SYLLABUS FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE

Atty. Victor Y. Eleazar 3. Power to suspend procedural rules

Introduction/Jurisdiction
 Commission of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corp., G.R. No. 159593, October 12,
I. General Principles 2006, 504 SCRA 484
Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, 2007 Ed., pp. 1-69  Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, February 5, 2007, 514 SCRA 246
Note the following:  McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. No. 178034 & 178117, October 17, 2013

RA 8371 4. Retroactivity of procedural rules

RA 9285  Go v. Sunbanun, G.R. No. 168240, February 9, 2011

RA876 5. Basic principles in jurisdiction

PD 1508 a. Principle of the exercise of equity jurisdiction

RA 7610 (Katarungang Pambarangay)  Poso v. Mijares, A.M. RTJ-02-1693, August 21, 2002, 387 SCRA 485
 Rubio v. Alabata, G.R. No. 203947, February 26, 2014
A. Concept of remedial law
b. Elements of jurisdiction
B. Substantive law as distinguished from remedial law
c. Classes of jurisdiction
C. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
D. Nature of Philippine courts
 Sec. 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution 1. Meaning of a court
2. Court as distinguished from a judge
1. Limitations on the rule-making power of the 3. Classification of Philippine courts
Supreme Court 4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction
5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
 Sec. 2, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution 6. Constitutional and statutory courts
 Sec. 30, Article VI, 1987 Constitution 7. Courts of law and equity
• Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470 8. Principle of judicial hierarchy
• Kuizon v. Desierto, G.R. No. 140619-24, March 9, 2001, 354 SCRA 158
• Baviera v. Zoleta, G.R. No. 1609098, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 280 • Castro v. Carlos, G.R. No. 194944, April 16, 2013
• Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 • Dy v. Bibat-Palmos, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013
• The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial
• Echegaray v. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999 Resolution, 301 stability
SCRA 96
• In re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees, • Yadno v. Anchales, G.R. No. 174582, October 11, 2012
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February 11, 2010 • Spouses Crisologo v. Judge Omelio, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 2012
• Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633 • Compare with Tan v. Cinco, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016
• Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 393 • Del Rosario v. Ocampo-Ferrer, G.R. No. 215348, June 20, 2016
• Morales v. Court of Appeals
 10. Doctrine of non-interference in Associations C. Jurisdiction over the issues
D. Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation
II. Jurisdiction E. Jurisdiction of courts

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 70-366 1. Supreme Court

• BP 129, as amended
• Locsin v. Nissan Lease Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 185567, October 20, 2010 • Sec. 4 (2), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
• Civil Service Commission v. Andal, G.R. No. 185749, December 16, 2009 • Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
• Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
A. Jurisdiction over the parties -- Rule 2, Sec. 3
1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired -- Rule 2, Sec. 11
2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired -- Rule 2, Sec. 14
3. Compare with Criminal Procedure -- Rule 3, Sec. 1
-- Rule 3, Sec. 2
B. Jurisdiction over the subject matter -- Rule 3, Sec. 3
1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter -- Rule 10, Sec. 2
2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment • Gonzales v. Solid Cement Corp., G.R. No. 198423, October 23, 2012
4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined • Can the Supreme Court be a party to a case? Read: Supreme Court v. Delgado, A.M. No.
2011-07-SC, October 4, 2011, 658 SCRA 401
• Gustilo v. Gustilo, G.R. No. 175497, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 619 • Can you appeal from a decision of a division of the SC to the SC en banc? Read: Lu v. Lu Ym
• Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, G.R. No. 192975, November 12, 2012 Sr., February 15, 2011 Resolution
• Ching v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 449
• Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., G.R. No. 202664, November 10, 2015 2. Court of Appeals

5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction • R.A. No. 8246

• 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
• Merida Waterworks District v. Bacarro, G.R. No. 165993, September 30, 2008 • In re: Letter Complaint of Merlita B. Fabiana against Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., et
• The Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No. 197592 al., A.M. No. CA-13-51-J, July 2, 2013
& 202623, November 27, 2013 • Sec. 9, BP No. 129, as amended
• Star Special Watchman and Detective Agency Inc. v. Puerto Princesa City, G.R. No. 181792, • R.A. No. 9160 (AMLA of 2001) as amended by R.A. No. 9194, R.A. No. 10167 and R.A. No.
April 21, 2014 10365

