JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS DETERMINED FROM ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

The basic rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is determined from the allegations in the complaint. In this
case, the Republic alleges that no judgment from the LRA ever existed therefore it is not one considered as annulment of
judgment, rather one for cancellation and reversion of title. Therefore, it is the RTC and not the CA which exercised jurisdiction
because such case involve title to, or possession of real property which assessed value exceeds 20,000. (Malabanan v.
Republic, G.R. No.201821, September 19, 2018)

WHERE THERE IS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON AND THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE DECISION ON ALL OTHER
QUESTIONS ARISING IN THE CASE IS BUT AN EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION.
As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered
therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case
is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors
of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. (Sanchez v. Vda. De Aguilar, G.R.No. 228680, September 17, 2018)

FOR PRACTICALITY, THE NEED TO ISSUE A SEPARATE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE HEIRSHIP MAY BE
DISPENSED WITH
The need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of
practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their
evidence regarding the issue of heirship," and "the [trial court] had consequently rendered judgment upon the issues it defined
during the pre-trial. (Fabillar v. Paller. G.R.No. 231459, January 21, 2019)

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT NOT BY
THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE COURT
It is an established principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, it is an
established principle that jurisdiction is not determined by the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial
court. (Davao ACF Bus Lines, Inc. v Ang, G.R.No.218516, March 27, 2019)

THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE VENUE OF APPEALS AND PROPER FORUM FOR
EXTRAORDINARY WRITS
Although this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted
freedom of choice of court forum. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals,
and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs.(Dr. Fe Lasam v.
PNB, G.R. No. 207433, December 5, 2018)

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS ARE MORE TAILORED TO THE SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS
AND DISCRETION OF THE SUPREME COURT BUT COURT OF APPEALS IS WITH DISCRETION WHETHER TO GIVE
DUE COURSE TO ANY PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DIRECTLY FILED BEFORE IT
It is doubtful whether the Court of Appeals could apply the same rationale when the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts is
invoked. In any case, it has full discretion on whether to give due course to any petition for certiorari directly filed before it.
(MWSS Vs. LGU Of Quezon City, G.R. No. 194388, November 07, 2018)

JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, TYPE OF RELIEF PRAYED, AND
THE LAW IN EFFECT WHEN FILED
Settled is the rule that the nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is
determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the
action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein. Absent any
allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be determined which between the RTC or the
Municipal Trial Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over respondents' action (Heirs of Ramiro vs. Sps. Bacaron, G.R.
No. 196874, February 06, 2019)

QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES ONLY POSSESS JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS THAT ARE CONFERRED UPON THEM BY
THEIR ENABLING STATUTES
Like courts, administrative boards and officers vested with quasi-judicial power may only exercise jurisdiction over matters that
their enabling statutes confer in them. This rule applies even though the parties hold out to the administrative agency concerned
that it has jurisdiction over a particular dispute. (Victoria Manufacturing Corporation Employees Union vs. Victoria
Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 234446, July 24, 2019)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL FINDS APPLICATION ONLY WHERE THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IS SO BELATEDLY
RAISED THAT IT MAY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED BY THE INVOKING PARTY
Generally, lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and is a defense that cannot be lost. However, by way of narrow
exception, the doctrine of estoppel by !aches, which rests on considerations of public policy, may effectively bar jurisdictional
challenges. (Victoria Manufacturing Corporation Employees Union Vs. Victoria Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No.
234446, July 24, 2019)

JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED BY THE COMPLAINT AND RELIEF SOUGHT

The Court has repeatedly held that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by examining the material allegations of the
complaint and the relief sought. (Berbano vs. Heirs of Tapulao, G.R. No. 227482, July 1, 2019)

A PARTY CANNOT ASK FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF THEN REPUDIATE SAME JURISDICTION AFTER FAILING TO
OBTAIN SUCH RELIEF
The Court held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court and ask for affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.(Berbano vs. Heirs of Tapulao, G.R. No.
227482, July 1, 2019)

PAYMENT OF THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FILING FEES SHOULD NOT BE MADE CONTINGENT ON THE RESULT OF A
CASE
The rule on after-judgment liens applies to instances of incorrectly assessed or paid filing fees, or where the court has discretion
to fix the amount to be awarded. The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although specified are left
for determination of the court is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for
then it will not be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof. (Heirs of Renato Dragon vs.
Manila Banking Corp. G.R. No. 205068, March 06, 2019)

FAILURE TO PAY CORRESPONDING DOCKET FEES FOR AN INCREASED AMOUNT PRAYED FOR DOES PREVENT
THE COURT FROM ACQUIRING JURISDICTION
It is an established rule that the payment of the prescribed docket fees is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a case.
Should the docket fees paid be found insufficient considering the value of the claim, the filing party shall be required to pay the
deficiency, but jurisdiction is not automatically lost. The clerk of court involved, or his or her duly authorized deputy, is
responsible for making the deficiency assessment. If a party pays the correct amount of docket fees for its original initiatory
pleading, but later amends the pleading and increases the amount prayed for, the failure to pay the corresponding docket fees
for the increased amount should not be deemed to have curtailed the court's jurisdiction (International Container Terminal
Services, Inc. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 185622, October 17, 2018)

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHT ACT DOES NOT REMOVE COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
The Philippine legal system's framework for the protection of indigenous peoples was never intended and will not operate to
deprive courts of jurisdiction over criminal offenses. Individuals belonging to indigenous cultural communities who are charged
with criminal offenses cannot invoke Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997, to evade
prosecution and liability under courts of law (Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick Sumatra) v. Cebu City Prosecutor Lineth Lapinid,
G.R. No. 221139, March 20, 2019).

THE JOINDER OF COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY AND ACTION FOR EJECTMENT IS ENJOINED BY SECTION 5,
RULE 2 OF THE RULES OF COURT
An action for collection of sum of money may not be properly joined with the action for ejectment. The former is an ordinary civil
action requiring a full-blown trial, while an action for unlawful detainer is a special civil action which requires a summary
procedure. The joinder of the two actions is specifically enjoined by Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (Lavaje Agricultural
Management and Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Sps. Apilis-Javellana, G.R. No. 223785, November 7, 2018).

