COVER PAGE HERE!

LEAVE THIS PAGE BLANK

 SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE – RECOLETOS, MANILA
SEBASTINIAN COMMISSION FOR
BAR AND ACADEMIC RESEARCH (SCBAR)

REMEDIAL LAW
PRE-WEEK NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a
court.
It is conferred by law and not by the consent or
waiver upon a court. As such, if a court lacks
jurisdiction over an action, it cannot decide the
case on the merits and must dismiss it. (CE
Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc. v.
Province of Nueva Ecija,G.R. No. 196278, June
17, 2015)
Evidence is necessary to prove the allegation of
tenancy. “The principal factor in determining
whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent.
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship
dependent on what the alleged tenant does
upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.” An
allegation of tenancy before the MTC does not
automatically deprive the court of its jurisdiction.
Basic is the rule that the material averments in
the complaint determine the jurisdiction of a
court. A court does not lose jurisdiction over an
ejectment suit by the simple expedient of a
party raising as a defense therein the alleged
existence of a tenancy relationship between the
parties. The court continues to have the
authority to hear and evaluate the evidence,
precisely to determine whether or not it has
jurisdiction, and, if, after hearing, tenancy is
shown to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack
of jurisdiction. (Ofilada v. Sps. Andal, G.R. No.
192270, January 26, 2015)
Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion
to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration.
(Balibago Faith Baptist Church, Inc., v. Faith in
Christ Jesus Baptist Church, Inc., G.R No.
191527, August 22, 2016) Otherwise, the
question of jurisdiction would almost entirely
depend upon the defendant. (City of
Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, 656
SCRA 102)
Q: A filed with the MTC of Manila an action
for specific performance against B, a
resident of Quezon City, to compel the latter
to execute a deed of conveyance covering a
parcel of land situated in Quezon City
having an assessed value of P19,000.00. B
received the summons and a copy of the
Complaint of 02 January 2003. On 10
January 2003, B filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint on the ground that the
subject matter of the suit was incapable of
pecuniary estimation. The court denied the
motion. In due time, B filed with the RTC a
Petition for Certiorari praying that the said
Order be set aside because the MTC has no
jurisdiction over the case. On 13 February
2003, A filed with the MTC a Motion to
declare B in default. The motion was
opposed by B on the ground that his
Petition for Certiorari was still pending.
a. Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint correct?
A: The denial of the Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint was not correct. Although the
assessed value of the parcel of land involved
was P19, 000.00, within the jurisdiction of the
MTC Manila, the action filed by A for Specific
Performance against B to compel the latter to
execute a Deed of Conveyance of said parcel
of land was not capable of pecuniary estimation
and, therefore, the action was within the
jurisdiction of RTC (Russel v. Vestil, supra;
Copioso v. Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, October
28, 2002; Cabutihan v. Landcenter
Construction, G.R. No. 146594, June 10,
2002]).
b. Resolve the Motion to Declare the
Defendant in Default. (1997, 2003, 2012 Bar)
A: The Court could declare B in default
because B did not obtain a writ of preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order from
the RTC prohibiting the judge from proceeding
in the case during the pendency of the petition
for certiorari (Sec. 7 Rule 65; Diaz v. Diaz, G.R.
No. 135885, April 28, 2000).
Jurisdiction over intra-corporate
controversies
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
By virtue of item 5.2 of Sec. 5 of the Securities
Regulation Code (R.A. 8799), jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 of P.D. 902-A,
was transferred from the Securities and
Exchange Commission to the “Courts of
general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional
Trial Court.” The word “or” in item 5.2 was
intentionally used by the legislature to
particularize the fact that the phrase “courts of
general jurisdiction” is equivalent to the phrase,
“the appropriate Regional Trial Court.”
Effect on jurisdiction when an intra-
corporate case is erroneously assigned by
raffle to a regular branch of the Regional
Trial Court
The erroneous raffling of the case to a regular
branch was only a matter of procedure. Having
filed the intra-corporate case with the Office of
the Clerk of Court of the RTC Muntinlupa City,
which is also the official station of the special
commercial court, the court had acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature
of the action upon the filing of the complaint. In
such a scenario, the proper course of action
was not for the commercial case to be
dismissed but to refer the case to the Executive
Judge for re-docketing as a commercia case
and assigning the same to the designated
special commercial court. Docket fees already
paid shall be duly credited, and any excess,
refuneded. (Gonzales v. GJH Land Inc., G.R
No. 202664, November 10, 2015)
Jurisdiction; Habeas corpus in relation to
the custody of a minor
Section 13. Creation of Regional Trial Courts. –
There are hereby created thirteen Regional Trial
Courts, one for each of the following judicial
regions:
The National Capital Judicial Region, consisting of
the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan
and Mandaluyong, and the municipalities of
Navotas, Malabon, San Juan, Makati, Pasig,
Pateros, Taguig, Marikina, Parañaque, Las Piñas,
Muntinlupa, and Valenzuela.
In view of the afore-quoted provision, it is
indubitable that the filing of a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus before a
family court in any of the cities enumerated is
proper as long as the writ is sought to be enforced
within the National Capital Judicial Region, as
here.
In the case at bar, respondent filed the petition
before the family court of Caloocan City. Since
Caloocan City and Quezon City both belong to the
same judicial region, the writ issued by the RTC-
Caloocan can still be implemented in Quezon
City. Whether petitioner resides in the former or
the latter is immaterial in view of the above rule.
(Tujanmilitante vs.Cada-deapera, G.R. no.
210636, July 28, 2014)
Totality Rule
Under the Totality Rule, where there are
several claims or causes of actions between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be
the totality of the claims in all the causes of
actions, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arouse out of the same or different
transactions. (Sec. 331 [1], B.P. 129, as
amended)
Docket Fees
It is hornbook law that courts acquire
jurisdiction over a case only upon payment of
the prescribed docket fee. (Monsato v. Lim,
G.R. No. 178911, September 17, 2014) The
payment of the full amount of docket fees within
the prescribed period is both mandatory and
jurisdictional. Failure to pay the appellate court
the docket fee within the prescribed period
warrants only discretionary, as opposed to
automatic, dismissal of the appeal. (Julian v.
Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
174193, December 7, 2011)
Doctrine of Judicial Stability
Under the doctrine of judicial stability or non-
interference, “no court can interfere by
injunction with the judgments or orders of
another court of concurrent jurisdiction having
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
the power to grant the relief sought by
injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded
on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that
acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders
judgment therein has jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of all other
coordinate courts, for its execution and over all
its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of
justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting
in connection with this judgment.” (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation v. United Coconut
Planters Bank, G.R. No. 179257, November 23,
2015)
There is no such thing as an “action for breach
of contract”. Rather, breach of contract is a
cause of action, but not the action or relief itself.
Where the complaint primarily seeks to recover
damages, all claims for damages should be
considered in determining which court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
regardless of whether they arose from a single
cause of action or several causes of action.
Paragraph 8, Section 19 of BP 129, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7691, provides
that where the amount of the demand exceeds
P100,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, exclusive jurisdiction is
lodged with the RTC. Otherwise, jurisdiction
belongs to the Municipal Trial Court. The above
jurisdictional amount had been increased to
P200,000.00 on March 20, 1999 and further
raised to P300,000.00 on February 22, 2004
pursuant to Section 5 of RA 7691. Then in
Administrative Circular No. 09-94 this Court
declared that “where the claim for damages is
the main cause of action, or one of the causes
of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the
court.” (Sps. Pajares v. Remarkabale Laundry
& Dry Cleaning, G.R. No. 212690, February 20,
2017)
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction
The doctrine means that once jurisdiction has
attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character
which would have prevented jurisdiction from
attaching in the first instance. The court, once
jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that
jurisdiction untill it finally disposes of the case.
(Bantua v. Mercader, 350 SCRA 86)
Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction
This power refers to the authority of an office or
tribunal to do all things necessary for the
administration of justice within the scope of its
jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its
judgment and mandate. (University of the
Immaculate Concepcion v. Office of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R Nos.
178085-178086, September 14, 2015)
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies requires that before a party is allowed
to seek the intervention of the court, he should
have availed himself of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him. The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is based on practical and legal
reasons. The availment of administrative
remedy entails lesser expenses and provides
for a speedier disposition of controversies.
Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons
of comity and convenience, will shy away from
a dispute until the system of administrative
redress has been completed and complied with,
so as to give the administrative agency
concerned every opportunity to correct its error
and dispose of the case.” Indeed, the
administrative agency concerned, in this case
the Commission Proper , is in the “best position
to correct any previous error committed in its
forum. (Catipon, Jr. v. Japson,G.R. No.
191787, June 22, 2015)
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not
allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to
resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over
which was initially lodged with an administrative
body of special competence. (Heirs of Simeon
Latayan v. Tan, G.R. No. 201652, December 2,
2015)
Rule 3. Parties to Civil Actions
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
Real Party-in-Interest
A real party-in-interest is the party who stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
(Republic v. Namboku Peak, G.R. Nos. 169745
& 170091, July 18, 2014)
When an action is defended by a
representative, that representative is not-and
neither does he become-a real party in interest.
The person represented is deemed the real
party in interest. The representative remains to
be a third party to the action. (The Municipality
of Tangkal v. Balindong, G.R No. 193340,
January 11, 2017)
Under the Rules, parties may be dropped or
added by order of the court on motion of any
party or on its own initiative at any stage of the
action and on such terms as are just. (Orpiano
v. Tomas, G.R. No. 178611, January 14, 2013)
Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
“parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be
joined as plaintiffs or defendants.” If there is a
failure to implead an indispensable party, any
judgment rendered would have no
effectiveness. It is “precisely ‘when an
indispensable party is not before the court that
an action should be dismissed. The absence of
an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even to those present.” The purpose
of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties
is a complete determination of all issues not
only between the parties themselves, but also
as regards other persons who may be affected
by the judgment. A decision valid on its face
cannot attain real finality where there is want of
indispensable parties. (Nagkakaisang Lakas ng
Manggagawa sa Keihin v. Keihin Philippines
Corporation, G.R. No. 171115, August 9, 2010)
Joinder of Parties
A transferee pendente lite is deemed joined in
the pending action from the moment when the
transfer of interest is perfected. (Heirs of
Francisca Medrano v. De Vera, G.R. No.
165770, August 9, 2010)
Misjoinder of Parties; Non-joinder of Parties
Neither the misjoinder nor the non-joinder of
parties is a ground for the dismissal of an
action.
A co-owner may bring an action for ejectment,
forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of action
for the recovery of possession of properties co-
owned without joining all the other co-owners
as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to
be instituted for the benefit of all. (Heirs of
Babai Guiambangan v. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat, G.R. No. 204899,
July 27, 2016)
Indigent Litigant; Exempt from payment of
Docket and other lawful fees
A party may be authorized to litigate his action
claim or defense, as an indigent, if the court
upon an ex parte application and hearing is
satisfied is one who has no money, or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family
(Sec. 21, Rule 3)
To be considered as an Indigent party the
following requisites must be complied:
(a) Gross income and that of their
immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum
wage of an employee; and
(b) Who do not own real property with a
FAIR MARKET VALUE AS STATED IN
THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION of
more than three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (3,000) (Sec 19, Rule 141).
Nonetheless, even if one or both of the
requirements are not present, a litigant may still
be considered as an indigent litigant if: the
court, upon an ex parte application and hearing
is satisfied that the party is one who has no
money or property sufficient or available for
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family. (Sec. 21, Rule 3)
In litigating his action, claim or defenses, an
indigent party is exempt from payment of
docket and other lawful fees, and of transcript
of stenographic notes.
“Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigant, if
the applicant for exemption meets the salary
and property requirements under Rule 19 of
Rule 141, then the grant of application is
mandatory. On the other hand, when the
application does not satisfy one or both
requirements, then the application should not
be denied outright; instead, the court should
apply the indigency test under Sec. 21, Rule 3
