1 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY.
LEYNES
I. General Concepts
Sections 1-4, 6, Rule 1
RULE 1 General Provisions
Section 1. Title of the Rules. These Rule shall be known and cited as
the Rules of Court. (1)Section 2. In what courts applicable. These
Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the
Supreme Court. (n)
Section 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the procedure
to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings.
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
wrong, (1a, R2)
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by
the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules
prescribed for a special civil action. (n)
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for
an act or omission punishable by law. (n)
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish
a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2)
Section 4. In what case not applicable. These Rules shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy
or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
(R143a)
Section 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (2a)
Sections 1-2, Rule 5
RULE 5 Uniform Procedure In Trial Courts
Section 1. Uniform procedure. The procedure in the Municipal Trial
Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a)
where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either
of said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure. (n)
Section 2. Meaning of terms. The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as
used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
(1a)
Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and
obligations created by substantive law by providing a procedural system
for obtaining redress for the violation of rights and violations of duties, and
by laying out rules as to how suits are filed, tried, and decided upon the
courts.
Procedural rules under the Rules of Court are not laws: they do not
originate from the legislature but by the Supreme Court pursuant to its
rule-making powers under the Constitution.
Application of the ROC
1. civil action - one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
2. criminal action one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act
or omission punishable by law
3. special proceeding a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a rights, or a particular fact
Rules shall not apply to:
a. election cases
b. land registration cases
c. cadastral cases
d. naturalization cases
e. insolvency proceedings
Not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure:
a. COMELEC
b. Board of Medicine
c. NLRC
d. other non-judicial proceedings / administrative bodies
Courts of record those which keep a written account of its proceedings;
all PH courts, including inferior courts, are courts of record (RA 2163)
A. Jurisdiction
Hasegawa et al. v. Kitamura, G.R. 149177, 23 November 2007
[jurisdiction and choice of law are two different concepts]
SUMMARY: RTC Lipa took cognizance of a civil case for specific
performance and damages filed by herein respondent for Nippons
improper pre-termination of his Independent Contractor Agreement. The
petitioners moved to dismiss the said petition on the ground that the trial
court had no jurisdiction over the case because the parties are Japanese
nationals who entered into a contract in Japan.
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is
conferred by the sovereign authority. It is given only by law and in the
manner prescribed by law. It is further determined by the allegations of the
complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of
the claims asserted.
Figueroa v. People, G.R. 147406, 14 July 2008
[lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding,
even on appeal]
2 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES
DOCTRINE: Delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the
defense of estoppel by laches unless it further appears that the party,
knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of
the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he
cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due
to loss of
evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes.
IMPORTANT NOTE: In this case, petitioner invoked the ruling in Tiham v.
Sibonghanoy in which, the court held that a party may be barred from
questioning a courts jurisdiction after being invoked to secure affirmative
relief against its opponent. However, it must be noted that the ruling in
that case is an exception rather than a general rule. In that case, the party
invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after fifteen years and at a stage
when the proceedings had already been elevated to the CA. In this case,
the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction
of the RTC considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before
the appellate court.
Ruby Shelter v. Hon. Formaran, G.R. 175914, 10 February 2009
[payment of the full amount of docket fee is mandatory and
jurisdictional]
SUMMARY: RSB obtained a loan from private respondents, secured by real
estate mortage over five parcels of land. After executing a Memorandum of
Agreement granting extension for the payment of the loan, Deeds of
Absolute Sale over said parcels of land were executed by the parties. When
Ruby Shelter failed to pay the loans within the given extended period, Tan
and Obiedo presented the Deeds of Absolute Sale to the Office of the
Register of Deeds and were able to obtain TCTs over the parcels of land in
their names. Ruby Shelters sued Tan and Obiedo before the RTC for
declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages. Tan filed an Omnibus
Motion arguing that Ruby Shelter had failed to pay the correct amount of
docket fees, thus the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the action. The
SC ultimately held that Tan was correct in that the action was not one that
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Payment of additional docket fees
was ordered.
DOCTRINE: The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee. A real action is one in which the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property. In such an action, the fair
market value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value
thereof, shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in
computing the fees. Even though the Court exempts individuals, as
indigent or pauper litigants, from paying docket fees, it has never extended
such an exemption to a corporate entity.
Chavez v. CA, G.R. 125813, 06 February 2007
[the venue for libel cases shall be on the place where it is first
published]
SUMMARY: Francisco I. Chavez filed an information for libel before the RTC
of Manila against Rafael Bakias and Francisco I. Chavez claiming that they
published libelous statements in Smart File which is a magazine of general
circulation in Manila. Bakias questioned the sufficiency of the information
since it failed to state that the article was published first in Manila.
DOCTRINE: Article 360 of the RPC as amended by Republic Act. No. 4363
requires that the criminal action for libel be filed before the Court of First
Instance where the article was first published. The information merely
stated that the article was published in Smart File which is a magazine of
general circulation in Manila but it failed to establish that the article was
actually first published in Manila .
Springfield v. RTC Judge, G.R. 142626, 06 February 2007
[doctrine of non-interference]
SUMMARY: A land in Cagayan de Oro was being developed into a
subdivision when DAR issued a notice placing the lot under Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. DARAB Provincial Adjudicator declared the
lot residential and not suitable for agriculture. The DAR Regional Director
issued an appeal, which the Provincial Adjudicator disallowed for being pro
forma and frivolous. Hence, the DAR Regional Director filed a petition for
relief from judgment of the DARAB Decision. The DARAB granted this
petition and ordered petitioners to pay the farmer-beneficiaries. Hence,
petitioners filed with the RTC a petition for annulment of the DARAB
Decision and all its subsequent proceedings. RTC dismissed the case for
lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners filed with the CA a special civil action for
certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of writ
of preliminary injunction and/or TRO, alleging that RTC committed grave
abuse of discretion. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling that
the RTC does not have jurisdiction to annul the DARAB Decision because it
is a co-equal body. Hence, the petition to SC. The issue is whether the RTC
has jurisdiction to annul final judgment of DARAB. The SC declared that RTC
has no jurisdiction to annul final judgment of DARAB because RTCs
authority to annul final judgments only pertains to those rendered by
inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies of equal ranking with such inferior
courts. Since DARAB is a co-equal body with the RTC, its decisions are
beyond the RTC's control.
DOCTRINE: Pursuant to the policy of judicial stability, the doctrine of non-
interference between concurrent and coordinate courts should be regarded
as highly important in the administration of justice whereby the judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or
vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Sta. Ana v. Carpo, G.R. 164340, 28 November 2008
[doctrine of primary jurisdiction]
SUMMARY: A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision dated March 5, 2004 which reversed and set aside the Decision of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated June
3 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES
24, 1998 and reinstated the Decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) of Laguna dated October 12, 1993
DOCTRINE: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from
resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in
an administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform cases,
jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more
specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB).
1. 1987 Constitution
Garcillano v. House, G.R. 170338, 23 December 2008
[moot and academic issues]
SUMMARY: The 14th Congress sought to continue the legislative inquiries
made by the previous Congress regarding the Hello Garci scandal.
Garcillano, the COMELEC Commissioner and subject of these tapes, sought
to prohibit these tapes from being played; the Supreme Court, however,
dismissed his petition on the ground that the issue he is raising is moot
and academic.
DOCTRINE: The power of judicial review by the Supreme Court does not
extend to resolving issues which are already moot and academic.
Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. 147097, 05 June 2009
[the doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial
precedence]
SUMMARY: Lazatin et al filed a petition for certiorari praying that the
Ombudsmans disapproval of the Office of the Prosecutors (OSP)
Resolution, recommending the dismissal of the criminal cases filed against
herein petitioners, be reversed and set aside.
DOCTRINE: Under the Constitution, Congress was not proscribed from
legislating the grant of additional powers to the Ombudsman or placing the
OSP under the Office of the Ombudsman.
Certiorari is a remedy meant to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors
of judgment.
Ferdinand Cruz v. Priscilla Mijares et al., G.R. 154464, 11 September
2008
[hierarchy of courts]
SUMMARY: The petitioner, a fourth year law student, directly filed to the
SC this petition when he was denied appearance as party litigant.
DOCTRINE: Considering, however, that this case involves the
interpretation of Section 34, Rule 138 and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court,
the Court takes cognizance of herein petition. Nonetheless, the petitioner is
cautioned not to continue his practice of filing directly before this Court
petitions under Rule 65 when the issue raised can be resolved with
dispatch by the Court of Appeals.
First United v. Poro Point, G.R. 178799, 19 January 2009