IN LOAN SECURED BY A MORTGAGE THE CREDITOR HAS SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEBTOR
In case of a loan secured by a mortgage, the creditor has a single cause of action against the debtor — the recovery of the
credit with execution upon the security. The creditor cannot split his single cause of action by filing a complaint on the loan, and
thereafter another separate complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage. (Central Visayas Finance Corporation v. Sps.
Adlawan, G.R. No. 212674, March 25, 2019)

JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IS MANDATORY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF IMPLEADING ALL THE
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES RESTS ON THE PLAINTIFF
The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and the responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the
plaintiff. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Otherwise
stated, the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
act not only as to the absent party but even as to those present. (Tumagan, Halil, and Padilla v. Kairuz, G.R. No. 198124;
September 12, 2018)

IF THE PRINCIPAL PARTY CANNOT SIGN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING THE ONE SIGNING ON
HIS BEHALF MUST HAVE BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED
Section 5, 25 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the plaintiff
or principal party. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or the principal knows better than anyone, whether a petition has
previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign
the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. (Heirs of Gabriel vs Cebrero, GR No. 222737.
November 12, 2018)

FAILURE TO IMPLEAD AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY DOES NOT MERIT THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
As a general rule, failure to implead an indispensable party does not merit the dismissal of the case. However, if the plaintiff
refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's
failure to comply with the order. (PNCC vs Superlines, GR 216569. June 3, 2019)

ABSENCE OF AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY RENDERS ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS OF THE COURT NULL AND VOID
FOR WANT OF AUTHORITY TO ACT
The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and courts cannot proceed without their presence. The presence of
indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear and determine a cause, the
right to act in a case. Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, the judgment of a court cannot
attain real finality. 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 as to those present (Heirs of Dinglasan vs Ayala Corporation, GR
204378. August 5, 2019)

THE RESIDENCE OF A CORPORATION IS CONSIDERED AS THE PLACE WHERE ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS LOCATED
AS STATED IN THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
It has been consistently held that an action for collection of sum of money is a personal action. Taking into account that no
exception can be applied in this case, the venue, then, is "where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides at the election of the plaintiff." For a corporation, its residence is
considered the place where its principal office is located as stated in its Articles of Incorporation. (Hygienic Packaging v. Nutri-
Asia, G.R. No. 201302, January 23, 2019)

ABSENT A VALID STIPULATION, THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE FOR THE FILING OF THE CASE DETERMINES THE VENUE
By weight of jurisprudence, the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In turn, the nature of the
action determines its proper venue. Otherwise stated, what determines the venue of a case is the primary objective for the filing
of the case. On one hand, if the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery
of damages, his complaint is a personal action that may be filed in the place of residence of either party. On the other hand, if
the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or if the action affects title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or
for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, then the complaint is a real action that must be
brought before the court where the real property is located. (Racpan v. Barroga-Haigh, G.R. No. 234499, June 6, 2018)

EVEN IF IT APPEARS THAT VENUE HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY LAID, WITHOUT OBJECTION IN THE EARLIEST
OPPORTUNITY, IT IS DEEMED WAIVED
Clearly, the RTC confused the concepts of jurisdiction and venue which, as already discussed, are not synonymous with each
other. Even assuming arguendo that the RTC correctly pertained to venue, it still committed grave error in dismissing petitioner's
complaint. Even if it appears that venue has been improperly laid, it is well-settled that the courts may not motu proprio dismiss
the case on the ground of improper venue. Without any objection at the earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer, it is deemed waived. (Radiowealth Finance Co., Inc. v. Pineda, Jr., G.R. No. 227147, [July 30, 2018])

A PARTY MAY BE BARRED FROM RAISING LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER ON THE GROUND
OF ESTOPPEL
While it is true that the Court has held that the jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings, the
Court has likewise pronounced that this general rule is not absolute. It is settled that, upon the existence of certain exceptional
circumstances, a party may be barred from raising lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of estoppel. (Sps.
Rebamonte vs. Sps. Lucero, G.R. No. 237812, October 2, 2019)

OMISSION IN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING THAT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE RES JUDICATA AND
LITIS PENDENTIA IS NOT FATAL TO MERIT OUTRIGHT CASE DISMISSAL
Jurisprudence holds that an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res
judicata and litis pendencia is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings, given that the evils

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
sought to be prevented by the said certification are not present. (BDO Leasing & Finance, Inc. vs. Great Domestic Insurance
Company Of The Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 205286. June 19, 2019)

FOR A PARTY TO BE GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IS WHETHER THE
REQUIREMENTS OF LITIS PENDENTIA CONCUR
For a party to be guilty of forum shopping the most important factor is whether the requirements of litis pendentia concur: a)
identity of parties; b) identity of rights asserted, and; c) any judgement in one of the case would amount to res judicata in the
other case. In ejectment cases, the rentals that may be claimed are limited only to those accrued after the alleged
dispossession of the subject property. Any deficiency in rentals during a valid lease agreement must be claimed in a separate
ordinary civil action. Thus second and third element of litis pendentia are lacking. (Lavaje Agricultural Management and
Development Enterprises, Inc. vs. Spouses Javellana, G.R. No. 223785, November 7, 2018)

IT IS THE PARTY-PLEADER WHO MUST SIGN THE SWORN CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
It should be emphasized that it is the party-pleader who must sign the sworn certification against forum shopping for the reason
that he/she has personal knowledge of whether or not another action or proceeding was commenced involving the same parties
and causes of action. If the party-pleader is unable to personally sign the certification, he/she must execute a special power of
attorney (SPA) authorizing his/her counsel to sign in his/her behalf. (Leriou v. Longa, GR No. 203923, October 08, 2018)

THE TEST TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF FORUM SHOPPING IS WHETHER IN THE TWO OR MORE CASES
PENDING, THERE IS IDENTITY OF PARTIES, RIGHTS OR CAUSES OF ACTION, AND RELIEFS SOUGHT
In forum shopping, what is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to
rule on the same and related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the
possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different for a upon the same issues. Willful and deliberate violation of
the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.

