CORDILLERA CAREER DEVELOPMENT COLLEGE

COLLEGE OF LAW
Buyagan, Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1 – CIVIL PROCEDURE

Course Outline / Syllabus – First Semester – SY 2020–2021

“Justice cannot be for one side alone,

but must be for both.” Eleanor Roosevelt

WEEK ONE

I INTRODUCTION TO CIVIL PROCEDURE

What is Remedial Law?

What is Civil Procedure?

1. Ordinary civil actions (Rules 1 to 56, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

2. Provisional remedies (Rules 57 to 61)
3. Special civil actions (Rules 62 to 71)

What are the laws governing Civil Procedure?

 The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure – Rules 01 to 71 of the Rules of

Court, as amended.
 The Rules on Summary Procedure.
 Republic Act No. 7691 – An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the MTC,
MCTC, amending BP No. 129.
 The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08–8–7–SC,
Effective October 01, 2008).
 The Provisions of the 1991 Local Government Code on Katarungang
Pambarangay.

What is jurisdiction? What is procedure?

What is a court?

What is the hierarchy of courts?

 Four levels of courts:

o Supreme Court (SC)

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 1
 o Court of Appeals (CA)
o Regional Trial Court (RTC)
o MTC, MeTC, MTCC, MCTC

Summary of stages in Civil Procedure –

 Filing of the action

 Issuance of summons and voluntary appearance –
 Incidents after court acquires jurisdiction over the parties –
 Answer
 Joinder of issues
 Pre–trial
 Deposition and Discovery
 Trial
 Incidents after trial but before judgment
 Judgment
o After judgment – motion for reconsideration
o Appeal and review –
 Execution and satisfaction of judgment.

WEEK TWO

II JURISDICTION

What is jurisdiction?

How is jurisdiction acquired?

Estoppel –
o Under the principle of estoppel in jurisdiction, a party cannot
invoke the court’s jurisdiction or actively participate in the
proceedings before said court and accept judgment only if
favourable, and attack it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.

What is the extent of jurisdiction?

What determines jurisdiction of courts over civil cases?

 BP 129 as amended by R.A. 7691;
 Rule 2, Sec. 5, 1997 Rules of Court
 R.A. No. 7691 (took effect April 15, 1994)
 R.A. No. 7691: “…where the value of x xx in controversy exceeds ...”

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 2
  Anything that exceeds P300K is RTC jurisdiction.

o Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC

o Racaza vs. Gozum.
o Reyes vs. Solemar
o MERALCO vs. ERB, 485 SCRA 19).

What is residual jurisdiction?

What is the jurisdiction of the different level of courts as to subject matter?

1. ORIGINAL jurisdiction
o Original Exclusive
o Original Concurrent

2. APPELLATE jurisdiction

A. Supreme Court –

 Original EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction

 Original CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the CA
 Original CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the CA and the RTCs
 Original CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the RTCs
 APPELLATE jurisdiction

B. Court of Appeals –

 Original EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction

 Original CONCURRENT jurisdiction
 APPELLATE jurisdiction

C. Sandiganbayan

 Original EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction

 CONCURRENT with the SC
 APPELLATE jurisdiction

D. Regional Trial Courts (RTCs):

 Original exclusive jurisdiction (refer to notes on R.A. No. 7691)

 Original concurrent jurisdiction
 Appellate jurisdiction
 Family Courts (RTCs in areas where no Family Court is designated)

o Exclusive and original jurisdiction

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 3
 E. Metropolitan Trial Courts / Municipal Circuit Trial Courts /
Municipal Trial Courts / Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

 Original exclusive jurisdiction

 Concurrent with RTCs: none
 Delegated
 Special
 Summary Procedure Cases

What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

Some notes on jurisdiction –

o Question of jurisdiction over the person must be timely raised in

a motion to dismiss or through an affirmative defense in an
answer, otherwise, this is deemed waived.

o Where a party himself invoked the jurisdiction of the court and

then questioned its lack of jurisdiction belatedly after judgment
was rendered against him, principle of laches or estoppel apply.

o Question of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at

any stage of the proceedings since such is conferred by law.

o Where the filing fee is not paid in full, the court is not obliged to
dismiss the case but directs the filing party to pay the balance of
the filing fee within a specified period but within the prescriptive
or reglementary period.

WEEK THREE

III THE 1991 REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SP)

Scope / Cases covered –

 Civil Cases
 Criminal cases

Determination of applicability –

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 4
 The rules on –

 Pleadings (NOTE: All pleadings must be verified.)