[hierarchy of courts]
SUMMARY: FUCC failed to get the Contract for Upgrading San Fernando
Airport Phase I. Thereafter, FUCC filed a protest against the decision of the
SBAC to award the contract to SCCI. FUCC filed a petition for certiorari in
the SC assailing the decision and praying for an issuance of a TRO on PPMC
and SBACs decision. The SC ruled that FUCC violated the doctrine of
judicial hierarchy.
DOCTRINE: Thus, we affirm the judicial policy that this Court will not
entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify the resort to the extraordinary remedy of
a writ of certiorari.
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA, G.R. 110571, 10 March 1994
[appellate jurisdiction]
SUMMARY: BOI granted First Lepanto Ceramicss application to amend its
registered product from glazed floor tiles to ceramic tiles. Mariwasa
then filed a petition for review with respondent Court of Appeals pursuant
to SC Circular 1-91. CA temporarily retrained BOI from implementing its
decision. Petitioner, through a Motion to Dismiss Petition, then argued that
CA does not have appellate jurisdiction over BOIs decision, as it is
exclusively vested with the Supreme Court pursuant to EO 226. The Court
held that Circular 1-91 actually repealed EO 226 insofar as the venue of
appeals from decisions of BOI are concerned.
DOCTRINE: The right to appeal from decisions or final orders of quasi-
judicial agencies like BOI as granted by EO 226 remains. Circular 1-91
simply transferred the venue of appeals to respondent Court of Appeals.
Sarah Ampong v. CSC, G.R. 167916, 26 August 2008
[jurisdiction of SC over court personnel]
SUMMARY: Sarah Ampong and Evelyn Decir were charged for Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service. Ampong took the Civil Service exam on behalf of Decir. Ampong
admitted to the acts. The CSC found them guilty and removed them from
service. Ampong questioned the jurisdiction of CSC and claims that only
the Supreme Court can decide on the issue.
DOCTRINE: The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is given
exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and judicial personnel.
Only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnels
compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. Administrative jurisdiction
over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of
whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the
judiciary.
2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
4 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES
CGP Transport v. PCI Leasing, G.R. 164547, 28 March 2007
[questions of facts & law fall within the jurisdiction of the CA]
SUMMARY: CGP defaulted payment so there was foreclosure on their real
estate properties. PCI filed a writ of possession for the said properties
which was granted by RTC. CGP filed an MR saying that there is a writ of
injunction in another case so writ of possession should be nullified which
RTC granted. PCI elevated the case to SC but is then referred to CA and
said that the nullification of writ of possession is improper. CGP is
questioning CAs act of giving due course to the certiorari of PCI when it
raised question of facts.
DOCTRINE: Cases where an appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or
both fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA.
ABS-CBN v. WINS, G.R. 169332, 11 February 2008
SUMMARY: Petitioner and respondent entered into a licensing agreement.
A dispute arose and petitioner filed in the CA a petition for review under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court or , in alternative, a petition for review
certiorari under Rule 65 of the same rules, with application for TRO and
writ of preliminary injunction.
DOCTRINE: Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and
not alternative or successive.
ADDITIONAL NOTES: Alternative petition is not a proper appeal; A
voluntary arbitrator is a quasi-judicial instrumentality (which receives
evidence and rule based on the evidence) wherein the CA has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction.
Bokingo v. CA, G.R. 161739, 04 May 2006
[jurisdiction of RTC]
RULING: The claim of the respondent was rooted from the fact that the
petitioners unjustly prevented the conduct of the said survey. Hence, the
Complaint for Injunction filed by the respondents where the principal relief
sought is to enjoin permanently the illegal acts of the defendants therein,
including petitioner Bokingo, of preventing the survey of the land subject
matter of the case. It should be noted that in determining whether an
action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, the nature of the principal action, or remedy sought must first
be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over
the action will depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principal relief sought, the action is one where the subject of litigation may
not be estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by
Regional Trial Courts. As gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief
sought by the respondents in their complaint is for the court a quo to issue
an injunction against petitioner Bokingo and his representatives to
permanently enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject land.
DETERMINATION OF THE NATURE OF ACTION AND WHICH COURT
HAS THE ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME
1. The material allegations of the complaint
2. Type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff
3. The law in effect when the action is filed
4. Irrespective of WON the plaintiff is entitled to some or all of the claims
asserted therein / defense given
Lu v. Lu Ym. G.R. 153690, 26 August 2008
[payment of docket fees]
SUMMARY: This is a consolidation of three petitions filed before the SC
involving a sale of shares in LLDC. Lu raised for the first time in a motion
for reconsideration before the CA, the issue of incorrect docket fees paid by
the adverse party (David) in the original complaint before the RTC. The SC
ruled in favor of David et al.
DOCTRINE: A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the
payment of the prescribed fees. However, there are instances when failure
to pay the correct docket fees is not fatal. These include when the case is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, when the party is in good faith, when
the mistake is made by the clerk of court. If there is a deficiency, the same
may instead be considered a lien on the judgment that may thereafter be
rendered.
ADDITIONAL NOTES: In this case, the issue on non-payment of docket
fees was belatedly raised before the CA in their MR; The mistake of the
Clerk of Court cannot be imputed over the defendant. If any, the non-
payment can be considered as a lien on the judgment that may thereafter
be rendered.
RCP v. CA, G.R. 136109, 01 August 2002
[jurisdiction of RTC]
SUMMARY: Manuel Dulawon filed with the RTC of Tabuk, Kalinga a
complaint for breach of contract of lease with damages against the RCPI.
RCPI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the
complaint is basically one for collection of unpaid rentals in the sum of
84,000 which does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of 100,000 for
RTC.
DOCTRINE: In this particular case, the allegations of the complaint show
that the cause of action is breach of contract. It is settled that a breach of
contract is a cause of actions either for specific performance or rescission
of contracts. Since the action is one of specific performance is one which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case as
provided for by BP. 129.
Ruby Shelter v. Hon. Formaran, supra
Encarnacion v. Amigo, G.R. 169793, 15 September 2006
[Jurisdiction of RTC over accion publiciana]
5 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES
SUMMARY: Encarnacion owns lots, which the respondent has also been
occupying. Since respondent didnt want to leave the premises, petitioner
filed a complaint for ejectment, damages with injunction and prayer for
restraining order with the Municipal Trial Court. MTC ruled in favor of
petitioner and ordered respondent to vacate the premises, pay rent and
attorneys fees to petitioner. On appeal, RTC dismissed the case on the
ground that since the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case, the RTC
acquired no appellate jurisdiction thereof. Petitioner filed a petition before
the CA, which promulgated the assailed Decision remanding the case to
the RTC. Hence the present petition. The main issue is whether or not the
CA erred in holding that the proper action in this case is accion publiciana
and not unlawful detainer as determined by the allegations in the
complaint filed by petitioner. The SC ruled that the CA committed no error
in holding that the proper action in this case is accion publiciana; and in
ordering the remand of the case to the RTC of Cauayan, Isabela for further
proceedings. Since the dispossession of petitioners lots to respondent
have lasted for 6 years, the proper action is accion publiciana, which
should be brought before the RTC.
DOCTRINES: What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of
the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint.
Accion publiciana or the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of
possession should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the
dispossession has lasted for more than one year.
KINDS OF ACTION IN RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY
1. Accion interdictal forcible entry or unlawful detainer not lasted for
more than one year (possession de facto)
2. Accion publiciana plenary action for the recovery of the real right of
possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when the
dispossession has lasted for more than one year (legal possession)
3. Accion reinvindicatoria recovery of ownership must be brought in the
proper RTC
*Material element in determination is the length of time
Planters Products v. Fertiphil, G.R. 166006, 14 March 2008
[doctrine of operative fact]
SUMMARY: Planters Product Inc (PPI) banks on the doctrine of operative
fact, which provides that an unconstitutional law has an effect before being
declared unconstitutional. PPI wants to retain the levies paid under LOI No.
1465 even if it is subsequently declared to be unconstitutional.
RULING: As a rule, where the controversy can be settled on other grounds,
the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law (Lim v. Pacquing,
240 SCRA 649 [1995]). The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on
constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of political
departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the
contrary. However, the courts are not precluded from exercising such
power when the following requisites are obtaining in a controversy before
it: First, there must be before the court an actual case calling for the
exercise of judicial review. Second, the question must be ripe for
adjudication. Third, the person challenging the validity of the act must
have standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must
have been raised at the earliest opportunity; and lastly, the issue of
constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case (Integrated Bar of
the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 [2000]). Indisputably, the present
case was primarily instituted for collection and damages. However, a
perusal of the complaint also reveals that the instant action is founded on
the claim that the levy imposed was an unlawful and unconstitutional
special assessment. Consequently, the requisite that the constitutionality
of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case is present, making it
proper for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of LOI 1465.
Badillo v. CA, G.R. 131903, 26 June 2008
[HLURB]
SUMMARY: Numerous lot owners filed a petition to the regular courts
seeking to declare void the sale of a subdivision lot to which their lots are
adjoined. The regular courts, however, dismissed the petition because the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has exclusive jurisdiction
on all cases regarding issues on real estate.
