KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY/UNLAWFUL DETAINER

1. REY CATEDRILLA v MARIO LAURON

696 SCRA 341 GR No 179011 April 15, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner, as a co-owner of a lot, filed with the MTC a Complaint for ejectment against sps Lauron who occupied a certain lot by mere tolerance of
the former and his co-heirs. That despite several demands for respondents to vacate, the latter still refused to do so and thus continued to unlawfully
withhold such possession.
The MTC ruled in favour of plaintiff alleging that the latter is a party who may bring the suit and as co-owner, petitioner is allowed to bring the action
for ejectment under Sec1 Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
On appeal, the RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC. The CA, however, reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the other heirs should have
been impleaded as co-plaintiffs citing Sec 1, Rule 7 and Sec 7, rule 3 of the Rules of Court;.
Issue: Is the CA correct in ruling that petitioners co-heirs should be impleaded as co-plaintiffs?
Ruling: No, a co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed
to be instituted for the benefit of all. Art 487 of the NCC explicitly provides that any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
Note: Although the amicable settlement between petitioners father and respondent Margie before the barangay regarding the sale of the lot had the
force and effect of final judgment of a court, respondents failure to respond to the change in purchase price constituted non-compliance with the
terms which may be construed as repudiation.
2.
3.

GO v LOOYUKO
CODERIAS v ESTATE OF CHIOCO

HIERARCHY OF COURTS/QUO WARRANTO

4. EMMANUEL DE CASTRO v EMERSON CARLOS
696 SCRA 400 GR No 194994 April 16, 2013
Facts:
A petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto under Rule 66 was filed directly with the Supreme Court by herein petitioner seeking to oust
respondent from the position of assistant general manager for operations (AGMO) of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
Petitioner alleged that a direct recourse to the supreme court is warranted by the fact that the president is the appointing authority and by urgent
demands of public interest, particularly the veritable need for stability in the civil service and the protection of the rights of civil servants.
ISSUE:
Should the petition be dismissed?
RULING:
Yes. Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it
by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. A direct invocation of the Courts jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and
important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in the petition. In this case, the aforementioned reasons cannot be qualified as valid
justifications to hurdle the hierarchy of courts. Thus the petition must be dismissed.
5.

ROSARIO v DE GUZMAN

6.

MACASAET v CO

7.

HING v CHOACHUY

8.

ACTIONS/CAUSE OF ACTION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING/CERTIORARI

FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES v SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC.
695 SCRA 175 GR No 197937 April 3, 2013

SUMMONS
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

Facts:
9.

JOSEFINA INGLES v HON. ESTRELLA ESTRADA

695 SCRA 285 GR No 141809 April 8, 2013
Facts:

10. HEIRS OFFAUSTINO MESINA v HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR.

695 SCRA 345 GR No 201816 April 8, 2013
Facts:
Late Sps Mesina, during their lifetime bought from sps Fian parcels of land. Upon the death of the latter, their heirs whose names do not appear
in the records, refused to acknowledge the payment and denied the that sps Fian sold such to sps mesina. This prompted the heirs of mesina to
file an action for quieting of title and damages before the RTC against the heirs of Fian naming only Theresa Fian Yray as representative of the
heirs of Fian. Theresa filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action for simply writing heirs
of mesina and heirs of fian(not considered juridical nor natural) as parties to the case and therefore should be dismissed. The RTC ruled in
favour of respondent which was later affirmed by the CA. hence the appeal.
Issue:
Did the CA err in affirming the decision of the RTC ruling that they failed to state the cause of action?
Ruling:
Yes. Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading. A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of
the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
a. The legal right of the plaintiff
b. The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
c. The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said right
Non-joinder
11. HEIRS OF GALLARDO v SOLIMAN
12. LEAGUE OF PRVINCES v DENR
696 SCRA 190 GR No 175368 April 11, 2013
Facts:
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

GARCIA v DRILON
CATHAY PACIFIC v REYES
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION v JOAQUIN JR.
BOARDWALK BUSINESS v VILLAREAL JR.
SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS v PMMA
ADALIM v TALINAS
ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION v COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.-CEBU PLANT
696 SCRA 357 GR No 198783 April 15, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner ROPWU, is composed of several bottler operators of respondent CCBPI. Pursuant to the I Operate, I Maintain, I Clean program of
the latter for the bottler operators, the chairs provided for them were removed. The operators took issue with it and initiated the grievance
machinery of the CBA and both parties had undergone conciliation/mediation proceedings before the NCMB but they still failed to arrive at an
amicable settlement. On arbitration, the arbitration committee ruled in favour of the RPWU alleging that the use of the chairs constitutes a
benefit and thus could not be reduced. The CCBPI filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA which then ruled in favour of CCBPI
alleging that the removal of chairs was within the province of management prerogatives. Petitioner appealed to the SC questioning the mode of
appeal used by the respondent.
Issue: Is an appeal to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure a proper remedy to question the
decision of the Arbitration Committee?