 Duty of court
 The Rules on Answer
 Effect of failure to answer
 Preliminary Conference
 Submission of Affidavits and Position Papers
 Judgment
 Prohibited Pleadings
 Appeal

IV THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (LGC)

(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160) ON KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

R.A. No. 7160: Sections 399 to 422, Chapter 7, Title One, Book III

Sec. 399 – Lupong Tagapamayapa (LT)

Sec. 402 – Functions of LT
Sec. 404 – Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (PT)
Sec. 408 – Subject matter for amicable settlement
Sec. 409 – Venue
Sec. 410 – Procedure for Amicable Settlement
Sec. 411; Sec. 412
Sec. 413 – Arbitration
Sec. 415 –
Sec. 416 – Effect of amicable settlement or arbitration award
Sec. 417 – Execution:
Sec. 418 – Repudiation:

V THE RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

(A.M. No. 08–8–7–SC, Effective October 01, 2008)

Sec. 4. Applicability–
Sec. 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action –
Sections 9 – 14
Sections 17 – 19
Sections 21 – 24

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 5
VI REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691 – AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION
OF THE METCs, MTCs, MCTCs, MTCCs

Sec. 1. Amends Sec. 19 of BP Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of

1980).

RTC shall exercise exclusive orig. jurisdiction over what cases?

Sec. 3. Amends Sec. 33 of BP Blg. 129:

Exclusive orig. jurisdiction of MeTC, MTCs, MTCCs, MCTCs in civil cases –

1. FE and UD cases
2. Civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property or
interest therein where the value (assessed) does not exceed
P20,000.00 (M–does not exceed P50,000.00), exclusive of interest.

o NOTE: For real properties, consider assessed value.

Sec. 5 –

WEEK FOUR

VII RULE 1 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Rule 1 –

VIII VENUE (RULE 4, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

What is venue?

Where is the venue of real and personal actions (Sections 1 & 2, Rule 4)?

 Remember:
o Location of property
o Real actions are those affecting title to or possession of real property
o Personal actions – venue is where the plaintiff resides, or ……
o In case of a non–resident D, venue is where P resides or where D
may be found, at the election of P.
o The action is real if the principal relief affects title to or possession of
real property, otherwise, it is personal.

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 6
 o Actions or cases affecting personal status of plaintiff, venue is place
of residence of plaintiff.
o Actions affecting property of non–resident D located in the Phil. –
venue is location of property.
o United Overseas Bank v. Rosemoore Mining, March 12, 2007

Is venue waivable or subject to stipulations by the parties?

When is there improper venue?

IX PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

Who are the parties to civil actions/cases?

 Generally called plaintiff and defendant.

Who have the legal capacity to sue and be sued?

Lack of legal capacity to sue v. lack of personality to sue –

 Evangelista v. Santiago, 457 SCRA 744
 Domingo v. Carague, 456 SCRA 450

What are juridical persons?

Foreign corporations (private) –

What is the term “Doing business” – Foreign Investments Act of 1991 –

o phrase includes “soliciting orders, service contracts, opening offices (whether

liaison offices or branches), appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in
the Philippines or who, in any calendar year stay in the country for a period of
180 days or more, participating in the management, supervision or control of any
domestic firm in the Philippines.

What is the isolated jurisdiction rule?

Who is a real party in interest?

Who is a representative party? An indispensable party? A necessary party?

What is a class suit?

What is the concept of joinder of parties?

What is the rule on substitution of parties?

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 7
 Who are the alternative and unknown defendants?

What is an indigent party?

What is an impleader?

What is the so–called “Ancillary jurisdiction”?

o RTC have jurisdiction over 3rd-party complaint although amount

claimed is below its jurisdiction amount.
o Venue of 3rd-party complaint has to yield to venue of main action.

What is the rule on intervention? Rule 19, Sec. 1, 1997 Rules of CP –

What is interpleader?

Cases –
 Domingo v. Scheer, 421 SCRA 468
 Uy v. CA, 494 SCRA 535
 Alfelor v. Halasan, March 31, 2006
 Perez v. CA, Jan. 27, 2006
 Hinog v. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460
 Dela Cruz v. Joaquin, July 28, 2005
 Limbanan v. Acosta, June 30, 2008

WEEK FIVE

X PLEADINGS (RULE 6 to RULE 13, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

Pleadings defined –

What are the common requirements for all pleadings?