DOCTRINE: The HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real
estate business and adjudicate all issues regarding the same. In the
present case, petitioners are enforcing their statutory and contractual
rights against the subdivision owners. This is a specific performance case
which falls under the HLURB's exclusive jurisdiction.
ADDITIONAL NOTES: the Court ruled that when an administrative agency
is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject
matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its
jurisdiction.
Quasi-judicial function - exercised by administrative agencies as an
incident of the principal power entrusted to them of regulating activities
falling under their expertise.
Reyes v. RTC, G.R. 165744, 11 August 2008
[RTC as a special commercial court]
SUMMARY: This case is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set
aside CA decision affirming the RTC, which denied petitioner Oscars Motion
to Declare Complaint as Nuisance or Harassment.
DOCTRINE: Not every allegation of fraud done in a corporate setting or
perpetrated by corporate officers will bring the case within the special
commercial courts jurisdiction. To fall within this jurisdiction, there must be
sufficient nexus showing that the corporations nature, structure, or powers
were used to facilitate the fraudulent device or scheme.
ADDITIONAL NOTES: The determination of title or ownership over the
subject shares may be conclusively settled by the probate court as a
question of collation or advancement.
6 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES
Russel v. Vestil, G.R. 119347, 17 March 1999
[jurisdiction of RTC; incapable of pecuniary estimation]
SUMMARY. A complaint is filed before the RTC that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
DOCTRINE. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the
property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration
of nullity of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction
over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by
the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims
asserted therein.
Vda De Barrera et al. v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, G.R. 174346, 12
September 2008
[accion publiciana is based on the assessed value]
SUMMARY: Since 1935, respondents have lived in the subject land until
October 1, 1996, when petitioners forcibly took possession of the land. The
respondents sought relief from the RTC to recover the land. The petitioners
contended that the land was a part of a property legally sold to them and
questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC to handle the case. The SC ruled that
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case by virtue of the amendments
introduced by RA 7691 expanding the jurisdiction of the first level courts.
DOCTRINE: RA 7691 amended Batas Pambansa No. 129, expanding the
jurisdiction of the first level courts. Likewise, the lack of jurisdiction is one
of the excepted grounds where the courts may dismiss a claim or case
despite it not being raised in the answer or motion to dismiss.
Ouano v. PGTT, G.R. 134230, 07 July 2002
SUMMARY: PGTT filed with the RTC a verified complaint against petition
for Recovery of Ownership and Possession of Real Property and
Damagaes since PGTT suffered in the amount of Php 100,000.00. Ouano
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the MTC, and
not the RTC has jurisdiction over it since the assessed value is only Php
2,910, as indicated in the latest tax declaration, citing BP 129. It was
subsequently dismissed by respondent judge. The Court held that RTC
indeed committed grave abuse of discretion, since MTC has jurisdiction for
said case.
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction for actions involving ownership and possession of
real property is determined by the assessed value of the property, not the
market value.
Octavio v. Perovano, G.R. 172400, 23 June 2009
[accion interdictal; MTC jurisdiction]
SUMMARY: Enrico Perovano filed a complaint for forcible entry against
Octavio et. al. before the MTCC. Zosimo Octavio in their answer claims that
the land was voluntarily offered for sale by Perovanos mother. They also
claim that the landholding is within the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and it is only the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board which has original and exclusive jurisdiction to
entertain any action as per Section 50, Rep. Act No. 6657
DOCTRINE: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691,
the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible
entry and unlawful detainer. The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
governs the remedial aspects of such suits.
Bunyi v. Factor, G.R. 172547, 30 June 2009
[jurisdictional requirements for forcible entry]
SUMMARY: Fe and Gloria owns a compound. Gloria is married to Ruben.
Gloria died. Fe then becomes the administrator of the property. Fe allowed
Ruben to live in the rest house in the compound because he is sick. Ruben
married Precy Bunyi, a tenant in the said compound. Ruben died. Precy
Bunyi forcibly took possession of the rest house. Fe filed a case of forcible
entry which was granted. Precy asserts that she has a better right over Fe.
DOCTRINE: In ejectment cases, the only issue for resolution is who is
entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved
independent of any claim of ownership set forth by the party-litigants. To
be considered in possession, one need not have actual or physical
occupation of every square inch of the property at all times
De la Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. 133882, 05 September 2006
[jurisdictional requirements for unlawful detainer]
SUMMARY: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the
Court of Appeals affirming, on a petition for review, the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, which in turn reversed on appeal the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac, Tarlac for unlawful detainer.
This case originated from a claim of ownership over a parcel of land which
was decided in favor of defendant.
DOCTRINE: What determines nature of an action as well as which court or
body has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought, whether or not plaintiff is entitled to any and
all of the reliefs prayed for. The jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over the
nature of the action cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up
in the court or upon a motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on defendant. Once jurisdiction is
vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation. Respondents
were merely trustees.
3. Republic Act No. 9282
AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
(CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH
SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR
THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
7 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES
CJH Dev. Corp v. BIR, G.R. 172457, 24 December 2008
RULING: A court decision cannot be a proper subject of a petition for
declaratory relief. The requisites for a petition for declaratory relief to
prosper are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy
must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party
seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy;
and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination. CJH
alleges that CA No. 5520 has already been repealed by the Rules of Court;
thus, the remedy of declaratory relief against the assessment made by the
BOC is proper. It cited the commentaries of Moran allegedly to the effect
that declaratory relief lies against assessments made by the BIR and BOC.
However, as a substantive law that has not been repealed by another
statute, CA No. 55 is still in effect and holds sway. Precisely, it has removed
from the courts jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief involving
tax assessments. The Court cannot repeal, modify or alter an act of the
Legislature. Moreover, the proper subject matter of a declaratory relief is a
deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or the construction or
validity of statute or ordinance.23 CJH hinges its petition on the demand
letter or assessment sent to it by the BOC. However, it is really not the
demand letter, which is the subject matter of the petition.
Adamson v. CA, G.R. 120935/124557, 21 May 2009
SUMMARY: A deficiency tax assessment was issued against petitioners
relating to their payment of capital gains tax and VAT on their sale of
shares of stock and parcels of land. The issue is WON CIR has jurisdiction.
The court held in the negative, since CIR did not issue a prior assessment
of tax liability.
DOCTRINE: While the laws governing the CTA have expanded the
jurisdiction of the Court, they did not change the jurisdiction of the CTA to
entertain an appeal only from a final decision of the Commissioner, or in
cases of inaction within the prescribed period. Since in the cases at bar,
the Commissioner has not issued an assessment of the tax liability of the
Petitioners, the CTA has no jurisdiction.
4. Republic Act No. 8249
AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Garcia v. SB, G.R. 165835, 22 June 2005
SUMMARY: Major General Carlos F. Garcia was charged with violation of
R.A. 1379. A civil case was subsequently filed before the Sandiganbayan
for the forfeiture of unexplained wealth under R.A. 1379. Garcia questioned
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and claimed that the Sandiganbayan
has no jurisdiction over civil cases and that the proper forum is the
Regional Trial Court.
DOCTRINE: Under R.A> 8249 the Sandigabayan is vested with original
jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. no. 1379
and Chapter II, Sect 2 Title VII Book II of the RPC .
5. Republic Act No. 8369
AN ACT ESTABLISHING FAMILY COURTS, GRANTING THEM EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CHILD AND FAMILY CASES, AMENDING BATAS
PAMBANSA BILANG 129,AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ACT OF
1980, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Madrinan v. Madrinan, G.R. 159374, 12 July 2007
SUMMARY: When the Madrian spouses separated, the husband took their
three sons with him to Albay and then to Laguna. After a failed compromise
at the Lupong Tagapamayapa, the wife (respondent) filed a petition for
habeas corpus of their three sons in the CA. Husband (petitioner)
questioned the jurisdiction of the CA claiming that family courts have
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas
corpus filed by respondent. CA took cognizance of the petition. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration of the CA decision but it was denied. Hence, this
recourse. The issue is whether the CA has jurisdiction over petitions for
habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors. The SC ruled that CA
has jurisdiction since there is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its
jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors.
DOCTRINE: Family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the
custody of minors is at issue.
Yu v. Yu, G.R. 164915, 10 March 2006
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction of the subject matter of a particular case is
something more than the general power conferred by law upon a court to
take cognizance of cases of the general class to which the particular case
belongs. It is not enough that a court has power in abstract to try and
decide the class litigations [sic] to which a case belongs; it is necessary
that said power be properly invoked, or called into activity, by the filing of
a petition, or complaint or other appropriate pleading.
6. Republic Act No. 8799
Reyes v. RTC, supra
GSIS v. CA, G.R. 183905/184275, 16 April 2009
Sps. Yu v. Sps. Yukayguan, G.R. 177549, 18 June 2009
Koruga v. Arcenas, G.R. 168332/16903, 19 June 2009
Hi-Yield Realty v. CA, G.R. 168863, 23 June 2009
7. Republic Act No. 7160
Leo Wee v. George de Castro et al., G.R. 176405, 20 August 2008
8 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Aquino v. Aure, G.R. 153567, 18 February 2008.

Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. 179922, 16 December 2008
Estreller v. Ysmael, G.R. 170264, 13 March 2009
B. Rules on Summary Procedure Rimbunan Hijau Group of Co. v. Oriental Wood, G.R. 1522288, 23
September 2005 Van Zuiden v. GTVL Manufacturing, 523 SCRA 233
Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola, G.R. 156809, 04 March 2009 Deutsche v. CA, G.R. 152318, 16 April 2009
Terana v. Sagun, G.R. 152131, 29 April 2009 Ramos v. Ramos, G.R. 144294, 11 March 2003
Tiu v. CA, G.R. 162370, 21 April 2009
1. Spouses, Minors, Incompetents
C. Small Claims Court Sections 4-5, Rule 3
SC A.M. 08-8-7-SC
2. Multiple Parties

II. Ordinary Civil Actions a. Compulsory

Section 7, Rule 3
Makati Ins v. Reyes et al., G.R. 167403, 06 August 2008
Rural Bank of Seven Lakes v. Dan, G.R. 174109, 24 December 2008 Robert De Galicia v. Mercado, G.R. 146744, 06 March 2006
Aneco v. Landez, G.R. 165952, 28 July 2008 Lagunilla v. Velasco, G.R. 169276, 16 June 2009
Regner v. Logarta, G.R. 168747, 19 October 2007
A. Commencement
Section 5, Rule 1 b. Necessary
Section 2, Rule 20 Section 8, Rule 3
Relucio v. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578
B. Cause of Action in General AutoCorp v. Intra Strata, G.R. 166662, 27 June 2008
Sections 1-3, Rule 2
i. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties
Ceroferr v. CA, G.R. No. 139539, 05 February 2002 Section 9, Rule 3
Camarines Sur Electric v. Aquino, G.R. 167691, 23 September 2008
Phil Crop v. CA, G.R. 169558, 29 September 2008 c. Permissive
BF Corp v. MIAA, G.R. 164517, 30 June 2008 Section 6, Rule 3
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, G.R. 141309, 23 December2008.
ii. Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties
1. Splitting Section 11, Rule 3
Section 4, Rule 2
Cabutihan v. Landcenter, 383 SCRA 353
BPI Family v. De Cosolluella, G.R. 167724, 27 June 2006 Chua v. Torres, G.R. 151900, 30 August 2005

2. Joinder iii. Unwilling Co-plaintif

Section 5, Rule 2 Section 10, Rule 3

UCPB v. Sps. Beluso, G.R. 159912, 17 August 2007 iv. Bringing New Parties
Terana v. Sagun, supra Section 12, Rule 6

