LICUANAN, APPLE JADE S.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

I. INTERVENTION
- It is a legal proceeding by which a third person is permitted by the court to become a party by
intervening in a pending action after meeting the conditions and requirement set by the Rules
of Court. This person who intervenes is one who is not originally impleaded in the action.

The requisites for intervention are:

1. Legal interest in the matter in controversy; or

2. Legal interest in the success of either of the parties; or
3. Legal interest against both; or
4. So situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in
the custody of the court or of an officer thereof.
5. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of original
parties; and
6. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 19)

Illegal intervention cases

1. Office of The Ombudsman vs. Maximo D. Sison

Facts: The letter-complaint stemmed from the audit investigation dated August 13, 2004
conducted by the Legal and Adjudication Office (LAO), Commission on Audit (COA), which
found, among others, that various purchases totaling PhP 29.34 million went without proper
bidding procedures... and documentations; that calamity funds were expended without a State
of Calamity having been declared by the President; and that purchases for rice, medicines,
electric fans, and cement were substantially overpriced.

In ruling thus, the CA held that the Office of the Ombudsman failed to adduce substantial
evidence in order to convict Sison.

On July 22, 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion for Intervention and
to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the CA

Issue: Whether Office of the Ombudsman may be allowed to intervene and seek
reconsideration of the adverse decision rendered by the Court of Appeals

Held: No. It is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance of a Motion to Intervene is

addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
The government party that can appeal is not the disciplining authority or tribunal which
previously heard the case and imposed the penalty of demotion or dismissal from the service.

The government party appealing must be the one that is prosecuting the administrative case
against the respondent.

No intervention is permitted after a decision has already been rendered.

2. Lincoln L. Yao vs. Hon. Judge Norma C. Perello, et al.,

FACTS: The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued a writ of execution for the
satisfaction of its judgment in favor of petitioner and against PR Builders, Inc. and its managers,
which included Pablito Villarin, private respondent’s husband. Pursuant to the writ, the deputy
sheriff levied on a parcel of land registered in the names of spouses Villarin and the property
was scheduled for public auction. Private respondent filed a petition for prohibition alleging
that the subject property could not be levied on to answer for the separate liability of her
husband. The trial court granted the petition and exempted the subject property from
execution. Hence, the scheduled auction sale did not materialize. Consequently, petitioner filed
a motion for intervention, but the same was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not lower Court grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for
intervention on the ground that the same was filed late.

HELD: NO. Petitioner’s claim that he had the right to intervene is without basis. Nothing in the
said provision requires the inclusion of a private party as respondent in petitions for
prohibition. On the other hand, to allow intervention, it must be shown that (a) the movant has
a legal interest in the matter in litigation or otherwise qualified, and (b) consideration must be
given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or
prejudiced, or whether the intervenor’s rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or
not. Both requirements must concur as the first is not more important than the second.
Moreover, even granting for the sake of argument that petitioner indeed had the right to
intervene, he must exercise said right in accordance with the rules and within the period
prescribed therefor.

As provided in the Rules of Court, the motion for intervention may be filed at any time before
rendition of judgment by the trial court, in this case Petitioner filed his motion way beyond the
period set forth in the rules.

3. May D. Añonuevo, et al. vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni,

Facts: Rodolfo G. Jalandoni (Rodolfo) died intestate Bernardino G. Jalandoni (Bernardino), the
brother of Rodolfo, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration... to commence
the judicial settlement of the latter's... estate... the petitioners and their siblings filed a
Manifestation[11] before the intestate court. In the Manifestation, they introduced themselves
as the children of Sylvia Blee Desantis (Sylvia)--who, in turn, was revealed to be the... daughter
of Isabel Blee (Isabel) with one John Desantis.

petitioners and their siblings contend that their grandmother--Isabel--was, at the time of
Rodolfo's death, the legal spouse of the latter.[13] For which reason, Isabel is entitled to a
share in the estate of Rodolfo.

Seeking to enforce the right of Isabel, the petitioners and their siblings pray that they be
allowed to intervene on her behalf in the intestate proceedings of the late Rodolfo G. Jalandoni.

To support their cause, the petitioners and their siblings appended in their Manifestation, the
following documents:... a.) Two (2) marriage certificates between Isabel and Rodolfo;[16]... b.)
The birth certificate of their mother, Sylvia;[17] and... c.) Their respective proof of births.[18]

The respondent intestate estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni, now represented by Bernardino as its
Special Administrator, however, begged to differ. It opposed the intervention on the ground
that the petitioners and their siblings have failed to establish the status of Isabel... as an heir of
Rodolfo. The very evidence presented by the petitioners and their siblings showed that Isabel
had a previous and subsisting marriage with John Desantis at the time she was purportedly
married to Rodolfo.