What is the certificate of non-forum shopping?

Who executes certificate of non-FS for a corporation?

Notes on Certificate of Non – Forum Shopping –

 The cert. of non-FS is required only in a complaint or other initiatory

pleading.

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 8
  What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its
form or the title given by the party executing it, but rather its purpose.

Cases –
o Ao-as v. CA, 491 SCRA 353
o PAL v. FASAP, Jan. 24, 2006
o International Construction v. Feb Leasing, April 22, 2005
o Sps. Arquiza vs. CA
o Asaphil Cons’n vs. Tuason 508 SCRA 583
o Saludo Jr. vs. Am. Express Int’l, Inc.
o Solmayor vs. Arroyo 486 SCRA 326
o Citibank N.A. vs. Sabeniano
o Yu vs. PCIB
o Carpio v. Rural Bank, May 4, 2006
o Korea Exchange v. Hon. Gonzales, April 15, 2005

Prejudicial question in relation to non-FS –

Judicial courtesy in relation to non-FS –

 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, June 26, 2006

Notes on COMPLAINT:

 Test of sufficiency of complaint:

o Capacity of plaintiff (P) and defendant (D) must be alleged.

o Allegations must be in methodical and logical for.
o 2 or more causes of actions must be stated separately.
o Plead actionable document (AD) properly.
o Allege circumstances constituting fraud or mistake with
particularity but malice, intent, or other conditions of the mind
may be averred generally.
o Prayer for relief must be consistent with allegations of cause of
action.

Splitting and joinder of causes of action –

Misjoinder of causes of action NOT a ground for dismissal –

How do you plead an actionable document?

The answer –

o Negative defense
o Affirmative defense:

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 9
 What can plaintiff do in case of defective answer (REMEDIES):
o Judgement on the pleadings may be filed (Rule 34);
o Motion for summary judgment may be filed (Rule 35).

The counter–claim and cross–claim –

The reply –

Amendment of pleadings / Supplemental pleadings –

 How to amend
 When to amend
 Amendment by Implication

Supplemental pleadings –

Periods for Pleading –

The NEYPES rule –

Filing and Service of Pleadings –

 Filing –
 NOTE: Date of mailing is the date of filing –
 NOTE: Filing of pleading shall be done personally.
 NOTE that filing of pleadings includes the payment of
docket and other lawful fees.

 Service of pleadings –
 the act of providing a copy of the pleading upon the
party or his counsel, if there is a counsel, unless service
upon the party himself is ordered by the court.

3 modes of service of pleadings –

 Personal service
 Service by registered mail
 Substituted service

The rule on priorities in modes of service and filing –

The rule on service of judgments, orders or resolution –

 By personal service;
 By registered mail;

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 10
  By publication of the order or judgment at the expense of
the prevailing party, ONLY WHEN summons was served
by publication.

The rule on completeness of service –

 Personal service is complete upon actual delivery;

 Service by ordinary mail is complete upon expiration of
10 days after mailing, unless the court provides otherwise;
 Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt
by the addressee or after 5 days after he received the first
notice of the postmaster, whichever is earlier.

The rule on proof of service –

WEEK SIX

XI OBJECTIONS TO PLEADINGS

The objections or attack to the pleading may be in the form of a:

 motion to dismiss;
 motion to suspend proceedings;
 motion for bill of particulars;
 motion to drop/add parties;
 motion to severe cause of action;
 motion to strike out;
 motion for judgment on the pleadings;
 motion for summary judgement.

The instances when the court may, MOTU PROPIO, dismiss a complaint –

 It has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

 There is another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause;
 The action is barred by prior judgment or statute of limitations;
 The plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his
evidence in chief.

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 11
 Grounds for dismissal of complaint on motion of defendant –
 Lack of jurisdiction
 Improper venue
 Lack of legal capacity to sue
 Litis pendentia
 Statute of Limitations (prescription of actions)
 Res Judicata – the binding or “preclusive effect of a
judgment”, Sec. 47, Rules 39, 1997 Rules of CP.

The requirements for the application of RJ –

 The former judgment or order is final;

 The judgment or final order is one which is rendered on
the merits;
 The judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction
to pronounce the same or final order;
 Identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.

