You are on page 1of 32

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP!

2010
General Principles of Remedial Law BERNABE V. ALEJO (Cf. MEDINA) def. vested right- one that is absolute, complete and unconditional, the exercise of which no obstacle exists, immediate and perfect in itself, and is not dependent on any contingency (Cf. BUSTOS) substantive law creates substantive rights which gives rise to causes of action; procedural law prescribes methods for enforcing rights and obtaining redress (Cf. FABIAN) takes away- substantive; creates- may be substantive; implements- procedural KO V. PNB- not for the advantage of litigants, but to provide order and enhance the efficiency of our justice system; orderly administration of justice by for the effective enforcement of substantive rights, by providing a system that obviates capriciousness and arbitrariness SPS. DELOS SANTOS V, MANGUBAT- procedural law can be retroactively applied (Cf. NEYPES- 15 day fresh period rule) BORRE V. CA- procedural law can be only retroactively applied to cases which are pending and undetermined at the time of its approval and not those which have become final and executory REPUBLIC V. CA- procedural law retroactively applied (SC CIRCULAR)- 60 day period for certiorari begins from denial of MR not receipt of assailed decision MAGALLANES V. SUN YAT SEN- liberality in applying procedural law taking into account the considerations 1) results in deprivation of justice 2) that the SC is not a slave to technicalities, backseat to substantive rights CALLEJA V PANDAY- quo warranto does not include intra-corporate Jurisdiction 08-08-7 SMALL CLAIMS 100K civil+civil from criminal lease, loan, service, mortgage, sale or mortgage + damages (fault, quasi-contract, contract) + enforcement of baranggay amicable settlement or arbitration

ATUEL V. VALDEZ- Jurisdiction can only be conferred by law and cannot be acquired by or waived to by any agreement of the parties ZAMORA V. CA- Jurisdiction cannot be changed by an agreement or act that would contravene the legislative will; questions involving jurisdiction can be raised at any time. DELA CRUZ V. MOYA- Jurisdiction over subject matter determined by the law in effect at time of the commencement of action otherwise judgement is null and void CHING V. MALAYA- Jurisdiction of court and nature of action determined by allegations in pleading

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


TIME V. REYES- Jurisdiction exclusive if mandated by statute; jurisdiction of court and nature of action determined by allegations in pleading AGRAVANTE V. PATRIARCA- Jurisdiction over person is commenced upon filing of complaint; subsequent death of a party in a real action does not affect courts jurisdiction, remedy being a substitution of heirs NAVALE V. CA- Jurisdiction over defendant acquired through voluntary appearance or coercive action by court through summons; the defect of an improper service of summons can be cured by voluntary appearance of the defendant PLATINUM V. PANLILIO- Jurisdiction refers to the authority, vested by law, to decide cases; exercise of jurisdiction refers to the orders and decisions rendered in a case to settle the controversy being adjudicated- errors in this exercise does not divest a court of its jurisdiction DAVAO V. CA Venue may be obtained through the consent of the parties and any objection may be waived by the defendant. NOCUM V. TAN a) Jurisdiction authority to determine a case; venue is the place b) jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law while venue is a matter of procedural law c) jurisdiction establishes a relationship between subject matter and the court while venue establishes a relation between plaintiff and defendant or petitioner and respondent d) jurisdiction conferred by law while venue may be subject to the agreement of the parties; jurisdiction as referred to in libel cases shall be construed as venue Docket Fees MANCHESTER V. CA- Case is deemed filed only upon payment of the proper docket fees. SUN LIFE V. ASUNCION (Prevailing)- Case deemed filed only upon payment of the proper docket fees but the court may allow a reasonable time not beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. BARANGAY PIAPI V. TALIP- Assessed value not market value should be basis of docket fees in real actions PROTON V. BNP- In cases involving a judgement awarded but not included in the pleading, the additional filing fee shall constitute on the same. SPS. DELEON V. CA Nature of action determines docket fees (in cases involving amounts incapable of pecuniary estimation, the amount shall be the one stated in RULE 141) TOKIO MARINE V. VALDEZ A pauper litigant is exempt from payment of legal fees but the same shall constitute a lien on the judgement awarded. LU V. LU- Nature of action determines docket fees; if there is a deficiency, lien GO V. TONG Non-payment of docket fees does not immediately result in the dismissal of the case, as long the same is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period and there is a willingness to abide by the law Jurisdiction cannot be ousted

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


LEE V. MTC Even in cases involving courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the first court that acquires jurisdiction excludes other courts. Its jurisdiction continues subject only to the appellate authority until the matter is finally resolved DIOQUINO V. CRUZ- Jurisdiction determined by the extent of the penalty which law imposes not what may be meted out or the result of evidence RAMOS V. CBP- Subsequent events cannot oust jurisdiction once attached Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction (general rule- null and void judgment) ABBAIN V. CHUA- Null and void ab initio; remedy annulment even beyond appeal and review period has elapsed ANTIPOLO V. ZAPANTA- Res judicata does not apply when the court never had jurisdiction ESTOETA V. CA- A decision rendered by a court lacking in jurisdiction may be attacked directly and collaterally (Cf. ABBAIN) TIJAM V. SIBONGHANOY- Exception- estoppel by laches. Suspended jurisdiction PAL V. KURANGKING- Distressed corporations may be granted a motion to suspend proceedings pending rehabilitation. Hierarchy of courtsOUANO V. PTT- Concurrent jurisdiction does not grant the absolute freedom to file petitions in ones court of choice. AGAN V. PIATCO- Rule may be relaxed in cases involving exceptional and compelling circumstances of transcendental importance Rule 1 REDENA V. CA- Liberal application presupposes the existence of substantive rights; procedural rules will not be relaxed however when other remedies are available VICTORIA V. CA- Concomitant for liberality is a requirement for the negligent party to explain his failure to abide by the rules HERNANDEZ V. RURAL BANK OF LUCENA- Cf. REGALADO In re: real and personal actions and accions in rem and in personam. GO V. UCPB- Real actions are actions affecting title or possession of a real property or any interest therein. PADERANGA V. BUISSAN- Personal and real actions determine venue; accions in rem and in personam determine the binding effect of the judgement rendered

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


PNB V. CA Accion in personam binds only parties thereto. TESORERO V. MATHAY- Exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies may be allowed in cases involving a purely legal question MANILA HOTEL V. CA- Requirements for liberal application 1) rigid application results in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice 2) substantial justice served 3) resolution addressed to the sound and judicious discretion of the court 4) injustice to adverse party incommensurate to his degree of thoughtlessness Rule 2- Cause of Action REBOLLIDO V CA- definition cf. Real party in interest (dissolved corporation/winding up period) DE GUZMAN V CA- difference right of action and cause of action BALIWAG V OPLE- elements of COA BACHRACH V ICARANGAL- splitting a cause of action AGUSTIN V BACALAN excess void FLORES V MALLARE-joinder/totality rule DECENA V PIQUERO - test more than one right is present or a recovery in one would be bar to the other Rule 3-Parties 1-3 IRON STEEL persons/those authorised by law TWA- benefited or injured RALLA- interest material interest-in issue and to be affected; if none cannot invoke jurisdiction. TAMPINGCO, HOUSE INTERNATIONAL, PASCUAL supra PASCUAL if not interest no jurisdicton GOLANGO, EPCI V TIU supra 4-6 WONG- pro-forma parties BEGOSA- cf.general rule of immunity and exhaustion- exception failure to comply and legal question MOBIL- customs not person AMEX- proper party PANTRANCO- permissive joinder of parties + totality rule