Forum shopping is present whenever a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
substantially the same issues. The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether in the two or more cases
pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. If a situation of litis pendentia or res judicata
arises by virtue of a party’s commencement of a judicial remedy identical to the one which already exist, either pending or
already resolved, then a forum shopping infraction is committed.

Litis pendencia is a ground for the dismissal of action when there is another action pending between the same parties involving
the same cause of action, therefore, rendering the the second action unnecessary and vexatious. It exists when there is identity
of parties or of representation in both cases; when there is identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for; the reliefs are founded
on the same facts and on the same basis; and the identity in the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment
which may be rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata on the action
under consideration.

Res judicata, on the other hand, exists if the former judgment or order is final; said judgement or order must be on the merits;
the same having been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and there must be,
between the first and second action, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action. (BF Citiland Corp. vs. Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 224912, October 19, 2019)

GENERAL DENIAL AMOUNTS TO AN ADMISSION OF THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENT
The purpose of the specific denial is to compel the defendant to specify the allegations which he or she intends to disprove and
disclose the matters relied upon to support such denial, thereby limiting the issues and avoiding unnecessary delays and
surprises. Failure to state the facts or substance of the matters relied upon to support its denial of the due execution is a general
denial which amounts to an admission of the genuineness and due execution of the document. (Lara’s Gift & Decors Inc v
Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc. G.R. No. 225433, August 28, 2019)

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE EARNEST EFFORT REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE 151 OF THE FAMILY CODE IS NOT
A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WARRANTING A MOTU PROPRIO DISMISSAL BY THE COURTS
In Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled that non-compliance with the earnest effort requirement under Article
151 of the Family Code is not a jurisdictional defect which would authorize the courts to dismiss suits filed before them motu
proprio. Rather, it merely partakes of a condition precedent such that the non-compliance therewith constitutes a ground for
dismissal of a suit should the same be invoked by the opposing party at the earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in
the answer. Otherwise, such ground is deemed waived. (Moreno v. Kahn, G.R. No. 217744, July 30, 2018)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
ONCE A STRANGER BECOMES A PARTY TO A SUIT, THE EARNEST EFFORT REQUIREMENT IS NO LONGER A
CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE THE ACTION CAN PROSPER
For Article 151 of the Family Code to apply, the suit must be exclusively between or among "members of the same family." Once
a stranger becomes a party to such suit, the earnest effort requirement is no longer a condition precedent before the action can
prosper. Article 151 of the Family Code must be construed strictly, it being an exception to the general rule. Hence, any person
having a collateral familial relation with the plaintiff other than what is enumerated in Article 150 of the Family Code is
considered a stranger who, if included in a suit between and among family members, would render unnecessary the earnest
efforts requirement under Article 151. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The express mention of one person, thing, act, or
consequence excludes all others. (Moreno v. Kahn, G.R. No. 217744, July 30, 2018)

THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE INSTRUMENT SHALL BE DEEMED ADMITTED UNLESS THE
ADVERSE PARTY, UNDER OATH SPECIFICALLY DENIES THEM, AND SETS FORTH WHAT HE CLAIMS TO BE FACTS
Under Rule 8, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, whenever a defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the
substance of such instrument shall be set forth in the pleading and the original or copy thereof shall be attached in the pleading,
which shall be deemed part of the pleading. According to the succeeding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts (Francisco Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp., et. al, G.R. No. 241774, September 25, 2019).

THE POWER OF CONTEMPT HAS A TWO-FOLD ASPECT, NAMELY: “(1) THE PROPER PUNISHMENT OF THE GUILTY
PARTY FOR HIS DISRESPECT TO THE COURT OR ITS ORDER; AND (2) TO COMPEL HIS PERFORMANCE OF SOME
ACT OR DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM BY THE COURT WHICH HE REFUSES TO PERFORM.” DUE TO THIS TWO-FOLD
ASPECT, CONTEMPT MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS CIVIL OR CRIMINAL.
To be held liable for contempt, a person’s act must be done willfully or for an illegitimate or improper purpose. Thus, the good
faith, or lack thereof, of the person being cited in contempt should be considered. However, intent is a necessary element only in
criminal contempt cases. Because the purpose of civil contempt proceeding is remedial and not punitive, intent is immaterial.
Hence, good faith or lack of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt. (Webb vs. Gatdula, G.R. No.
194469; September 18, 2019)

A PARTY DECLARED IN DEFAULT DOES NOT SUGGEST A LOSS OF ALL HIS RIGHTS IN STAGES OF THE CASE
AFTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
A defending party declared in default loses his standing in the trial court and his right to adduce evidence and to present his
defense, this, however, does not impliedly suggest a loss of all his/her rights in the stages of the case after the default
judgment. The provision that the defaulting party cannot take part in the trial only meant that he/she has already lost his/her
standing in the trial court. In other words, the effect of the judgment of default is limited only to those stages in the prosecution of
the case which terminated with and included in the judgment of the trial court on the merits. (Royal Plains View Inc. v Mejia,
GR No. 230832, November 12, 2018)

THE TRIAL COURT MAY ALLOW THE PLAINTIFF IN ACTION TO PAY PROPER DOCKET FEES WITHIN A REASONABLE
TIME
Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an action
to pay the same within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. If the
plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be
considered in estoppel. (Rebadulla v Republic, GR No. 222159, January 31, 2018)

SERVICE SHALL BE MADE UPON THE COUNSEL, UNLESS SERVICE UPON THE PARTY IS ORDERED
Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that "if any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made
upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court." Thus, even if a party
represented by counsel has been actually notified, said notice is not considered notice in law. "The reason is simple — the
parties, generally, have no formal education or knowledge of the rules of procedure, specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or
availment of legal remedies; thus, they may also be unaware of the rights and duties of a litigant relative to the receipt of the
decision. More importantly, it is best for the courts to deal only with one person in the interest of orderly procedure- either the
lawyer retained by the party or the party him/herself if he/she does not intend to hire a lawyer (Villalongha vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 227222; August 20, 2019).