The 2 aspects of res judicata –

 “Bar by prior judgment”

 “Estoppel by judgment” or “conclusiveness of judgment”

The principle of “law of the case” as against res judicata –

Grounds for dismissal of complaint on motion of defendant (continued):

 Insufficient allegations
 Payment, waiver, abandonment, extinction
 Statute of Frauds
 Non–compliance with condition precedent for filing
 Lack of certification against forum–shopping
 Pleading asserting claims states no cause of action

The concept of a judicial compromise –

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 12
 WEEK SEVEN

XII SUMMONS (RULE 14)

Purpose –

Definition –

Contents of summons –

Extra-territorial service – service outside the Philippines – allowed only in special

cases –
 like when the action is against a non-resident D NOT
found in the Phil., or
 when the action is in rem or quasi in rem, or when the
defendant ordinarily resides in the Philippines but is
temporarily out of it.

To be effective, extra-territorial service of summons MUST be with leave of court

and only thru the following means –

 Personal service;
 By publication, together with a copy of the summons and
order of the court which must be sent by registered mail
to the last known address of D;
 Any other manner which the court may deem sufficient;

Modes of Service of Summons – When Defendant (D) is a Natural Person –

 Personal service
 Substituted Service
 Service by publication, sometimes known as Constructive
Service


Service of summons on entities –

Summons on special classes of persons –

Proof and return of service –

Voluntary appearance –

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 13
 Cases –
 Robinson v. Miralles, Dec. 12, 2006
 Miranda v. Tuliao, March 31, 2006
 Cezar v. Ricafort-Bautista, Oct. 31, 2006

WEEK EIGHT

XIII MOTIONS (Rule 15)

What is a motion –

What are the requisites of a valid motion –

Form of motions and Hearing of motions –

Omnibus motion AND omnibus motion rule –

Motion to dismiss: Procedure / Grounds (Rule 16) –

 When to file –
 Grounds –
 Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
 Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
 Venue is improperly laid
 Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
 Litis pendentia
 Res Judicata
 Prescription – Statute of Limitations
 The claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned or
otherwise extinguished.

Requisites of Lis Pendens / Litis Pendentia –

Requisites of Res Judicata –

Failure to state a cause of action vs. Lack of cause of action –

Lack of legal capacity to sue vs. Lack of legal personality to sue –

Motions –
(a) To suspend proceedings

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 14
 (b) For bill of particulars
(c) To drop / add parties
(d) To severe cause of action
(e) To strike out
(f) For judgment on the pleadings
(g) For summary judgment

WEEK NINE

XIV DISMISSALS AND DEFAULTS

Dismissals
 Upon plaintiff’s notice
 On plaintiff’s motion
 Due to plaintiff’s fault

Defaults –

Grounds for declaration of default –

Effects / consequences of default declaration –

Relief from order of default –

Summary of remedies against judgment by default –

Extent of relief awarded on a default judgment –

Actions / cases where default is not allowed –

Cases –
 O.B. Jovenir v. Macamir Realty, March 28, 2006
 Cruz v. CA, Feb. 13, 2006
 CA v. Alvarez, Dec. 3, 2006
 Pinga v. Santiago, June 30, 2000
 Perkin Elmer v. Dakila Trading, Aug. 14, 2007
 Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, March 21, 2006
 Martinez v. Republic, Oct. 30, 2006

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 15
XV MODES OF DISCOVERY

Concept and Purpose –

 Ong v. Mazo, 431 SCRA 56
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212, 200
 Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, Aug. 28, 2007

Determination of application –
 Lañada v. CA, 375 SCRA 543

Modes of Discovery –
 These modes are cumulative
 Fortune Corp. v. CA, 229 SCRA 355

Deposition: Definition –
 Ayala Land v. Tagle, Aug. 11, 2005
 Hyatt Industrial v. Ley Construction, March 10, 2006

Deposition –
 Deposition pending action (Rule 23)
 Before MTC and RTC
 With Leave of Court
 Without leave of Court
 Scope of Examination
 When and How depositions are conducted
 Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions

o Cariaga v. CA, June 6, 2001

o Veran v. CA, 157 SCRA 438
o Dulay v. Dulay, Nov. 11, 2005
o Hanil Dev. V. CA, July 30, 2001
o American Airlines v. CA, March 9, 2000
o Sales v. Sabino Dec. 9, 2005
o Bembo v. CA, 250 SCRA 404
o Cathay Pacific v. Spouses Fuentebella, Dec. 15, 2005
o Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha, April 27, 2007

 Deposition before action or pending appeal

 Perpetuation of testimony – objective is to perpetuate the
testimony of a witness for use in the future
 Who may file the petition
 Formal and jurisdictional requisites
 Contents of the petition
 Notice and service
 Depositions pending appeal are taken with the view to their
being used in the event of further proceedings in the court of
origin or the appellate court.

