CIVIL PROCEDURE I

DIGESTED CASES
IV. ACTIONS

1. HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON VS GAUDIOSO

2. PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA, INC VS SCHONFELD
3. SPOUSES DIONISIO VS LINSANGAN
4. BIACO VS PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL
5. SANTOS VS PNOC EXPLORATION CORPORATION
 (1)
HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON VS GAUDIOSO
G.R. No. 198680 July 8, 2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:

On July 29, 2010, petitioners, together with some of their cousins, filed
a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with Damages
against respondent Gaudioso. In their complaint, Magdaleno died
intestate and childless on June 28, 1968, leaving behind properties
which were then covered by Transfer Certificates of Title .Claiming to
be the sole heir of Magdaleno, Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication and caused the cancellation of the aforementioned
certificates of title, leading to their subsequent transfer in his name to
the prejudice of petitioners who are Magdaleno’s collateral relatives
and successors-in-interest.

In his Answer, Gaudioso alleged that he is the lawful son of

Magdaleno adducing evidence to support his claim.

ISSUE:

Whether the determination of legal heirs may be made in an ordinary

suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property.

HELD:

Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal

heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings
in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and
possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for
recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently
ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the
civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in
a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention
or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which
a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then
decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a
special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.

1 |Page
 (2)
FIRST GAS POWER CORPORATION VS REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 169461, September 2, 2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J:

FACTS:
Petitioner sought for the original registration of two parcels of land. No
oppositor appeared during the said hearing except Prosecutor Amelia
Panganiban who appeared in behalf of the Office of the Solicitor
General. Consequently, the RTC issued the corresponding Order of
Special Default and the reception of evidence was delegated to the
Branch Clerk of Court. The RTC granted petitioner’s application for the
registration of the subject lots. Petitioner filed a Manifestation with
Motion, manifesting to the RTC the existence of an LRA Report which
states that the subject lots were previously applied for registration and
were both decided under Cadastral Case No. 37 and, in this regard,
moved that the aforesaid decision be set aside.

RTC issued an Amended Order setting aside any decision affecting

the subject lots in Cad. Case No. 37; and reiterating the issuance of
the corresponding decree of registration in favor of petitioner due to
the finality of the RTC Decision.

Claiming that the RTC’s Amended Order was tainted with grave abuse
of discretion, respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the CA
which annulled and set aside the RTC Decision and Amended Order
as well as the final decree of registration issued in favor of petitioner
over the subject lots.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC
Decision and Amended Order as well as the final decree of registration
issued in favor of petitioner over the subject lots.

HELD:

No. As the CA correctly pointed out, land registration proceedings are

in rem in nature and, hence, by virtue of the publication requirement,
all claimants and occupants of the subject property are deemed to be
notified of the existence of a cadastral case involving the subject
lots. In this regard, petitioner cannot, therefore, take refuge on the lack
of any personal knowledge on its part previous to its application. Case
law dictates that a cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds the
whole world. Under this doctrine, parties are precluded from re-
litigating the same issues already determined by final judgment.

2 |Page
 (3)
SPOUSES DIONISIO VS LINSANGAN
G.R. No. 178159 March 2, 2011
ABAD, J.:

FACTS:
Gorgonio M. Cruz (Cruz) owned agricultural lands. In September 1989
spouses Dionisio bought the property from Cruz. In April 2002, the
Dionisios found out that the property is already occupied by Wilfredo
under the strength of a "Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Karapatan".

The Dionisios wrote Wilfredo demanding that he vacate the land but
the latter declined, prompting the Dionisios to file an eviction
suit against him before the MTC of San Rafael, Bulacan.

At the pre-trial, the Dionisios orally asked leave to amend their

complaint. Despite initial misgivings over the amended complaint,
Wilfredo asked for time to respond to it. The Dionisios filed their
amended complaint on August 5, 2003; Wilfredo maintained his
original answer.