SERVICE BY ORDINARY MAIL IS ALLOWED ONLY IN INSTANCES WHERE NO REGISTRY SERVICE EXISTS EITHER IN
THE LOCALITY OF THE SENDER OR THE ADDRESSEE
Service by ordinary mail is allowed only in instances where no registry service exists either in the locality of the sender or the
addressee – this is the only credible justification why resort to service by ordinary mail or private courier may be allowed.
(Philippine Savings Bank vs Papa G.R. No., 200469 January 15, 2018)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON MAY BE ACQUIRED THROUGH 1) SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND 2) VOLUNTARY
APPEARANCE IN COURT
Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a case. One of the aspects of jurisdiction is
jurisdiction over the parties. This refers to the fundamental rule that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either
through: (1) service of summons or through (2) voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority (UCPB vs.
Spouses Ang Sy, G.R. No. 204753, March 27, 2019).

IF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS ABSENT OR IS DEFECTIVE, COURT ACQUIRED NO JURISDICTION AND

JUDGEMENT RENDERED THEREIN IS NULL AND VOID
It is settled that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or through voluntary
appearance in court and submission to its authority. In the absence of service or when the service of summons upon the person
of the defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is null and
void (People’s General insurance Corp. vs. Guanzing and Lizaso, G.R. No. 204759; November 14, 2018).

FILING VIA PRIVATE COURIER IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER PRESENT RULES

Filing via private courier or courier service is NOT a manner of filing allowed or recognized by the Rules of Court (Heirs of
Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215599; November 28, 2018).

PARTY MAY FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ONLY WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM NOTICE OF JUDGEMENT
According to Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, as well as Rule 7 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a party may file
a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution issued by the appellate court only within fifteen (15) days from
notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party (Heirs of Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215599;
November 28, 2018).

DUE PROCESS DICTATES THAT JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF A DEFENDANT CAN ONLY BE ACQUIRED BY
THE COURTS AFTER A STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES ON THE PROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS
The jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner was never vested with the RTC despite the mere filing of the petition for
annulment of judgment. Being an action in personam, the service of summons may be done by personal or substituted service.
A general statement that efforts were exerted to serve the summons will not suffice for the purpose of complying the rules of
substituted summons. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual mode of service. (Frias vs.
Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, February 28, 2018)

A PARTY WHO MAKES A SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO CHALLENGE, AMONG OTHERS, THE COURT’S JURISDICTION
OVER HIS PERSON CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE SUBMITTED TO ITS AUTHORITY
While it is true that an appearance in whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is
a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, the appearance must constitute a positive act on the part of the
litigant manifesting an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction. (Frias vs. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, February 28, 2018)

SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES ON SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO A JURIDICAL ENTITY
In actions in personam, such as collection for a sum of money and damages, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. If the defendant is a domestic private juridical entity, service
may be made on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. It has
been held that this enumeration is exclusive. (Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 203298, January 17,
2018)

EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE IS USED WHEN PARTY IS NOT FOUND IN THE COUNTRY OR TEMPORARILY OUT OF
THE COUNTRY
Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of summons. However, other modes of serving summons may be
done when justified by the circumstances of the case. Service of summons by extraterritorial service is allowed after leave of
court when the defendant or respondent does not reside or is not found in the country or is temporarily out of the country.
(Arrieta vs. Arrieta, G.R. No. 234808, November 19, 2018)
MOTION WITH A DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS A USELESS SCRAP OF PAPER AND COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ACT
THEREON
The Court has been categorical in treating a litigious motion without a valid notice of hearing as a mere scrap of paper. And the
subsequent action of the court on a defective motion does not cure the flaw, for a motion with a fatally defective notice is a
useless scrap of paper, and the court has no authority to act thereon (Zosa vs. Consilium Inc., G.R. No. 196765; September
19, 2018).

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
WHEN A PARTY FILES A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, IT MUST ALSO ATTACH A NOTICE OF HEARING
A motion that does not contain a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper; it presents no question which merits the attention of
the court. (B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Bernardo, GR. No. 233135, December 05, 2018)

A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT MAY BE BASED ON FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION, BARRED BY
PRIOR JUDGMENT AND LITIS PENDENTIA.
A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the 3 essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part
of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant
violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages.

The action is barred by prior judgment if the two cases, although involving different parties and different causes of action, have
the same underlying issue, that is, whether or not RCAM validly owns the subject property.

For litis pendentia to be invoked, the concurrence of the following requisites is necessary: (a) identity of parties or at least such
as represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on
the same facts; and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment rendered in one would, regardless of
which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. (Casa Milan Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. The Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila and Register Of Deeds Of Quezon City, GR. No. 220042, September 05, 2018)

JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW AND DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS, AND IS NOT
DEPENDENT ON THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
The presentation of a Torrens title was not a condition precedent to the vesting of jurisdiction in the Quezon City RTC. Couched
in general terms, a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction is not dependent on the evidence (or the lack thereof) of the
parties. (Carniyan vs. Home Guaranty Corporation, GR. No. 228516, August 14, 2019)

AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS AN ALLEGATION OF A NEW MATTER WHICH, WHILE HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITTING

THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADING OF THE CLAIMANT, WOULD NEVERTHELESS PREVENT OR BAR
RECOVERY BY HIM
An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the
pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of
limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance. (Delgado vs. GQ Realty Development Corp., et.al. G.R. No. 241774, September
25, 2019)

ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA

To properly invoke res judicata, the following elements must concur: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity
of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. (Webb v. Gatdula, G.R. No.194469, September 18, 2019)

DISMISSAL BASED ON FAILURE TO PROSECUTE IS A MATTER ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
COURT. THE JUDGEMUST WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND THE REASON
PROFFERED FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE; ADDITIONALLY, HE MUST DELIBERATE WHETHER RELAXATION OF THE
RULES IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
Plainly, the resignation of its in-house counsels does not excuse the respondent from non-observance of procedural rules, much
less, in its duty to prosecute its case diligently. This contingency should have prompted the respondent to be even more mindful
and ensure that there will be a proper transition and transfer of responsibility from the previous counsels to the new counsels.