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 16
 o Locsin v. Sandiganbayan, Aug. 9, 2007
o Gerochi v. Dept. of Energy, April 5, 2005

Dual Function of Deposition –

Interrogatories to parties –
 Purpose and nature
 Service and failure to serve
 Distinction between deposition (Rule 23 and written interrogatories
(Rule 25)

Admission by adverse party (Rule 26): Request for admission –

 Purpose and scope
 Procedure
 Implied admission –
o Effect and Remedy

 Briboneria v. CA, 216 SCRA 607

 Duque v. CA, July 2, 2002
 Po v. CA, 164 SCRA 668
 DBP v. CA, Sept. 20, 2005
 Bay View v. Ker & Co., 116 SCRA 327

Production and inspection of documents or things (Rule 27) –

 As distinguished with subpoena duces tecum
 Solidbank (MetroBank) v. Gateway, April 30, 2008
 Security Bank v. CA, Jan. 25, 2000

Physical and mental examination of a party (Rule 28) –

 When applicable
 Order of examination

Consequences of refusal to make discovery (Rule 29) –

 Sanctions
 Spouses Zepeda v. China Banking, Oct. 9, 2006
 Lañada v. CA, G.R. No. 102390, Feb. 1, 2002
 Nestle Phil. V. CA, G.R. No. 102404, Feb. 1, 2002

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 17
 WEEK TEN

XVI PRE – TRIAL

Nature and purpose –

 Anson Trade Center v. Pacific Banking, March 17, 2009

When conducted –

Procedure –

The pre–trial order –

SC Admin. Circular No. 3–99 (Jan. 17, 1999) on pre–trial –

Cases on Pre–Trial –
 Teresita Monzon v. Spouses James and Maria, Sept. 17, 2008
 Frisco F. San Juan v. The Sandiganbayan, August 6, 2008
 RN Development v. A.I.I. System, June 26, 2008
 J.R. Daan v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan March 28, 2008
 Estanislao v. Alviola v. Judge Henry, Feb. 29, 2008
 LCK Industries v. Planters, 538 SCRA 634
 Mercury Drug v. Rep. Surety and Insur. Co., 538 SCRA 464
 Republic v. Ildefonso Oleta, 530 SCRA 534
 Dr. Emmanuel Vera v. Ernesto F. Rigor, 529 SCRA 729
 Vivian Y. Locsin v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, 529 SCRA 572
 Heirs of Vicente Reyes v. The Hon. CA 519 SCRA 250
 People v. Nicolas Guzman, 513 SCRA 156
 Malayan Insur. V. Ipil International 500 SCRA 371
 Crisostomo Alcaraz v. CA, 497 SCRA 75
 Advance Textile v. Willy C. Tan, 464 SCRA 431
 Eleuterio Olave v. Teodulo Mistas, 444 SCRA 625
 Jonathan Landoil v. Spouses Suharto Mangudadatu, 436 SCRA 559
 United Coconut v. Miguel Magpayo, 429 SCRA 669
 Procopio Villanueva v. CA, 427 SCRA 439
 Sixto m. Bayas v. The Sandiganbayan 391 SCRA 415
 Spouses Mondedo v. CA, January 18, 1996
 Silvestre Tiu v. Daniel Middleton, July 19, 1999
 Air Philippines v. International Bus. Aviation, Sept. 9, 2004

XVII TRIAL

Order of Trial –

Trial Incidents –

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 18
 Subpoena –

Demurrer to Evidence –

Cases –
 In Republic vs. Tuvera
 In Manila Banking Corp. vs. Univ. of Baguio
 Swagman Hotels v. CA, April 8, 2005
 Republic v. Tuvera, Feb. 16, 2007
 The Manila Banking Corp. v. UB, Feb. 21, 2007

WEEK ELEVEN

XVIII JUDGMENTS

Requirements for valid judgements –

Three parts of judgment –

o The body or the opinion,
o the dispositive portion, and
o the signature of the judge.