Ruling: Yes, the Court has already ruled that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via a petition for review under
Rule 43
20. SURIGAO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v GONZAGA

JURISDICTION
192.

FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO V OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

695 SCRA 35 GR NO 173121 APR 3, 2013
Facts: A complaint for grave misconduct was filed with the Deputy Ombudsman against petitioner, a barangay Chairman, who interfered with the
anti-water pilferage operation of the PNP-CIDG being conducted against his son for illegally opening a government fire hydrant for his car wash.
Petitioner was later found guilty and was dismissed from service. As a result, he filed an appeal before the CA which dismissed his case for

premature filing. The CA held that he failed to exhaust proper administrative remedies because he did not appeal the Deputy Ombudsmans decision
to the Ombudsman, hence, the appeal. Petitioner posits that the decision of the Office of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman can already be considered
as an exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioner further alleged that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to order his dismissal
from the services since RA 7160 (LGC of 1991), an elective local official may be removed from office only by the order of a proper court.
Issue: Main Issue 1. Does the office of the Ombudsman have jurisdiction to order such dismissal?
Other issue 2. Can the decision of the Office of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman be considered as an exhaustion of remedies?
Ruling: 1. Yes. According to a case held in Office of the Ombudsman v Rodriquez, 625 SCRA 299 (2010), any act or omission of a public officer or
employee occupying a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and of the regular courts or other
investigative agencies.
2. Yes. There is no further need to review the case at the administrative level since the Deputy Ombudsman has already acted on the case
and he was acting for and in behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman.
193.

PAT-OG V CSC
697 SCRA 566
PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE/VERIFICATION

194.

SEGUNDINA GALVEZ V CA
695 SCRA 10 APRIL 3, 2013 GR NO 157445
Facts: The case is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA in dismissing her appeal on the ground of failure to attach to
her petition copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations. The case started with the MTC where
petitioner was sued by third parties for recovery of ownership and possession of a land allegedly bought by the latter from PNB who in turn got it
from a foreclosure sale for non-payment of mortgage by their daughter. Petitioner posited that she did not give her consent in the sale of said
property to her husbands daughter. The MTC ruled in favour of the third parties and on appeal, the same was upheld by the RTC. Petitioner
appealed to the CA but was dismissed based on said ground hence the petition.
Issue: Did the CA err in dismissing the appeal?
Ruling: Yes. The mere failure to attach copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the
petition for review is not necessarily fatal as to warrant the outright denial of due course when the clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of
the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correctments of the petition sufficiently substantiate the allegations. The three guideposts
in determining the necessity of attaching pleadings and portions of the records are (Air Philippines Corporation v Zamora, 498 SCRA 59 2006): 1) not
all pleadings and parts of the case records are material portions of the record as to support the allegations in the petition only those relevant should
accompany it meaning the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition; 2) even if a document is relevant and pertinent to
the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached to the petition;
3) a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing
that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.
195.

SPS WELTCHIE AND EMILY RAYMUNDO V LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

695 SCRA 152GR NO 195317 APRIL 3, 2013
Facts: Petitioner spouses availed of a loan package by LBP and as security thereof, executed real and chattel mortgages which were later
foreclosed due to failure to pay loan obligations. The petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of loan documents, to which the LBP moved to
dismiss on the ground that said complaint did not state a cause of action. While the case was in its pre-trial stage, petitioners requested for the
suspension of proceedings alleging that they are negotiating with defendant, resulting to the archiving of the case. The petitioners later filed a motion
for leave to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint and Admission of the same which was opposed by said Bank and denied by the RTC
alleging that the motion was merely intended to delay the proceedings. On appeal, the CA upheld the RTCs ruling hence the petition. Note that LBP
had transferred its rights title and interests to Philippine Distressed Asset Asia Pacific (PDAS2) thus the former had been substituted by the latter.
The PDAS2 filed a manifestation and motion to withdraw the opposition to the admission of the amended and supplemental complaints of petitioners
which caused the suspension of the case for more than 8 years and for it to be resolved already.
Issue: Should the PDAS2s motion be considered?
Ruling: Yes. It is incumbent that trial should continue to settle the issues between the parties once and for all. Court litigation which is primarily a
search for truth must proceed; and a liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the
best way to ferret out such truth. Concomitantly, neither the parties nor their lawyers should be allowed to dictate the pace by which a case proceeds.
196.