The finality of the decision comes by operation of law and there is no need for any judicial declaration or performance of an act
before such takes effect. (Ng Ching Ting vs. Philippine Business Bank, Inc., GR. No. 224972, July 9, 2019)

FAILURE TO FILE THE PRE-TRIAL BRIEF SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE PRE-
TRIAL. HOWEVER, LITIGATION IS NOT MERELY A GAME OF TECHNICALITIES. SUITS SHOULD AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS. THUS, THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO SUSPEND ITS OPERATION WHEN
THE RIGID APPLICATION THEREOF TENDS TO FRUSTRATE RATHER THAN PROMOTE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
Suits should as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Since rules of procedure are mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well recognized that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or
except a particular case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of
justice.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules mandates that "these Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding." (Pimentel vs. Adiao, GR. No. 222678,
October 17, 2018)

ALL ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES IN THE NOTICE FOR TAKING A DEPOSITION ARE WAIVED UNLESS WRITTEN
OBJECTION IS PROMPTLY SERVED UPON THE PARTY GIVING THE NOTICE
Section 29(a) of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court refers to errors and irregularities in the notice without any reference to the
depositions taken by virtue of such notice. Hence, possession of the transcripts of the depositions is not a condition precedent
for challenging the validity of the notice for taking a deposition. Consequently, petitioner's objections to the notice are already
deemed waived considering that more than three years have already elapsed from petitioner's receipt thereof. (Martires v.
Heirs of Avelina Somera, G.R. No. 210789, December 03, 2018)

A PROSECUTION WITNESS IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS MAY TESTIFY BY WAY OF A DEPOSITION UNDER RULE 23
OF THE RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE AS LONG AS THERE IS A COMPELLING REASON
Interestingly, nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state how a deposition, of a prosecution witness who
is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by final judgment and imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to
perpetuate the testimony of such witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take a testimony of a witness who is
unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country. Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23
of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, the
Court holds that it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason. (People vs.
Sergio, G.R. No. 240053. October 9, 2019)

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE CHALLENGES THE SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

Demurrer to evidence is an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which
his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue. The
demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence
raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. Moreover, the grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion
of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretion (Go-Yu v.
Yu, G.R. No. 230443, April 3, 2019).

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE OR A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE SAME MUST BE FILED AFTER THE
PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE
A demurrer to evidence tests the sufficiency or insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. As such, a demurrer to evidence or a
motion for leave to file the same must be filed after the prosecution rests its case. But before an evidence may be admitted, the
rules require that the same be formally offered, otherwise, it cannot be considered by the court. A prior formal offer of evidence
concludes the case for the prosecution and determines the timeliness of the filing of a demurrer to evidence. (BDO UNIBANK
vs. Choa, G.R. No. 237533, July 10, 2019)

A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IS PERMITTED ONLY IF THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT
For summary judgment to proceed in lieu of a full-blown trial, the party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of
demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact, or that the issue posed is patently insubstantial as to constitute a
genuine issue. (Globe Asiatique v. Union Bank, G.R. No. 229339, July 29, 2019)

WHEN THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE RAISED AS TO A MATERIAL FACT, A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AS A MATTER OF LAW
In the instant case, as correctly pointed out by the RTC, petitioner TIDCORP readily admitted that it was bound by the
Guarantee Agreement, which expressly obligated petitioner TIDCORP to guarantee the payment of the Guaranty obligation,
which was specifically pegged at 90% of the outstanding Series A Notes. With petitioner TIDCORP admitting that it was " bound
by the terms and conditions enumerated in this Guarantee Agreement and such other related documents x x x,", there is no
genuine issue raised to a material fact. Hence, the RTC did not commit any error in holding that respondent PVB was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. (Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Philippine Veterans
Bank, G.R. No. 233850, July 1, 2019)

GRANTING THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND ADMIT A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AUTHORIZES THE FILING OF THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
In granting the motion for leave to file the second motion for reconsideration, the Court could not have intended to deceive the
movants by allowing them to revel in some hollow victory. The proposition manifestly contravened the basic tenets of justice and
fairness. (FASAP v. PAL, G.R. No. 178083, 13 March 2018)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
THE RULE PROHIBITING THE FILING OF A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BY NO MEANS ABSOLUTE.
A second motion for reconsideration may be allowed to prosper upon a showing by the movant that a reconsideration of the
previous ruling is necessary in the higher interest of justice. There is higher interest of justice when the assailed decision is not
only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or
damage to the parties. (FASAP v. PAL, G.R. No. 178083, 13 March 2018)

A PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, BEING AN EQUITABLE REMEDY, MUST STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE
APPLICABLE REGLEMENTARY PERIODS
However, as an equitable remedy, strict compliance with the applicable reglementary periods for its filing must be satisfactorily
shown because a petition for relief from judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the State, which remedy cannot be
allowed to erode any further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order, or proceeding must, at some definite time, attain
finality in order to put an end to litigation. As such, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the petition was filed within its
reglementary periods, otherwise, the petition may be dismissed outright. (Lasam v. PNB, G.R. No. 207433, December 5, 2018)

THE SUBMISSION OF THE DIVORCE DECREE SHOULD COME WITH ADEQUATE PROOF OF THE FOREIGN LAW THAT
ALLOWS IT
The submission of the decree should come with adequate proof of the foreign law that allows it. The Japanese law on divorce
must then be sufficiently proved. "Because our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment, our law on
evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven x x x like any other
fact” (Nullada v. The Hon. Civil Registrar of Manila, G.R. No. 224548, January 24, 2019)

A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER OF A FOREIGN TRIBUNAL CREATES A RIGHT OF ACTION, AND ITS NON-
SATISFACTION IS THE CAUSE OF ACTION BY WHICH A SUIT CAN BE BROUGHT UPON IT FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.
Generally, in the absence of a special compact, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered
by a tribunal of another country; however, the rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage
among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and
rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries.Certainly, the Philippine legal system has long
ago accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as
the requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted doctrines (Mercantile Corp vs. Yi, G.R. No.
534301, March 18, 2019).