Judgments on the Merits –

Judgment on the pleadings –

 Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Oct. 23, 2006

Summary Judgment –
 Ontimare v. Elep, Jan. 20, 2006
 Asian Construction v. PCIB, April 25, 2006
 Pineda v. Guevara, Feb. 14, 2007

Judgment by Compromise or Upon Confession –

Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments –

Judgments for Costs –

Declaratory Judgments: Declaratory relief actions –

Foreign Judgments –

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 19
 WEEK TWELVE

XIX MODES OF REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF TRIAL COURT ERRORS

Motion for new trial or reconsideration –

Petition for relief –

Direct attack and collateral attack –

Review and correction by another court on appeal –

Modes of appeal –

Differences among 3 modes of appeal –

Procedure on appeal –

Effects of appeal –

Remedies in the court which rendered the judgment –

 Before finality of judgment:

 Motion for Reconsideration (Rule 37)
 Motion for New Trial (Rule 37) based on NDE and FAME

 After finality of judgment:

 (1)Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38) based on FAME

Remedies in Higher Courts to which a Judgment is Elevated for Review –

 Ordinary appeal under Rules 40 and 41;

 Petitions for review under Rules 42 and 43;
 Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45;
 Petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

On Ordinary Appeals – Rules 40 and 41 –

 Where and When –

 How –
 Instances where ordinary appeal is not allowed –
 Instances when an ordinary appeal maybe dismissed outright by the CA –

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 20
 On Petition for Review – Rule 42 –

 Where and When –

 A.M. 07 – 7 – 12 – SC, Dec. 4, 2007
 Subject –
 A verified petition
 Requirements –
 RTC and the adverse party to be furnished copies of the petition
 CA may set oral arguments or memoranda
 Filing of petition stays execution of judgment or final order of RTC unless
the CA provides otherwise, and in civil cases decided under Rules on
Summary Procedure.

On Petition for Review Under Rule 43 – Quasi–Judicial Agencies –

 Where and When –

 Subject –
 A verified petition –
 Period to file –
 Grounds for the outright dismissal of a Petition for Review –
 Effect of Absence of or Improper verification –
 The petition may involve questions of fact, or law, or both.
 Appeals from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases is to the CA via a petition for review
 Absence of verification may be a cause for dismissal.

 R.A. No. 7902 – transferred exclusive jurisdiction of the SC to review decisions

and final orders of the CSC to the CA
 Fabian v. Desierto, Sept. 16, 1998
 Perez v. Ombudsman, May 27, 2004
 Section 12, R.A. No. 9282 (March 30, 2004) – decisions of the CTA reviewable
only by the SC via a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45
 Section 7 [5], R.A. No. 9282 – decisions of the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals
 A.M. No. 04–9–07–SC, Sept. 14, 2004

On Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 –

 Where and When –

 Subject :

On Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 –

 Where :
 Subject :
 Nature :

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 21
 DISTINCTIONS between Rule 45 and Rule 65 –

Supreme Court Issuances on Appellate Review –

 A.M. No. 00–2–10–SC, May 1, 2000 – Amend. to Sec. 4, Rule 7 & Sec. 13, Rule 41
 A.M. No. 04–3–15–SC, March 23, 2004
 SC Circular No. 39–98, Aug. 19, 1998
 A.M. No. 07–7–12–SC, Dec. 4, 2007

On Annulment of Judgment –
 Grande vs. UP
 People vs. Bitanga

On Verification: “A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the
pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OR BASED ON AUTHENTIC RECORDS.”

“In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material
dates showing –

 when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution

subject thereof was received,
 when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was
filed, and,
 when the notice of denial thereof was received.”

 Santander Cons’n vs. Villanueva, Nov. 30, 2004

What is the Effect of Appeal on the Execution of Judgment?

Instances when execution is stayed –

 Ordinary appeals
 Generally, in petitions for review
 Generally, in appeal by certiorari

Instances when execution is not stayed –

 RTC decisions in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in cases falling

under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
 RTC decisions in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction when so
declared by the CA.

