranda v. CA, G.R. L-33007

13

Obiter Dicta; Motion for Reconsideration; Partial Judgment; Fake Decisions

3.17.

Republic v. Nolasco, G.R. 155108

Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)

New Trial or Reconsideration

FAMEN

Fraud as a ground must be extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is intrinsic

when done by a party during trial (use of forged documents etc),
extrinsic when employed outside the court (concealing a witness
or colluding with a party)

Accident and Mistake as ground must be based on wellengendered belief ordinary prudence could not guard against

Excusable Negligence as ground will depend on circumstances

Newly discovered evidence

Must be material and not discoverable during trial

Motion for New Trial Requisites

Libudan v. Gil, 45 S 17

Motion for Reconsideration

NT distinguished from reconsideration

grounds

results when granted

remedy when denied (appeal from the judgment)

Reglementary period for filing a Motion for Reconsideration

Capuz v. CA, G.R. 112795

Land Registration; Elements for allowance of reopening or review of a decree

Bernaldez v. Francia, G.R. 143929

Grounds for a Motion for New Trial

Banco Filipino v Campos 63 S 180

Delos Santos v. Elizalde, G.R. 141810 & 141812; 514 S 14, 34

Relief from Judgment

not available for lost remedy

Tuazon v CA, 256 S 158

available only versus final judgment

Under Section 1, Rule 38, of the Rules of Court, the Court may grant relief
from judgment only when a judgment or final order is entered, or any
14

other proceeding is taken against a party in any court through fraud,

accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.

distinguished from NT or reconsideration

grounds

when/how invoked

result when granted

remedy when denied (no more appeal)

Propriety of Relief

Sps. Que v. CA, G.R. 150739

Monzon v. Relova, G.R. 171827

Who may file

Dela Cruz v. Quiazon, G.R. 171961

Annulment of Judgment (not same court, not same case)

Rule 47 does not allow a recourse to annulment of judgment if other

appropriate remedies are available, such as petition for new trial, appeal
or petition for relief.

Extrinsic fraud not a valid ground for annulment of an order if it was

availed of, or could have been availed of, by a question for new trial or
petition for relief.

3.18.

Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v Court of Appeals 681 S 580

Arcenas v. Queen City Development Bank, G.R. 166819

Execution of judgments

Only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution

Final judgment versus final and executory judgment

Investment v CA 147 S 334

Test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court to do with
respect to the merits of the case?

Execution a matter of right when judgment final and executory, but only upon
motion

judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e., when no appeal has been
taken within the period provided by law

enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it

becomes final, subject to certain exceptions

execution before finality of judgment, only upon good reasons

15

BF Corp v Edsa Shangrila, 294 S 109

discretionary executions, when stayed

City of Manila v CA, 72 S 98

Valencia v CA, 184 S 561

execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the nature
of the judgment, i.e. recovery of property v money judgments

4. APPEALS
4.1. Nature of appeal as a remedy

guard against judgments of unskilled and unfair judges

prevention as much as correction of mistakes

not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost

Dacuital v LM Engineering Corporation 629 S 702

4.2. Who may appeal

4.3. What are appealable

what are final judgments

when does a judgment or order become final

final judgments vs judgments that are final and executory

what are not appealable and why are they not?

test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case

4.4. Modes of appeal

ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment)

MTC to RTC

RTC to CA

no extension of period to file notice of appeal

interrupted by motion for NT or recon

if NT or recon denied, fresh period to appeal

Neypes vs CA GR 141524 Sept 14, 2005

payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal

petition for review (by filing petition with CA under rule 42)

16

second level of review

review of judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction

RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA

not a matter of right; discretionary on part of CA

Ong v Tating. 149 SCRA 265

appeal by certiorari (filing petition with SC)

appeal to the SC

from RTC on questions of law only (Rule 41)

UMC v Velasco 98 S 545

may be remanded to CA if involving questionof fact

(rule 56, sec 6), not dismissed

from final order or resolution of CA or SB (rule 45) but only on

questions of law

Cheesman v IAC, 193 S 93

Sumbingco v CA, 155 S 24

What is a question of law?

appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, sec 6)

See Macawiwili and Land Bank cases below

petition for review on certiorari vs petition for certiorari

New York Marine v CA, 249 S 416

Ybanez v CA, 253 S 540

Rule on appeals summarized

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt Co v CA 297 S 602
Land Bank of the Philippines v Ramos 685 S 540
4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal

May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by court?

duty of court when notice of appeal filed

dilatory appeals

4.6. Improper appeals

to CA from RTC on questions of law

to SC via notice of appeal

17

to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in appellate

jurisdiction

the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be
allowed
(Exception is when appeal to SC on questions of law and fact in which case,
the case will be remanded to CA)

5. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
5.1. Preliminary Attachment