and use it on its own discretion in determining
indigent litigant.” (Algura v. LGU of Naga, G.R
No. 150135, Oct. 30, 2006)
Rule 4. Venue of Actions
The RTC was correct in dismissing petitioner’s
Complaint on the ground of improper venue. In
general, personal actions must be commenced
and tried:
(i) where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides,
(ii) where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or
(iii) in the case of a non-resident
defendant where he may be found,
at the election of the plaintiff.
Nevertheless, the parties may agree in writing
to limit the venue of future actions between
them to a specified place. (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation v. United Coconut
Planters Bank, G.R. No. 179257, November 23,
2015)
Rule 7. Parts of a Pleading
Verification
The requirement regarding verification of a
pleading is formal, not jurisdictional and the
noncompliance of which does not necessarily
render the pleading fatally defective.
Verification is simply intended to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the pleading
are true and correct and not the product of the
imagination or a matter of speculation, and that
the pleading is filed in good faith.” With respect
to the requirement of a certification of non-
forum shopping, the fact that the Rules require
strict compliance merely underscores its
mandatory nature that it cannot be dispensed
with or its requirements altogether disregarded,
but it does not thereby interdict substantial
compliance with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances.” (Peak Ventures Corporation v.
Heirs of Nestor B. Villareal, G.R. No. 184618,
November 19, 2014)
Forum Shopping
Under prevailing jurisprudence, forum shopping
can be committed in three
(3) ways. Forum shopping can be committed in
three ways:
1) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having
been resolved yet (litis pendentia);
2) filing multiple cases based on the same
cuase of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case having been
finally resolved (res judicata); or
3) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action, where the
ground for dimissal is also either litis
pendentia or res judicata).
(Commissioner of Customs v. Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 205002, April
20, 2016)
Forum Shopping; Requisites
There is forum shopping when two or more
actions or proceedings, founded
on the same cause, are instituted by a party on
the supposition that one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition. There is
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
forum shopping when in both actions there
exist:
1) identity of parties, or at least such parties
as would represent the same interests in both
actions;
2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
and
3) the identity of the two preceding
particulars is such that any judgment rendered
in the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in
the action under consideration. (Arnado v.
COMELEC G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015)
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
While only individuals vested with authority by a
valid board resolution may sign the certificate of
non-forum shopping in behalf of the
corporation, where the corporation’s Special
Attorney was one of the counsels in the
proceedings before the trial court, and the
corporation never questioned his authority to
sign the petition for its behalf, it can be said that
such lawyer enjoys the presumption that he is
authorized to represent the corporation in filing
the petition. (Gubat v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No.
167415, February 26, 2010)
Rule 8. Manner of Making Allegations in
Pleadings
Negative Pregnant
If an allegation is not specifically denied or the
denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is
deemed admitted.” “Where a fact is alleged with
some qualifying or modifying language, and the
denial is conjunctive, a ‘negative pregnant’
exists, and only the qualification or modification
is denied, while the fact itself is admitted. “A
denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an
ambiguous pleading, since it cannot be
ascertained whether it is the fact or only the
qualification that is intended to be denied.”
“Profession of ignorance about a fact which is
patently and necessarily within the pleader’s
knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual,
is no denial at all.” (Venzon v. Rural Bank of
Buenavista (Agusan Del Norte), G.R. No.
178031, August 28, 2013)
Rule 9. Effect of Failure to Plead
Default
A party declared in default may at any time after
notice thereof and before judgment file a motion
under oath to set aside the order of default
upon proper showing that his failure to answer
was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense. (Section 3(b), Rule 9)
(Magtoto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175792,
November 21, 2012)
Rule 13. Filing and Service of Pleadings,
Judgments and Other Papers
Indeed, filing or service of a copy thereof to
petitioners by courier service cannot be
trivialized. Service and filing of pleadings by
courier service is a mode not provided in the
Rules. This is not to mention that PDB sent a
copy of its omnibus motion to an address or
area which was not covered by LBC courier
service at the time. Realizing its mistake, PDB
re-filed and resent the omnibus motion by
registered mail, which is the proper mode of
service under the circumstances. By then,
however, the 15-day period had expired. Using
private courier, the date which the pleading or
paper reach the court is the date of filing as
against the registered mail which the date of
posting is considered the date of filing. (Palileo
v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No.
193650, October 8, 2014)
Registered mail
If a pleading is filed by registered mail, the date
of the mailing shall be considered as the date of
filing. It does not matter when the court actually
receives the mailed pleading. (Republic v. Sps.
Salvador, G.R. No. 205428, June 7, 2017)
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
Bare denial of receipt of a mail cannot prevail
over the certification of the postmaster, whose
official duty is to send notices of registered mail.
Bare denial of receipt of a mail cannot prevail
over the certification of the postmaster, whose
official duty is to send notices of registered mail.
( Duarte v. Duran, G.R. No. 173038,
September 14, 2011)
Notices
The best evidence to prove that notice was sent
would be a certification from the postmaster
who should certify not only that the notice was
issued or sent but also as to how, when and to
whom the delivery and receipt was made.
(Heirs of Bihag v. Heirs of Bathan, G.R. No.
181949, April 23, 2014)
Service of Judgment
In the Resolution dated May 28, 2010, however,
the NLRC ordered respondents to reinstate
petitioner as store manager at Calexico but
without the payment of backwages,
ratiocinating that Mexicali’s officers (Teves and
Luna) wrongly arrogated upon themselves the
power to dismiss petitioner. We view that the
NLRC erred in this respect. It is to be noted that
Calexico is not a party to this case. It is well-
settled that no man shall be affected by any
proceeding to which he is a stranger, and
strangers to a case are not bound by a
judgment rendered by the court.” Due process
requires that a court decision can only bind a
party to the litigation and not against one who
did not have his day in court. Adjudication in
favour of or against Calexico, a stranger to this
case, is hence void. When a party to a suit
appears by counsel, service of every judgment
and all orders of the court must be sent to the
counsel. Notice to counsel is an effective notice
to the client, while notice to the client and not
his counsel is not notice in law. (Malixi v.
Mexicali Philippines, G.R. No. 205061, June 8,
2016)
Notice of Lis Pendens
A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to
the whole world that a particular real property is
in litigation, serving as a warning that one who
acquires an interest over said property does so
at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result
of the litigation over the said property.” The
effect of the annotation of lis pendens on future
transactions over the subject property is
discussed by an authority on land titles and
registration: Once a notice of lis pendens has
been duly registered, any cancellation or
issuance of the title of the land involved as well
as any subsequent transaction affecting the
same, would have to be subject to the outcome
of the litigation. In other words, upon the
termination of the litigation there can be no risk
of losing the property or any part thereof as a
result of any conveyance of the land or any
encumbrance that may be made thereon
posterior to the filing of the notice of lis
pendens. (Dela Merced v. GSIS, G.R. No.
167140, November 23, 2011)
Rule 14. Summons
If there is no valid service of summons, the
court can still acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant by virtue of the latter’s
voluntary appearance. (Sy v. Fairland Knitcraft
Co., Inc., G.R. Nos. 182915 & 189658,
December 12, 2011)
Substituted Service; Requisites
For substituted service of summons to be valid,
the following must be demonstrated:
a) that personal service of summons within
a reasonable time was impossible;
b) that efforts were exerted to located the
party; and
c) that the summons was served upon a
person of sufficient age and discretion
residing at the party’s residence of upon
a competent person in charge of the
party’s office or regular place of
business.
The purpose of summons is two-fold:
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
1) To acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant; and
2) To notify the defendant that an action
has been commenced so that he may
be given an opportunity to be heard on
the claim against him.
(Sagana v. Francisco, G.R. No. 161952,
October 2, 2009)
Service of Summons NOT Required in
Habeas Corpus petition
petitioner’s assertion that the summons was
improperly served, suffice it to state that
service of summons, to begin with, is not
required in a habeas corpus petition, be it
under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or A.M.
No. 03-04-04-SC. As held in Saulo v. Cruz, a
writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat
comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil
actions, in that, by service of said writ, the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the respondent. (Tujanmilitante vs.Cada-
deapera, G.R. no. 210636, July 28, 2014)
Rule 16. Motion to Dismiss
Except for cases falling under paragraphs (f),
(h), or (i), the dismissal of an action based on
the above enumerated grounds is without
prejudice and does not preclude the refiling of
the same action. And, under Section 1(g) of
Rule 41, an order dismissing an action without
prejudice is not appealable. The proper remedy
therefrom is a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65. But, if the reason for the
dismissal is based on paragraphs (f), (h), or (i)
(i.e., res judicata, prescription, extinguishment
of the claim or demand, and unenforceability
under the Statute of Frauds) the dismissal,
under Section 5, of Rule 16, is with prejudice
and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to
appeal the order granting the motion to dismiss.
Here, the dismissal of UniAlloy’s Complaint was
without prejudice. The September 13, 2001
Order of the RTC dismissing UniAlloy’s
Complaint was based on the grounds of
improper venue, forum shopping and for being
a harassment suit, which do not fall under
paragraphs (f), (h), or (i) of Section 1, Rule 16.
Stated differently, none of the grounds for the
dismissal of UniAlloy’s Complaint is included in
Section 5 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, since the dismissal of its Complaint was
without prejudice, the remedy then available to
UniAlloy was a Rule 65 petition. (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation v. United Coconut
Planters Bank, G.R. No. 179257, November 23,
2015)
Q: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently
residing in New York City, filed with the RTC
of Lipa City a Complaint for Rescission of
Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a
resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto.
Tomas, Batangas. The subject property,
located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has
an assessed value of P19, 700.00. Appended
to the complaint is Amorsolo’s verification
and certification of non-forum shopping
executed in New York City, duly notarized
by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., a notary public
in the State of New York. Brigido filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the
following grounds:
a. The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
the person of Amorsolo because he is not a
resident of the Philippines;
A: The first ground raised lacks merit because
jurisdiction over the person of a plaintiff is
acquired by the court upon the filing of plaintiff’s
complaint therewith. Residency or citizenship is
not a requirement for filing a complaint,
because plaintiff thereby submits to the
jurisdiction of the court.
b. The RTC does not have jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the action involving
real property with an assessed value of
P19,700.00; exclusive and original
jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court
where the defendant resides;
A: The second ground raised is also without
merit because the subject of the litigation,
Rescission of Contract, is incapable of
pecuniary estimation the exclusive original
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
jurisdiction to which is vested by law in the
Regional Trial Courts. The nature of the action
renders the assessed value of the land involved
irrelevant.
c. The verification and certification of non-
forum shopping are fatally defective
because there is no accompanying
certification issued by the Philippine
Consulate in New York, authenticating that
Mr. Brown is duly authorized to notarize the
document. . (2009 Bar)
A: The third ground raised questioning the
validity of the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping for lack of certification from
the Philippine Consulate in New York,
authenticating that Mr. Brown is duly authorized
to notarize the document, is likewise without
merit. The required certification alluded to,
pertains to official acts, or records of official
bodies, tribunals, and public officers, whether of
the Philippines or of a foreign country: the
requirement in Sec. 24, Rule 132 refers only to
paragraph (a) of Sec. 29 which does not cover
notarial documents. It is enough that the notary
public who notarized the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping is clothed
with authority to administer oath in the State or
foreign country.
Motion to Dismiss; Interlocutory Orders
It is elementary that “an order denying a motion
to dismiss is merely interlocutory and, therefore,
not appealable, to avoid undue inconvenience
to the appealing party by having to assail orders
as they are promulgated by the court, when all
such orders may be contested in a single
appeal.” (Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Lin,
G.R. No. 207277, January 16, 2010)
Q: Mr. Avenger filed with Regional Trial
Court (RTC) a complaint against Ms. Bright
for annulment of deed of sale and other
documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack
of cause of action. Mr. Avenger filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss. State
and discuss the appropriate remedy/
remedies under each of the following
situations:
a. If the RTC grants Ms. Bright’s motion to
dismiss and dismisses the complaint on the
ground of lack of cause of action, what will