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 22
 WEEK THIRTEEN

XIX.A CASES ON APPELLATE REVIEW (continuation of topic XIX) –

 Pilipinas Shell v. Gobonseng, July 21, 2006

 Tagabi v. Tangue, july 27, 2006
 Villanueva v. CA, July 20, 2006
 Jaramillo v. CA, G.R. No. 122317July 14, 2005
 Madriaga v. CA, G.R. No. 142001
 Santander Construction v. Villanueva, Nov. 20, 2004
 Remulla v. Manlongat, Nov. 11, 2004
 KLR Fruits v. WSR Fruits, Nov. 23, 2007
 Cucueco v. CA, Oct. 25, 2004
 Neypes v. CA, Sept. 14, 2005
 Santos v. People, Aug, 26, 2008
 Fil-Estate Properties v. Hon. Homena-Valencia, Oct. 15, 2007
 Jabaluyas vs. Japson, 142 SCRA 2008
 Tolentino vs. Natanauan, Nov. 20, 2003
 Republic vs. Luriz
 Asian Construction vs. Tulabot
 In Provost vs. CA and Encarnacion vs. Amigo
 Ross Rica vs. Ong, Aug. 16, 2005
 Escueta vs. Lim, Jan. 24, 2007
 Provost v. CA, June 26, 2006
 Encarnacion v. Amigo, Sept. 15, 2006
 Serrano v. Gutierrez, November 10, 2006

XX ENFORCEMENT / EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS / FINAL ORDERS

Kinds of execution –

Proper time to enforce/execute judgments/final orders –

Manner of implementation of writ of execution –

Satisfaction of judgment –

2 ways of securing execution of final judgments –

Rules on execution –

o Balajonda vs. COMELEC

o DBP vs. Spouses Gatal
o Dagooc vs. Erlina

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 23
 WEEK FOURTEEN

XXI PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Common rules regarding provisional remedies –

Basic characteristics of provisional remedies –

Notice of lis pendens –

Preliminary attachment –
 When issued; Instances when it may be issued –
 Requirements for its issuance –
 Discharge and quashal of writ –

Preliminary injunction –
 When issued; Instances when it may be issued –
 Requirements for its issuance –
 Discharge and quashal of writ –
 Remedies against wrongfully issued injunction

Receivership –
 When issued; Grounds for appointment of receiver –
 Requirements for its issuance –

Replevin –
 When issued; Instances when it may be issued –
 Requirements for its issuance –

Alimony pendent lite –

Differences among provisional remedies –

Differences of bonds in provisional remedies –

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 24
 WEEK FIFTEEN

XXII SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Interpleader (Rule 62) –

Declaratory relief (Rule 63) –

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65) – Differences

 Springfield Dev. Corp. vs. Presiding RTC Judge
 Holy Spirit Homeowners Assoc. vs. Defensor
 Henares Jr. Vs. LTFRB

Quo Warranto (Rule 66) –

 Calleja vs. Panday

Expropriation (Rule 67) –

Foreclosure of real estate mortgage (Rule 68) –

Partition (Rule 69) –

Forcible entry and Unlawful detainer (Rule 70) –

Contempt (Rule 71) –

Differences between direct and indirect contempt –

Expropriation –
 Republic vs. Guingoyon
 Masikip vs. City of Pasig

Foreclosure of Mortgage
 PNB vs. Sanao
 Selegna Management vs. UCPB
 Sps. Arquiza vs. CA

Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer –

 Dumo vs. Espinas, Jan. 25, 2006
 Roberts v. Papio, Feb. 9, 2007

Kinds of Actions to Recover Possession of Real Property –

 Accion interdictal (FE and UD)
 Accion publiciana
 Accion reivindicatoria

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 25
 Cases –
o Atuel vs. Valdez, July 10, 2003
o Aliabo vs. Carampatan, March 16, 2001
o Hilario vs. Salvador, April 29, 2005
o Barangay Piapi vs. Talip, 469 SCRA 409
o Laresman vs. Abellana, 442 SCRA 156
o Valdez vs. CA, May 4, 2006:
o Santos vs. Sps. Ayon, May 6, 2005:
o Racaza vs. Gozum, June 8, 2006:
o Benedicto vs. CA, Oct. 19, 2005:

WEEK SIXTEEN

XXIII REVIEW OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

XXIV FINAL EXAMINATION

“There is a higher court than courts of justice

and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.”
Mahatma Gandhi

RUFUS G. MALECDAN JR.

Instructor

Please take note:

AM No. 02 – 11 – 09 – SC Amendment of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

Circular No. 48 – 2000 Amendment to Section 4, Rule 7, and Section 13, Rule 41 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure
Circular No. 56 – 2000 Amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Administrative Circular No. 28 ……On submission of Memoranda
Circular No. 7 (1988) ……On specification of damages sought in the complaint.

The Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect 01 May 2020

CCDC–COLLLEGE OF LAW–REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1–CIVIL PROCEDURE–SYLLABUS–1st SEM.–SY 2020–2021–18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Page 26