As it turned out, the record of birth of Sylvia states that she was... a "legitimate" child of Isabel
and John Desantis.

The document also certifies the status of both Isabel and John Desantis as "married."

The respondent posits that the foregoing entries, having been... made in an official registry,
constitute prima facie proof of a prior marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.

According to the respondent, Isabel's previous marriage, in the absence of any proof that it was
dissolved, made her subsequent marriage with Rodolfo bigamous and void ab initio.

Issues: whether the Court of Appeals erred when it nullified the orders of the intestate court
allowing the petitioners and their siblings to intervene in the settlement proceedings.

Ruling: petitioners and their siblings failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that Isabel
was the legal spouse of Rodolfo. The very evidence of... the petitioners and their siblings
negates their claim that Isabel has interest in Rodolfo's estate.

the existence of a previous marriage between Isabel and John Desantis was adequately
established.
While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not
regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage.[47] Jurisprudence teaches that the
fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other... than the marriage certificate.[48]
Hence, even a person's birth certificate may be recognized as competent evidence of the
marriage between his parents.

birth certificate of Sylvia precisely serves as the competent evidence of marriage between
Isabel and John Desantis. As mentioned earlier, it contains the following notable entries: (a)
that Isabel and John Desantis were "married" and (b)... that Sylvia is their "legitimate" child. In
clear and categorical language, Sylvia's birth certificate speaks of a subsisting marriage between
Isabel and John Desantis.

Ironically, it is the evidence presented by the petitioners and their siblings themselves which,
properly appreciated, supports the finding that Isabel was, indeed, previously married to John
Desantis.

II. WHEN SHOULD A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT BE FILED

General Rule: It should be filed within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint
or pleading asserting a claim (Sec. 1, Rule 16).

Exceptions: Even after an answer has been filed, the defendant can still file a motion to dismiss,
with leave of court, on the following grounds:

1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;

2. Litis pendentia;
3. Res judicata;
4. Prescription of action; or
5. Where evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal is discovered during the trial.

Remedies of plaintiff if complaint is dismissed:

1. If the dismissal is without prejudice - the plaintiff may re-file the complaint.
2. If the dismissal is with prejudice - the plaintiff may file an appeal (Riano, 2014).

Remedy of defendant when the motion is denied:

File an answer within the balance of the period to which he was entitled at the time of serving
his motion, but not less than five days in any event. If the pleading is ordered to be amended,
he shall file his answer within the period prescribed, unless the court provides a longer period.
If decision is adverse, appeal therefrom and raise as error the denial of the motion to dismiss.
(Sec. 4, Rule 16). Where the judgment or final order is no appealable, Rule 41 declares that “the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. The remedy would,
therefore, be certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, whichever is proper under the
circumstances. This remedy must be predicated upon an allegation that the denial of the
motion was tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In case the
remedy chosen is mandamus, there must be a showing that the court unlawfully neglected the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins (Riano, 2014).

Cases on Motion to dismiss:

1. Sps. Francisco and Amparo De Guzman vs. Cesar Ochoa

An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates the
case nor finally disposes of it, as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is
finally decided on the merits.

The general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special
civil action for certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not
errors of judgment.

An order denying a motion to dismiss may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by
an appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be followed in such cases is
to file an answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from
the final judgment.

Only in exceptional cases where the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion that the Court allows the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. By "grave
abuse of discretion," we mean such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

2. ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS v. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN**, GR No. 197380, 2014-

10-08

Facts: petitioner Eliza Zuñiga-Santos (petitioner), through her authorized representative,

Nympha Z. Sales,[5] filed a Complaint[6] for annulment of sale and revocation of title against
respondents Maria Divina Gracia

Santos-Gran (Gran) and the Register of Deeds of Marikina City before the RTC... petitioner
alleged, among others, that: (a) she was the registered owner of three (3) parcels of land
located in the Municipality of Montalban, Province of Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) Nos.

N-5500,[9] 224174,[10] and N-4234[11] (subject properties) prior to their transfer in the name
of private respondent Gran; (b) she has a second husband by the name of Lamberto C. Santos
(Lamberto), with whom... she did not have any children; (c) she was forced to take care of
Lamberto's alleged daughter, Gran, whose birth certificate was forged to make it appear that
the latter was petitioner's daughter; (d) pursuant to void and voidable documents, i.e., a Deed
of Sale, Lamberto... succeeded in transferring the subject properties in favor of and in the name
of Gran; (e) despite diligent efforts, said Deed of Sale could not be located; and (f) she
discovered that the subject properties were transferred to Gran sometime in November 2005.
Accordingly,... petitioner prayed, inter alia, that Gran surrender to her the subject properties
and pay damages, including costs of suit

For her part, Gran filed a Motion to Dismiss,[13] contending, inter alia, that (a) the action filed
by petitioner had prescribed since an action upon a written contract must be brought within
ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrues,... or in this case, from the time of
registration of the questioned documents before the Registry of Deeds;[14] and (b) the
Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of action as the void and voidable documents
sought to be nullified were not properly... identified nor the substance thereof set forth, thus,
precluding the RTC from rendering a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer to surrender
the subject properties

RTC granted Gran's motion and dismissed the Amended Complaint for its failure to state a
cause of action... the CA sustained the dismissal of petitioner's Amended Complaint

Issues: The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the dismissal of
petitioner's Amended Complaint should be sustained.