3. Misjoinder d. Class Suit

Section 6, Rule 2 Section 12, Rule 3

C. Parties in General 3. Defective Parties

Sections 1-3, Rule 3 a. Alternative Defendants
9 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Section 13, Rule 3 a. Pleadings

b. Unknown Identity/Name of Defendant
Section 14, Rule 3
c. Entity Without Juridical Personality
Section 15, Rule 3
d. Death of a Party
i. Duty of Counsel
Section 16, Rule 3
Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, G.R. 160347, 29 November 2006
Judge Sumaljag v. Literato, G.R. 149787, 18 June 2008
Domingo v. Landicho, G.R. 170015, 29 August 2007
Napre v. Barbarona, G.R. 160426, 31 January 2008
Section 3, Rule 19
b. Answer
Section 4, Rule 19
D. Venue
Sections 1-4, Rule 4
Uniwide v. Cruz, G.R. 171456, 09 August 2007
Infante v. Aran Builders, G.R. 156594, 24 August 2007
Irene Marcos-Araneta v. CA, G.R. 154096, 22 August 2008
Philbanking v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413
Spouses Lantin v. Judge Lantion, G.R. 160053, 28 August 2006
PROCEDURE FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

ii. Death/Separation of a Public Officer E. Pleadings in General

Section 17, Rule 3 Section 1, Rule 6

iii. Money Claims 1. Kinds

Section 20, Rule 3 Section 2, Rule 6

e. Incompetency/Incapacity a. Complaint
Section 18, Rule 3 Section 3, Rule 6

f. Transfer of Interest b. Answer

Section 19, Rule 3 Section 4, Rule 6
Rosete v. Lim, G.R. 136051, 08 June 2006
g. Indigent
Section 21, Rule 3 i. Defense
Sps. Algura v. LGU, G.R. 150135, 30 October 2006 Section 5, Rule 6

4. Solicitor General c. Counter Claim

Section 22, Rule 3 Section 6, Rule 6

5. Intervention ii. Compulsory

Sections 1-2, Rule 19 Section 7, Rule 6

Nordic Asia v. CA, 403 SCRA 390 Financial Builders v. FPA, 338 SCRA 346
Pinlac v. CA, 410 SCRA 419 Reillo v. San Jose, G.R. 166393, 18 June 2009
Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. 166429, 01 February 2006 Banco de Oro v. CA, G.R. 160354, 25 August 2005; 19 December 2007
Salandanan v. Sps. Mendoza, G.R. 160280, 13 March 2009
Office Ombudsman v. Samaniego, G.R. 175573, 11 September 2008 d. Cross Claim
GSIS v. Nocom, G.R. 175989, 04 February 2008 Section 8, Rule 6
Asias Emerging Dragon v. DOTC, G.R. 169914, 24 March 2008
Torres v. CA, 49 SCRA 67
10 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

e. Counter-Counter Claim/Counter-Cross Claim Far East Marble v. CA, G.R. 94093, 10 August 1993
Section 9, Rule 6 Reyes v. RTC, supra

f. Reply a. Alternative Causes of Action/Defenses

Section 10, Rule 6 Section 2, Rule 8

g. Third-Party Complaint b. Condition Precedent

Section 11, Rule 6 Section 3, Rule 8

Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. CA, 458 SCRA c. Capacity

750 Section 4, Rule 8
Sy Tiong Shion v. Sy Chin, G.R. 174168/179438, 30 March 2009
d. Fraud, Mistake, Condition of Mind
h. Answer to Third Party Complaint Section 5, Rule 8
Section 13, Rule 6
e. Judgment
2. Parts Section 6, Rule 8
Sps. Munsalud v. NHA, G.R. 167181, 23 December 2008
f. Action/Defense Based on Documents
a. Caption Section 7, Rule 8
Section 1, Rule 7
i. Contest Document
b. Body Section 8, Rule 8
Section 2, Rule 7 Casent Realty v. Philbanking, G.R. 150731, 14 September 2007
Malayan v. Regis Brokerage, G.R. 172156, 23 November 2007
c. Signature/Address
Section 3, Rule 7 g. Official Document/Act
Section 9, Rule 8
Republic v. Kenrich Dev. Do., G.R. 149576, 08 August 2006
h. Specific Denial
d. Verification Section 10, Rule 8
Section 4, Rule 7
i. Failure to Specifically Deny
e. Certification Against Forum Shopping Section 11, Rule 8
Section 5, Rule 7
Filipinas Textile v. CA, 415 SCRA 635
Chinese Young Mens Christian Association v. Remington, G.R. Warner Barnes v. Reyes, 103 Phil 602
159422, 28 March 2008 Gaza et al. v. Lim, G.R. 126863, 16 January 2003
Young v. Keng Seng, 398 SCRA 629
Madara v. Porillo, G.R. 172449, 20 August 2008 i. Striking Out
Kaunlaran v. Uy, G.R. 154974, 04 February 2008 Section 12, Rule 8
Sps. Valmonte v. Alcala, G.R. 168667, 23 July 2008
Heirs of Luzuriaga v. Republic, G.R. 168848, 30 June 2009 F. Amended Pleadings
PP v. De Grano, G.R. 167710, 05 June 2009 Section 1, Rule 10

3. Allegations PPA v. Gothong and Aboitiz, G.R. 158401, 28 January 2008

Section 1, Rule 8 Quirao v. Quirao, 414 SCRA 430
11 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, G.R. 148361, 29 November 2005 b. Defendant Foreign Private Juridical Entity
Irene Marcos-Araneta et al. v. CA, supra Section 2, Rule 11

1. Kinds c. Counter Claim/Cross Claim

Section 4, Rule 11
a. Formal
Section 4, Rule 10 d. Third Party Complaint
Section 5, Rule 11
b. Conform to Evidence
Section 5, Rule 10 e. Amended Compliant
Section 3, Rule 11
Cagungun v. Planters Dev. Bank, G.R. 158674, 17 October 2005
f. Supplemental Complaint
2. Filing Section 7, Rule 11
Section 7, Rule 10
2. Reply
a. Matter of Right Section 6, Rule 11
Section 2, Rule 10
3. Counter Claim/Cross Claim
b. Leave of Court a. Existing
Section 3, Rule 10 Section 8, Rule 11
3. Efect
Section 8, Rule 10 b. Subsequent
Section 9, Rule 11
G. Supplemental Pleadings
Section 6, Rule 10 c. Omitted
Section 10, Rule 11
H. Bill of Particulars
Sections 1-2, 6, Rule 12 4. Extension
Section 11, Rule 11
Bantillo v. IAC, G.R. 75311, 18 October 1988
Republic v. SB and Marcos, G.R. 148154, 17 December 2007 J. Filing
Sections 1-2, Rule 13
1. Compliance
Section 3, Rule 12 1. Manner
2. Effect of Non-Compliance Section 3, Rule 13
Section 4, Rule 12
3. Period to File Responsible Pleadings 2. Primary Mode
Section 5, Rule 12 Section 11, Rule 13

I. When to File Responsive Pleading Maceda, et al. v. Macatangay, supra

Alarilla v. Ocampo, 417 SCRA 601 3. Papers Required

Section 4, Rule 13
1. Answer
a. Complaint 4. Proof
Section 1, Rule 11 Section 12, Rule 13
12 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