REINIER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. V CAPTAIN FRANCISCO GUEVARRA

699 SCRA 1 GR No. 157020 June 19, 2013

Facts: Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner for unjustifiably relieving him as ship master. The Labor Arbiter found
respondents dismissal illegal for denying the latter of his right to be heard. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but on February 22, 2002, the latter
affirmed the Arbiters decision. The due date to file a petition for certiorari before the CA fell on July 26, a Friday but an extension of 15 days was
granted as per request of petitioner, which period counted from July 26 began to run on July 27, a Saturday, and fell due on August 10, a Saturday.
Petitioner filed its petition on the following Monday, August 12. Because of this, the CA dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time and
held that petitioner should have filed it earlier, hence the appeal.
Issue: WON the CA erred in dismissing its petition for having been filed out of time
Ruling: The CA erred in dismissing the petition. Filing the petition earlier than the due date would deprive the party of the full benefit of that
extension. A.M. 00-2-14-SC clarifies the application of Sec 1., Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, this provision applies in the matter of filing of
pleadings in courts when the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which case, the filing of the said pleading on the next working
day is deemed on time. Since petitioner filed said petition on the following Monday, August 12 (a working day), it is considered filed on time. The
CAs decision is reversed and set aside.
Note: Any extension of time to file the required pleading should xxx be counted from the expiration of the period regardless of the fact that said due
date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
197.

SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINES, INC V THE TREASURER OF CITY OF MANILA

700 SCRA 428 GR No 181277 July 3, 2013
Facts: Petitioner represented by Beleno, filed with the RTC a Petition for Refund of taxes from respondent for double taxation. The RTC
dismissed the Petition for the failure of petitioner to plead the latters capacity to sue and to state authority of Beleno, who had executed the
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. On appeal, the CTA affirmed the RTCs decision for failure of petitioner to state the authority of
Beleno to institute the suit. It further argued that physical acts of a corporation can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the
purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.
Consequently, a verification signed without an authority from the board of directors is defective
Issue:

Whether Ms Beleno was authorized to file the Petition for Refund of Taxes with the RTC.

Ruling: Yes.
The requirement of verification is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading and non-compliance does not necessarily render the pleading
fatally defective. a verification signed without an authority from the board of directors is defective. However, the requirement for verification is
simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading and non-compliance does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may in
fact order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or, it may act on the pleading although it may not have been verified, where it is made
evident that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with so that the ends of justice may be served.
Rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical manner, but are used only to help secure substantial justice.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
198.
SOLID BUILDERS, INC. and MEDINA FOODS INDUSTRIES, INC. V CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
695 SCRA 101 GR NO 179665 APRIL 3, 2013
Facts: Respondent CBC granted several loans to petitioner SBI and as security thereof, petitioners executed a real estate mortgage over parcels
of land. After several agreements, CBC demanded SBI to settle its outstanding account within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Claiming that the
interests, penalties and charges imposed by CBC were iniquitous and unconscionable and to enjoin CBC from initiating foreclosure proceedings,
petitioners filed a prayer for writ of Preliminary injunction in the RTC. The latter ruled in favour of petitioners prompting respondent to file a petition for
certiorari before the CA which granted the petition for dissolution of injunction order alleging that the records do not reveal a clear and unmistakable
right on the part of petitioners that would entitle them to the protection of the writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, the appeal.
Issue: Should the injunction be granted?
Ruling: No because the relevant circumstances in the case show that there was failure to satisfy the requisites for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction namely: 1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and 2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must
be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injury (injury that cannot be remedied under any standard of
compensation). In the case, foreclosure of mortgaged property is not an irreparable damage that will merit for the debtor-mortgagor the extraordinary
provisional remedy of preliminary injunction because they will not be deprived outrightly of their property, given the right of redemption granted to
them under the law and others.
199.

SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC V JESUS MENDOZA

699 SCRA 290 GR No 202247 June 19, 2013

Facts: Petitioner bought a club share from a country club, but as set forth in its by-laws, only natural persons may own such share. As a result,
petitioner named it under respondent, a sales manager of the former. As agreed, an endorsement of the Club Share Certificate and Deed of
Assignment was endorsed in Blank to petitioner. Monthly dues were also paid by the latter. Respondent later retired. When petitioner was about to
sell its club share, an authorization to sell from Mendoza was required as it was still registered under his name but the latter refused to sign unless
the petitioner pay him. As a result, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for damages with writ of preliminary injunction with the RTC to
enjoin him from availing of the clubs facilities and privileges to the prejudice of petitioner. The RTC granted the injunction. On appeal, the CA
reversed the RTCs decision and held that Sime Darby failed to prove that it has a clear and unmistakable right over the club share, hence the
motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Is petitioner entitled to injunctive relief against Mendoza?
Ruling: Yes because petitioner has sufficiently established the requisites of a preliminary injunction: 1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable
right to be protected; 2) a violation of that right; 3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage. In the case, Sime Darby was able to establish its right over the club share as evidenced by the payment of the purchase price,
endorsement of share made by petitioner to Darby and the monthly dues it paid for. Also, respondent violated Sime Darbys right over the club share
when he refused to give an authorization to sell unless he was paid and despite being informed by petitioner to stop using the facilities and privileges
of the club share, Mendoza continued to do so. Thus, in order to prevent further damage and prejudice to itself, it properly sought injunction in the
case. The petition was granted.
200.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V ERNESTO DE CHAVEZ

700 SCRA 399 GR No 172206 July 3, 2013

Facts:
Issue:
Ruling: note that for a preliminary injunction to issue, the following essential requisites must concur, to wit: 1) that the invasion of the right is
material and substantial; 2) that the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, 3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for
the writ to prevent serious damage. In the present case, the right of respondents cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because the
prevailing jurisprudence is that the penalty of dismissal from the service meted on government employees or officials is immediately executory in
accordance with the valid rule of execution pending the appeal uniformly observed in administrative disciplinary cases.
201.

PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN (Gov. Alvaro Antonio) V JOSEPH LARA

702 SCRA 183

Facts:
It is well-settled that a writ of injunction would issue upon the satisfaction of two (2) requisites, namely: a) the existence of a right to be protected; and
b) acts which are violative of the said right. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief constitutes grave abuse of
discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainants right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not
proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.
WRIT OF POSSESSION/SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
SPS MONTANO AND MERLINDA TOLOSA V UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK
695 SCRA 138 GR NO 183058 APRIL 3, 2013
Facts: Petitioner spouses entered into a credit agreement with respondent UCPB inorder and as security, they executed real estate mortgage
over certain properties. For failure of petitioners to pay their principal obligation, UCPB foreclosed the mortgage on said properties were sold at
public auction, UCPB being the highest bidder. Petitioners failed to exercise their right of redemption. This prompted UCPB to consolidate its
ownership over said properties. UCPB filed an ex-parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession before the RTC which the petitioners opposed on
the ground that there was prima facie showing invalidity of their mortgage obligation, foreclosure of mortgage and sale of their properties therefore
should be held in abeyance. The RTC ruled in favour of petitioners on the ground of equity and substantial justice. On appeal, the CA held otherwise
alleging that the mere pendency of such motion cannot defeat the right to writ of possession the law grants to UCPB as absolute and registered
owners of the properties. Hence, the petition.
Issue: Should the writ of possession be held in abeyance?
Ruling: No. a writ of possession is simply an order by which the sheriff is commanded by the court to place a person in possession of a real or
personal property. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, a writ of possession may be issued in favour of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale
either 1) within the one-year redemption period, upon the filing of a bond; or 2) after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a bond..
within the
202.

203.