Ruling: At once, it is apparent that the CA based its dismissal on an incorrect ground. From the
preceding discussion, it is clear that "insufficiency of factual basis" is not a ground for a motion
to dismiss. Rather, it is a ground which becomes available only after the questions of... fact
have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the
plaintiff. The procedural recourse to raise such ground is a demurrer to evidence taken only
after the plaintiff's presentation of evidence. This parameter is clear under Rule 33 of the

Rules of Court:

RULE 33

Demurrer to Evidence

Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his
evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law
the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the... right to
present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he
shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.

At the preliminary stages of the proceedings, without any presentation of evidence even
conducted, it is perceptibly impossible to assess the insufficiency of the factual basis on which
the plaintiff asserts his cause of action, as in this case. Therefore, that ground could not... be
the basis for the dismissal of the action.

3. FELIZARDO T. GUNTALILIB, vs. AURELIO Y. DELA CRUZ AND SALOME V. DELA CRUZ

Facts: The subject property is Lot 421 located in Nueva Vizcaya consisting of 8,991 square
meters and which, as respondents claimed in their Complaint, was originally registered on
August 7, 1916 as Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 213. Respondent Aurelio's grandfather,
Juan dela Cruz, later acquired the property in 1919, and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. R-
3 was issued in his name; when he passed away, the property was inherited by Aurelio's father,
Leonor, and, in lieu of TCT R-3, TCT 14202 was issued in Leonor's favor. Later on, Leonor
conveyed the property to Aurelio and his brother, Joseph, and TCT T-46087 was then issued in
their favor. In turn, Joseph waived ownership in favor of Aurelio by deed of quitclaim dated
December 31, 2001, in which case a new title, TCT T-126545, was issued in Aurelio's name as
sole owner.

Respondents claimed further that all this time, the dela Cruz family was in full possession,
occupation and enjoyment of the property, and petitioner and his co-heirs have never set foot
on the property; that later on, Lot 421 was subdivided and new titles were issued in lieu of TCT
T-126545; and that Aurelio sold portions thereof to several individuals, but he remains the
registered owner of the remaining portion.

Respondents likewise alleged that on February 20, 2008, petitioner filed in court a petition,
docketed as LRC Case No. 6544 and assigned to the Petitioner and his co-defendants filed a
Motion to DismissCivil Case No. 6975, arguing that the Complaint stated no cause of action;
that the case constituted a collateral attack on their unnumbered OCT; that respondents failed
to implead all the heirs of Bernardo Tumaliuan, who are indispensable parties to the case; and
that the Complaint's verification and certification on non-forum shopping were defective.

Issue: Whether or not the order denying the motion to dismiss is interlocutory

Held: An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and neither terminates nor finally
disposes of a case; it is interlocutory as it leaves something to be done by the court before the
case is finally decided on the merits.

The denial of a motion to dismiss generally cannot be questioned in a special civil action
for certiorari, as this remedy is designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment. Neither can a denial of a motion to dismiss be the subject of an appeal which is
available only after a judgment or order on the merits has been rendered. Only when the denial
of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion can the grant of the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari be justified.
III. DEPOSITION

A deposition is the taking of the testimony of any person, whether he be a party or not, but at
the instance of a party to the action. This testimony is taken out of court.

1. During a pending action (Rule 23) – deposition de benne ess; or

2. Before action or Pending appeal (Rule 24) – deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam.

Uses of depositions
1. Contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness;
2. Any purpose by the adverse party where the deponent is a party; or
3. Any purpose by any party if the court finds that:

a. The witness is dead;

b. The witness resides more than 100 kms. from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
Philippines. Unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the
deposition;
c. The witness is unable to testify because of age, sickness, infirmity or imprisonment;
d. The party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness
by subpoena; or
e. Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it
desirable in the interest of justice. (Sec. 4, Rule 23)

Use of deposition pending appeal

Depositions are taken pending appeal with the view to their being used in the event of further
proceeding in the court of origin or appellate court. (Sec. 7, Rule 24)
NOTE: If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or
delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the depositions to be taken, and thereupon the
depositions may be taken and used in the same manner and under the same conditions as are
prescribed under Rule 23. (Sec. 7, Rule 24)

Cases on Deposition

1. Dasmarinas Garments vs. Hon. Ruben Reyes, 1993

Facts: APL sued Dasmariñas Garments for sum of money at the hearing. Instead of presenting
its witness, APL filed a motion praying that it intended to take the depositions of
some Taiwan nationals. The lower court granted the deposition which was in compliance with
the rules on taking of testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories under ROC. CA
affirmed.
Issue: Whether or not a party could present its evidence by taking the deposition of its witness
in a foreign jurisdiction before a private entity.