5. Notice of Lis Pendens 2. Compulsory Counter Claim/Cross Claim

Section 14, Rule 13 Section 2, Rule 9
3. Default
Sps. Vicente v. Avera, G.R. 169970, 20 June 2009 Section 3, Rule 9
Santos v. PNOC, G.R. 170943, 23 September 2008
K. Service Monzon v. Sps. Relova, G.R. 171827, 17 September 2008
Sections 1 2, Rule 13 Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. 174414, 14 March 2008
Gajudo v. Traders Royal, G.R. 151098, 21 March 2006
1. Modes
Section 5, Rule 13 M. Summons in General
Sections 1-5, Rule 14
a. Personal
Section 6, Rule 13 Gomez v. CA, G.R. 127692, 10 March 2004
San Pedro v. Ong, G.R. 17758, 17 October 2008
b. Mail Sps. Belen v. Chavez, supra
Section 7, Rule 13
1. Kinds
Andy Quelnan v. VHF Phil, G.R. 138500, 16 September 2005 a. Personal
Section 6, Rule 14
c. Substituted b. Substituted
Section 8, Rule 13 Section 7, Rule 14
Guiguinto Credit Coop v. Torres, G.R. 170926, 15 September 2006
GCP Many Transport v. Principe, G.R. 141484, 11 November Guanzon v. Arrandoza, G.R. 155392, 06 December 2006
2005 Potenciano v. Barnes, G.R. 159421, 20 August 2008
Robinson v. Miralles, G.R. 163584, 12 December 2006
2. Primary Mode Mangila v. CA, 387 SCRA 162
Section 11, Rule 13 Mason v. CA, 413 SCRA 303
Millenium v. Tani, G.R. 131724, 28 February 2000
Maceda, et al. v. Macatangay, G.R. 164947, 31 January 2006 c. Entity Without Juridical Personality
Section 8, Rule 14
3. Papers Required d. Prisoners
Section 4, Rule 13 Section 9, Rule 14
e. Minors/Incompetents
4. Judgments, Final Orders, Resolutions Section 10, Rule 14
Section 9, Rule 13 f. Domestic Private Juridical Entity
Section 11, Rule 14
Sps. Belen v. Hon. Chaves, G.R. 175334, 26 March 2008 BPI v. Spouses Santiago, 28 March 2007
Paramount v. Ordonez, G.R. 175109, 06 August 2008
5. Completion g. Foreign Private Juridical Entity
Section 10, Rule 13 Section 12, Rule 14
h. Public Corporations
6. Proof Section 13, Rule 14
Section 13, Rule 13 i. Unknown Identity/Whereabouts
Section 14, Rule 14
L. Failure to Plead j. Extraterritorial
Section 15, Rule 14
1. Defenses/Objections Montefalcon et al. v. Vasquez, G.R. 165016, 17 June 2008
Section 1, Rule 9
13 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd v. Dakila Trading, G.R. 172242, 14 Lasquite v. Victory Hills, G.R. 175375, 23 June 2009
August 2007 Raytheon Intl v. Rouzie, G.R. 162894, 26 February 2008
k. Residents Temporarily Out of the Philippines Malicdem v. Flores, G.R. 151001, 08 September 2006
Section 16, Rule 14 a. Affirmative Defense
PCIB v. Alejandro, G.R. 175587, 21 September 2007 Section 6, Rule 16
2. Leave of Court 2. Time To Plead
Section 17, Rule 14 Section 4, Rule 16
3. Proof 3. Hearing
Sections 18-19, Rule 14 Section 2, Rule 16
4. Voluntary Appearance 4. Resolution
Section 20, Rule 14 Section 3, Rule 16
5. Efect
N. Motions Section 5, Rule 16
Sections 1-3, 9-10, Rule 15
1. Hearing P. Demurer
Section 4, Rule 15 Section 1, Rule 33
a. Notice Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Sps. Del Rosario, G.R. 138739, 06 July
Section 5, Rule 15 2000
KKK Foundation Inc. v. Hon. Bargas, et al., G.R. 163785, 27 December Heirs of Santioque v. Heirs of Calma, G.R. 160832, 27 October 2006
2007 Casent Realty v. Philbanking, supra
Camarines Corp. v. Aquino, G.R. 167691, 23 September 2008
b. Service Q. Dismissal of Actions
Section 6, Rule 15
Romulo et al. v. Peralta, G.R. 165665, 31 January 2007 Pinga v. Santiago, G.R. 170354, 30 June 2006
c. Motion Day Malayan Insurance v. Ipil Intl, G.R. 141860, 30 August 2006
Section 7, Rule 15 Filinvest v. CA, G.R. 142439, 06 December 2006
Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. 167471, 05 February 2007 RN Dev. V. A.I.I., G.R. 166104, 26 June 2008
2. Omnibus Motion Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd v. Dakila Trading, supra
Section 8, Rule 15 Heirs of Gaudiane v. CA, G.R. 119879, 11 March 2004
Cruz v. CA, supra
Dael v. Sps. Beltran, G.R. 156470, 30 April 2008
O. Motion to Dismiss
1. Grounds 1. Notice
Section 1, Rule 16 Section 1, Rule 17
DAR v. Hon. Abdulwahid, G.R. 163285, 27 February 2008 2. Motion
Republic v. Glasgow, G.R. 170281, 18 January 2008 Section 2, Rule 17
Equitable PCIB v. CA, G.R. 143556, 16 March 2004 3. Fault
Goodyear Phil v. Sy, G.R. 154554, 09 November 2005 Section 3, Rule 17
Aldemita v. Heirs of Silva, G.R. 166403, 02 November 2006 4. Counter Claim/Cross Claim/Third Party Complaint
PDI v. Alameda, G.R. 160604, 28 March 2008 Section 4, Rule 17
Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. 181132, 05 June 2009 Mendoza v. Paule, G.R. 175885, 31 February 2009
Rural Bank of Calinog v. CA, G.R. 146519, 08 July 2005
Bayot v. CA, G.R. 155635, 27 November 2008 R. Computation of Time
Mid Pasig Land Dev. v. CA, 413 SCRA 204 Section 1, Rule 22
Intramuros Administration v. Contacto, 402 SCRA 581
Francisco v. Co, G.R. 151339, 31 January 2006 De Las Alas v. CA, 83 SCRA 200
Cruz v. CA, G.R. 164797, 13 February 2006
Heirs of Dolletion v. Fil-estate, G.R. 170750, 07 April 2009 1.Interruption
14 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Section 2, Rule 22 Section 4, Rule 18

a. Failure
S. Modes of Discovery Section 5, Rule 18
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 Saguid v. CA, 403 SCRA 678
3. Pre-Trial Brief
1. Kinds Section 6, Rule 18
a. Depositions Pending Action 4. Record
Rule 23 Section 7, Rule 18
Pfeger Dulay v. Dulay, G.R. 158857, 11 November 2005 5. Calendar
Jowel Sales v. Sabino, G.R. 133154, 09 December 2005 Section 1, Rule 20
San Luis v. Rojas, G.R. 159127, 03 March 2008
Dasmarinas v. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622
U. Trial
b. Before Action/Pending Appeal 1. Notice
Rule 24 Section 1, Rule 30
Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Ley Construction, G.R. No. 2. Adjournments/Postponements
147143, 10 March 2006 Section 2, Rule 30
c. Interrogatories a. Absence of Evidence
Rule 25 Section 3, Rule 30
d. Request For Admissions b. Illness of Party/Counsel
Rule 26 Section 4, Rule 30
DBP v. CA, G.R. 153034, 20 September 2005 3. Order
Po v. CA, 164 SCRA 668 Section 5, Rule 30
Briboneria v. CA, 216 SCRA 616 4. Statement of Facts
Section 6, Rule 30
e. Production/Inspection of Doc/Things 5. Statement of Judge
Rule 27 Section 7, Rule 30
Solidbank v. Gateway, G.R. 164805, 30 April 2008 6. Suspension
f. Physical/Mental Examination Section 8, Rule 30
Rule 28 7. Receipt of Evidence
Section 9, Rule 30
2. Refusal to Comply 8. Consolidation
Rule 29 Section 1, Rule 31
Republic v. Vda De Neri, G.R. 139588, 04 March 2004
Spouses Calo v. Spouses Tan, G.R. 151266, 29 November 2005 Republic v. CA, 403 SCRA 403
Phil. Savings Bank v. Maalac, 457 SCRA 203
Teston v. DBP, G.R. 144374, 11 November 2005
T. Pre-trial
AM No. 03-1-09SC 9. Severance
Section 1-2, Rule 18 Section 2, Rule 31
10. By Commissioner
Blesterbos v. CA, 411 SCRA 396 Rule 32
Advance Textile Mills v. Tan, G.R. 154040, 28 July 2005 Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty, G.R. 123346, 14 December 2007
Anatalia Ramos v. Dominga Dizon, G.R. 137247, 07 August 2006