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


7-12 LOZANO, DAEL INDISPENSABLE, IF NOT INCLUDED DESPITE ORDER CAN BE DISMISSED LOTTE, DOMINGO NON JOINDER NOT A GROUND REMEDY IMPLEAD IF NOT THEN DISMISS SENO, CHUA- difference indispensable and necessary QUIOMBING- solidary REST ARE NOT EVEN NECESSARY ONE IS INDISPENSABLE LIANA- NOT REALLY A CLASS ACTION BUT REPRESENTATIVE CAMPOS- PARTIES MAY DROP ON MOTION OR ON ITS OWN 13-19 CHANGKAISHEK MAY BE SUED WITHOUT BEING INCORPORATED IN AN JURIDICAL LAWAS, HABERER- 16 DAGADAG- 17 20-22 KALAW-20 CF. RED- REAL/PERSONAL, ENFORCE LIENS, RECOVERY INJURY TORT/DELICT CF AGUAS Rule 4-VENUE SALUDO domicile is residence but residence is not domicile = personal PBC AND SURIGAO (cf HOECHST- EXCLUSION OF ALL EXCEPT FOR POVERTY) GENERAL RULE 4 (2) then 4(b) AND PERMISSIVE cf. EXCEPTION GESMUNDO WHEN IT CLEARLY EXCLUDES ALL UNITED OVERSEAS- elements of forum shopping 1)parties 2)rights 3)res judicata YASCO- principal office

Rule 5- Uniform Procedure BAYUBAY- must submit papers in summary procedure LUCAS- MR prohibited PASCUAL- failure of judge to abide SP subject to admin BONGATO- EXCEPTION MD LACK OF JURISDICTION Rule 6- Pleadings CALO- when compulsory counterclaim is beyond jurisdiction, bar does not apply CHAN- counterclaim distinct and independent cause of action ICTSI- CF. permissive not barred if not setup METALS- if principal denied then counterclaim must be dismissed too CRUZ-AGANA- 04-94 CF.UST DOES NOT APPLY TO CC ONLY INITIATORY PLEADINGS SINGAPORE- 3RD party complaints

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


Rule 7- Kinds QUIMPO defect verification is not jurisdictional BUENAVENTURA- court may order to cure defect in verification B-DCS BUAN V LOPEZ- NFS cf. DOCENA(MUST BE SIGNED BY ALL), CAGAYAN (ONLY AUTHORISED) AND SHIPSIDE (WHEN COMPELLING REASON) Rule 8- Manner VDA DAFFON- TEST-valid judgment TORIBIO, BOUGH- GENUINENESS OF ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS MUST BE SPECIFICALLY DENIED UNDER OATH ANTAM, MERRILL LYNCH CF. FOREIGN CORPORATION CANT BE SUED EXCEPT ISOLATED REYES- FRAUD MUST BE STATED Rule 9- Effect of Failure to Plead PHIL BRITISH- party in default not required to be notice DULOS- requirements for MR of default 1)verified 2)60 days 3)merit+FAME GOCHANGCO- 2 REASONS WHY DEFAULT 1)cant defend himself 2) FAME+MERIT MONZON- non-appearance in trial does not equal default INDIANA- REMEDIES FOR DEFAULT 1)motion to set aside before judgment 2)motion for new trial before final 3)relief from judgment if final 4)appeal(41) if improvidently declared, same remedies, certiorari 65, if judgment has been rendered, then have it declared null and void) Rule 10-Amended and Supplemental Pleadings LEOBRERA- supplemental should only address deficiencies and should not stray MAGASPI- deemed abandoned + df based on amended MWSS- amendment of pleadings to conform to evidence VALENZUELA- AMENDMENT MAY NOW ALTER COA/DEFENCE PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE Rule 11- When DEL BROS V IAC BARRAZA V CAMPOS

Rule 12- Bill of Particulars SALITA V. MAGTOLIS Evidentiary matters must not be obtained through a bill of particulars but rather through the modes of discovery as provided for in Rule 29 AGCANAS V. MERCADO A court must first resolve a motion for a bill of particulars before declaring a party in default SANTOS V. LIWAG- Fraud alleged must be defined through a bill of particulars

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


Rule 13 Filing BARRAMEDA V. CASTILLO- The service is complete upon actual receipt by addressee. But one who relies on constructive notice shall furnish proof thereof PNB V. CFI There exists a presumption of regularity in the performance of the postmasters functions. HERNANDEZ V. NAVARRO- There exists a presumption of regularity in the performance of the postmaster generals functions however there must be an apparent proof of sending as well as receipt- when, how, and who received- from the certificate for such presumption to arise QUELNAN V. VHF- In cases covered by summary procedure, such as ejectment, default does not arise. A petition for relief from judgment covered by Rule 38(2) requires that 1) same must be filed not more than 60 days from receipt of order of judgment and 2) that it must not be more than 6 months from entry of such order GARRUNCHO V. CA- It is incumbent for counsel to inform the court through filing of a notice of changes in address SOLAR V RICAFORTE Rule 13(11), explanation why a personal service was not undertaken , is mandatory; as the rules were recent however, technicalities were dispersed with AMEN V CA- Rule 13(11) is mandatory; if one does not include the explanation for the failure to undertake personal service, the case will be deemed not filed PENOSO V DONA Rule 13(11) is mandatory but is not so iron-clad that such a rule would not be left to the discretion of the court subject to the following conditions 1) practicability 2) importance of subject matter 3) prima facie merit of pleading sought to be expunged HEIRS OF LOPEZ V ENRIQUEZ- Notice of lis pendens must be filed the real parties in interest GARVIDA V SALES- Facsimiles are not a valid mode of service Rule 14- Summons (CF. NATURE OF ACTION accion in personam liability against particular persons accion in rem binding against everyone quasi in rem against person but binding on everyone ) General Rule accion in personam personal/substituted if cant be found 1) archive or 2) convert into quasi-in-rem by means of attachment Rule 57 (1f) (cf.BIACO) - if accion in rem/quasi in rem then service by publication with leave of court however take note of SANTOS- no distinction -if not a resident and outside, only Rule 14(15) extraterritorial service -if resident but outside then try to personal if not then extraterritorial then any other means as found by court to be permissible

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


PARAMOUNT INSURANCE V JAPSON- appearance of authority gives rise to the presumption of regularity of service SYJUCO V CASTRO- strict compliance CF. DELTA; Rule 14(20)- no proof of specificity; if default void, subsequent judgments are void BOTICIANO V CHU- cannot raise improper service of summons first time on appeal because it can be deemed waived (jurisdiction over person rule) PANASIATIC V CA Cf. ATKINS if defendant has not appeared, summons required; if appeared, not required- jurisdiction has already been acquired MAPA V CA (old law) 1) Rule 14(13) secretary considered 2)general rule personal then substituted sheriffs return 1)impossibility 2)CF. KELSO and BUSUEGO efforts 3)CF. Valid substituted summons 3) Sheriffs return not end all be all- plaintiff can adduce additional evidence to prove presumption of regularity/delivery call sheriff to stand during proceedings for MD SANDOVAL V HRET- requisites 1)impossibility within a reasonable time 2)prior efforts were exerted 3)Valid substituted summons (valid age and competence capacity, ability and authority) or if office, person in charge of office 4) stated on return complete name and other pertinent information RELATION OF CONFIDENCE OAMINAL V CASTILLO - 1) defendants did not deny but question manner plus voluntary appearance 2) Cf.INDIANA MASON V CA 1) Cf. VILLAROSA- strict compliance only persons there exclusive 2)subsequent proceedings void JOSE V BOYON DOMAGAS V JENSEN resident in substituted service refers to persons living there BIACO V PCRB- 1) if there is a deficiency judgment in a foreclosure sale, attach other properties 2) important to find out what is the nature as it refers to the service of summons 3) acquired jurisdiction over res however as defendant not informed then limited only to the res over whom the court acquired jurisdiction BPI V SANTIAGO original summon s in amended complaint cures the defect in original summons of original complaint served on the wrong person in rel. to Rule 14(11); strict compliance still applies PHILAM V BREVA - should not dismiss because of defect in original summons, cured by subsequent summons on courts order alias summons/original summons on an amended complaint Cf.Maam- whats the point of 16(1) then? SANTOS V PNOC (cf. JOSE V BOYON and BIACO) no more distinction because of Rule 14 (14) between personam, rem, and quasi in rem publications can be done with leave of court; WONG V KOYOMA- (CF. CEREZO- 1) if before judgment fame+ meritorious, set aside 2) if after but before f+e, new trial 3) if f+e, relief (60 days+6 monthsCF.QUELNAN) 4) also ordinary appeal (41); only certiorari only if improvidently declared)- cf.INDIANA; MR denied; in the meantime, as no TRO was issued, RTC continued