6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction 3. Court of Tax Appeals

• Barrameda v. Rural Bank of Canaman Inc., G.R. No. 176260, November 24, 2010 • RA 9503
• RA 1125 as amended by RA 9282
7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter • City of Manila v. Judge Cuerdo, G.R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014 [concept of split
jurisdiction vis-à-vis concurrent jurisdiction]
• Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010
4. Sandiganbayan
8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
• PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249 and RA 10660; jurisdiction to issue CPM, HC, and
• Kukan International Corp. v. Hon. Reyes, G.R. No. 182729, September 29, 2010 injunction
 5. Regional Trial Courts
• Jurisdiction of the RTC
In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
• Lu v. Lu Ym Sr., G.R. No. 153690, August 26, 2008 Decision; August 4, 2009 Resolution;
February 15, 2011 Resolution
• Mijares v. Hon. Ranada, G.R. no. 139325, April 12, 2005
• Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013
• Ortigas & Co. Ltd. v. Herrera, January 21, 1983 reiterated in Dacasin v. Dacasin, G.R. No.
168785, February 5, 2010
• Ascue v. CA, G.R. No. 84330, May 8, 1991
• Villena v. Payoyo, G.R. No. 163021, April 27, 2007
• Read Herrera’s critique on the confusing test in classification of actions
• Miguel v. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 345
• Saraza v. Francisco, G.R. No. 198718, November 27, 2013
• Trayvilla v. Sejas, G.R. No. 204970, February 1, 2016
• Sebastian v. Lagmay Ng, G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015
• Katarungang Pambarangay, Rep. Act No. 7160, Secs. 417 and 418
RTC or Labor courts?
• Daichi Electronics Manufacturing v. Villarama, G.R. No. 112940, November 21, 1994
• Yusen Air and Sea Service v. Villamor, 467 SCRA 168
RTC or MTC?
• Geonzon Vda. de Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, G.R. No. 174346, September 12, 2008,
565 SCRA 192
• Sebe v. Heirs of Veronico Sevilla, G.R. No. 174491, October 12, 2009
• Compare with: Huguete v. Embudo, G.R. No. 149554, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 273
• Genesis Investment Inc. v. Heirs of Ceferino Ebarasabal, G.R. No. 181622, November 20,
2013
• Compare with: Russel v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738
• BPI v. Hontanosas, Jr., G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014
RTC or HLURB?
• Eugenio v. Sta. Monica Riverside Homeowners Association, G.R. No. 187751, November 22,
2010
• Christian General Assembly Inc. v. Ignacio, G.R. No. 164789, August 27, 2009
• Phil. Bank of Communications v. Pridisons Realty Corp., G.R. No. 155113, January 19, 2013
• Geronimo v. Calderon, G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014
• Banco de Oro Unibank v. Sunnyside Heights Homeowners Association, G.R. No. 198745,
January 13, 2016
RTC or SEC?
• GSIS v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183905 and 184275, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 679
• SEC v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 187702 and 189014, October 22, 2014
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURTS
• Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corp. v. Cullen, G.R. No. 181416, November 11, 2013
• Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., G.R. No. 202664, November 10, 2015
• Concorde Condominium v. Baculio, G.R. No. 203678, February 17, 2016
Agrarian Disputes?
• Enesio v. Tulop, G.R. No. 182923, November 27, 2013
• RA 6657, Secs. 50 to 62
In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest and damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and cost or the value of the property in controversy exceeds P300,000 or in
such other cases in Metro Manila where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceed
P400,000
• Iniego v. Purganan, G.R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006
• Sante v. Claravall, G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010
6. Family Courts
• RA 8369
• Republic v. Granada, G.R. No. 187512, June 13, 2012
• Republic v. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013
7. Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts
• RA 7691
• Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 172217, September 18, 2009
• Bernardo v. Villegas, G.R. No. 183357, March 15, 2010
• Quinagoran v. CA, 531 SCRA 104
• Cabrera v. Clarin, G.R. No. 215640, November 28, 2016
• Cabling v. Dangcalan, G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016
8. Shariah Courts
• PD 1083
• Villagracia v. Fifth Shari’a District Court, G.R. No. 188832, April 23, 2014
 7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem
9. Rules on Summary Procedure
 Lucas v. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011
 Concept of procedural void: Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128954, October 8, 1988
 Teraña v. de Sagun, 587 SCRA 60 8. Payment of docket fees
 Rosales v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 300
• Ballatan v. Court of Appeals, March 2, 1999, 304 SCRA 34
10. Rules on Barangay Conciliation • Heirs of the late Reinoso Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116121, July 18, 2011, 654 SCRA
1
 Adm. Circular No. 14-93 • Fedman Development Corp. v. Agcaoili, G.R. No. 165025, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 354
 Spouses Valdez v. Tabisula, G.R. No. 175510, July 28, 2008 • Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corp. v. Formaran, G.R. No. 175914,
February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 283
11. Revised Rule on Small Claims Court • GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010