Held: Where the deposition is to be taken in a foreign country where the Philippines has no
"secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent," then
obviously it may be taken only" before such person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory.
A commission may be defined as "(a)n instrument issued by a court of justice, or other
competent tribunal, to authorize a person to take depositions, or do any other act by authority
of such court or tribunal."
Letters rogatory, on the other hand, may be defined as "(a)n instrument sent in the name and
by the authority of a judge or court to another, requesting the latter to cause to be examined,
upon interrogatories filed in a cause pending before the former, a witness who is within the
jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters are addressed."

2. Harry L. Go, Tonny Go, Jerry Ngo, and Jane Go vs. People, 2012

Facts: Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC).

The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessman from Laos,
Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend the
hearing held on September 9, 2004. However, trial dates were subsequently postponed due to
his unavailability.

The private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition6 of Li Luen Ping,
alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos,
Cambodia and that, upon doctor's advice, he could not make the long travel to the Philippines
by reason of ill health.

Notwithstanding petitioners' Opposition, the MeTC granted the motion after the prosecution
complied with the directive to submit a Medical Certificate of Li Luen Ping. Petitioners sought
its reconsideration which the MeTC denied, prompting petitioners to file a Petition for
Certiorari before the RTC.

Upon denial by the RTC of their motion for reconsideration through an Order dated March 5,
2006, the prosecution elevated the case to the CA. the CA denied petitioners' motion for
Reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not CA erred in sustaining the judicial legislation committed by the MeTC in
applying the ruled on deposition-taking in civil case to criminal cases
Held: For purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution
witness who would foreseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be
made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required by
the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is in
view of the Constitution which secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the
witness against him face to face.

3. Allied Agri-Business Development Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 1998

Facts: respondent Cherry Valley Farms Limited (CHERRY VALLEY), a foreign company based in
England, filed against petitioner Allied Agri-Business Development Co. Inc. (ALLIED) a complaint
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for collection of sum of money
ALLIED filed an answer[1] denying the material allegations of the complaint
On 19 July 1988, CHERRY VALLEY served on ALLIED's counsel a Request for Admission
ALLIED filed its Comments/Objections[3] alleging that: (a) the admissions requested were
matters which the private respondent had the burden to prove through its own witness during
the trial and thus petitioner need not answer; and, (b) the request... for admission regarding
the ownership set-up of petitioner corporation was immaterial and improper for not having
been pleaded in the complaint.
he trial court issued an Order[5] disregarding ALLIED's Comments/Objections to Request for
Admission in view of its non-compliance with Sec. 2, Rule 26, of the Rules of Court and directing
ALLIED to answer the request for admission... within ten (10) days from receipt of the order,
otherwise, the matters contained in the request would be deemed admitted. ALLIED moved to
reconsider the order; however, on 8 November 1988 the lower court denied[6] ALLIED's motion
for reconsideration and... directed the latter to answer the request for admission within a
nonextendible period of five (5) days from receipt of the order.
ALLIED failed to submit a sworn answer to the request for admission within the additional
period of five (5) days granted by the trial court. Hence, CHERRY VALLEY filed a motion for
summary judgment... the trial court rendered judgment[8] against petitioner... the Court of
Appeals rendered a decision[9] affirming the summary judgment rendered by the trial court
Issues: that the summary judgment was tantamount to a denial of ALLIED's right to due process
for not requiring CHERRY VALLEY to produce its own witness; and, that the admission requested
were matters which CHERRY VALLEY had the burden to prove during the... trial.

Held: Upon service of request for admission, the party served may do any of the following acts:
a. Admit each of the matters of which an admission is requested, in which case, he need not file
an answer;
b. Admit the truth of the matters of which admission is requested by serving upon the party
requesting a written admission of such matters within the period stated in the request, which
must not be less than ten (10) days after service, or within such further time as the court may
allow on motion and notice;
c. File a sworn statement denying specifically the matter which an admission is requested; or,
d. File a sworn statement setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either
admit or deny the matters of which an admission is requested.
Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless
within a period designated in the request which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after
service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to
whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn
statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting
forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
(Section 1, Rule 26)