DESPITE PRIOR AVAILABILITY OF AN APPEAL, RESORT TO A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CAN BE ALLOWED IN
CASE OF LACK OF SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
Similarly, while it is doctrinally entrenched that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, the Court has allowed the resort to a
petition for certiorari despite the existence of or prior availability of an appeal, such as: (1) where the appeal does not constitute
a speedy and adequate remedy; (2) where the orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction; (3) for certain
special considerations, as public welfare or public policy; (4) where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the
prosecution as, in case of acquittal, there could be no remedy; (5) where the order is a patent nullity; and (6) where the decision
in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations. In the instant case, the trial court failed to serve Ventura with a notice of hearing
and a copy of the petition with its annexes. Verily, this fact alone is a denial of her right to due process which the Court deems
necessary to correct. Time and again, the Court has held that where there is an apparent denial of the fundamental right to due
process, a decision that is issued in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction, in view of the cardinal precept that in
cases of a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. (Orlina v Ventura G.R. No. 227033,
December 03, 2018)

AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT IS WHENEVER CIRCUMSTANCES TRANSPIRE

AFTER THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION RENDERING ITS EXECUTION UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE
It is now well-settled in this jurisdiction, that when after judgment has been rendered and the latter has become final, facts and
circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party may ask the court to modify or alter
the judgment to harmonize the same with justice and the facts. (Adoption of Karen Herico Licerio, G.R. No. 208005,
November 21, 2018)

A CASE IS DEEMED TERMINATED ONLY UPON FULL SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT

When it comes to collective bargaining agreements and collective negotiation agreements in government-owned or controlled
corporations, Executive Order No. 203 unequivocally stated that while it recognized the right of workers to organize, bargain,
and negotiate with their employers, "the Governing Boards of all covered [government-owned or controlled corporations],
whether Chartered or Non-chartered, may not negotiate with their officers and employees the economic terms of their [collective
bargaining agreements]." (Diamond Drilling Corp. v. Cresent Mining, G.R. No. 207360, April 10, 2019)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM IS BINDING ONLY UPON THOSE PROPERLY IMPLEADED
A judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and their susccesor-in-interest but not upon strangers. Any judgment therein
is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded. The execution of the judgment rendered therein could not validly include
strangers. (Bayani vs. Yu G.R. No. 203076-77, July 10, 2019)

AS AN EXCEPTION, MATTERS NOT ALLEGED IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR MAY STILL BE SETTLED; ABSOLUTE
IDENTITY OF PARTIES NOT REQUIRED IN RES JUDICATA
The same falls under the exception, as it is a matter not specifically assigned but raised in the trial court and is a matter of
record, having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored. This is
bolstered by the fact that the CA, in its recital of the factual antecedents of this case, took note of petitioner's contention that the
decision in Civil Case No. 418 already put to rest the issue of ownership over the subject property; Absolute identity of parties is
not required but only substantial identity and there is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest
between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. (Igot v.
Valenzona, G.R. No. 230687, December 05, 2018)

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS BY THE APPEALING PARTY IMPOSES ON THE TRIAL COURT THE
MINISTERIAL DUTY TO APPROVE AND GIVE DUE COURSE TO SAID PARTY’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
The trial court cannot dismiss the appeal taken against its own judgment or final order except on the ground that the appeal was
taken out of time, or that the required docket and other lawful fees were not paid in full. Only the appellate court may dismiss the
appeal upon other grounds. (RCBC vs. F. Franco Transport, Inc., G.R. No. 191202. November 21, 2018)

A DECISION WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY MUST BE ASSAILED IN A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF
JUDGEMENT AND NOT IN AN APPEAL ON A SEPARATE CASE WHICH RELIED ON SAID FINAL AND EXECUTORY
DECISION
Without a ruling from the Court of Appeals nullifying the Regional Trial Court August 25, 2003 Decision, which granted the nullity
of petitioner and respondent's marriage and declared respondent as the exclusive owner of the house and lot, this Decision
remains valid and subsisting. Moreover, it became final and executory as early as October 14, 2005. The proper remedy which
Tortal should have availed of is a petition for annulment if judgement under Rule 47 if it is indeed true that summons was
improperly served to him during the nullity of marriage case (Tortal vs. Taniguch, G.R. No. 212683, November 12, 2018i)

REMEDIES OF APPEAL AND CERTIORARI ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. It is a basic rule in remedial law that where an
appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action for certiorari will not be entertained; remedies of appeal and
certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, an appeal under
Rule 41 taken from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, as issues purely of law are not
reviewable by the said court. (Pfleider v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 196058, November 12, 2018)

THIS COURT GENERALLY GIVES WEIGHT TO THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS; IN CRIMINAL
CASES, HOWEVER, THE ACCUSED HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL THE
CONTRARY IS PROVEN, AND THE COURTS MUST EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN RELATION TO THE
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED
This Court is not a trier of facts. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must, as a general rule,
only raise questions of law, wherein the parties may only raise issues that can be determined without having to review or re-
evaluate the evidence on record.

This Court generally gives weight to the factual findings of the lower courts because of the opportunity enjoyed by the lower
courts to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and assess their testimony. In criminal cases, however, the
accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven, and the courts must evaluate the
evidence presented in relation to the elements of the crime charged – making the finding of guilt is essentially a question of fact
and for which reason, the entire records of a criminal case are thrown open for this Court's review. (Lapi vs. People, G.R. No.
210731, February 13, 2019)

A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH IS NOT APPEALABLE, BUT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IF THE DENIAL IS TAINTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is
not allowed under Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which
can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy
upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. A party may,
however, question the denial in a petition for certiorari if the party can establish that the denial was tainted with grave abuse of
discretion. (Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42, July 31, 2018)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE DELAY WAS INORDINATE IS NOT THROUGH MERE MATHEMATICAL
RECKONING BUT THROUGH THE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CASE
Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution and
termination of a preliminary investigation will result in the dismissal of the case against the accused. Delay, however, is not
determined through mere mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding each
case. Courts should appraise a reasonable period from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public
officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case. Nonetheless, the accused must invoke his or her constitutional
rights in a timely manner. The failure to do so could be considered by the courts as a waiver of right. (Cagang v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42, July 31, 2018)

RIGHT TO APPEAL IS A STATUTORY RIGHT

Doctrinally-entrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with
the statute or rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be
strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of appeal
in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence, failure to perfect the same
renders the judgment final and executory (Leonora Rivera-Avante v. Milagro Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 244137, April 3, 2019).