be the remedy/ remedies of Mr. Avenger?
A: Mr. Avenger can choose any of the following
remedies:
1. Mr. Avenger may file a Motion for
Reconsideration. If denied, he could file an
appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41
since a dismissal based on lack of cause of
action (under Rule 33) is appealable.
2. Mr. Avenger may file a Motion for
reconsideration. If the same is denied, he could
file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
because a dismissal based on failure to state a
cause of action is considered without prejudice
and therefore an interlocutory order which
cannot be a subject of an appeal under Rule
41.
3. Mr. Avenger may file a Motion for
Reconsideration if the same is denied, he can
simply re-file the complaint because an Order
granting a Motion to Dismiss based on failure to
state a cause of action is without prejudice to
the filing of another Complaint (Section 5, Rule
16).
4. Mr. Avenger may amend his Complaint, as a
matter of right, since a Motion to Dismiss is not
a responsive pleading.
(Irene R. Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008).
b. If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to
dismiss, what will be her remedy/ remedies?
A:
1. Ms. Bright may file a Motion for
Reconsideration. If the same is denied, she
could file a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65. An Order denying a Motion to
Dismiss is interlocutory because it does not
finally dispose of the case, and, in effect, directs
the case to proceed until final adjudication by
the court. Hence, a special civil action on
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
certiorari is the appropriate remedy. (Section 1,
Rule 41; Marmo v. Anacay, G.R. No. 182585,
November 27, 2009).
2. Ms. Bright may file an Answer within the
balance of the period from the filing of his
Motion to Dismiss but not less than five (5)
days, and raise affirmative defenses therein.
(Section 4 and 6, Rule 16)
c. If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to
dismiss and, further proceedings, including
trial on the merits, are conducted until the
RTC renders a decision in favor of Mr.
Avenger, what will be the remedy/ remedies
of Ms. Bright? (2014 Bar)
A: Ms. Bright may avail of the following
remedies before the finality of the decision:
1. A motion for reconsideration (Sec, 1, Rule
37);
2. A motion for new trial (Sec. 1, Rule 37); and
3. Appeal (Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45).
After the finality of the Decision, Ms. Bright can
avail of the following:
1. Petition for relief (Rule 38);
2. Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47); and
3. Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65).
Rule 17. Dismissal of Actions
Dismissal of Actions; Failure to
Prosecute
The fundamental test for non prosequitur is
whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff
is chargeable with want of due diligence in
failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
(Laurel v. Vardeleon, G.R. No. 202967, August
5, 2015)
Rule 18. Pre-Trial
The determination of issues during the pre-trial
conference bars the consideration of other
questions whether during trial or on appeal.
Parties must disclose during pre-trial all issues
they intend to raise during the trial, except
those involving privileged or impeaching
matters. (Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 171406, April 4,
2011)
Rules 35. Summary Judgments
Judgment on the Pleadings;
Summary Judgments
Judgment on the pleadings is proper where
an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise
admits all the material allegations of the
adverse party’s pleading.
Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be
granted if the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
depositions, and admissions on file, show that
except as to the amount of damages, there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law. (Adolfo v. Adolfo, G.R. No.
201427, March 18, 2015)
Rule 37. New Trial or Reconsiderations
The requisites for newly discovered evidence
are:
1) the evidence was discovered after trial;
2) such evidence could not have been
discovered and produced at the trial with
reasonable diligence; and
3) it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching, and is of
such weight that, if admitted, will
probably change the judgment. (Diega
v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 196853,
July 13, 2015)
Motion for Extension of Time; Prohibited
The Court has pronounced strict adherence to
the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises,
Inc. v. Judge Japson, 142 SCRA 208 (1986),
that “no motion for extension of time to file a
motion for new trial or reconsideration may be
filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the
Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of
Appeals)”.( V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. v.
Municipality of Paranaque, G.R. No. 178431,
November 12, 2012)
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
Rule 39. Execution, Satisfaction and Effect
of Judgments
Doctrine of Immutability of Final
Judgments
The principle of immutability of judgment, or the
rule that once a judgment has become final and
executory, the same can no longer be altered or
modified and the court’s duty is only to order its
execution, is not absolute.
One of the exceptions on the application of the
principle of immutability of judgment is when
there is a supervening event occurring after the
judgment becomes final and executory, which
renders the decision unenforceable. (Dutch
Movers, Inc. et. al. v. Lequin et. al., G.R. No.
210032, April 25, 2017)
Action for Revival of Judgment
The court or tribunal must look at the material
allegations in the complaint, the issues or
questions that are subject of the controversy,
and the character of the relief prayed for in
order to determine whether the nature and
subject matter of the complaint is within its
jurisdiction. As such, a party aggrieved by a
decision of a court in an action for revival of
judgment may appeal the decision, but only
insofar as the merits of the action for revival is
concerned.
An action for revival of judgment is a new and
independent action. It is different and distinct
from the original judgment sought to be revived
or enforced. (Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr.
v. Miranda, G.R. No. 179638, July 8, 2013)
Revival of Judgment
In a petition for annulment of judgment based
on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not
merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but
an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of
jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction,
that is, the court should not have taken
cognizance of the petition because the law
does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action
or subject matter is conferred by law.” The
RTC’s jurisdiction over petitions for revival of
judgment had already been upheld by the
Court. It was held that “an action for revival of
judgment may be filed either ‘in the same court
where said judgment was rendered or in the
place where the plaintiff or defendant resides,
or in any other place designated by the statutes
which treat of the venue of actions in general.
(Mangubat v. Morga-Seva, G.R. No. 202611,
November 23, 2015)
Dispositive; Body of the Decision
It has always been the rule that “the only
portion of the decision that may be the subject
of execution is that which is ordained or
decreed in the dispositive portion. Whatever
may be found in the body of the decision can
only be considered as part of the reasons or
conclusions of the court and serve only as
guides to determine the ratio decidendi.” Where
there is a conflict between the dispositive
portion of the decision and the body thereof, the
dispositive portion controls irrespective of what
appears in the body of the decision. While the
body of the decision, order or resolution might
create some ambiguity in the manner of the
court’s reasoning preponderates, it is the
dispositive portion thereof that finally invests
rights upon the parties, sets conditions for the
exercise of those rights, and imposes
corresponding duties or obligation.” “An order
of execution is based on the disposition, not on
the body, of the decision.” (National Power
Corporation v. Tarcelo, G.R. No. 198139,
September 8, 2014)
Appeals
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor
is it a component of due process. It is a mere
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in
the manner and in accordance with the
provisions of law. The right to appeal is neither
a natural right nor [is it a component] of due
process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and
may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law.” This
being so, an appealing party must strictly
comply with the requisites laid down in the
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
Rules of Court. Deviations from the Rules
cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict
attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules
are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition
of appealed cases. In an age where courts are
bedevilled by clogged dockets, the Rules need
to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity.
Their observance cannot be left to the whims
and caprices of appellants. (Boardwalk
Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, Jr., G.R.
No. 181182, April 10, 2013)
It is well-settled 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
whose decision is brought up on appeal. A
party who did not appeal cannot assign such
errors as are designed to have the judgment
modified.
The exceptions to this rule are:
1) errors affecting the lower court’s
jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2) plain errors not specified; and
3) clerical errors
All that the party can do is to make a counter-
assignment of errors or to argue on issues
raised only for the purpose of sustaining the
judgment in his favor. (Castillo, et. al. v.
Prudentialife Plans, Inc., G.R. No. 196142,
March 26, 2014)
Rule 42. Petition for Review From the
Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
Appeals
Under Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure (1997 Rules), a petition for
review shall be accompanied by, among others,
copies of the pleadings and other material
portions of the record as would support the
allegations of the petition. Section 3 of the
same rule states that failure of the petitioner to
comply with any of the requirements regarding
the contents of and the documents which
should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. In
Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 695 SCRA 10
(2013), this Court held that there are three
guideposts in determining the necessity of
attaching pleadings and portions of the record
to petitions under Rules 42 and 65 of the 1997
Rules, to wit:
First, not all pleadings and parts of case
records are required to be attached to the
petition. Only those which are relevant and
pertinent must accompany it.
Second, even if a document is relevant and
pertinent to the petition, it need not be
appended if it is shown that the contents thereof
can also be found in another document already
attached to the petition.
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or
part of the case record may still be given due
course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon
showing that petitioner later submitted the
documents required, or that it will serve the
higher interest of justice that the case be
decided on the merits. (Maravilla v. Rios, G.R.
No. 196875, August 19, 2015)
Q: Distinguish the two (2) modes of appeal
from the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court to the Court of Appeals. (2009 Bar)
A: In cases decided by the Regional Trial
Courts in the exercise of their original
jurisdiction, appeals to the Court of Appeals
shall be ordinary appeal by filing written notice
of appeal indicating the parties to the appeal;
specifying the judgment/final order or part
thereof appealed from; specifying the court to
which the appeal is being taken; and stating the
material dates showing the timeliness of the
appeal. The notice of appeal shall be filed with
the RTC which rendered the judgment
appealed from and copy thereof shall be served
upon the adverse party within 15 days from
notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
But if the case admits of multiple appeals or is a
special proceeding, a record on appeal is
required aside from the written notice of appeal
to perfect the appeal, in which case the period
for appeal and notice upon the adverse party is
not only 15 days but 30 days from notice of
judgment or final order appealed from. The full
amount of the appellate court docket fee and
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
other lawful fees required must also be paid
within the period for taking an appeal, to the
clerk of the court which rendered the judgment
or final order appealed from (Secs. 4 and 5,
Rule 41). The periods of 15 or 30 days above-
stated are non-extendible.
In cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, appeal
to the Court of Appeals shall be by filing a
verified petition for review with the Court of
Appeals and furnishing the RTC and the
adverse party with copy thereof, within 15 days
from notice of judgment or final order appealed
from. Within the same period for appeal, the
docket fee and other lawful fees required with
the deposit for cost should be paid. The 15-day
period maybe extended for 15 days and
another 15 days for compelling reasons.
Rule 45. Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme
Court
At the outset, it is evident that the resolution of
the instant case requires the scrutiny of factual
issues which are, however, outside the scope of
the present petition filed pursuant to Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. However, the Court held in
Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co.,
Inc., 702 SCRA 88 (2013), that: But while it is
not our duty to review, examine and evaluate or
weigh all over again the probative value of the
evidence presented, the Court may nonetheless
resolve questions of fact when the case falls
under any of the following exceptions:
(1) when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures;
(2) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when in making its findings the Court of
Appeals went beyond the issues of the
case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and
the appellee;
(7) when the findings are contrary to those
of the trial court;
(8) when the findings are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioner’s main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent; and
(10)when the findings of fact are premised
on the supposed absence of evidence
and contradicted by the evidence on
record. (Marina Port Services Inc v.
American Home Assurance
Corporation, G.R. No. 201822, August
12, 2015)
Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari
The remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision,
final order, or resolution of the CA is to file a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, which is a continuation of
the appellate process over the original case.
And as a rule, if the remedy of an appeal is
available, an action for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, which is an original or
independent action based on grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, will not prosper because it is not a
substitute for a lost appeal. There are
exceptions to the rule that a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute to a
lost appeal, to wit:
1) when public welfare and the
advancement of public policy dictate;
2) when the broader interest of justice so
requires;
3) when the writs issued are null and