1. Notice V. Subpoena
Section 3, Rule 18 Sections 1-3, 5, Rule 21
2. Appearance Macaspac v. Flores, AM No. P-05-2072, 13 August 2008
15 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

1. Quashal Miranda v. CA, 71 SCRA 295

Section 4, Rule 21 De Leon v. CA, G.R. 138884, 06 June 2002
2. Service Republic v. Nolasco, 457 SCRA 400
Section 6, Rule 21 v. Entity Without Juridical Personality
3. Appearance Section 6, Rule 26
Sections 7-8, Rule 21 b. Entry
4. Contempt Section 2, Rule 36
Section 9, Rule 21
5. Exceptions
Section 10, Rule 21 X. New Trial/Reconsideration
Bernadez v. Francia, 398 SCRA 488
Capuz v. CA, 233 SCRA 471
W. Judgment Libudan v. Gil, 45 SCRA 17
1. Judgment on the Pleadings Delos Santos v. Elizalde, G.R. 143490, 02 February 2007
Section 1, Rule 34
Manufacturers Bank v. Diversified, 173 SCRA 357 1. Grounds
Tan v. De La Vega, G.R. 168809, 10 March 2006 Section 1, Rule 37
Mongao v. Pryce Properties, G.R. 156474, 16 August 2005 2. Contents
Sps. Ong v. Roban Lending, G.R. 172592, 09 July 2008 Section 2, Rule 37
Reillo v. San Jose, G.R. 166393, 18 June 2009 3. Action/Resolution
2. Summary Judgments Sections 3-4, Rule 37
Sections 1-2, Rule 35 a. Effect
Nocom v. Camerino, G.R. 182984, 10 February 2009 Section 6, Rule 37
NPC v. Vda de Capon, G.R. 175176, 17 October 2008 4. Partial
Evangelista v. Mercator Finance, 409 SCRA 410 Section 7, Rule 37
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190 a. Effect
Bitanga v. Pyramid, G.R. 173526, 28 August 2008 Section 8, Rule 37
Phil Countryside v. Toring, G.R. 157862, 16 April 2009 5. Denial
Monterey Foods Corp. v. Eserjose, 410 SCRA 627 Section 9, Rule 37
Asian Construction v. PCI Bank, G.R. 153827, 25 August 2006 6. Second Motion
Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. 179922, 16 December 2008 Section 5, Rule 37
a. Motion/Proceedings Sps. Balanoba v. Madriaga, G.R. 160109, 22 November 2005
Sections 3-4, Rule 35
b. Affidavits
Section 5, Rule 35 Y. Relief from Judgment
i. Bad Faith Sections 1-3, Rule 38
Section 6, Rule 35 Spouses Que v. CA, G.R. 150739, 18 August 2005
3. Judgment/Final Orders/Entry Monzon v. Sps. Relova, supra
Section 1, Rule 36 Sps. Mesina v. Meer, G.R. 146845, 02 July 2002
Velarde v. SJS, G.R. 159357, 28 April 2004 Land Bank v. Natividad, 458 SCRA 441
Obra v. Badua et al., G.R. 149125, 09 August 2007 Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. 174414, 14 March 2008
a. Kinds Redena v. CA, G.R. 146611, 06 February 2007
ii. Several Parties De La Cruz v. Quiazon, G.R. 171961, 28 November 2008
Section 3, Rule 36
iii. Several Judgments 1. Order
Section 4, Rule 36 Section 4, Rule 38
iv. Separate Judgments 2. Preliminary Injunction
Section 5, Rule 36 Section 5, Rule 38
16 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