A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI FILED BEFORE THE SC IS THE PROPER REMEDY TO APPEAL A DECISION
OF THE BIR BASED ON PURE QUESTION OF LAW
Clearly, the correctness of the BIR' s interpretation of the 1997 NIRC under the assailed RMC is a pure question of law, because
the same does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of
them. Thus, being the only remedy to appeal the RTC's ruling upholding the Circular's validity on a purely legal question, direct
resort to this Court, through a Rule 45 petition, was correctly availed by ANPC (Association of Nonprofit Clubs, Inc. (ANPC)
v. BIR, G.R. No.228539, June 26, 2019)

A PARTY'S APPEAL BY NOTICE OF APPEAL IS DEEMED PERFECTED AS TO HIM UPON THE FILING OF THE NOTICE
OF APPEAL IN DUE TIME.
The approval of a notice of appeal becomes the ministerial duty of the lower court, provided the appeal is filed on time.
(Bernardo vs. Soriano G.R. No., 200104 June 19, 2019)

EXTRINSIC FRAUD SHALL NOT BE A VALID GROUND IF IT WAS AVAILED OF, OR COULD HAVE BEEN AVAILED OF,
IN A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR PETITION FOR RELIEF. HOWEVER, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR THE
GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Considering that respondent had already availed himself of the remedy of a petition for relief from judgment raising the issue of
extrinsic fraud, he is effectively barred from raising the same issue via his petition for annulment of judgment. However, the
same cannot be said for the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Since respondent immediately resorted to a petition for relied and a
petition for annulment of judgment upon learning of the unfavorable decision in the accion publiciana case, he cannot be
deemed guilty of laches not placed in estoppel. (Heirs of Cullado vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 212938, July 30, 2019)

JUDGMENT IN A REPLEVIN CASE BAR A SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT

For non-payment of a note secured by mortgage, the creditor has a single cause of action against the debtor which consists in
the recovery of the credit with execution of the security. Though the debt and the mortgage constitute separate agreements, the
latter is subsidiary to the former, and both refer to one and the same obligation. If the plaintiff splits up his single cause of action
by filing a complaint for payment of the debt, and thereafter another complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage, the filing of the
first complaint will bar the subsequent complaint. (Central Visayas Finance Corporation v. Spouses Eliezer and Leila
Adlawan, G.R. No. 212674, March 25, 2019, Del Castillo, J.)

MANDAMUS IS A COMMAND TO EXERCISE A POWER ALREADY POSSESSED AND TO PERFORM A DUTY ALREADY
IMPOSED
In order for a Writ of Mandamus to be issued, the applicant must prove by preponderance of evidence that there is a clear legal
duty imposed upon the office or the officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus
has a clear legal right to the performance of such act. (Department of Education vs. Rizal Teachers Kilusang Bayan for
Credit, Inc., G.R. No. 202097, July 03, 2019)

THE USE OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS IS NOT MERELY CONFINED TO RULE 65. THESE EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDIES MAY BE INVOKED WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OR ISSUES ARE RAISED
Suffice it to state, however, that the use of prohibition and mandamus is not merely confined to Rule 65. These extraordinary
remedies may be invoked when constitutional violations or issues are raised. It must be stressed, though, that resort to
prohibition and mandamus on the basis of alleged constitutional violations is not without limitations. After all, this Court does not
have unrestrained authority to rule on just about any and every claim of constitutional violation. The petition must be subjected to
the four exacting requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review The four requisites for the exercise of the power of

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
judicial review: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; ( c) the question
of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and ( d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the
case. (Zabal vs. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019)

THE AWARD OF LEGAL INTEREST IN CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRES PRIVATE PROPERTY THROUGH
VOLUNTARY SALE IS NOT A MATTER OF LAW.
Unlike in cases where the state exercises its power of eminent domain or a party initiates expropriation proceedings and other
similar actions, in negotiated sale, there is an existing contract that governs the relations of the parties and determines their
respective rights and obligations. In turn, these contractual stipulations should be complied with in good faith, unless they are
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policies. the laws relating to contracts should govern in case of
controversy in their application. (Republic v Gamir-Diaz Heirs Assoc, G.R. No. G.R. No. 218732; November 12, 2018)

VIOLATION OF THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE CONTRACTS IS SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE SALE
As a general rule, personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary. The exception to
the rule is when the parties stipulate that personal notice is additionally required to be given the mortgagor. Failure to abide by
the general rule, or its exception, renders the foreclosure proceedings null and void. (Planters Dev. Bank vs. Lubiya Agro
Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 207976, November 14, 2018)

THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP CAN BE PROVISIONALLY RESOLVED IN AN ACCION PUBLICIANA

Unlike forcible entry and unlawful detainer where there is an express grant for the provisional determination of the issue of
ownership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession pursuant to Sections 16 and 18 of Rule 70, there is no
express grant in the Rules that the court hearing an accion publiciana can provisionally resolve the issue of ownership. Despite
the lack of an express Rule, however, there is ample jurisprudential support for upholding the power of a court hearing an accion
publiciana to also rule provisionally on the issue of ownership. (Jun Miranda Vs. Sps. Engr. Ernesto and Aida Mallari and
Sps. Domiciano C. Reyes and Carmelita Pangan, G.R. No. 218343. November 28, 2018)

EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT IN EJECTMENT CASES MAY BE SUSPENDED DUE TO SUPERVENING EVENT

In ejectment cases, the judgment of the RTC against the defendant-appellant is immediately executory, and is not stayed by an
appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the RTC, or in the appellate court's discretion, suspended or modified, or
supervening events occur which have brought about a material change in the situation of the parties and would make the
execution inequitable (Maravilla v. Bugarin , G.R. No. 226199 and 227242-54, October 1, 2018).
LANDOWNER CANNOT EJECT PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION WITH THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
A case filed by a landowner for recovery of possession or ejectment against a public utility corporation, endowed with the power
of eminent domain, which has occupied the land belonging to the former in the interest of public service without prior acquisition
of title thereto by negotiated purchase or expropriation proceedings, will not prosper. Any action to compel the public utility
corporation to vacate such property is unavailing since the landowner is denied the remedies of ejectment and injunction for
reasons of public policy and public necessity as well as equitable estoppel.) (National Transmission Corp vs. Bermuda
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 214782, April 3, 2019)