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


with proceedings which Wong participated in, more notably through cross of PR Wong lost; 1) if sheriffs return is defective, then substituted service was improperly effected; however voluntary participation of party cures such a defect SANSIO V MOGOL- no need to amend complaint; if anywhere where you can do it personal then do it, not necessary that residence Cf. Must be in territorial jurisdiction of sheriff however. BD LONGSPAN V RS AMEPLOQUIO cf. ORION RELATION OF CONFIDENCE TO ENSURE RECEIPT CARIAGA V MALAYA as court may deem fit; LICAROS V LICAROS- can be coursed through the DFA DE MIDGELY V FERNANDOS - as court may deem fit landmark; old rule- MD if included all, considered participation BUSUEGO V CA filing of motion to extension = voluntary appearance PINLAC V CA - general circulation not just some weekly, strict compliance including date or how many times published GONZALES V STATE BELEN V CHAVEZ ORION SECURIY V CALFAN- can there be substituted service of summons on a juridical entity? in this case, never received either in person or substituted; relation of confidence- security guard who received no relation of confidence; CF. OBITER? SANDOVAL AND MASON CITING VILLAROSA- HOWEVER MASON STILL VALID. Rule 15- Motions General Rule- file the notice of hearing DELA PENA V DELA PENA - Cf. POJAS failure to notice of hearing does not toll reglementary period allotted to file MANACOP V FF CRUZ - 1) omnibus 15 (8) 2) CF. DAVAO- after filing but prior acquisition jurisdiction over res can be had YAP V CA- general rule comply with notice of hearing exception 1) does not affect substantive rights 2) AZAJAR V CA general rule notice must be addressed to clerk and opposing party exception meritous defence

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


SARMIENTO V ZARATAN general Rule 15 (4) 1) existence of special/compelling circumstances 2) merits of the case 3) case not entirely attributable fault and negligence of party ANECO V LANDEX when given a chance to be heard, then defect of lack of notice of hearing can be cured; Rule 16- MTD VITANGCOL V NEW VISTA- no cause of action (this is the MD) not equal to failure to state of cause of action- defence should say defence no cause to action BARRAZA V CAMPOS PANGANIBAN V PILIPINAS SHELL- general rule within answer but before; 1) litis pendentia 2)lack of jurisdiction 3) lack of COA 4)discovery of new evidence CF. REGALADO 1)litis pendentia 2)res judicata 3)prescription 4)discovery of new evidence 5) lack of jurisdiction BA FINANCE V PINEDA- MTD order denied MR denied --- certiorari, prohibition and preliminary injunction --- case is continuing in TC MTD - granted final order remedy is appeal ordinary MUNICIPALITY OF BINAN V CA GUERRERO V RTC RAMOS V PERALTA- litis of pedentia not necessarily same type of action but same interests roughly premised on same evidence presented CHUA V ANG- basic rule failure to exhaust administrative remedies (cf Rule 16(1j))- must show you fall within exception

Rule 17- Dismissal of Actions 2-dismissal rule cf. Jurisdiction court with competent jurisdiction not necessarily same court DAEL V BELTRAN- notice of dismissal automatic should state whether or not with or without prejudice GO V CRUZ- service not filing much more receipt precludes the exercise of plaintiff of his right to dismissal by notice JALOVER V YTORIAGA- plaintiff presence not required if defendants turn VALLANGCA V CA- if notice doesnt state, general rule no prejudice; think 17(1) (generally without prejudice) if (2)- if plaintiff declares it so; if (3)- with prejudice

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


MONTEJO V URUJA- unreasonable length of time depends on sound discretion of court

Rule 18-Pre-Trial PPA V ILOILO the consolidation of issues in the pre-trial conference bars the question of the same on appeal-cant change theory on appeal EX. CF. LIANGA- interest of justice, sound discretion and wont require additional evidence; SARMIENTO V JUAN- should be set after the last pleading has been filed (usually the reply); ALARCON V CA- basis of facts admitted in pre-trial is binding TIU V MIDDLETON- pre-trial not just formality and judge has discretion to exclude witnesses- however may be allowed by judge and /or failure of witness to object; must pay attention to record of pre-trial conference- Rule 18(7) DULOS V CA no SPA+ no counsel = dismissal (remedy is MR) TROPICAL V VILLALUZ- SPAs terms must be comprehensively written FOUNTAINHEAD V CA- insufficient SPA is no SPA at all SAGUID V CA- pre-trial brief SON V SON- implied assent= failure to object in pre-trial plus waiver in cross-examination CITIBANK V CORPUZ- importance of coordination with clients as ptc is mandatory Rule 19- Intervention Cf. Intervenor- not one of the parties; 3PC- one of original parties PAGTALUNAN V TAMAYO importance of legal interest MAGSAYSAY V CA importance of legal interest- interest immediate and direct character wherein party will gain or lose cf. Rule 12(2) which must be direct ORDONEZ V GUSTILLO- intervention not allowed because complaint in chief dismissed via approval of compromise judgment 1) compromise judgment 2) motion to admit compromise 3) did not object

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


4) final METROPOLITAN BANK V PRESIDING JUDGE no motion to approve compromise agreement; in its stead, mere notice to dismiss 1) no judgment at all 2) mere of notice to dismiss 3) objected 4) not final Rule 20- Calendar of Case ANG KEK CHEN BELLO Rule 21- Subpoena 1) 2) judgment 3) 4) 5)

Subpoena witness cf. Summons = defendant Appear or produce documents; must file responsive pleading or Contempt, warrant of arrest; default Criminal+ civil cases; only civil 100 km.; no limitation.

General rule- person can refuse subpoena if more than 100 km (viatory right) only in civil cases remedy is take deposition cf. Rule 23.

UNIVERSAL V CA- subpoena duces tecum documents must be relevant to case PEOPLE V MONTEJO- viatory right only in civil cases GENORGA V QUITAIN Rule 22- Computation of Time NACTOR V IAC last day Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday then next business day MAYOR V IAC LUZ V NAC- MExt should be counted from original date regardless of Saturday, Sunday, etc.; always check reckoning date

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


NEYPES V CA - not based on Rules cf. QUELNAN receipt of final judgment if MR is filed then final order is MR and fresh period with reference to 40- appeals from MTC to RTC, 42- petitions for review from RTC to CA, 43- on appeals from quasi-judicial to CA, 45- appeal by certiorari is upon receipt of such

MODES OF DISCOVERY MEMORISE TITLES FOR EXAM. MEMORISE BENEFITS (cf. FORTUNE) MEMORISE 23 (4), 23(29), MEMORISE 24 (1) (6) OPPOSITION- bad faith, annoy and embarrass, irrelevant, and domains of privilege 5 MODES OF DISCOVERY- CANT FILE THEM ALL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT 24- even before case is filed, venue is residence of any expected party (1) 23, 24, 25, 26- with leave of court after assumption of jurisdiction without leave of court after filed of answer 27,28- always with leave of court + showing with good cause = not matter of right.

