1.

Title of the Case

RULES 1-5
Relucio vs. Lopez

Facts

2.

De Castrovs.CA

3.

Orquiolavs. CA

Sps. Lopez Married.

Husband has paramour.
Wife filed a petition for SOLE
ADMINISTRATRIX of Conjugal partnership
Properties, etc.
Motion to Dismiss the petition was filed
by the paramour (petitioner) on the
ground that private respondent (wife)
has no cause of action against her.
Private respondent Francisco Artigo sued
petitioners De Castro to collect the
unpaid
balance
of
his
brokers
commission from the De Castros.
Petitioners argued that the complaint
must be dismissed for failing to implead
as indispensable parties the other coowners of the two lots.

Issue
1.

2.

WON Respondents petition for

appointment as sole administratrix of
the conjugal property, accounting, etc.
against her husband established a
cause of action against petitioner;
WON petitioners inclusion as party
defendant is essential in the
proceedings for a complete adjudication
of the controversy.

NO. Respondents causes of action were all

against her husband. The first cause of action is
for judicial appointment arising from her
marriage to Alberto Lopez. Petitioner is a
complete stranger to this cause of action.
No. Petitioner is not a real party in interest. She
cannot also be an indispensable party/necessary
party.

No. (meaning of indispensable parties; joinder of

indispensable partiesbeingmandatory)
WON the complaint merits dismissal for failure
to implead other co-owners as indispensable
parties.?

Rule on mandatory joinder of parties is not applicable in

the present case.
A contract of agency was constituted between Constante
and Artigo. Whether Constante appointed Artigo as
agent in his personal or representative capacity, or both,
the De Castros cannot seek dismissal of the case for
failure to implead the other co-owners as indispensable
parties.

Pura
Kalaw
filed
a
complaint
against
Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for
allegedly encroaching upon Lot 689.
Deputy Sheriff directed petitioners through as
alias writ of execution to remove the house they
constructed on the land they were occupying.

Held

WON the alias writ of execution may be

enforced against petitioners?

Where a case involves a sale of a p[arcel of land under

the Torrens system, the applicable rule is that a person
dealing with the registered property need not to go
beyond the certificate of tile and he is charged with
notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated
on the title. Petitioners are fully entitled to the legal
protection of their lot by the Torrens system.

Petitioners in good faith, hence, parties in

interest.

4.

China Banking Corp.vs.Oliver

Petitioners were not impleaded in the complaint

filed in 1969, the writ of demolition in connection
therewith cannot be enforced against them
because to do so would amount to deprivation of
property without due process of law.
Oliver1 was granted a loan by petitioner which
was secured by a REM.
Oliver2 claiming that she is the real Mercedes
Oliver filed an action for annulment of mortgage

1.
1.

WON the mortgagor (Oliver1) is an

indispensable party?

No. (definition of indispensable party). It is true

that Oliver1 stands to be a party in interest.
However, he absence would not hamper the trial
court in resolving the dispute between Oliver2
and petitioner.

and cancellation of title with damages against

Chinabank.

2.

WON Sec 7 of Rule 3 applies in this

case?

Chinabank moved to dismiss the case for lack of

cause of action and non-joinder of indispensable
party, the mortgagor (Oliver1).
2.
5.

6.
7.
8.

9.

Lotte Phil. Co. Inc. vs. Dela Cruz

Carabeo vs. Dingco

Dela Cruz vs. Joaquin
Navarro vs. Escobido

Pacific Consultants International

Asia vs. Schonfeld

Petitioner
is
a
domestic
corporation.
Respondents are those who were hired and
assigned to the confectionery facility operated
by private respondent. Maintenance and
Janitorial Services entered into contract with
petitioner to provide manpower for needed
services to the latter.

Respondent Karen T. Go filed 2 complaints. for

replevin and/or sum of money with damages
against Navarro for the seizure of two (2) motor
vehicles in Navarros possession. She alleged
that, she, under the Trade name Kargo
enterprises, entered into a contract of lease with
option
to
purchase
with
Navarro.
As
consideration, Navarro issued checks. Some of it
were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

WON 7J is an indispensable party and should

have been impleaded in the petition before the
CA?

The complaint shows that it was for annulment

of mortgage due to petitioners negligence.
Oliver2 can do in her complaint without
necessarily impleading the mortgagor Oliver1.
Hence, Oliver1 is not an indispensable party in
the case filed by Oliver2.
No. Instead, apply Sec. 11 Rule 3.

YES. (Definition of Indispensable party)

7J is an indispensable party. It is a party in interest
because it will be affected by the outcome of the case.
Respondents failed to include 7J in their petition for
certiorari in the CA.
No final ruling can be had without impleading 7J, whose
inclusion is necessary for the effective and complete
resolution of the case in order to accord all parties with
due process and fair play.

Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense

that the two complaints stated no cause of
action, since Karen Go was not a party to the
Lease Agreements with Option to Purchase.
According to Navarro, a complaint which failed to
state a cause of action could not be converted
into one with a cause of action by mere
amendment or supplemental pleading

The SC went further and explained that Karen Go may

file the action as the real party in interest base on the
Family Code. Under this ruling, either of the spouses Go
may bring an action against Navarro to recover
possession of the Kargo Enterprises-leased vehicles
which they co-own. This conclusion is consistent with
Article 124 of the Family Code, supporting as it does the
position that either spouse may act on behalf of the
conjugal partnership, so long as they do not dispose of
or encumber the property in question without the other
spouses consent.
On this basis, we hold that since Glenn Go is not
strictly an indispensable party in the action to recover
possession of the leased vehicles, he only needs to be
impleaded as a pro-forma party to the suit, based on
Section 4, Rule 4.
Non-joinder of indispensable parties not ground
to dismiss action.

Respondent was a Canadian citizen. He was

offered employment by Pacicon Philippines, Inc.
(PPI), a domestic corporation which is a
subsidiary Pacific Consultants International of

Yes. The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is

that while they are considered valid and enforceable,
venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule,
supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the

WON Karen Go is the real party in interest?

Japan (PCIJ). In a letter of employment to

respondent, sent by PCIJs president he was
offered a post in the Philippines with PPI.

WON the venue was properly laid?

any conflict that may arise between the

employee and company which cannot be settled
amicably shall be by written submission to Court
of Arbitration in London.

10. Biaco vs. Countryside Rural Bank

Respondents employment was terminated.

Hence, he filed a complaint against petitioner
and Henrichsen before the Labor Arbiter.
Spouses Biaco acquired several loans from PCRB
secured by a mortgage of certain property in
favor of the bank. They failed to pay the load,
hence, a complaint for foreclosure against the
spouses.

WON the judgment of the trial court should be

annulled?

Summons were issued by the trial judge and

were served to Ernesto at the latters office. No
summons was served to Teresa.

Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or

restrictive words. They should be considered merely as
an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue
to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather
permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict
venue, there must be accompanying language clearly
and categorically expressing their purpose and design
that actions between them be litigated only at the place
named by them. In the present case, no restrictive words
were stated in the contract.

YES. Teresas constitutional right to due process is

superior over the procedural matters involved. Her right
to due process was violated when she was not served
summons.
Defect in the service of summons. Explanation why they
resorted to substituted service.
Seizure of personal properties is personam. No
jurisdiction.

PCRB argued that the proceedings ia quasi in

rem and that the presence of Teresa is not
required because the trial court was able to
acquire jurisdiction over the res.

11. Bautista vs. Unangst

Hamilton Salak rented a car from GAB Rent-ACar owned by Benjamin Bautista. The lease was
for 3 consecutive days, P1000 per day. However,
Salak failed to return the car after 3 days
prompting petitioner to file a complaint against
him. Salak and his common-law wife were
arrested. Salak and Unangst expressed their
willingness to pay but were short on cash.
Unangst proposed to sell a certain property to
Bautista.
Unangst failer to repurchase.
A complaint was again filed against them.
RTC rendered a decision. Respondent failed to

WON the CA committed grave error in finding

that the respondent perfected an appeal via
Petition for Relief to be able to appeal judgment
even when the proper docket fees were paid
beyond the period prescribed?

NO. Failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees was

due to a justifiable reason.
While payment of the full amount of the appellate court
docket fee within the period is mandatory and
jurisdictional, the strict application of the jurisdictional
nature of the above rule on payment of appellate court
docket fee may be mitigated under exceptional
circumstances to better serve the interest of justice.

interpose a timely appeal.

Appeal was filed within the prescriptive period,
but proper docket fees were belatedly paid.

1.

RULES 6-9
Alma Jose vs. Javellana

Margarita Alma Jose and Ramon Javellana

entered in a deed of conditional sale of two
parcels of land.
Priscilla did not comply with the undertaking to
cause the registration of the properties under
the Torrens System, and instead began to
improve the properties by dumping filling
materials
therein with the intention of
converting the parcels of land into a
residential/industrial subdivision.

NO.

WON Javellana is guilty of forum shopping?

Javellana filed a Motion for Reconsideration with

the RTC. Pending the appeal, Javellana filed a
petition for certiorari in the CA. Priscilla contends
Javellana to be guilty of forum shopping.
2.

Medado vs. Heirs of Antonio

Consuing

Petitioner and respondent (as represented by

Soledad Consuing) executed Deeds of Sale with
Assumption of Mortgage for the formers
acquisition from the latter of the property in
Cadiz City.
Subsequently to the sale, estate of Consing
offered the subject lots tothye government via
DARs Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) program.

WON the CA correctly admitted the petition for

certiorari filed before it, notwithstanding
alleged deficiencies in its verification and
certification against forum shopping?
WON the CA correctly held that the rule against
forum shopping was violated by filing of the
complaint for injunction during the pendency of
the action for rescission and damages?

In their comment on the petition, Spouses

Medado questioned, amonth other matters, the
authority of SOLEDAD to SIGN the PETITIONERs
Certification of NON-FORUM SHOPPING on
behalf of her co-petitioners.
3.