UNLAWFUL DETAINER IS A SUMMARY ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY
In unlawful detainer cases, the possession of the defendant was originally legal, as his possession was permitted by the plaintiff
on account of an express or implied contract between them. However, defendant's possession became illegal when the plaintiff
demanded that defendant vacate the subject property due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess under their
contract, and defendant refused to heed such demand. (Spouses Liu v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 238513, July 31, 2019)

THE PROPER MeTC, MTC, OR MCTC HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF AN EJECTMENT CASE OVER AN
ALLUVIUM CLAIMED TO BE OWNED BY THE COMPLAINANTS
The area beyond the 600 sqm lot abutting Lake Sebu, whether it is a lot claimed to be in "actual physical possession" of the
heirs of Aguilar or a public easement, refers to the "alluvium" lot area claimed by the Spouses Sanchez as their own in their
forcible entry complaint. It is clear, therefore, that the MCTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter, which, in this case, is the
600-square-meter lot and its alleged alluvium.(Spouses Sanchez v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 228680., September 17, 2018)

ANY INTERRUPTION OR DELAY OCCASIONED BY THE DEBTOR WILL EXTEND THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE WRIT
MAY BE ISSUED.
Where the delays were caused by the petitioner for her advantage, as well as outside respondent’s control, the five-year period
allowed for enforcement of judgment by motion was deemed to have been effectively interrupted or suspended. (Maria Perez v.
Manotok Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 216157, 14 October 2019)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
ONE YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY THROUGH STEALTH IS RECKONED FROM THE TIME THE
ENTRY WAS DISCOVERED
An action for forcible entry must be filed within one (1) year from the date of actual entry on the land. However, when the entry
was done through stealth, the one-year time bar is reckoned from the time the entry was discovered. In contrast to unlawful;
detainer suits, no previous demand to vacate is required before an action for forcible entry may be filed. (PLDT v. Citi
Appliance M.C. Corporation, G.R. 214546, October 9, 2019)

THE RESOLUTION OF A BOUNDARY DISPUTE IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE SUMMARY ACTION OF
FORCIBLE ENTRY UNDER RULE 70
The resolution of a boundary dispute — by reason of the issue therein being whether or not the contested portion pertained to
one or the other of the parties — is not within the province of the summary action of forcible entry under Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court. It can be taken proper cognizance of in the context of accion reivindicatoria. (Martinez vs. Heirs of Lim, G.R. No.
234655, September 11, 2019)

IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER, THE DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT LOT IS MERELY PROVISIONAL
AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR RECOVERY OR QUIETING OF TITLE. On a final note, it
bears emphasis that this is a case for unlawful detainer. Thus, "[t]he sole issue for resolution x x x is [the] physical or material
possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties." The determination of the
ownership of the subject lot is merely provisional and is without prejudice to the appropriate action for recovery or quieting of title
(Spouses Belvis vs. Spouses Erola, G.R. No. 239727, July 24, 2019).

ONLY PRIOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION , NOT TITLE, IS THE ISSUE IN FORCIBLE ENTRY CASES
Possession in forcible entry cases means physical possession or possession de facto; not legal possession. Only prior physical
possession, not title, is the issue. However short it is, for as long as prior physical possession is established, recovery of
possession under Rule 70 of the Rules may be granted. (Rhema International Livelihood Foundation, Inc., Et Al., V. Hibix,
Inc. G.R. Nos. 225353-54, August 28, 2019)

PARTY DEPRIVED OF POSSESSION MUST NOT TAKE LAW INTO HIS OWN HANDS
Undeniably, it was Rhema who first used violence in order to deprive Hibix possession over the property. The remedy, which the
latter should have resorted to, is to file a case for forcible entry against Rhema. Instead, Hibix went to the NBI to lodge a
complaint and sought their aid to wrestle possession back from Rhema. This is tantamount to putting the law into one's hands,
which is the evil sought to be avoided by the special civil action of forcible entry. (Rhema International Livelihood Foundation,
Inc., Et Al., V. Hibix, Inc. G.R. Nos. 225353-54, August 28, 2019)

ANY JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER THAT DISMISSES ON THE MERITS A CHARGE OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT IS
UNAPPEALABLE
No appeal could lie against it, a judgement or final order dismissing a charge of indirect contempt on the merits – like an
acquittal in a criminal case- necessarily becomes final and executory upon its promulgation. (Ang Jr. vs. Bitanga, G.R. No.
223046, November 28, 2019)

INDIRECT CONTEMPT NOT INITIATED BY THE COURT MOTU PROPRIO MUST BE, MUST BE COMMENCED BY
VERIFIED PETITION
Indirect contempt, not initiated by the court motu proprio, must be commenced by a verified petition. It ratiocinated that even if
the contempt proceedings emanated from a principal case, still, the governing rules require that a petition be filed and treated
independently of the main action. It stressed that it is beyond doubt that the requirement of a verified petition in initiating an
indirect contempt proceeding is a mandatory requirement (Uematsu v. Balinon, G.R. No. 234812, November 25, 2019)

IN ORDER TO STAY EXECUTION A SUPERVENING EVENT MUST ALTER THE EXECUTION TO BECOME INEQUITABLE,
IMPOSSIBLE OR UNFAIR AND CANNOT REST ON UNPROVED FACTS
To successfuly stay or stop the execution of a final judgement, the supervening event: (1) must have altered or modified the
parties’ situation as to render execution inequitable, impossible, or unfair; and (2) must be established by competent evidence;
otherwise, it would become all too easy to frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment. (National Power
Corporation vs. Delta P, Inc. G.R. No. 221709, October 16, 2019)

THE SELECTION OR REMOVAL OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATORS IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE RULES REGARDING THE
SELECTION OR REMOVAL OF REGULAR ADMINISTRATORS. COURTS MAY APPOINT OR REMOVE SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATORS BASED ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THOSE ENUMERATED IN THE RULES, AT THEIR
DISCRETION.
As long as the said discretion is exercised without grave abuse, higher courts will not interfere with it. This, however, is no
authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020
judgment. The exercise of such discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal principles. (Calma v Turla, G.R.
No. 221684; JULY 30, 2018)

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW CASE DOCTRINES

4C 2019 - 2020