25- exceptions a)privileged b)prohibited by court order 25(6)- if not served with written interrogatories then cant use adverse witness (however subject to waiver) = remedy MUST FILE motion to quash 26(1) genuineness of any document, not necessarily actionable document (2)- period implied admission if not complied 27-can oppose on the basis of materiality and sufficiency of description -cant seize (TANDA) 28- physical and mental condition must be related to the subject matter involved -not covered by doctor/client privilege -not for the purpose of curing but rather merely extent of illness CF.VALLEJO DOCTRINE-DNA 29- ALWAYS with motion + discretionary Sanctions : a) dismissal b)default c)contempt d)arrest e)payment of reasonable expenses including those that are incident to the motion f) stay proceedings g)precluding presentation of evidence h)striking out

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


Rule 23- Depositions pending action KOH V IAC- judges are encouraged but not mandatory cf. AM 03-01-09 REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN- extend to all relevant (exceptions bad faith, annoy embarrass, and domains of privilege) CAGUIAT V TORRES- right not absolute and unbridled especially if already been previously established by other means SANTIAGO V CA- cf. Intervention (has legal interest) not answering written interrogatories may be a ground for dismissal but not absolute either VDA. DE MANGUERRA V RISOS- Rules in criminal procedure shall govern criminal cf. Rule 119 (5) (OLD RULE) now must before any judge (NEW RULE)

Rules 24-28 Other modes of discovery LANADA V CA- counsel may answer interrogatories + dont use modes just to repeat answer contrary to purpose which is to discover new facts SECURITY BANK V DEL ALCAZAR 24(4) anywhere 24(11) ROSETE V LIM- difference between criminal and civil cases cannot refuse 1) if its civil in nature only exception if question in itself is self incriminating person himself Obiter: ad cautelam no difference to answer. Answer period. Rule 29 Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery LOPEZ V MACEREN- must show that falls within exceptions FORTUNE V CA- other modes not a bar to the use TRIAL Complaint-answer-reply-pre-trial (CARP) Plaintiff- Testimony. Documents formal offer Rule 30- Trial LALUAN V MALPAYA- clerk of court allowed if does not impair rights of aggrieved party YU V MAPAYO if there has been judicial admission no need for presentation for proof LEE V ROMILLO cf. LALUAN no law prohibiting

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


CONTINENTAL V TIANGCO judgment based on reception when there is no intrinsic fraud and there had been partial compliance with judgment NOW JUDGE EXECPTION: 1)default 2)ex parte 3) agreed upon EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: nullity, annulment, and legal separation. (Cf. JOCSON) LOPEZ V LIBORO- exceptions to limits set by pretrial a)newly discovered evidence b) omitted by mistake/inadvertence c)correct evidence previously offered, subject to the discretion of the court and in the interest of higher justice. Rule 31- Consolidation or Severance When= common questions of fact and /or law Purpose= multiplicity, cost-effective USUALLY DONE BEFORE TRIAL COMMENCES Rule 32 Trial by Commissioner Reference by consent- based on agreement. Reference is not by consent- a) long account b)taking into account is necessary c)question of fact arises cf. b and c- possible even after judgment GENERAL RULE CLERK OF COURT CANNOT RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY BUT COMMISSIONER CAN, UNLESS ORDER SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS HIM FROM DOING AS SUCH. WASSMER V VELEZ- when youre declared in default cant be question who receives Rule 33- Demurrer Complaint-summons- answer-reply (if necessary when actionable document, usury)-motion for pretrial- pretrial conference- pretrial order- presentation of plaintiff-testimonial, documentary-usually opposition-after last evidence (documentary) order then file demurrer -if granted then judgment of merits = appeal -if denial then interlocutory=appeal in due course and time RADIOWEALTH-- if granted then judgment of merits (judge must state law and facts) = appeal -if denial then interlocutory (no need to state and law) = appeal in due course and time; if tainted with grave abuse of discretion= 65+TRO+PI -if demurrer previously granted now reversed, cant present evidence still- CA must try not remand UY- dont file demurrer if res judicata file MD even during trial (if you discover the 4)- correct to remand because nature MD did not have ground as res judicata was inapplicable because compromise JP- NONE SJ- SHAM Rule 34-Judgment on the Pleadings Must always be on motion unless pretrial 2(g)

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


WTC v EQUITABLE- A judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse partys pleading. CF NARRA-jop- no issues raised at all; sj- won factual or genuineness of issues raised, purpose to avoid sham defences. Rule 35-Summary Judgments Must motion cf 2(g) AUMAN- must be motion ESTRADA- plaintiff should have presented counter-affidavits not enough to rely presumption GRAND FARMS - The real test, therefore, of a motion for summary judgment is whether the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of the motion are sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and to justify a finding as a matter of law that there is no defense to the action or that the claim is clearly meritorious KALILID- if do not deny deemed admitted 1)due execution 2) genuineness = no issue at all = summary judgment was proper however can still remand when pertains to how much (refers only to obligation but how much can still try) cf. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment GALICIA motion for summary judgment properly granted because issue was already dead EXCELSA- genuine issue means triable issue needs evidence to rsesolve SOLIDBANK burden on movant

Rule 36 Judgments, FO, and Entry If compromise then final and executory (GENERAL RULE)- REMEDY 1) motion to set aside CA then 2)motion to set aside compromise judgment CF. 47- intrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process. PENGSON- If courts decision is incomplete ie facts and law are not stated then SC can remand MANGELEN- MR if new decision especially if reversal must state facts and laws (if aggrieved party doesnt know how will they appeal) BARRERA TC+CA cant issue minute resolutions but SC can = decision on the merits because all in all tells lower court as correct LIANGA- draft decision does not operate as judgment 1)signed 2)delivered to clerk of court until promulgation LINDO- definition of promulgated, officially announced- known to the parties/delivery to clerk of court and notice to parties however notice of promulgation in advance is mere procedural

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


ECHAUS must be reduced in writing and promulgated or else no juridical existence NEYPES- final order- one that disposes a case may be MR

REMEDIES TO BE FILED WITH COURT OF ORIGIN (CF. FAMEnt, relief)


Rule 37- New Trial and Reconsideration SIM AND DIFF BET. NT AND RECON 1)

extrinisic fraud (outside trial test if intrinsic can meet head on),-

default,

WITHIN reglementary period to appeal 15 DAYS IF NON-MULTIPLE (one only files notice of appeal- all with be transported by clerk) AND 30 IF MULTIPLE (record of appeal- not whole case will be transported you will do it too) 2) SAME COURT OF ORIGIN GROUNDS: NT: 1) FAME+ AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT 2)NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE-a) discovered after trial b) could not have been produced during c)would alter the decision (MALLARE) : MR: damages are excessive, insufficient evidence, contrary to law NO NEED FOR FAME+AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT BECAUSE decision APPEAL- TAKEN BY NOTICE, PERFECTED UPON EXPIRATION (Cf. 40-45)

General rule- interrupts reglementary but if denied NEYPES applies CF. however if pro forma continues CF. BA FINANCE- if interlocutory restatement interrupts. If final judgment then, pro forma then does not interrupt; IE- without notice of trial, stated the grounds but did not aver specifics, 3) YOU CAN FILE A SECOND MNT. BY EXPRESS PROVISION YOU CANT FILE 2ND MR. 4) MNT- not immediately decision MR- decision immediately ABE modified by NEYPES YAP- If MR is equivalent to an MNT based on FAME then must attach affidavit of merit if grounded upon it MENDOZA CF.YAP if MR not equivalent to MNT then affidavit