void;
4) when the questioned order amounts to
an oppressive exercise of judicial
authority;
5) when, for persuasive reasons, the
rules may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to
comply with the prescribed procedure;
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
6) when the judgment or order is
attended by grave abuse of discretion;
or
7) in other meritorious cases. (Bureau of
Internal Revenue v Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 197590, November 24,
2014)
Rule 47. Annulment of Judgments of Final
Orders and Resolutions
It must be stressed that the remedy of
annulment of judgment is only available under
certain exceptional circumstances as this is
adverse to the concept of immutability of final
judgments. Hence, it is allowed only on two
grounds, i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. (Mangubat v. Morga-Seva G.R. No.
202611, November 23, 2015)
Rule 60. Replevin
In a complaint for replevin, the plaintiff need not
be the owner so long as he is able to specify his
right to the possession of the property and his
legal basis therefor.
Rule 60 allows a plaintiff, in an action for the
recovery of possession of personal property, to
apply for a writ of replevin if it can be shown
that he is ‘the owner of the property claimed or
is entitled to the possession thereof.’ The
plaintiff need not be the owner so long as he is
able to specify his right to the possession of the
property and his legal basis therefor. ( Siy v.
Tomlin, G.R. No. 205998, April 24, 2017)
Rule 65. Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus
Preliminary injunction is merely a provisional
remedy that is adjunct to the main case, and is
subject to the latter’s outcome. It is not a cause
of action itself. It is provisional because it
constitutes a temporary measure availed of
during the pendency of the action; and it is
ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is
dependent upon the result of the main action.
auxiliary remedy, the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction cannot be issued
independently of the principal action.
Mandatory Injunction
A mandatory injunction requires the
performance of a particular act. Hence, it is an
extreme remedy, to be granted only if the
following requisites are attendant, namely:
1. The applicant has a clear and
unmistakable right, that is, a right in
esse;
2. There is a material and substantial
invasion of such right; and
3. There is an urgent need for the writ to
prevent irreparable injury to the
applicant; and no other ordinary,
speedy, and adequate remedy exists to
prevent the infliction of irreparable
injury. (Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No.
162230, August 12, 2014)
Provisional remedies also known as ancillary or
auxiliary remedies, are writs and processes
available during the pendency of the action
which may be resorted to by a litigant to
preserve and protect certain rights and interests
pending rendition, and for purposes of the
ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case.
They are provisional because they constitute
temporary measures availed of during the
pendency of the action, and they are ancillary
because they are mere incidents in and are
dependent upon the result of the main action.”
One of the provisional remedies provided in the
Rules of Court is preliminary injunction, which
may be resorted to by a litigant at any stage of
an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or
final order to compel a party or a court, agency
or a person to refrain from doing a particular act
or acts.
Dismissal of Actions; effect to the Ancillary
Action
One (1) of the inevitable consequences of the
dismissal of the main action is the dissolution of
the ancillary relief granted therein. (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation v. United Coconut
Planters Bank, G.R. No. 179257, November 23,
2015)
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration
should precede recourse to certiorari in order to
give the trial court an opportunity to correct the
error that it may have committed. The said rule
is not absolute and may be dispensed with in
instances:
1. where the filing of a motion for
reconsideration would serve no useful
purpose, such as when the motion for
reconsideration would raise the same
point stated in the motion or
2. where the error is patent for the order is
void or
3. where the relief is extremely urgent, as
in cases where execution had already
been ordered where the issue raised is
one purely of law. (PTA of St. Matthew
Christian Academy v. Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Co., G.R. No. 176518, March
2, 2010)
Certiorari
The pendency of a special civil action for
certiorari instituted in relation to a pending case
does not stay the proceedings therein in the
absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order.
Rule 65, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules makes
this clear: The court in which the petition is filed
may issue orders expediting the proceedings,
and it may also grant a temporary restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending
such proceedings. The petition shall not
interrupt the course of the principal case unless
a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued against
the public respondent from further proceeding
in the case. The public respondent shall
proceed with the principal case within ten (10)
days from the filing of a petition for certiorari
with a higher court or tribunal, absent a
temporary restraining order or a preliminary
injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the
public respondent to proceed with the principal
case may be a ground for an administrative
charge. (Silverio, Sr. v. Silverio, Jr., G.R. No.
186589, July 18, 2014)
Q: After an information for rape was filed in
the RTC, the DOJ Secretary, acting on the
accused's petition for review, reversed the
investigating prosecutor's finding of
probable cause. Upon order of the DOJ
Secretary, the trial prosecutor filed a Motion
to Withdraw Information which the judge
granted. The order of the judge stated only
the following:
"Based on the review by the DOJ Secretary
of the findings of the investigating
prosecutor during the preliminary
investigation, the Court agrees that there is
no sufficient evidence against the accused
to sustain the allegation in the information.
The motion to withdraw Information is,
therefore, granted."
If you were the private prosecutor, what
should you do? Explain. (2003, 2012 Bar)
A: If I were the private prosecutor, I would file a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
Court of Appeals (Cerezo v. People, GR
No.185230, June 1, 2011). It is well-settled that
when the trial court is confronted with a motion
to withdraw an Information (on the ground of
lack of probable cause to hold the accused for
trial based on a resolution of the DOJ
Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make
an independent assessment of the merits of the
motion. It may either agree or disagree with the
recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance
alone on the resolution of the Secretary would
be an abdication of the trial court’s duty and
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The
court must itself be convinced that there is
indeed no sufficient evidence against the
accused. Otherwise, the judge acted with grave
abuse of discretion if he grants the Motion to
Withdraw Information by the trial prosecutor
(Harold Tamargo v. Romulo Awingan et. al.
G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010).
Mandamus
The purpose of mandamus is to compel the
performance of a ministerial duty. A ministerial
act is one which an officer or tribunal performs
in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
authority without regard to or the exercise of his
own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety
of the act done. (Edralin v. Philippine Veterans
Bank, G.R. No. 168523, March 9, 2011)
Grave Abuse of Discretion
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of
the public officer concerned, equivalent to an
excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or
hostility.” (King v. Robles, G.R. Nos. 197096-
97, December 7, 2015)
Rule 68. Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage
Where the extra judicially foreclosed C of a third
party who is holding the same adversely to the
judgment debtor or mortgagor, the RTC’s duty
to issue a writ of possession ceases to be
ministerial and as such may no longer proceed
ex parte. Upon the expiration of the period to
redeem and no redemption was made, the
purchaser, as confirmed owner, has the
absolute right to possess the land and the
issuance of the writ of possession becomes a
ministerial duty of the court upon proper
application and proof of title. Nevertheless,
where the extrajudicially foreclosed real
property is in the possession of a third party
who is holding the same adversely to the
judgment debtor or mortgagor, the RTC’s duty
to issue a writ of possession in favor of the
purchaser of said real property ceases to be
ministerial and, as such, may no longer proceed
ex parte. (Gatuslao v. Yanson, G.R. No.
191540, January 21, 2015)
Rule 70. Forcible Entry and Unlawful
Detainer
Notably, even public lands can be the subject of
forcible entry cases as it has already been held
that ejectment proceedings may involve all
kinds of land. Thus, in the case at bench, while
the parties are fighting over the possession of a
government land, the courts below are not
deprived of jurisdiction to render judgment
thereon. Courts must resolve the issue of
possession even if the parties to the ejectment
suit are mere informal settlers. (Villondo v.
Quijano, G.R. No. 173606, December 3, 2012)
Unlawful Detainer
Courts, in order to ascertain whether there is
cause of action for unlawful detainer, must
inquire into:
(a) the existence of the lease
contract and,
(b) the violation of that lease by the lessee.
(Manzanilla v. Waterfields Industries
Corporation, G.R. No. 177484, July 18,
2014)
Rule 71. Contempt
Unless otherwise provided by law, this Rule
shall apply to Contempt committed against
persons, entities, bodies or agencies exercising
quasi-judicial functions, or shall have suppletory
effect to such rules as they may have adopted
pursuant to authority granted to them by law to
punish for contempt. The Regional Trial Court
of the place wherein the contempt has been
committed shall have jurisdiction over such
charges as may be filed therefor. Where
contempt is committed against quasi-judicial
entities, the filing of contempt charges in court
is allowed only when these quasi-judicial
entities are not by law granted contempt
powers. Executive Order No. 648, the HLURB
Charter, grants the HLURB Board the power to
cite and declare any person, entity or enterprise
in direct or indirect contempt “whenever any
person, entity or enterprise commits any
disorderly or disrespectful conduct before the
Commission or in the presence of its members
or authorized representatives actually engaged
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
in the exercise of their official functions or
during the conduct of any hearing or official
inquiry by the said Commission, at the place or
near the premises where such hearing or
proceeding is being conducted with obstruct,
distract, interfere or in any other way disturb,
the performance of such functions or the
conduct of such hearing or proceeding”; or
“whenever any person, enterprise or entity fails
or refuses to comply with or obey without
justifiable reason, any lawful order, decision,
writ or process of the Commission.” (Trinidad
v. Fama Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 203336, June 6,
2016)
Indeed, contempt is not a criminal offense.
However, a charge for contempt of court
partakes of the nature of a criminal action.
Rules that govern criminal prosecutions strictly
apply to a prosecution for contempt. In fact,
Section 11 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
provides that the appeal in indirect contempt
proceedings may be taken as in criminal cases.
An alleged contemnor should be accorded the
same rights as that of an accused. Thus, the
dismissal of the indirect contempt charge
against respondent amounts to an acquittal,
which effectively bars a second prosecution.
(Digital Telecommunications Philippines v.
Cantos, G.R. No. 180200, November 25, 2013)
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Rule 74. Summary Settlement of Estate
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
The sale to respondents was made after the
execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement
of the estate. The extrajudicial settlement of
estate, even though not published, being
deemed a partition of the inherited property,
Jose could validly transfer ownership over the
specific portion of the property that was
assigned to him.
Party may validly transfer ownership over the
specific portion of the property assigned to him
in the extrajudicial settlement of estate even if
the settlement was not published. The title of
the property owned by a person who dies
intestate passes at once to his heirs. (Alfonso
v. Andres, G.R. No. 166236, July 29, 2010A)
Guardianship
The minor children of Conrado inherited by
representation in the properties of their
grandparents Remigia and Januario. These
children, not their mother Victorina, were the
co-owners of the inherited properties. Victorina
had no authority or had acted beyond her
powers in conveying, if she did indeed convey,
to the petitioner’s mother the undivided share of
her minor children in the property involved in
this case. “The powers given to her by the laws
as the natural guardian covers only matters of
administration and cannot include the power of
disposition. She should have first secured the
permission of the court before she alienated
that portion of the property in question
belonging to her minor children.” In a number of
cases, where the guardians, mothers or
grandmothers, did not seek court approval of
the sale of properties of their wards, minor
children, the Court declared the sales void.
(Hebron v. Loyola G.R. No. 168960, July 5,
2010)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
The petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas
Data must adequately show that there exists a
nexus between the right to privacy on the one
hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on
the other. Corollarily, the allegations in the
petition must be supported by substantial
evidence showing an actual or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
security of the victim. (Dr. Joy Margate Lee
vs. P/Supt. Neri A. Ilagan, G.R. No. 203254,
October 08, 2014)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 110. Institution of Criminal Actions
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
“In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue
undoubtedly pertains to jurisdiction. As correctly
pointed out x x x it provides that the case may
be filed where the crime or any of its elements
was committed at the option of the complainant.
Which the psychological violence as the means
employed by the perpetrator is certainly an
indispensable element of the offense, equally
essential also is the element of mental or
emotional anguish which is personal to the
complainant. The resulting mental or emotional
anguish is analogous to the indispensable
element of damage in a prosecution for estafa.
“What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A.
No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts
of violence against women and their children
may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes;
meaning that some acts material and essential
thereto and requisite in their consummation
occur in one municipality or territory, while
some occur in another. In such cases, the court
wherein any of the crime's essential and