When the complaint reached the CA, it rendered judgment reversing

the decisions of the courts a quo, and ordering the dismissal of the
Dionisios’ action. The CA held that, by amending their complaint, the
Dionisios effectively changed their cause of action from unlawful
detainer to recovery of possession which fell outside the jurisdiction of
the MTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Dionisios’ amendment of their complaint effectively

changed their cause of action from one of ejectment to one of recovery
of possession.

HELD:

An amended complaint that changes the plaintiff’s cause of action is

technically a new complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed
on the date of the filing of such amended pleading, not on the date of
the filing of its original version. Thus, the statute of limitation resumes
its run until it is arrested by the filing of the amended pleading. The
Court acknowledges, however, that an amendment which does not
alter the cause of action but merely supplements or amplifies the facts
previously alleged, does not affect the reckoning date of filing based
on the original complaint. The cause of action, unchanged, is not
barred by the statute of limitations that expired after the filing of the
original complaint.

3 |Page
To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action,
the test is whether such amendment now requires the defendant to
answer for a liability or obligation which is completely different from
that stated in the original complaint. Here, both the original and the
amended complaint required Wilfredo to defend his possession based
on the allegation that he had stayed on the land after Emiliana left out
of the owner’s mere tolerance and that the latter had demanded that
he leave. Indeed, Wilfredo did not find the need to file a new answer.

(4)
BIACO VS PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL
BANK,
G.R. No. 161417 February 8, 2007
TINGA, J.:
FACTS:

Petitioner, Ma. Teresa Chaves Biaco, seeks a review of the Decision[

of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 67489 dated August 27, 2003,
which denied her petition for annulment of judgment, and the
Resolution dated December 15, 2003 which denied her motion for
reconsideration.

Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial Court decision

asserting that the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction because
summons were served on her through her husband without any
explanation as to why personal service could not be made.

ISSUE:
Whether defect in service divest the court of jurisdiction to try the case.

HELD:
The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the
nature of the action, i.e., whether the action is in personam, in
rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14
of the Rules of Court likewise apply according to the nature of the
action.

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of

his personal liability. An action in rem is an action against the thing
itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one
wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
4 |Page
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction
over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under
legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the
power of the court is recognized and made effective

Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for

the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for
satisfying the due process requirements.

In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by

respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court with jurisdiction
over the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in
rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is not required,
it being sufficient that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the
subject matter.

(5)
SANTOS VS PNOC EXPLORATION CORPORATION
G.R. No. 170943 September 23, 2008
CORONA, J.:

FACTS:
On December 23, 2002, respondent PNOC Exploration Corporation
filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Pedro T.
Santos, Jr. in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. Personal service
of summons to petitioner failed because he could not be located in his
last known address despite earnest efforts to do so. Subsequently, on
respondents motion, the trial court allowed service of summons by
publication. When petitioner failed to file his answer within the
prescribed period, respondent moved that the case be set for the
reception of its evidence ex parte which the trial court granted.
Petitioner sought reconsideration alleging defect in service which the
Respondent opposed alleging that it complied with the rules on
service by publication.

ISSUE:

Whether the trial court lack of jurisdiction over his person due to
improper service of summons.

HELD:

Section 14, Rule 14 (on Summons) of the Rules of Court provides:

5 |Page
SEC. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are
unknown. In any action where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are
unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service
may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such
times as the court may order.

Since petitioner could not be personally served with summons despite

diligent efforts to locate his whereabouts, respondent sought and was
granted leave of court to effect service of summons upon him by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, petitioner was
properly served with summons by publication.

Petitioner invokes the distinction between an action in rem and an

action in personam and claims that substituted service may be availed
of only in an action in rem. Petitioner is wrong. The in rem/in
personamdistinction was significant under the old rule because it was
silent as to the kind of action to which the rule was applicable. [
Because of this silence, the Court limited the application of the old rule
to in remactions only.

This has been changed. The present rule expressly states that it
applies [i]n any action where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are
unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. Thus, it now
applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.[

6 |Page