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


LLANTERO no MR if wrong docket number therefore final and executory PCIB- CF. YAP AND MENDOZA LACSAMANA- cf.NEYPES (MNT, NOTICE, AND MR)- cannot extend

Rule 38-Relief from Judgment Orders, Pleadings. EXTRAORDINARY APPEAL FIRST STEP- TIMELINESS Find out receipt KNOWLEDGE and ENTRY Interlocutory in nature- not subject to appeal DEMETRIOU CF. 47 extrinisic fraud outside litigation (36,37,47) intrinsic fraud within Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent (Macabingkil vs. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, 72 SCRA 326 cited in Canlas vs. CA, 164 SCRA 160). On the other hand, intrinsic fraud takes the form of "acts of a party in a litigation during the trial such as the use of forged or false document or perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case" (Libudan vs. Gil, 45 SCRA 17). ARCILLA unextendable and uninterruptible IBABAO- when party has other remedies do it not relief ie Petition for Relief cant revive lost appeal MARASIGAN- CAN APPLY TO WRITS QUELNAN- LEARN DOES NOT MEAN READ CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE DELACRUZ V ANDRES AND PURCON- relief does not apply to CA nor SC- any court refers to MTC/RTC because CA- no rule of filing SC not trier of facts Maam- 41 then not final and executory; if 65- then not appeal Rule 39- Execution. Satisfaction and Effects of Judgments Jurisdiction lost- if appeal perfected and transmitted Writ - judicial process authorising an officer to execute a judgment FINAL DISPOSES OF THE CASE ON MERITS FINAL AND EXECUTORY- DECIDED ON MERITS AND REGLEMENTARY PERIOD HAD LAPSED

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


REMEDY IF WRIT IS DIFFERENT FROM DISPOSITIVE (VOID) = QUASH THE WRIT GENERAL RULE CANNOT ENFORCE WRIT AGAINST INTERLOCUTORY EXCEPTION SUPPORT AND IRA (INJUNCTION, RECEIVERSHIP, ACCOUNTING). CANNOT BE STAYED IF MATTER OF RIGHT. 6- 5 YEARS THEN REVIVAL YEARS NOT YEARS BUT 365 DAYS TUBALLA - Principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications- the only exceptions to the rule that final judgments may no longer be modified in any respect are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments. JBL V CA- CA CANNOT ISSUE WRIT ON ITS OWN JUDGMENT KATON 41 PELLEJO- CANT ISSUE WRIT IF NOT ON MERITS 2ND CASE- equity + mandatory injunction is granted only on a showing that (a) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (b) the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages. CITY OF MANILA - Difference between final judgment and one that has become final and executory CF. INVESTMENTS, INC- final judgment becomes executory as a matter of right when the law explicitly provides- upon lapse of reglementary period then entitled to writ of execution ENRIQUEZ - revival not retrial CORDERO CAN FILE AT TC PROVIDED COURT HAS JURISDICTION-1) BEFORE REGLEMENTARY 2) NOT YET TRASNMITTED 3)COMPELLING LUZON deemed abandoned BY 2ND RAISE LACHES

FIESTAN- 39 applies to ordinary execution sale, 69 if judicial sale, ej foreclosure sale 3135 as amended by 4118 REPUBLIC- DILATORY MOVES STAYS THE PERIOD 7- IF DEATH BEFORE LEVY INVOLVING A SUM OF MONEY CF. 3(16,20) FILE AGAINST ESTATE! MOSLEM- REFUSAL TO LEAVE NOT A GROUND FOR CONTEMPT BUT IF RETURNS THEN CONTEMPT. REMEDY SHERIFF MUST OUST. IF DEMOLISHMENT, THEN FILE A CASE. IF IMPROVEMENTS,GIVE TIME. ONG TATING- 1. bond does not deprive TC of jurisdiction 2. 3rd party can file affidavit- if denied then separate CF.MARIANO- - cannot be 3rd party stranger contemplated in Rule 39(16) if redounded to the benefit of the family cf. BUADO AND WONG

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


CAMPILO JUDGMENT CREDITOR HAS BETTER RIGHT because at time of levy (retroactive) the title was still with debtor not having registered the same If attached then purchaser gets rights at time of attachment If levy then rights retroacts to time to levy If personal certificate of sale CERTIFICATE OF SALE MUST BE ANOTATED TO THE TCT FOR THE RUNNING OF REDEMPTION PERIOD TO BEGIN REDEMPTION ONLY APPLIES TO REAL PALICTE V REMOLETE cf. MAGNO AND 39 (27)- heirs,assignees BUT settle estate first

SOLAR- option to choose before levy not upon or after FORTUNADO- TENDER OF CHECK TO SUFFICIENT COMPEL REDEMPTION- when tender of check and accepted equals exercise right of redemption but doesnt absolve of payment TOLENTINO- redemption does not create debtor/creditor redemptioner cant be compelled to make redemption BACOS- affidavit must be proof of ownership CF. TERCERIA NAGUIAT- modes of 3rd party claimants exclusive and cumulative NAPOCOR- 39(39) ALLOWED IF ADMITTED APPLY (36) BUT IF DEBT DENIED THEN CAN- APPLY 43- SEPARATE ACTION JUDGMENT CREDITOR CANT LEVY REDEMPTION RIGHT BUT THIRD PARTY CANPOLICARPIO- ej sale, foreclosure, and judicial sale MINISTERIAL TO ISSUE WRIT OF POSSESSION exception 3 rd party Cf. RETROACTIVITY TO LEVY. CF. DEED OF CONVEYANCE- opertates as a transfer to rights debtor to purchaser CERTIFICATE OF SALE- memoranda of fact there was a sale indeed but does not transfer rights to the same CF. GONZALES RES JUDICATA (cf. Valenzuela defintion) CF. BUAN SPEAKS OF 1) BAR AND 2)CONCLUSIVE- TEST IS EVIDENCE IF PRESENTED (MORE IMPORTANT THAN REQUIREMENTS)F OROPEZA- APPLY CONCLUSIVE OF JUDGMENT NOT IDENTITY OF THE SAME PARTIES PER SE BUT INTEREST AND BUT NO IDENTITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION PER SE

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


PHILHEALTH- MINUTE RESOLUTION (CIR V BAIER)- GENERAL RULE YES BUT NOT RES JUDICATA IF IT INVOLVES DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS Cf. 48 petition for FOREIGN enforcement NORTHWEST RULES OF PROCEDURE DEPENDS ON THE FORI; BURDEN ON DEFENDANT THAT LEX FORI REGARDING PROCEDURE WASNT FOLLOWED alternatively procesual presumption applies- DFA THEN PROPERLY SERVED 1) NO NEED TO TRY AGAIN 2)ENJOYS PRESUMPTION ASIAVEST- after participating the cant argue validity the same GARCIA AND BAYOT- NATIONALITY AT TIME DECREE OF DIVORCE OBTAINED DETERMINES THE VALIDITY OF DIVORCE BUT NOT ENOUGH TO PRESENT DIVORCE DECREE BUT MUST ADDUCE DOCUMENTS-DULY AUTHENTICATED, PUBLICATION CF. 132, LEGAL EFFECTS (IE WHAT TYPE OF DIVORCE), ETC. ROEHR- cant claim res judicata TENUOUS because must be given opportunity to assail further determine legal effects thereof MIJARES V RANADA- petition to enforce foreign judgment incapable of pecuniary AVIATION SERVICES- FOREIGN JUDGMENT MERELY PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF A RIGHT