material acts have been committed maintains
jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood
that the first court taking cognizance of the
same excludes the other. Thus, a person
charged with a continuing or transitory crime
may be validly tried in any municipality or
territory where the offense was in part
committed.” (AAA v. BBB, G.R No. 212448,
January 11, 2018)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
The principle of delito continuado applies when
there is plurality of acts performed during a
period of time; unity of penal provision violated;
and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which
means that two or more violations of the same
penal provisions are united in one and the same
intent or resolution leading to the perpetration
of the same criminal purpose or aim. Legal
principles developed from the Penal Code such
as delito continuado may be applied in a
supplementary capacity to crimes punished
under special laws. (Noel Navaja, vs. Hon.
Manuel A. De Castro, G.R. No. 180969,
September 11, 2017)
Rule 111. Prosecution of Civil Action
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex
delicto is based on the acts or omissions that
constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is
inherently intertwined with the criminal action.
For this reason, the civil liability ex delicto is
impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. If
the action for the civil liability ex delicto is
instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of
the criminal action, its proceedings are
suspended until the final outcome of the
criminal action. The civil liability based on delict
is extinguished when the court hearing the
criminal action declares that “the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist.” (Lim v. Kou Co Ping, G.R. No.
175256 & 19160, August 23, 2010)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing
fees assessed by the clerk of court and the
amount paid turns out to be deficient, the court
still acquires jurisdiction subject to the payment
by the plaintiff of the deficiency assessment.
The reason is that to penalize the party for the
omission of the clerk of court is not fair if the
party has acted in good faith. (Isabel G.
Ramones vs. Spouses Guimoc, G.R. No.
226645, August 13, 2018)
3. The extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it the extinction of the civil, unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil
might arise did not exist. (Rafael l.
Coscolluela vs. Sanbiganbayan (First
Division), G.R. Nos. 191411 & 191871, July
15, 2013)
Rule 112. Preliminary Investigation
Probable Cause
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest
on evidence showing that more likely than not a
crime has been committed and was committed
by the suspect. It need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, and definitely not on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt; The filing
of the Information against petitioner
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
notwithstanding the lack of certification on her
cashbook examination could not in any manner
be said to be premature much less whimsical or
arbitrary.(De Guzman v. Gonzales III, G.R. No.
158104, March 26, 2010)
The determination of probable cause does not
require actual or absolute certainty, nor clear
and convincing evidence; it only requires
reasonable belief or probability that more likely
than not a crime has been committed by the
accused. It bears stressing that the
determination of probable cause does not
require actual or absolute certainty, nor clear
and convincing evidence of guilt; it only requires
reasonable belief or probability that more likely
than not a crime has been committed by the
accused. (Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 197590, November 24,
2014)
A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency
of evidence that will establish probable cause
justifying the filing of the criminal information –
judicial review is allowed only if it is clearly
established that the prosecutor committed
grave abuse of discretion.
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
EXECUTIVE VS. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
OF PROBABLE CAUSE
The Ombudsman's finding of probable cause
does not touch on the issue of guilt or innocence
of the accused as it is not within its function to
rule on such issue. As to the Sandiganbayan’s
judicial determination of probable cause, a
judge's discretion to dismiss a case immediately
after the filing of the information is appropriate
only when the failure to establish probable
cause can be clearly inferred from the evidence
presented and not when its existence is simply
doubtful. (Richard A. Cambe vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212014-15,
212427-28, 212694-95, 212794-95,
213477-78, 213532-33, 213536-37 &
218744-59, December 06, 2016)
The executive determination of probable cause
concerns itself with whether there is enough
evidence to support an Information being filed.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on
the other hand, determines whether a warrant
of arrest should be issued. (Jessica Lucila G.
Reyes vs. The Ombudsman, G.R. Nos.
212593-94, 213163-78, 213540-41,
213542-43, 215880-94 & 213475-76. March
15, 2016
Probable cause can be established with hearsay
evidence as long as there is substantial basis for
crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is
admissible in determining probable cause in a
preliminary investigation because such
investigation is merely preliminary and does not
finally adjudicate rights and obligations of
parties. (Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation vs. Casimiro, G.R. No. 206866,
September 2, 2015)
Before judicial relief from a discretionary
prosecutorial action may be obtained, the
petitioner must establish that the prosecutor
exercised his power in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility; and it must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion or to a unilateral
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in
contemplation of law. (Balois-Alberto vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 182130 &
182132, June 19, 2013)
Once the Information is filed with the court and
the judge proceeds with his primordial task of
evaluating the evidence on record, he may
either: (a) issue a warrant of arrest, if he finds
probable cause; (b) immediately dismiss the
case, if the evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause; and (c) order the
prosecutor to submit additional evidence, in
case he doubts the existence of probable cause.
A judge's discretion to dismiss a case
immediately after the filing of the information in
court is appropriate only when the failure to
establish probable cause can be clearly inferred
from the evidence presented and not when its
existence is simply doubtful. (De Los Santos-
Dio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 178947
& 179079, June 26, 2013)
Rule 113. Arrest
Right to Remain Silent; Custodial
Investigation
The right to remain silent cannot be waived
except in writing and the presence of counsel;
any admission obtained in violation of this rule
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
shall be inadmissible in evidence. Section 12,
Article III of the Constitution explicitly provides,
viz: Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. Clearly, when appellant remained.
(People v. Guillen,G.R. No. 191756, November
25, 2013)
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section
5(a), Rule 113, two elements must concur:
1) the person to be arrested must execute
an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and
2) such overt act is done in the presence
or within the view of the arresting officer
A waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does
not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless
arrest. (Villamor v. People, G.R. No. 200396,
March 22, 2017)
Q: As Cicero was walking down a dark alley
one midnight, he saw an "owner-type
jeepney" approaching him. Sensing that the
occupants of the vehicle were up to no
good, he darted into a corner and ran. The
occupants of the vehicle − elements from
the Western Police District − gave chase and
apprehended him. The police apprehended
Cicero, frisked him and found a sachet of
0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a
Swiss knife in his secret pocket, and
detained him thereafter. Is the arrest and
body-search legal? (2010 Bar)
A: No. The arrest and the body-search were not
legal. Cicero’s act of running does not show any
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
been committed or is about to be committed for
the police officers to apprehend him and
conduct body search. Hence, the arrest was
illegal as it does not fall under any of the
circumstances for a valid warrantless arrest
provided in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
Rule 114. Bail
A grant of bail does not prevent the trial court
from making a final assessment of the evidence
after full trial of the merits. “such appreciation of
evidence is at best preliminary and should not
prevent the trial judge from making a final
assessment of the evidence before him after full
trial. It is not an uncommon occurrence that an
accused person granted bail is convicted in due
course.” (People v. Brita, G.R. No. 191260,
November 24, 2014)
Q: A was charged with a non-bailable
offense. At the time when the warrant of
arrest was issued, he was confined in the
hospital and could not obtain a valid
clearance to leave the hospital. He filed a
petition for bail saying therein that he be
considered as having placed himself under
the jurisdiction of the court. May the court
entertain his petition? Why or why not?
(2012 Bar)
A: Yes, a person is deemed to be under the
custody of the law either when he has been
arrested or has surrendered himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. The accused who is
confined in a hospital may be deemed to be in
the custody of the law if he clearly
communicates his submission to the court while
he is confined in a hospital (Paderanga v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 115407, August 28,
1995).
Rule 116. Motion to Quash
Any irregularity attending the arrest of an
accused should be timely raised in a motion to
quash the Information at any time before
arraignment, failing in which he is deemed to
have waived his right to question the regularity
of his arrest. Jurisprudence is settled that “any
irregularity attending the arrest of an accused
should be timely raised in a motion to quash the
Information at any time before arraignment,
failing in which, he is deemed to have waived”
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
his right to question the regularity of his arrest.
As the records show, except during the inquest
proceedings. (People v. Cunanan, G.R. No.
198024, March 16, 2015)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
No complaint or information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor
without the prior written authority or approval of
the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
(Quisay vs. People, G.R. No. 216920,
January 13, 2016)
Rule 119. Trial
Demurrer to Evidence
Demurrer to the evidence is “an objection by
one of the parties in an action, to the effect that
the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not,
to make out a case or sustain the issue when
an accused files a demurrer to evidence, the
court must evaluate whether the prosecution
evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the
conviction of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. To be sufficient, the evidence must
prove:
1) the commission of the crime; and
2) the precise degree of participation
therein by the accused.
The grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to
an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it
would place the accused in double jeopardy.
(People v. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6,
2014)
The grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an
acquittal and the dismissal order may not be
appealed because this would place the accused
in double jeopardy; Although the dismissal
order based on demurrer to evidence is not
subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only
through certiorari under Rule 65. For the writ to
issue, the trial court must be shown to have
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where
the prosecution was denied the opportunity to
present its case or where the trial was a sham
thus rendering the assailed judgment void. The
burden is on the petitioner to clearly
demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused
its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it
of its very power to dispense justice.(People v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 174504, March 21,
2011)
Q: After the prosecution had rested and
made its formal offer of evidence, with the
court admitting all of the prosecution
evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to
evidence with leave of court. The
prosecution was allowed to comment
thereon. Thereafter, the court granted the
demurrer, finding that the accused could not
have committed the offense charged. If the
prosecution files a motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the court
order granting the demurrer was not in
accord with the law and jurisprudence, will
the motion prosper? Explain your answer.
(2009 Bar)
A: No, the motion will not prosper. With the
granting of the demurrer, the case shall be
dismissed and the legal effect is the acquittal of
the accused. A judgment of acquittal is
immediately executory and no appeal can be
made therefrom. Otherwise the Constitutional
protection against double jeopardy would be
violated.
Rule 120. Judgment
Promulgation of Judgments;
The practice of requiring the convict to appear
before the trial court for promulgation of the
appellate court should be immediately
discontinued as it is an unauthorized
surplusage entailing unnecessary expenses
and which also creates security problems
where the convict was already under detention
during the pendency of the appeal, and the
place of confinement is at some distance from
the station of the court. Upon receipt of the
certified copy of the judgment of the appellate
court if the convict is under detention, the trial
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
court should issue forthwith the corresponding
mittimus or commitment order so that the
prisoner may be considered remitted or may be
transferred to the corresponding prison facility
for confinement and service of sentence. When
the convict is out on bail, the trial court shall
immediately order the bondsman to surrender
the convict to it within ten (10) days from notice
and thereafter issue the corresponding
mittimus. In both cases, the trial court shall
submit to this Court proof of the execution of
judgment within fifteen (15) days from date of
such execution. It is clear from the foregoing
that the practice of requiring convicts to appear
before the trial courts for promulgation of the
affirmance or modification by this Court or the
CA of judgments of conviction in criminal cases
is no longer allowed. (Almuete v People, G.R.
No. 179611, March 12, 2013)
Mittimus
A document issued by the court after conviction
of the accused to enforce the final judgment by
commanding a jailer to hold the accused in
accordance with the terms of such judgment.
Rule 122. Appeal
The review on appeal of a decision in a criminal
case wherein the CA imposes a penalty other
than death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment is by petition for review on
certiorari raising only questions of law. (Olarte
v. People, G.R. No. 197731, July 6, 2015)
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire
case for review on any question including one
not raised by the parties. When an accused
appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he
waives the constitutional safeguard against
double jeopardy and throws the whole case
open to the review of the appellate court, which
is then called upon to render such judgment as
law and justice dictate, whether favorable or
unfavorable to the appellant. In other words,
when appellant appealed the RTC’s judgment
of conviction for murder, he is deemed to have
abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on
double jeopardy since it became the duty of the
appellate court to correct errors as may be
found in the appealed judgment. (People v.
Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014)
Rule 126. Search and Seizure
A search warrant is not a criminal action nor
does it represent a commencement of a
criminal prosecution even if it is entitled like a
criminal action. It is not a proceeding against a
person but solely for the discovery and to get
possession of a personal property. It is a
special peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and
made necessary because of public necessity. It
resembles in some respects with what is
commonly known as John Doe proceedings.
( United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, 461 SCRA
574)
Search Warrants; Probable Cause;
Probable cause for a valid search warrant is
defined “as such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been
committed, and that objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched.” The probable cause
must be “determined personally by the judge,
after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.” Probable cause does not mean actual
and positive cause, nor does it import absolute
certainty. It is only concerned with the question
of whether the affiant has reasonable grounds
to believe that the accused committed or is
committing the crime charged. (People v.
Gayoso,G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017)
The determination of probable cause does not
call for the application of rules and standards of
proof that a judgment of conviction requires
after trial on the merits. As implied by the words
themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with
probability, not absolute or even moral
certainty. The prosecution need not present at
this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
standards of judgment are those of a
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
reasonably prudent man, not the exacting
calibrations of a judge after a full blown trial.
(Century Chinese Medicine Co. Vs. People,
709 SCRA 177)
Personal examination by judge of the
applicant and witnesses
The required procedure involves the following:
a. The examination must be personally
conducted by the judge;
b. The examination must be in the form of
searching questions and answers;
c. The complainant and the witnesses
shall be examined on those facts
personally known to them;
d. The statements must be in writing and
under oath; and
e. The sworn statements of the
complainant and the witnesses, together
with the affidavits submitted, shall be
attached to the record (Sec 5, Rule 126)
Particularity of the place to be searched and
the things seized
The place to be searched must be particularly
described. The place is considered particularly
described if it to a definitely ascertainable place
as to exclude other places. (People vs.
Velasco, 48, Phil 169)
The place to be searched as set out in the
warrant cannot be amplified or modified by the
officers’ own personal knowledge of the
premises, or the evidence they adduced in
support of their application for the warrant – the
particularization of the description of the place
to be searched may be properly be done only
by heir judge only in the warrant itself. (People
vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 400)
The warrant is valid when it enables the police
officers to readily identify the properties to be
seized and leaves them with no discretion
regarding the articles to be seized. (World Wide
Web Corporation, et al. vs. People of the
Philippines, et al./ Planet Internet Corporation
vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company, G.R. Nos. 161106/161266)
Q: The search warrant authorized the
seizure of "undetermined quantity of
shabu." During the service of the search
warrant, the raiding team also recovered a
kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in
newsprint. The accused moved to suppress
the marijuana leaves as evidence for the
violation of Section 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 since they were not covered by the
search warrant. The State justified the
seizure of the marijuana leaves under the
"plain view" doctrine. There was no
indication of whether the marijuana leaves
were discovered and seized before or after
the seizure of the shabu. If you are the
judge, how would you rule on the motion to
suppress? (2008 Bar)
A: The motion to suppress filed by the accused
should be granted. The search warrant violates
the constitutional and statutory requirement that
it should particularly describe the person or
things to be seized (Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987
Constitution; Sec. 2, Rule 126). The “plain view”
doctrine cannot be invoked because the
marijuana leaves were wrapped in newsprint.
Besides the marijuana leaves are not the
subject of the search warrant.
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest
A person lawfully arrested may be searched,
without a search warrant, for dangerous
weapons, or anything which may have been
used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense (Section 13, Rule 126). (People vs.
Almodiel, 680 SCRA 306, 322)
In lawful arrest, it becomes both the duty and
the right of the arresting officer to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of
the suspect but also within the permissible area
within the suspect’s reach. A valid arrest allows
the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons
either on the person of the suspect or within the
area of his immediate control.
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
“Within the area of his immediate control”
means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence. (Valeroso vs Court of Appeals, 598
SCRA 41)
Search of moving vehicle
Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
justified on the ground that “it is not practicable
to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
in which the warrant must be sought. (People
vs Tuazon, 532 SCRA 152)
Police officers are limited only to routine checks
where the search of a vehicle is limited to visual
inspection.
In order to subject such vehicle to a valid
extensive search, there must be a probable
cause to do so.
Probable cause in a search of a moving vehicle
is a belief, a reasonably arising out of
circumstances known to the seizing officer that
an automobile or other vehicle contains an item,
article or object which by law is subject to
seizure and destruction. (People vs. Libnao,
395 SCRA 407)
Checkpoints
Under exceptional circumstances, as where the
survival of organized government is on balance,
or where the lives and safety of the people are
in grave peril, checkpoints may be allowed and
installed by the government.
For as long as the vehicle is neither searched
or the occupants is subjected to a body search,
and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a
visual search, said routine checks cannot be
regarded as violative of an individual’s right
against unreasonable search. (Valmonte vs De
Villa, 185 SCRA 665, 668-669)
Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid for
as long as they are warranted by exigencies of
public order and are conducted in a way least
intrusive to motorists. (People vs Vinecario, 420
SCRA 280, 291)
Plain View
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in
the plain view of an officer who has a right to be
in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented in evidence.
The plain view doctrine applies when the
following requisites concur:
1. The law enforcement officer in search of
the evidence has a prior justification for
an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain
view is inadvertent; and
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer
that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject of seizure. (Abelita III
vs. Doria, 596 SCRA 220, 228)
Stop and frisk
Stop and frisk is the act of a police officer to
stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and
pat him for weapons or contraband. The police
officer should properly introduce himself and
make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a
person who manifests unusual and suspicious
conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer
clothing for possibly concealed weapons.
The apprehending officer must have a genuine
reason, in accordance with the police officer’s
experience and the surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person to be held for
weapons or contraband concealed about him.
(Esquillo vs. People 629 SCRA 370)
Consented Search
It is fundamental that to constitute a waiver of
the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches, it must appear that:
(a) The right exist;
(b) The person involved had knowledge,
either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right; and
(c) The said person had an actual
intention to relinquish the right.
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
(People vs Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463,
482)
The implied silence to the search, if there was
any, could not have been more than a mere
passive conformity given under intimidation or
coercive circumstances and is, thus considered
no consent at all within the purview of the
constitutional guarantee. (People vs. Cogaed,
G.R. No. 200334)
Customs search
If the purpose of the search is the enforcement
of customs and tariff laws, persons exercising
police authority under customs law may effect
search and seizure without a search warrant in
the enforcement of customs laws. (Papa vs.
Mago, 22 SCRA 857)
Search of vessels and aircraft
Search and seizure of vessels and aircraft may
validly be made without search warrant (Section
2203, Tariffs and Customs Code) This power
extends to the removal of any false bottom,
partition, bulkhead or other obstruction, so far
as may be necessary to enable the officer to
discover whether any destroyable or forfeitable
articles may be concealed (Section 2210,
Tariffs and Customs Code)
Inspection of buildings and other premises
for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and
building regulations.
One of the instances where the Supreme Court
has allowed government authorities to conduct
searches and seizures without a warrant is
when the case involves the inspection of
buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
regulations (People vs Rodrigueza, 205
SCCRA 791, Citing Camara vs Municipal Court,
387 U.S. 523)
Exigent and emergency circumstances
This exception is a general catch-all category
that encompasses a number of diverse
situations. What they have in common is some
kind of emergency that makes obtaining a
search warrant impractical, useless, dangerous,
or unnecessary. Among these situations are
danger to physical harm to the officer or
destruction of evidence, danger to a third
person, driving while intoxicated, and searches
in hot pursuit. (People vs. Fernandez, 239
SCRA 174)
Remedies for unlawful searches and seizure
Motion to quash the search warrant
The followings shall be the sufficient
grounds for the quashal of the search warrant:
a. When the search warrant is in the
nature of a general warrant without
specific description of the place to be
searched and the things to be seized
(Section 2, Article III, 1987 Philippine
Constitution);
b. Failure to conduct searching questions
and answer before the issuance of
search warrant by the issuing judge
( Peudon vs. CA et al. G.R. No. 84873)
c. The search warrant was issued based
not on personal knowledge or
information;
d. A search warrant for more than one
offense or a “scatter-shot warrant”
(Section 4, Rule 126); or
e. When the thing ordered seized are
legally in possession of a person.
Motion to suppress evidence
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section (Section 2) shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceedings (Section 3, Article III, 1987
Philippine Constitution).
EVIDENCE
Rule 128. General Provisions
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law of these
rules. (Sec. 3, Rule 128)
Inadmissibility of evidence
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does
not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an
illegal warrantless arrest. (Villamor v. People,
G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017)
Miranda Rights; Exclusionary Rule
The infractions of the so-called Miranda rights
render inadmissible only the extrajudicial
confession or admission made during custodial
investigation. (People v. Bio, G.R. No. 195850,
February 16, 2015)
Rule 129. What Need Not Be Proved
Judicial Admissions
An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through:
1) palpable mistake or
2) that no such admission was made.
(Section 4, Rule 129)
A party may make judicial admissions in
(a) The pleadings,
(b) During trial, either by verbal or
written manifestations or
stipulations, or
(c) In other stages of the judicial
proceeding.
(Manzanilla v. Waterfields
Industries Corporation G.R. No.
177484, July 18, 2014)
Judicial Notice; Foreign Law
A written foreign law may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested
by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody, if
the office in which the record is kept is in a
foreign country, the certificate may be made by
a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent
or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his office.
(Spouses Zalamea vs Court of Appeals G.R.
No. 104235)
Processual Presumption
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that
foreign law is the same as ours. (ATCI
Overseas Corporation vs Echin, G.R. No.
178551)
Rule 130. Rule of Admissibility
A legal question on the admissibility is
within the Court’s authority to review; A
petition for review should raise only
questions of law; Exception
The issues involved herein are not entirely
factual. Petitioners assail the appellate court’s
rejection of their evidence (as to the contractual
intent) as inadmissible under the Best Evidence
Rule. The question involving the admissibility of
evidence is a legal question that is within the
Court’s authority to review.
The Court may resolve questions of fact when
the case falls under any of the following
exceptions:
1. when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures;
2. when the interference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
3. when there is grave abuse of
discretion;
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
4. when the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts;
5. when the findings of facts are
conflicting;
6. when in making its findings the Court
of Appeals went beyond the issues
of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both
the appellant and the appellee;
7. when the findings are contrary to
those of the trial court;
8. when the findings are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based;
9. when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner’s
main and reply briefs are not
disputed by respondent; and
10. when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by
evidence on record.
(Marquez v. Espejo G.R. No. 168387,
August 25, 2010)
Chain of custody
Object evidence which are not readily
identifiable, were not made identifiable or
cannot be made identifiable is authenticated by
establishing a Chain of Custody.
The purpose of establishing a chain of custody