Kinds of attachment

preliminary

garnishment

levy on execution

At what stage is preliminary attachment granted?

grounds for attachment exclusive

may be granted ex parte

Onate v Abrogar, 241 S 659

Davao Light & Water v CA, 204 S 343

Sievert v CA, 168 S 692

Carlos v Sandoval 471 S 266

Spouses Yu v Ngo Yee Te GR 155868

5.2. Preliminary Injunction

preceded by a 72-hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA)

within TRO, hearing must be conducted

may be granted at any stage of the proceeding

requirements for issuance

coordinate body may not be enjoined

may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself

Bacolod City Water District v Labayen 446 S 110

China Banking Corp v Co GR 174569
18

Estares v CA GR 144755
Buyco v Baraquia GR 177486 (December 21, 2009)
Heirs of the late JBL Reyes v CA 338 S 282
Brocka v Enrile 192 S 182
Medina v Greenfield Development GR 140228
5.3. Receivership

When is receiver appointed?

object is preservation of property subject matter of litigation

powers of a receiver
National Investment and Development Corp v Judge Aquino 163 S 153
Traders Royal Bank v IAC 273 S 521

5.4. Replevin

nature of a replevin suit

question involved is one of possession but ownership may be resolved if

raised

plaintiff (claim) and defendant (counterclaim) can petition for replevin

Yang v Valdez 177 S 141
Adoma v Gatcheco 448 S 299
Paat v CA 266 S 167
Citibank v CA 304 S 679

5.5. Support pendete lite

concept of support is that the applicant is entitled to it by reason of some

relationship (say, marital or filial) with the adverse party

judgment of support is never final, it can be amended at any time as long as

the obligation to support subsists

Arts 194, 195, 201, 202 of Family Code

Reyes v Ines-Luciano GR 48219
Lam v Chua GR 131286

6. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

19

6.1. Interpleader
Ocampo v Tirona GR 147812 (April 6, 2005)
6.2. Declaratory Relief
Tano v Socrates GR 110249 (August 14, 1997)
Martelino v NHMF Corp GR 160208 (June 30, 2008)
Velasco v Villegas GR 24153 (February 14, 1983)
6.3. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

See distinctions between certiorari as an appeal and certiorari as an original

action (supra)

writ of certiorari is territorial if issued by RTC, not if by CA

certiorari to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment

Section 19, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

Section 19, Rule on Writ of Amparo

Section 19, Rule on Habeas Data

Section 14, Rule of Procedure in Small Claims Cases

Circular 28-91

Balba v Peak Development Inc GR 148288 (August 12, 2005)

New Frontier Sugar Corp v RTC of Iloilo GR 165001 (January 31, 2007)
Camutin v Sps Potente GR 181642 (January 29, 2009)
Bugarin v Palisoc GR 157985 (December 2, 2005)
Lalicon v Vergara 276 S 518
Sps Nische v Equitable-PCI Bank GR 167434 (February 19, 2007)
David v Rivera 420 S 90
Tan v Comelec GR 73155 (July 11, 1986)
Mayuga v CA (August 30, 1996)
Kant Wong et al v PCGG GR 79484 (December 7, 1987)
Uy Kiao Eng v Nixon Lee GR 1776831 (January 15, 2010)
Matibay v Garcia (January 25, 1983)

20

Paloma v Mora 470 S 711

6.4. Quo Warranto
Municipality of San Narciso v Mendez 239 SCRA 11
Tarrosa v Singson 232 S 553
Lota v CA 2 S 715
6.5. Expropriation

determination of authority to exercise eminent domain

determination of just compensation

Republic v Gingoyan GR 166429 (December 19, 2005)

National Power Corp v Manubay Agro-Industrial GR 150936 (August 18, 2004)
Republic v CA and Heirs of Cris Santos GR 146587 (July 2, 2002)
Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v City of Pasig GR 152230
6.6. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

all parties in interest should be joined as necessary parties, i.e. mortgagor as

well as second mortgagee or attaching creditor

equity of redemption instead of right of redemption is remedy of debtor

in the same case, in case of deficiency, the court will render judgment

against debtor which may be executed immediately if debt is due upon

judgment

AM No. 99-10-05-0

Act No 3135

Limpin v IAC 166 S 88

BPI Family Savings Bank v Sps Veloso 436 S 1
6.7. Partition
Figuracion Gerilla v Vda de Figuracion GR 154322 (August 22, 2006)
6.8. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Valdes v CA GR 132426
Co v Militar 41 S 455
Unida v Urban GR 155432

21

Spouses Calendacion v Larano GR 158231

Montenegro v Montenegro GR 156829
6.9. Contempt
Ang v Castro GR 66371 (May 15, 1985)
People v Godoy 243 S 64 (March 29, 1995)

22