Rule 40 Appeal from MTC to RTC Ordinary appeal is an appeal from a judgment/final order on questions of fact and law Can be both appellant and appellee if both appeal (CF. cannot file extension compared to review) Steps file a notice of appeal with court of origin -parties, judgment (CTC), material dates -serves copy In case of SP- file the record with same court Record contains a) full names b) judgment c) chornological order of copies of pleasdings, motions, and all interlocutory d) data showing timeliness e) issue of fact raised and the evidence (if exceeds 20 pages add a subject index) and f) serve copy OA Matter of right All records are elevated form court of origin

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


PR Discretionary If RTC acting in appellate file with CA

When perfected upon filing of notice in due time By record on appeal due time Effects- lose jurisdiction (dependent on party who files- would not deprive the other party) prior to the transmittal may issue injunctive .protective , approve compromise not subject of appeal, permit appeals of indigent, (RESIDUAL) DOCKET FEES AND OTHER LAWFUL- with clerk of court of origin, full and non payment is ground for the outright 40(8)- appeal from dismissing case without trial on merits but on the lack of jurisdiction on SM -RTC may affirm or reverse -if court of origin without trial on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter RTC affirms and has jurisdiction try on the merits. RTCreverses remand -if court tried the case on merits without jurisdiction over SM RTC affirms- dismissal is proper RTC reveses- shall decide without prejudice Failure to perfect appeal- if failed to perfect due to fame and appeal is dismissed 38 if denied 65.

MCBURNIE- FILING OF BOND IS MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL AS APPEAL IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT but A MERE STATUTORY PRIVELEGE FRANCISCO- memorandum must contain conclusion in facts and of law and must be direct not remote. CASOLITA- furnish other party notice of appeal- lack of same will not CASALLA- CANT APPEAL MR OR MNT ENRIQUEZ- brief is mandatory non compliance is a ground for dismissal RULE 41-APPEAL FROM RTC DIFFERENT MODES OF APPEALOA Orginal, notice or record, pay fees, give copy to adverse party, within 15 days

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


PR MTC, verified petition, pay fess with CA, furnish RTC and adverse with a copy, 15 days RC Law, verified petition with SC, pay fees, submit proof of service copy to lower court and adverse, 15 WHAT CANNOT BE APPEALED- WE PAID Without prejudice Execution Pending Appeal Denials Period to appeal interrupted by timely MR or MNT (extension of time not allowed) CF. NEYPES MAKATI INSURANCE- FJ on that finally disposes of a case (adjudication on the merits) CF. NEYPES (40, 42, 43, 45) When perfected as to the party upon filing as to court 1) filing 2) expiration of period (thus may act upon motions) CANT WITHDRAW NOTICE OF APPEAL in order to revive jurisdiction of the court and file MR and NT In notice- loses j over case In record- loses j over sub TUBALLA finality immutable and unalterable clerical, nunc pro tunc, void SILVERIO- omnibus is interloctury ABEDES- 65 not a substitute for modes of appeal (maam 65- facts and law) LAZARO- failure to pay docket is a gorund exception in the interest of substantial but must have basis RP summary not special different therefore summary and therefore does not require a record ELEPANTE- TIMELINESS IS MANDATORY SESBRENO AND COSMOS- DOUBT DICHOTOMY AND APPLICATION/CALIBRATION DICHOTOMY OBANDO- prohibited MRs will not toll ORO- notice of appeal directed on the orginal order not resolution denying MR HUFANA- ISSUES NOT RAISED CANNOT BE TAKEN ON APPEAL AND NO MODIFCATION OF JUDGMENT COULD BE GRANTED TO PARTY WHO DID NOT APPEAL COSMOS- CONCLUSIVE FINALITY -defined as the comity that courts extend to executive branch and defer to findings of fact GREAT RESPECT AND FINALITY (PHILIPPINES) -defined as the recognition of the administrative agencies expertise

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


-SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RP v LURIZ- notice of appeal 15 days. with court that rendered disputed order, pay within same period = perfection PNB v CORDOVA- FILING A TIMELY FIRST NOTICE OF APPEAL MAKES APPEAL PERFECT (no need for 2 nd) MATEO- automatic appeal in death go to CA/if life/ reclusion perpetua file to notice of appeal and go to CA first (CF. ABON) RULE 42 CANTON- MUST ATTACH CTC COPIES OF COMPLAINT RULE 43 CTA- CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY CA (CF RA 1125) NLRC- 65- CERTIORARI WITH CA RA 8799- CA 43 RESOLOUTIONS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- CANNOT BE APPEALED UNDER THIS RULE Do not implead respondent tribunal in ordinary appeal/petition for review ONLY IN CERTIORARI SANTOS- DOJ IS NOT QJ 43 INAPPLICABLE GONZALEZ AND JARO- CTC REFERS TO DECISION NOT PLEADINGS. General rule MARICALUM- reversal only affects those appeal EXCEPTION- INSEPARABILITY (community in interest) RULE 44 BUCAD- appellants brief must contain statement of facts and assignment of errors LIANGA- general rule cannot change theory on appeal EXCEPT where the factual basis thereof would not require further presentation of evidence DEL ROSARIO- cant change theory jurisdiction, plain error, jurisprudential developments, theory) VINA- 45 CIVIL, 30 CRIM BELGIUM- general rule appellants brief is mandatory and non-compliance thereof is a ground but same is discretionary and not automatic thus allowing the court to admit appeal provide 1)warrant liberality 2)equity 3)no injury 4)no prejudice 5) delay reasonable 6)inadvertence BDO- law of the case opinion delivered on former appeal RULE 45 (Cf. 42,45 discretionary, do not implead court, 15 days, etc.)- ONLY LAW exceptions speculations, inference made is mistaken, grave abuse in appreciation, ETC CONEJOS- 65 CANT BE USED AS SUBSTITUTE AS LOST APPEAL PEOPLE V CA- 45 ERROS OF JUDGMENT 65- JURISDCITION OAMINAL- EXCEPTION TREATED AS SUBSTITUTE RP VCA DOES NOT REQUIRE EVALUTATION OF PROOF BUT APPLICABLE

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


RULE 46- cpm and quo warranto GOZON- CA CAN STILL BE A TRIER OF FACTS (ALLOWED TO EVIDENCE) MENDOZA- pay docket fees RULE 47-ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT OF FINAL ORDERS GROUNDS 1. EXTRINSIC 4 years 2. LACK OF JURISDICTION- before laches.estoppel 3. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS (JURISPRUDNCE) 2 stages prima facie merit/ issuance of summonses. Precondition-WHY YOU DIDNT AVAIL OF OTHER REMEDIES AND SAME IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIM IF MTC FILED RTC IF RTC FILE WITH CA IF CA HOWEVER CANT ANNUL BY SC ANURAN PARTY MUST BE ORIGINAL UNDER 47 DEMETIROU DIFFFERENCE BETWEEN EX AND INTRINSIC FRAUD ANCHETA- MUST EXPLAIN WHY DID NOT AVAIL OF OTHER RAMOS- ANULMENT MUST BE TIMELY SPRINGFIELD- RTC CANT ANNUL DARAB SIAN-: 2 grounds- fraud + jurisdiction that will equate to denial of dp. CF. 3(19) transfer in interest LLAMS-47 CANT APPLY IN CRIMINAL RULE 48 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Difference is that can be availed in original and appellate exercise. RULE 49 ORAL ARGUMENTS Motions in CA and SC do not contain a notice of hearing as no oral arguments will be heard in support thereof but adverse party may file objections to the motion- hearing on the motion is discretionary RULE 50 DISMISSAL OF APPEALS Wrong mode = dismissal (HOEY- when both appealed, defendant SC law, plaintiff CA must remand to CA) Better raise the mode Matter of right- any time before filing (filing in court not service) of appellees brief By motion- once an appellees brief has been filed RULE 51 JUDGMENT WHILE THE SC CAN BE A TRIER OF FACTS (AS ALLOWED BY LAW) BUT CANNOT RECEIVE EVIDENCE