is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved, so
much so that unnecessary doubts as to the
identity of the evidence are removed.(People
vs. Langcua G.R. No. 190343)
Documentary Evidence; Medical Certificate;
Rape
The absence of a medical certificate is not fatal
for the prosecution in rape cases. In view of the
intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that
can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender
is the testimony of the offended party.
Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic
nature of rape, the only evidence that can be
offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the
testimony of the offended party. “Even absent a
medical certificate, her testimony, standing
alone, can be made the basis of conviction if
such testimony is credible. Moreover, the
absence of external injuries does not negate
rape. In fact, even the [presence] of
spermatozoa is not an essential element of
rape.” (People v. Lagangga,G.R. No. 207633,
December 9, 2015)
Best Evidence Rule; Parol Evidence Rule;
Discretion
The problem of the credibility of the expert
witness and the evaluation of his testimony is
left to the discretion of the trial court whose
ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the
absence of an abuse of that discretion.
There is no room for the application of the Best
Evidence Rule when there is no dispute
regarding the contents of the documents.
The Parol Evidence Rule may not be invoked
where at least one of the parties to the suit is
not a party or privy to the written document in
question and does not base his claim on the
instrument or assert a right originating in the
document. (Paje v. Casino G.R. No. 207257,
207276, 207282 & 207366, February 3, 2015)
There is no law requiring that in drug cases
the testimony of a single witness has to be
corroborated to be believed.
The argument of the appellant that the
prosecution’s account of the buy-bust operation
is unworthy of belief since no corroborative
testimony was presented, fails to impress.
There is no law requiring that in drug cases the
testimony of a single witness has to be
corroborated to be believed.
Corroborative evidence is vital only when
there are reasons to suspect that the witness
twisted the truth, or that his or her observation
was inaccurate. Evidence is assessed in terms
of quality, not quantity. It is to be weighed, not
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
counted. Thus, it is not uncommon to reach a
conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony
of a lone witness. (People v. Alberto, G.R. No.
179717. February 5, 2010)
Hearsay Evidence Rule
Evidence, whether oral or documentary, is
hearsay if its probative value is not based on
the personal knowledge of the witness but on
the knowledge of another person who is not on
the witness stand.
An unverified and unidentified private document
cannot be accorded probative value. It is
precluded because the party against whom it is
presented is deprived of the right and
opportunity to cross-examine the person to
whom the statements or writings are attributed.
Its executor or author should be presented as a
witness to provide the other party to the
litigation the opportunity to question its
contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure
to present the author of the letter renders its
contents suspect and of no probative value.
(Marina Port Services, Inc. v. American Home
Assurance Corporation G.R. No. 201822,
August 12, 2015)
Exception to Hearsay Evidence Rule
Land Bank argues that the entries in the
passbooks were made in the regular course of
business and should be accepted as prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. But
before entries made in the course of business
may qualify under the exception to the hearsay
rule and given weight, the party offering entries
made in the course of business must establish
that:
1. the person who made those entries is
dead, outside the country, or unable to
testify;
2. the entries were made at, or near the
time of the transaction which they refer;
3. the entrant was in a position to know
the facts stated therein;
4. the entries were made in the
professional capacity or in the course of
duty of the entrant; and
5. the entries were made in the ordinary or
regular course of business.(Landbank of
the Philippines v. Onate G.R. No.
192371, January 15, 2014)
Dying Declaration
Delay in reporting a crime or an unusual
incident in a rural area is well-known. It is
common for a witness to prefer momentary
silence for fear of reprisal from the accused and
delay in testifying is insufficient to discredit his
testimony.
A dying declaration is an evidence of the
highest order; it is entitled to the utmost
credence on the premise that no person who
knows his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation. (People v.
Cabtalan G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012)
Q: Requisites of Dying Declaration
A: The requisites for the admissibility of a dying
declaration are:
a. the declaration is made by the deceased
under the consciousness of his
impending death;
b. the deceased was at the time competent
as a witness;
c. the declaration concerns the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death; and
d. the declaration is offered in a(criminal)
case wherein the declarant's death is
the subject of inquiry (People v. Santos,
G.R. No. 94545, April 4, 1997).
Testimonial Evidence
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted
solely on the testimony of the victim, provided
the testimony is credible, natural, convincing,
and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things.
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
The credibility ascribed to the victim and her
testimony is an essential aspect of evidence
which appellate courts can rely on because of
the unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses, their demeanour, attitude, and
conduct during their direct and cross-
examination. (People v. Caga, G.R. No.
206878, August 22, 2016)
Deaf-Mute Witness
A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak
but his/her other senses, such as his/her sense of
sight, remain functional and allow him/her to make
observations about his/her environment and
experiences. The inability to hear and speak may
prevent a deaf-mute from communicating orally
with others but he/she may still communicate with
others in writing or through signs and symbols
and, as in this case, sketches. Thus, a deaf-mute
is competent to be a witness so long as he/she
has the faculty to make observations and he/she
can make those observations known to others.
(People of the Philippines vs.Aleman, G.R.
No. 181539 , July 24, 2013)
Paternity; Filiation
A certificate of live birth purportedly
identifying the putative father is not competent
evidence of paternity when there is no showing
that the putative father had a hand in the
preparation of said certificate. (Perla v. Baring,
G.R. No. 172471, November 12, 2012)
Rule 131. Burden of Proof and
Presumptions
Conclusive Presumptions
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
his landlord at the time of commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between
them. (Sec. 2, (b) Rule 130)
A tenant may show that the landlord’s title has
expired or been conveyed to another or himself,
and he is not estopped to deny a claim for rent
if he has been ousted or evicted by title
paramount.
What a tenant is estopped from denying is the
title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the landlord-tenant relation.
If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have
been acquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the
presumption will not apply.” Hence, “the tenant
may show that the landlord’s title has expired or
been conveyed to another or himself; and he is
not estopped to deny a claim for rent, if he has
been ousted or evicted by title paramount.”
(Chua v. People G.R. No. 171129, April 6,
2011)
Rule 132. Presentation of Evidence
Formal Offer of Evidence
Courts will only consider evidence that which
has been formally offered. (Segiratan v. People
G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010)
However, Even if an exhibit is not formally
offered, the same may still be admitted against
the adverse party if:
1) it has been duly identified by testimony
duly recorded; and
2) it has itself been incorporated in the
records of the case. (People v. Baturi,
G.R. No. 189812, September 1, 2014)
Objection to Evidence
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal. When a party desires the
court to reject the evidence offered, he must so
state in the form of an objection during trial.
(People v. Gabuya, G.R. No. 195245, February
16, 2015)
Credibility of Witnesses
The workings of a human mind placed under
emotional stress are unpredictable leading
people to act differently. There is no standard
form of behavioural response when confronted
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
with a startling or frightful occurrence. (People
v. Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Forgery cannot be presumed and must be
proved by clear, positive, and convincing
evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the
party alleging forgery to establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. (Spouses
Aguinaldo vs. Torres, Jr., G.R. No. 225808,
September 11, 2017)
The opinions of handwriting experts are not
necessarily binding upon the court especially
when the question involved is mere handwriting
similarity or dissimilarity, which can be
determined by a visual comparison of specimens
of the questioned signatures with those of the
currently existing ones. A finding of forgery does
not depend entirely on the testimonies of hand-
writing experts because the judge must conduct
an independent examination of the questioned
signature in order to arrive at a reasonable
conclusion as to its authenticity. (The Heirs of
Donton vs. Stier, G.R. No. 216491, August
23, 2017)
Generally, a notarized document carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution, and documents
acknowledged before a notary public have in
their favor the presumption of regularity which
may only be rebutted by clear and convincing
evidence. A defective notarization will strip the
document of its public character and reduce it to
a private document and the measure to test the
validity of such document is preponderance of
evidence. (Rural Bank of Cabadbaran, Inc.
vs. Melecio-Yap, G.R. No. 178451, July 30,
2014)
Rule 133. Weight and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Alibi
Courts likewise view the defense of alibi
with suspicion and caution, not only
because it is inherently weak and
unreliable, but also because it can be
fabricated easily; When a defense witness
is a family member, relative or close
friend, courts should view such testimony
with scepticism. (People v. Villarino, G.R. No.
185012, March 5, 2010)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
A document in which there are no terms and
conditions found therein from which a right or
obligation may be established cannot be
considered an actionable document upon which
an action or defense may be founded.
Consequently, there is no need to deny its
genuineness and due execution under oath in
accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Ogawa vs. Menigishi, G.R. No. 193089,
July 9, 2012)
Circumstantial Evidence; Requisites.
Considering that there were no witnesses to the
commission of the crime charged herein, the
weight of the prosecution’s evidence must then
be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule
that an accused can be convicted even in the
absence of an eyewitness, as long as sufficient
circumstantial evidence is presented by the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused committed the crime.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of
collateral facts and circumstances from which
the existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a
conviction if:
1. there is more than one circumstance;
2. the facts from which the inferences were
derived have been established; and
3. the combination of all circumstances is
such as to warrant a finding of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. (Etom, Jr. v.
Aroma Lodging House G.R. Nos.
173510 & 174099, March 12, 2010)
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term
writing, document, record, instrument,
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]
memorandum or any other form of writing, such
term shall be deemed to include an electronic
document as definedin the Rules. (Section 3,
Rule 1, Rules on Electronic Evidence)
An electronic document does not only refer to
the information itself. It also refers to the
representation of that information. Whether it be
the information itself or its representation, for
the document to be deemed electronic, it is
important that it be received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically. (Section 1(h), Rule 2,
Rules on Electronic Evidence)
An electronic document is admissible in
evidence if it complies with the rules on
admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court
and related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by the Rules (Sec. 2, Rule
3, Id.).
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
Writ of Kalikasan; Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
The writ is categorized as a special civil action
and was, thus, conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide
judicial relief from threaetened or actual
violation/s of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude
or degree of damage that transcends political
and territorial boundaries. It is intended “to
provide a stronger defense for environmental
rights through judicial efforts where institutional
arrangements of enforcement, implementation
and legislation have fallen short” and seeks “to
address the potentially exponential nature of
large-scale ecological threats.” c
Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following
requisites must be present to avail of this
extraordinary remedy:
(1) There is an actual or threatened
violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology;
(2) The actual or threatened violation arises
from an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private
individual or entity; and
(3) The actual or threatened violation
involves or will lead to an environmental
damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.
Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact
nature or degree of environmental damage but
only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms
of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to
call for the grant of this extraordinary remedy.
The gravity of environmental damage sufficient
to grant the writ is, thus, to be decided on a
case-to-case basis.
Due to the extreme urgency of the matter at
hand, the present case is an exception to the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies
It is worth noting that the Rules on the Writ of
Kalikasan allow the parties to raise, on appeal,
questions of fact and, thus, constitutes an
exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
because of the extraordinary nature of the
circumstances surrounding the issuance of a
writ of kalikasan. Thus, we shall review both
questions of law and fact in resolving the issues
presented in this case.
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
Preliminary Injunction; Not Allowed
Except the Supreme Court, no court can
issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction
against lawful actions of government
agencies that enforce environmental laws or
prevent violations thereof. (Sec. 10, Rules Of
Procedure for Environmental Cases)
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation (SLAPP)
 CIVIL LAW PRE–WEEK
[2018]