3. After Answer 2. Examination of Party

Section 6, Rule 38 Section 10, Rule 57
4. Denial of Appeal Set Aside 3. Sale Before Entry of Judgment
Section 7, Rule 38 Section 11, Rule 57
4. Discharge
Sections 12-13, Rule 57
Z. Execution/Satisfaction of Judgments 5. Third Person claim
Rule 39 Section 14, Rule 57
Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Heir of Manuel Abella, G.R. 143510, 23 6. Judgment
November 2005 Sections 15-20, Rule 57
Perez v. CA, G.R. 157616, 22 July 2005
Heirs of Igmedio Maglaque v. CA, 524 SCRA 234 B. Preliminary Injunction
PCGG et al. v. SB and Officers, G.R. 124772, 14 August 2007 Sections 1-2, 4, 9, Rule 58
DBP v. La Campana, G.R. 137694, 17 January 2005 Sections 1-7, Rule 57
Cayana v. CA, G.R. 125607, 18 March 2004 Filipino Metals v. Secretary of Trade and Industry, G.R. 157498, 15 July
Republic of the Phil. v. Ramon Yu, G.R. 157557, 10 March 2006 2005
Sps. Felipe v. Fil Estate, G.R. 150470, 06 August 2008 Levi Strauss v. Clinton Apparelle, G.R. 138900, 20 September 2005
Stronghold Ins. v. Felix, G.R. 148090, 28 November 2006 Duvas Corp v. Export & Industry Bank, 523 SCRA 405
JP Latex v. Hon. De Leon , G.R. 177121, 16 March 2009 Rualo v. Pitargue, G.R. 140284, 21 January 2005
Archinet Intl v. Becco, G.R. 183753, 19 June 2009 University v. Ang Wong, G.R. 150280, 26 April 2006
Yau v. Silverio, G.R. 158848/171994, 04 February 2008 Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183
Jerome Solco v. Provido, G.R. 176533, 11 February 2008 Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. 134971, 25 March 2004
Hi Yield Realty Inc. v. C A, G.R. 138978, 12 September 2002 Borja v. Salcedo, 412 SCRA 110
Honrado v. CA, G.R. 166333, 25 November 2005 Phil. Ports Authority v. Pier 8, Arrastre, G.R. No. 147861, 18 November 2005
Cardinal v. Asset, G.R. 149696, 14 July 2006 Overseas Workers v. Chavez, 524 SCRA 451
Fermin v. Hon. Estevez, G.R. 147977, 26 March 2008 1. Grounds
Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. 166429, 01 February 2006 Sections 3,6, Rule 58
Mijares, et al. v. Hon. Judge, G.R. 139325, 12 April 2005 2. Notice
Korea Technologies v. Hon. Lerma, G.R. 143581, 07 January 2008 Section 5, Rule 58
Equitable PCI v. RCBC, G.R. 182248, 18 December 2008 3. Service
Republic v. Antonio et al, G.R. 166866, 27 March 2008 Section 7, Rule 58
4. Judgment
Section 8, Rule 58
III. Provisional Remedies
C. Receivership
A. Preliminary Attachment Sections 1-4, 6, Rule 59
Sections 1-7, Rule 57 Dolar v. Sundiam, 38 SCRA 616
PCL Industries v. CA, G.R. 147970, 31 March 2006 Vivares v. Jose Reyes, G.R. 155408, 13 February 2008
Magaling v. Peter Ong, G.R. 173333, 13 August 2008 1. Service
Professional Video v. Tesda, G.R. 155504, 26 June 2009 Section 5, Rule 59
Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. CA, 204 SCRA 343 2. Liability
Onate v. Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659 Section 7, Rule 59
Silangan Textile v. Judge, G.R. 166719, 12 March 2007 3. Termination
Security Pacific Assurance v. Hon. Judge Trial-Infante, G.R. 144740, 31 Section 8, Rule 59
August 2005 4. Judgment
Insular Savings v. CA , 460 SCRA 122 Section 9, Rule 59
1. Effect D. Replevin
Sections 8-9, Rule 57 Sections 1-4, Rule 60
17 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Servicewide Specialists v. CA, 318 SCRA 493 VI. Prohibition Review for RTC to CA
Vda De Danao v. Ginete, 395 SCRA 542 Rule 42
Smart v. Astorga, G.R. 148132, 28 January 2008 Sps Lanaria v. Planta, G.R. 172891, 22 November 2007
Rivera v. Vargas, G.R. 165895, 05 June 2009 Perez v. Falcatan, G.R. 139536, 26 September 2005
1. Return Elsie Ang v. Dr. Grageda, G.R. 166239, 08 June 2006
Sections 5, 8, Rule 60 Balgami v. CA, G.R. 131287, 09 December 2004
2. Deposition
Section 6, Rule 60 VII. Appeals from the CTA and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the CA
3. Third Person Claims Rule 43
Section 7, Rule 60 Dalton-Reyes v. CA, et al. , G.R. 149580, 16 March 2005
4. Judgment Jose Luis Angelo Orosa v. Alberto Roa, G.R. 140423, 14 July 2006
Sections 9-10, Rule 60 Villorente et al. v. Apalaya Laiya, G.R. 145013, 13 March 2005
Judy Ann Santos v. Pp, G.R. 173176, 26 August 2008
E. Support Pendente Lite Ruvivar v. Ombudsman, G.R. 165012, 16 September 2008
Section 1-4, Rule 61 Phillips Seafood v. BOI, G.R. 175787, 04 February 2009
Lam v. Chua, G.R. 131286, 18 March 2004 Basmayor v. Atencio, G.R. 160573, 19 October 2005
De Asis v. CA, 303 SCRA 176 Coca Cola v. Cabalo, G.R. 144180, 30 January 2006
1. Enforcement BE San Diego, Inc. v. Alzul, 524 SCRA 402
Section 5, Rule 61 DECS v. Cunanan, G.R. 169013, 16 December 2008
2. Criminal Cases
Section 6, Rule 61 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
3. Restitution
Section 7, Rule 61 VIII. Ordinary Appeal Cases
Rule 44
PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS De Leon v. CA, 383 SCRA 217
De Liano v. CA, 370 SCRA 349
Camposagrado v. Camposagrado, G.R. 143195, 13 September Mon v. CA, G.R. 118292, 14 April 2004
2005
Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino, G.R. No. 160258, 19 January 2005 IX. Appeal by Certiorari to the SC
Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, 399 SCRA 376 Rule 45
Victory Liner v. Malinias, 523 SCRA 279 Agote v. Lorenzo, 464 SCRA 60, 22 July 2005
De Grano v. Lacaba, G.R. 158877, 16 June 2009 BPI v. CA, G.R. 160890, 10 November 2004
CGP Transportation v. PCI Leasing, 28 March 2007
IV. Appeal from MTC to RTC Local Superior of the Servants of Charity v. Jody King Construction, G.R.
Rule 40 141715, 12 October 2005
Aggregado v. Bellosillo et al., AM MTJ-05-1600, 09 August 2005 Perez-Rosario, et al. v. CA, G.R. No. 140796, 30 June 2006
Baldillo v. Tayag, G.R. 143976, 03 April 2003 Republic v. Sta. Ana-Burgos, G.R. 163254, 01 June 2007
Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola, G.R. 156809, 04 March 2009 Selegna v. UCPB, G.R. 165662, 03 May 2006
Mejillano v. Lucillo, G.R. 154717, 19 June 2009 Tagle v. Equitable PCI, G.R. 172299, 22 April 2008
PP v. Romualdez, G.R. 166510, 13 July 2008
V. Appeal for RTC International Corporate Bank v. CA & PNB, 05 September 2006
Rule 41
Neypes v. CA, G.R. 141524, 14 September 2005 X. Original Cases
First Aqua Sugar v. BPI, G.R. 154034, 05 February 2007 Rule 46
Philexport v. Phil Infrastructures, G.R. 120384, 13 January 2004 Republic v. Carmel Dev., 377 SCRA 459
Lullete S Ko v. PNB, G.R. 169131-32, 20 January 2006 China Banking Corp. v. Padilla, G.R. 143490, 02 February 2007
Eda v. CA, G.R. No. 155251, 08 December 2004 Manotok Realty v. CLT, G.R. 123346, 14 December 2007
18 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

XI. Amendment of Judgment, Final Orders and Resolutions Rule 51

Rule 47 Crystal v. CA, 160 SCRA 79
Alma Jose v. Intra Strata, 464 SCRA 496
Dela Cruz v. Sison, G.R. 142464, 26 September 2005 XVI. Motion for Reconsideration
Ramos v. Combong, Jr., G.R. 144273, 20 October 2005 Rule 52
Alaban v. CA, G.R. 156021, 23 September 2005 Badiola v. CA, G.R. 170691, 23 April 2008
Orbeta v. Sendiong, 463 SCRA 180
Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. 145370, 04 March 2004 XVII. New-Trial
Barco v. CA, G.R. 120587, 20 January 2004 Rule 53
Lazaro v. Rural Bank, 409 SCRA 186
Republic thru APT v. G Holdings, G.R. 141241, 22 November 2005 XVIII. Internal Business
Sps. Benatiro et al. v. Heirs of Evaristo Cuyo, G.R. 161220, 30 July 2008 Rule 54
GAUF v. RTC, G.R. 139672, 14 March 2009
Grande v. UP, G.R. 148456, 15 September 2006 XIX. Publication of Judgments and Final Resolutions
Rule 55
XII. Preliminary Conference
Rule 48 PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

XIII. Oral Arguments XX. Original Cases

Rule 49 Rule 56
Ericson v. City of Pasig, G.R. 176667, 22 November 2007
XIV. Dismissal of Appeal Collantes v. CA, 517 SCRA 561
Rule 50 Land Bank v. De Leon, G.R. 143275, 20 March 2003
PNB v. Philippine Milling, 26 SCRA 712
Atlas Consolidated Mining v. CA, 201 SCRA 51
Cu Unjieng v. CA, G.R. 139596, 24 January 2006
Govt v. CA et al., G.R. 164150, 14 April 2008
Bachrach v. PPA, G.R. 159915, 12 March 2009

XV. Judgment