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


DATE OF ENTRY IS DATE WHEN IT BECOMES EXECUTORY LIMKAICHONG- TRUE DECISION 1) SIGNED AND 2)PROMULGATED (BEFORE CAN BE CHANGED) GO- CF. TRANS-CO- that a party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal. VISAYAN herein did not appeal the dismissal of 3 rd party complaint against petitioners. By the same reasoning, respondent court could not have acquired jurisdiction over petitioners. CF.ORION- inapplicable as petitioners were not judgment co-debtors as contemplated in the case- when the obligation is solidary allowed but not when 3rd party complaint. NATALIA-CF. RULE 51 (11) if immediately executory no need for entry and the records to be remanded CABALQUINTO- in relation to the requirements RA 7610 and 9262 dont publish names of victims or any other information that may establish RULE 52 MR *NEED NOT NOTICE FOR HEARING WHEN BEFORE CA AND SCA RULE 53 MNT ANYTIME AFTER APPEAL HAS BEEN PERFECTED AND BEFORE THE CA LOSES JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE GROUND NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND DESPITE DUE DILIGENCE AND OF CHARACTER THAT WOULD CHANGE RESULT CA- MAY RECEIVE MONTINOLA- affidavit must substantially comply otherwise pro-forma = merely corroborative not allowed. NAVARRO- newly discovered evidence must comply with requirements CUENCA- REGALADOS OBSERVATION- SC not a trier of facts hence MNT in Civil Cases should not reach SC- criminal case acquitted RULE 54+55 INTERNAL RULE 56 PROCEDURE SC cant take cognizance of MNT as not trier of facts CA rules applicable to SC 46,48. 49, 51 , 52 FIRESTONE- Circular No. 2-89- when first referred, motion was still in 3rd Division, who then denied the same. To which, it was then decided the same be en banc- valid exercise of residual power (#9 of the circular, supra). 2. SUMILAO- inapplicable MR already denied. 3. The conclusions of the SC in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the decision. General rule: All inferior courts can grant all appropriate provisional remedy provided main action is in their jurisdiction EXCEPTION- support pendent lite is the main action is within the jurisdiction of RTC

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


PA and WPI- anytime before judgment Receivership- may be availed at any stage even after final judgment A writ of replevin- must be availed of before the defendant files his answer Support pendent lite- anytie during appeal RULE 57 PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT (CF. 3rd person) Purpose- seize property of the debtor in advance of final judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive seizure of property in the instances that summons on the creditor can not be affected CF. SANTOS V PNOC- no difference anymore between accions in personam and rem. INSOLVENCY IS NOT GROUND Affidavit- applicant must personally know the facts and sufficient cause of action exists Bond- determined by the court (summons, complaint, order granting the write, copy of bond, and notice) DAVAO- 1. CA wrong- jurisdiction over person different from jurisdiction over the res/subject matter. CF. Rule 57- any time after the commencement of the action or thereafter 2. CF. TOLEDO- no need for hearing- discretion of the court MANGILA- CF. DAVAO and Rule 57- discretion of court and any time however 3 stages (order grant, issuance, implementation)- 3rd stage must have acquired jurisdiction over person 57 (4 and 5) Effects of attachment right acquired is of execution proper MINDANAO- NO NEED FOR NOTICE AND ONCE FILED COUNTERBOND CAN ADLAWAN AND PBC- FRAUD MUST BE SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED+STATE THE FACTS CALDERON-WHEN MALICIOUSLY ACQUIRED DAMAGES WEE+FOUNDATIONS-FRAUD MUST BE ALLEGED CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM ALLEGATIONS AND MERE FAILURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT LEELIN- APPLICANTS BOND DIFFRENT READ 57 (20). UY v CA- definition of PA CF. GALANG- while writ of attachment can be availed during the appeal phase, even without notice or hearing, the same must be substantiated by the judgment. RULE 66- QUO WARRANTO CAMPOS- ONLY PARTIES ENTITLED TO SISON- 1 YEAR

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


MUNICIPALITY V MENDEZ- Noteworthy is Section 16, Rule 16, of the Rules of Court which sets a five-year limitation for filing aquo warranto action if its purpose is to bring about the "forfeiture of charter" of a corporation, that period to be counted from the time "the act complained of was done or committed The special civil action of quo warranto is a "prerogative writ by which the Government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise." 13 When the inquiry is focused on the legal existence of a body politic, the action is reserved to the State in a proceeding for quo warranto or any other credit proceeding. 14 It must be brought "in the name of the Republic of the Philippines" 15 and commenced by the Solicitor General or the fiscal "when directed by the President of the Philippines . . . ." 16 Such officers may, under certain circumstances, bring such an action "at the request and upon the relation of another person" with the permission of the court. 17 The Rules of Court also allows an individual to commence an action for quo warranto in his own name but this initiative can be done when he claims to be "entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another." 18 While the quo warranto proceedings filed below by petitioner municipality has so named only the officials of the Municipality of San Andres as respondents, it is virtually, however, a denunciation of the authority of the Municipality or Municipal District of San Andres to exist and to act in that capacity.

RULE 67-EXPROPRIATION 1. FILING 2. APPEAL+30 days capable of multiple appeal ARELLANO CF. MANILA V CHINESE COMMUNITY- requirement private land+public necessity EPZA- just compensation is a judicial function (commissioner) ROBEM- defect in verification allowed what is important is body LINTAG- just compensation determined at time of taking/filling of complaint PHIL-VILLE- 2 stages determination of authority/just compensation- payment determines transfer FAR-EAST- requirements for writ 1) filing 2)due notice 3)payment 4)proof of funds SOLAMAR- courts cant reclassify RULE 68- FORECLOSURE GSIS- not a banking institution CRUZ- waived ROXAS- failure to publish auction sale= jurisdictional defect TIGLAO- notice for confirmation 1)opposed 2) cut off KHO- DURING AND AFTER purchase entitled to writ. RULE 69- PARTITION Multiple appeal Allegations required- nature and extent of his title, adequate description of the real estate, and defendants 2 kinds- voluntarily by the parties/ compulsory Accion in rem Partition does not prescribe- because one cannot be forced to be owner- exception acquisitive prescription. It is definitive. It is an appealable judgment Why: because it decides rights. DECIDE OWNERSHIP FIRST Commissioner- only duty to effect partition Must be recorded in proper civil registry