MARCELINO AND VITALIANA DALANGIN V CLEMENTE AND CECILIA PEREZ

695 SCRA 86 GR No 178758 April 3, 2013

Facts: Respondent spouses sold to petitioner spouses a parcel of land. For failure to pay despite demand, respondent spouses filed a complaint
for recovery of sum of money which was later on granted. The sheriff then levied upon and sold petitioners properties to Perez at an auction sale in
1972. For failure to redeem, a writ of possession was issued. This prompted petitioners to file a complaint for annulment of sheriffs sale with the
RTC invoking rule 39, Sec 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure stating that a written notice of sale on execution should have been given to them.
The lack of this notice effectively converted the auction proceedings into a private sale which is prohibited under the law. The RTC, however, upheld
the validity of the sheriffs sale ruling that although there was no notice of sheriffs sale, they were able to receive copies of the writ of execution and
possession which served as adequate warning. On appeal, the CA upheld the RTCs ruling. Hence, the appeal.
Issue: Is the notice of execution sale to be given to judgment debtors required?
Ruling: No, it does not apply to the case. It was only in 1987 that the Court required that written notice of the execution sale be given to the
judgment debtor, via Circular No.8 amending Rule 39, Sec 18 of the Rules of Court on notice of sale of property on execution. Thus, the alleged
failure on the part of the respondents to furnish petitioners with a written notice of the execution sale did not nullify the execution sale because it was
not then a requirement for its validity.
204.

DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN, JR. V SEC. LEILA DE LIMA as DOJ Secretary

695 SCRA 159 GR No 197291 April 3, 2013
Facts: Petitioner together with other individuals were charged with several informations for multiple murder in relation to the infamous
Maguindanao Massacre case. Petitioner, through counsel, wrote to respondent to request the inclusion of Dalandag, a state witness, in the
informations for murder considering that he had already confessed his participation in the massacre which De Lima denied. This prompted petitioner
to file petition for mandamus in the RTC, seeking to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in the various murder cases. The
RTC however dismissed the petition, hence the appeal by petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: whether respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder in relation to the
Maguindanao Massacre despite his admission to the witness protection program.
Ruling: No respondents may not be compelled to do such act by way of Mandamus. Mandamus shall only issue when any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way the
judgment and discretion are to be exercised. Consequently, the Sec of DOJ may be compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a letter-request or a
motio to include a person in the information, but may not be compelled by writ of mandamus to act in a certain way that is to deny or grant such
motion. In the case, De Limas denial of the request signifies an act on the letter-request.
205.

DARCEN V VR GONZALES
695 SCRA 207

207.

CARLOS LIM, et al. V DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

700 SCRA 210 GR No 177050 July 1, 2013
Facts: petitioners Carlos, Consolacion and Carlito, all surnamed Lim, obtained a loan from respondent DBP to finance their business. On the
same day, they executed a promissory note undertaking to pay annual amortization with interest and penalty. A second loan was again obtained with
a promissory note. As security, they executed a mortgage over real properties. Due to violent confrontations between government troops and muslim
rebels in Mindanao, petitioners were forced to abandon their cattle ranch. As a result, their business collapsed and failed to pay the loan
amortizations.
Ruling: Development Bank of the Philippines failure to send a notice of the foreclosure sale to petitioners and its imposition of additional interest
and penalties do not constitute bad faith. There is no showing that these contractual breaches were done in bad faith or in a wanton, reckless, or
oppressive manner. DBP did not act in bad faith or in a wanton, reckless, or oppressive manner in cancelling the Restructuring Agreement. As we
have said, DBP had reason to cancel the Restructuring Agreement because petitioners failed to pay the amount required by it when it reconsidered
petitioners request to restructure the loan. Likewise, DBPs failure to send a notice of the foreclosure sale to petitioners and its imposition of
additional interest and penalties do not constitute bad faith. There is no showing that these contractual breaches were done in bad faith or in a
wanton, reckless or oppressive manner.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE/EJECTMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V ROBERT NARCEDA
695 SCRA 483 GR No. 182760 April 10, 2013
Facts: respondent filed with the RTC a petition for judicial declaration of the presumptive death and/or absence of his wife, Marina which was
granted by said court. Petitioner, through the Office of the Sol Gen, filed an ordinary appeal to the CA assailing the decision of the RTC and posited
208.

that respondent failed to conduct search for his missing wife with the diligence required by law. The CA dismissed the appeal ruling that the hearing
of a petition for the declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding under the Family Code and Art 247 of the same provides that the
judgment of the trial court in summary court proceedings shall be immediately final and executory.
Issue: is the CA correct?
Ruling: Yes, in summary proceedings, the losing partys remedy is not an ordinary appeal, but a petition for certiorari to question grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction as explained by jurisprudence (Rep v Tango, 594 SCRA 560, 2009). When the OSG filed its notice of
appeal under Rule 42, it availed itself of the wrong remedy. As a result, the running of period for filing the petition for certiorari continued to run and
was not tolled. Upon lapse od said period, the decision of the rtc could no longer be questioned.
209.

RIVEA-CALINGASAN V RIVERA
696 SCRA 613