COA vs. Paler

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE

WON Atty. Arturo Tiu has the authority to file

the petition and sign verification and
certification of non-forum shopping on behalf of
the commission chairman?

Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant

against whom an adverse judgment has been
rendered in one forum seeking and possibly
getting a favorable opinion in another forum,
other than by appeal or the Special Civil Action of
Certiorari, or the institution of two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same
cause or supposition that one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition.
Clearly, it does not appear when different orders
were questioned, two distinct causes of action
and issues were raised, and two objectives were
sought.
a. YES. The requirements for verification and
certification against forum shopping in the CA
Petition were substantially complied with,
following settled jurisprudence. Soledad signed
the Certification against Forum Shopping by
virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. The acts of
soledad were necessary to protect, sue, defend
and adopt whatever action necessary and proper
in relation to their rights over the subject
properties.
b. YES. There was forum shopping when spouses
Medado instituted Civil Case for Injunction
notwithstanding the pendency of Civil Case for
Rescission of contract and damages.
Recite the elements of Litis Pendentia.
NO!!!!
Petitioner in this case is a govt entity created by the
constitution and headed by its chairman.
There was no need for the chairman himself to sign the
verification. Its representative, lawyer or any person who
personally know the truth of the facts alleged in the
Petition could sign the verification.

However, the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping has

an established rule that
it must be executed by the plaintiff or any of the
principal parties and not by the counsel.
In this case, Atty.Tiu failed to show that he was
specifically authorized by the Chairman on his behalf.
There is nothing on record to prove such authority. Atty.
Tiu did not bother to controvert Palers allegation of his
lack of authority. This renders the petiion dismissible.
4.

Benguet Exploration Inc. vs. CA

Benguet Chartered the Vessel of Seawoood
shipping

NO.

WON the establishment of the genuineness and

due execution of the documents presented was
enough to warrant reversal of the decision?

Authenticity and due execution constitutes only 4 things:

(1) that the document was signed; (2) that the document
complied with all the formalities under the laws; (3) that
when the document was signed, it was in the original
form without any alteration; and (4) that the document
was delivered.
When the law makes use of the phrase, genuineness
and due execution, it means nothing more than that
the instrument is not spurious, counterfeit, or of different
import on its face from the one executed.
There was disparity in the actual weight of the copper
concentrates ;transported to Poro Point and located on
the vessel.

5.

Asiana Const. & Devt Corp. vs.

CA

Materials bought used for Becthels project.

Becthel did not pay ACDC. Hence, ACDC also
failed to pay Monark Enterprise (MEC).

WON The 3rd party complaint was proper?

No.
A prerequisite to the exercise of such right is that some
substantive basis for a third-party claim be found to
exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity,
subrogation, contribution or other substantive right. The
bringing of a third-party defendant is proper if he would
be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant or both for
all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the original
defendant, although the third-party defendants liability
arises out of another transaction. The defendant may
implead another as third-party defendant (a) on an
allegation of liability of the latter to the defendant for

contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief;

(b) on the ground of direct liability of the third-party
defendant to the plaintiff; or (c) the liability of the thirdparty defendant to both the plaintiff and the defendant.
There must be a causal connection between the claim of
the plaintiff in his complaint and a claim for contribution,
indemnity or other relief of the defendant against the
third-party defendant.
There must be a common liability for the contribution.
There is no causal connection between the claim of the
respondent for the rental and the balance of the
purchase price of the equipment and parts sold and
leased to the petitioner, and the failure of Becthel to pay
the balance of its account to the petitioner after the
completion of the project in Quezon.

6.

BDO vs. Tansipek

7.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

WON respondent Tansipek was in default?

YES. Respondents remedy against the Order of Default

was erroneous from the very beginning. Respondent
should have filed a motion to lift order of default, and
not a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Section
3(b) Rule 9 of the ROC.
Negative pregnant Rule

8.

Caneland Sugar Corp. vs.Alon

WON the CA erred in finding that the RTC did

not commit grave abuse of discretion in not
enjoining the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
properties subject of this case.

No. Petitioner doesnot dispute its loan obligation with

respondent. Petitioners bone of contention before the
RTC is that the promissory notes are silent as to whether
they were covered by the Mortgage Trust Indenture and
Mortgage participation on its property. It does not
categorically deny that these promissory notes are
covered by the security documents.
DEFINITION OF NEGATIVE PREGNANT.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Rules 10-14
Lisam Enterprises vs. BDO
Tiu vs.PBC
Remington Industrial vs. CA
Valmonte vs. CA
Millenium Industrial vs. Tan
Villarosa vs.Benito
Ramos vs. Ramos
BPI vs. Sps.Santiago

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Santos vs. PNOC

Teh vs. CA
Mason vs. CA
Jose vs. Boyon
Manotoc vs.CA
Domagasvs. Jensen
Dole vs. Quilala
Chu vs. Mach Asia
Macasaet vs. Co., Jr.
AM No. 11-3-6-SC