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


ROQUE- partion 2- An action for partition-which is typically brought by a person claiming to be co-owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff recognizes to be co-owners may be seen to present simultaneously two principal issues. First, there is the issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned. Second, assuming that the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first issue, there is the secondary issue of how the property is to be divided between plaintiff and defendant(s) i.e., what portion should go to which co-owner. Should the trial court find that the defendants do not dispute the status of the plaintiff as co-owner, the court can forthwith proceed to the actual partitioning of the property involved. In case the defendants assert in their Answer exclusive title in themselves adversely to the plaintiff, the court should not dismiss the plaintiffs action for partition but, on the contrary and in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, resolve the question of whether the plaintiff is co-owner or not. Should the trial court find that the plaintiff was unable to sustain his claimed status as co-owner, or that the defendants are or have become the sole and exclusive owners of the property involved, the court will necessarily have to dismiss the action for partition. This result would be reached, not because the wrong action was commenced by the plaintiff, but rather because the plaintiff having been unable to show co-ownership rights in himself, no basis exists for requiring the defendants to submit to partition the property at stake. If, upon the other hand, the court after trial should find the eidstence of co-ownership among the parties litigant, the court may and should order the partition of the property in the same action. Judgment for one or the other party being on the merits, the losing party (respondents in this case) may then appeal the same. In either case, however, it is quite unnecessary to require the plaintiff to file another action, separate and independent from that for partition originally instituted. Functionally, an action for partition may be seen to be at once an action for declaration of coownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the property involved. This is the import of our jurisprudence on the matter. 12 and is sustained by the public policy which abhors multiplicity of actions. FABRICA While it is true that the complaint is one for partition, it is one which is premised on the resolution of the issue on the validity of the oral partition allegedly made in favor of defendants and the two deeds of conveyance executed in the names of the heirs of the deceased spouses Catalino Bas and Cristeta Niebres. Unless this issue of ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties. Thus, when the trial court rendered its judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, rejecting defendants' claim of exclusive ownership of the properties by oral partition, it rendered a final or definitive judgment on the merits from which the party adversely affected can make an appeal. (See Miranda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 71 SCRA 295 and Valdez v. Bagaso, 82 SCRA 22, superseding the principles enunciated in Zaldariaga vs. Enriquez, 1 SCRA 1188.). We held in the Valdez case that... Contrary to the holding of the Appellate Court, the decision of the trial court declaring null the aforesaid conveyances and granting recovery of the properties for the purpose of ordering their partition is a definitive judgment because it decided the rights of the parties upon the issue submitted. It was not, therefore, an interlocutory order. AUSTRIA There are two stages in every action for partition. The first phase is the determination of whether a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper, i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed, and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. This phase may end either: (a) with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because a co-ownership does not exist, or partition is legally prohibited; or (b) with a determination that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is proper in the premises, and an accounting of rents and profits received by the defendant from the real estate in question is in order. In the latter case, the parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon.12 The second phase commences when it appears that the parties are unable to agree upon the partition directed by the court. In that event, partition shall be done for the parties by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. This second stage may well also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself and its approval by the court after the parties have been accorded opportunity to be heard thereon, and an award for the recovery by the party or parties thereto entitled of their just share in the rents and profits of the real estate in question.13 The proceedings in this case have only reached the first phase. It must be mentioned as an aside that even if the order decreeing partition leaves something more to be done by the trial court for the complete disposition of the case, i.e., the appointment of commissioners, the proceedings for the determination of just compensation by the appointed commissioners, the submission of their reports and hearing thereon, and the approval of the partition, it is considered a final order and may be appealed by the party aggrieved there

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


RULE 71-CONTEMPT Contumacious acts- 1) committed in the presence of or near a court 2) includes disrespect towards the court 3)offensive personalities towards each other Civil contempt-protect and enforce civil rights of litigants cf. criminal contempt- directed against authority Because of punitive action evidentiary rules in criminal actions are applicable (reasonable doubt) Direct contempt unappealable- may not appeal remedy is certiorari or prohibition in extreme cases HC general rule can not be simultaneous Because of bond can be abated and special civil action maam- no need for TRO INDIRECT contempt- CHARGE IN WRITING OR AN ORDER and HEARING /OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD A CONTEMPT CHARGE not required to file an answer- original complaint Can be consolidated before same judge V, nfs, docket fees- signatory If SC- file with RTC/CA General Rule- where IC was committed. Exception- inferior court (MTC) , SC- file RTC because SC-is not a trier of facts, SC however may take cognizance of the same given the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor 15 days from promulgation Appealed judgment reversing contempt cannot be appealable- dj only in criminal ANG V CASTRO (cpm) indirect contempt must be charged- pleading used before another court is indirect but the same pleading is submitted before the same judge- direct PEOPLE V TORIO- failure to appear in required hearing can be cited in indirect contempt and indirect cant be summarily done PASCUA V SIMEON-The proper procedure if the petitioners refuse to deliver possession of the lands is not for the court to cite them for contempt but for the sheriff to dispossess them of the premises and deliver the possession thereof to the respondents. However, if subsequent to such dispossesion., petitioners enter into or upon the properties for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession or in any manner disturb the possession of respondents, then and only then may they be charged with and punished for contempt (MOSLEM) TACARDON V ANG the case at bar involves the interplay of two (2) related powers: this Court's inherent powers to (a) discipline attorneys administratively and (b) punish them for contempt In Ante vs. Pascua[5] this Court held that contemptuous statements made in the pleadings filed with the court constitute direct contempt. This is a reiteration of our ruling in Ang vs. Castro,[6] declaring that if the pleading containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements is submitted in the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt because it is equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. REGALADO V CA- IC- motu propio and verified petition- if initiated by private individual must comply with v, nfs and docket fees. ARRIOLA V ARRIOLA- cf. REGALADO RULE 70- FE AND UD- EITHER OR (BUENAVENTURA) FE not equal UD1. illegal- FITSS, legal 2. no demand, demand to vacate and pay 3. must prove prior physical possession, need not prove 4. generally counted from the actual entry, one year period counted of last demand = WHAT DETERMINES COA IS ENTRY ON LAND (COUNTER FE IS COMPULSORY)

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010


if the manner is not alleged then it becomes publiciana, despite being within 1 year, and must be filed with RTC when it becomes AP/AR -failure to aver facts constitutive of FE and UD - when defendant is lessee of predecessor in interest LITIS: if tenant files with RTC an action to compel the landlord to agree to an extension (incapable of pecuniary estimation) and lessor filed UD with MTC, RTC should dismiss RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE applies only in MTC but not with RTC hence MR may bef filed with RTC Art. 539 General rule cant MTC can award damages (rentals and fair market value) beyond limit in ordinary However atty fees are allowed DOES NOT APPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS WHERE DAMAGES MUST BE WITHIN JURISDICTION (AGUSTIN V bacalan) GENERAL RULE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY- perfect an appeal, file supersedeas bond, deposit amount rue due time Execution pending appeal 70(8) not 39(2) as good reasons are immaterial Cf, 39(d)- observance BEJAR- fe, ud, ap, ar FRANCEL- HLURB has jurisdiction when issue BUENEVANTURA- difference between fe and ud, NON- VERIFICATION IS FORMAL JAVIER- different COA so not a bar BAENS- damages are not a bar AZCUNA- LIQUIDATED ALLOWED IF STIPULATED PENAS- last demand LIM also allowed to defendant lessee or tenant CLUTARIO- back rentals did not constitute waiver as twofold- payment and demand CURSINO-failure to accept/collect rent not a defence- REMEDY CONSIGNATION BANDOY- must allege- demand is what confers jurisdiction PERAN- tolerance is lawful but this becomes illegal when demand is made ONCE-NO BOND NECESSARY WHEN NO BACK RENTALS RACAZA- no demand is necessary when action is to terminate the lease because of the expiration of the same (BUT STILL MUST WRITE LETTER) SAN MANUEL- 3 requirements are not exclusive failure to do one will result in execution VDA DE AMPIL- in absence of contract1st ten days CITY OF MANILA- lessee must still pay even lessor appeals SAN PEDRO V CA- judgments favourable to plaintiff are immediately executory (as opposed to defendant not immediately executory as he has possession) SUNFLOWER- general rule accion in personam and binding only on parties but becomes binding even if not impleaded if is: (a) a trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) a transferee pendente lite; (d) a sublessee; (e) a co-lessee or (f) a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant

The Prodigys CIVPRO Case Doctrines-JUST SCRAP! 2010