A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any subject matter but it does not mention the
person, institution or the government has taken ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person.
or may take in the enforcement of (Victorias Milling Co.Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
environmental laws, protection of the G.R. No. 168062, June 29, 2010)
environment or assertion of environmental
rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be
governed by these Rules.( RULE 6, Section 1,
Rules Of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

SLAPP as a Defense

In a SLAPP filed against a person involved in

the enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment, or assertion of
environmental rights, the defendant may file an
answer interposing as a defense that the case
is a SLAPP and shall be supported by
documents, affidavits, papers and other
evidence; and, by way of counterclaim, pray for
damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
(Rule 6, Sec. 2, Rules Of Procedure for
Environmental Cases)

J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:

An action is considered "moot" when it no longer

presents a justiciable controversy be-cause the
issues involved have become academic or dead
or when the matter in dispute has already been
resolved and hence, one is not entitled to
judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to
be raised again between the parties. The relief
sought in the petition for Writ of Kalikasan did
not extend far enough to enjoin the use of the
results of the field trials that have been
completed. Hence, the petition's specificity
prevented it from falling under the exceptions to
the mootness rule. (International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace
Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. No.
209271, July 26, 2016)

RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

Sec. 19. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions

Motion to Dismiss

The Rule on Summary Procedure, by way of

exception, permits only a motion to dismiss on