 A.L. Ang Network Inc. v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014 • Rule 1, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law 1, pp. 367-409
F. Jurisdiction over small claims, cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure
and barangay conciliation B. Cause of action
1. Meaning of cause of action
• Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
• Rules on Barangay Conciliation, Adm. Circular No. 14-93 • Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 157479, November 24, 2010
• Rules on Small Claims Court
• Orbe v. Gumarang, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792, September 28, 2011 2. Right of action versus cause of action
3. Failure to state a cause of action
G. Totality rule 4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action

• Iniego v. Judge Purganan, G.R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006 • Belle Corporation v. de Leon-Banks, G.R. No. 174669, September 19, 2012
• Sante v. Claravall, G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010 • Santos v. Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014

oooOOOooo 5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects

PART I • Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp. G.R. No. 167246, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 155
• Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015
III. Civil Procedure • Damages in ejectment cases: Progressive Development Corp. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 301
SCRA 637; Read Herrera’s Critque on “damages and costs”; See Hualam Construction v.
A. Actions Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 612; Felisilda v. Villanueva, 139 SCRA 431
1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions
2. Meaning of special civil actions 6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
3. Meaning of criminal actions
4. Civil actions versus special proceedings • Rule 2, Rules of Court
5. Personal actions and real actions • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. I, pp. 410-503
• UCPB v. Beluso, 530 SCRA 567
• Far East Bank v. Spouses Plaza, G.R. No. 154489, July 25, 2003
C. Parties to civil actions
6. Local and transitory actions 1. Real parties in interest; indispensable parties;
 Representatives as parties; necessary parties; indigent parties; alternative
defendants • Yadno v. Anchales, G.R. No. 174582, October 11, 2012
• Carandang v. de Guzman
• Excellent Quality Apparel Inc. v. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 175048, February
10, 2009 7. Indigent party
• Stronghold Insurance Co. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 173297, March 6, 2013
• V-Gent Inc. v. Morning Star Travel and Tours, G.R. No. 186305, July 22, 2015 • Algura v. LGU of City of Naga, October 30, 2006
• Navarro v. Escobido, November 27, 2009
• Arcelona v. CA – NB: Read case in the SCRA and take note of the Errata: Arcelona v. CA, • Rule 3, Rules of Court
280 SCRA 20 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 504-611
• Carandang v. De Guzman, November 29, 2006
8. Transferee pendente lite
Personality to sue; Estate of a decedent
 Medrano v. de Vera, G.R. No. 165770, August 9, 2010
• Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. 63277, November 29, 1983, 126 SCRA 217
• Compare with: Ventura v. Militante, G.R. No. 63145, October 9, 1999 and Spouses Rodolfo D. Venue
Berot and Lilia Berot v. Siapno., G.R. No. 188944, July 9, 2014
• Boston Equity Resources v. CA, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013 1. Venue versus jurisdiction
• Heirs of Paciano Labao v. Vand Der Kolk, G.R. No. 207266, June 25, 2014 2. Venue of real actions

• Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012 • Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, G.R. No. L-58287, August 19, 1982
• Union Bank of the Philippines v. Maunlad Homes Inc., G.R. No. 190071, August 15, 2012
2. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties • Saraza v. Francisco, G.R. No. 198718, November 27, 2013

• Sepulveda Jr. v. Pelaez, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 302
• Moldes v. Villanueva, 468 SCRA 697
• Limos v. Spouses Odones, G.R. No. 186979, August 11, 2010
• Pacana-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, G.R. No. 168979, December 2, 2013
Indispensable party v. Necessary party
• Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113
3. Venue of personal actions
• Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008
• Garces v. CA, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA504
• Mangila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125027, August 12, 2002
• General Milling Corp. v. Uytengsu, 494 SCRA 241
• Saraza v. Francisco, G.R. No. 198718, November 27, 2013

3. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties • Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corp. v. Goldstar Elevators Phils., 473 SCRA 705
• Golden Arches Development Corp. v. St. Francis Square Holding Inc., 640 SCRA 227
• Pantranco North Express v. Standard Insurance, 453 SCRA 482
• See Rule on Venue in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC and A.M. No. 02-6-02-
4. Class suit SC

• Adm. Matter No. No. 88-1-646: Re Request of the Heirs of the Passengers of Dona Paz to set 4. Venue of actions against non-residents
aside the Order of Judge B.V. Chingcuangco, promulgated on March 31, 1988, 159 SCRA 623
• Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012
5. Suits against entities without juridical personality
5. When the rules on venue do not apply
6. Effect of death of party litigant
• Gumabon v. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001 • Spouses Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159746, July 18, 2012
• Bungcayao Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and Development Corp., G.R. No. 170483,
6. Effects of stipulations on venue April 19, 2010
• Firaza Sr. v. Ugay, G.R. No. 165838, April 3, 2013
• Unimasters Conglomeration Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 119657, February 7, 1997 • Banco de Oro v. Court of Appeals, 468 SCRA 166
• Briones v. CA, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015 • GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010
• Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Rolando Ogsos, Sr., G.R. No. 221062, October 5, 2016
7. Doctrine of forum non-conveniens • Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc. v. Paras, G.R. No. 161909, April 25, 2012
• Remedy over: Samala v. Judge Victor, 170 SCRA 453; CDCP v. Cuenca, 466 SCRA 714
• Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Sherman, G.R. No. 72494, August 11, 1989 • Paramount Life & General Insurance v. Castro, G.R. No. 195728, April 19, 2016
• Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Citibank, N.A. and Bank of America S.T. & N.A., G.R. • Intervention: Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Spouses de Guzman, G.R. No. 182136-37,
170290, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 191 August 29, 2008; Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013

• Rule 4, Rules of Court 2. Pleadings allowed in small claim cases and cases covered by the Rules on
• Read Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 612-651 Summary Procedure

E. Uniformity of Rules 3. Parts of a pleading

a) Caption
• Rule 5, Rules of Court b) Signature and address
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 652-671 c) Verification and certification against forum shopping
• Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (i) Requirements of a corporation executing the
• Revised Rule on Small Claims Court verification/certification of non-forum shopping
d) Effect of the signature of counsel in a pleading
F. Pleadings
1. Kinds of pleadings • Rule 7, Rules of Court
a) Complaint • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 712-760
b) Answer • See Sec. 8, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
(i) Negative defenses • See Sec. 5 (a), A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC
(ii) Negative pregnant • Vda. de Formoso v. PNB, June 1, 2011
(iii) Affirmative defenses • Bank of Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, October 6, 2010
c) Counterclaims • Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001
(i) Compulsory counterclaim • Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo v. Soliman, G.R. No. 178952, April 10, 2013
(ii) Permissive counterclaim • Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193415, April 18, 2012
(iii) Effect on the counterclaim when the complaint is • Petition for Relief from Judgment: Norris v. Parentela Jr., February 27, 2003; Compare:
dismissed Argana v. Republic, G.R. No. 147227, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 184
d) Cross-claims • Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession: Green Asia Construction and Development Corp.
e) Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints v. CA, 508 SCRA 79; Parents-Teachers Association of St. Matthew Christian Academy v.
f) Complaint-in-intervention Metro Bank, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010; de Guzman v. Chico, G.R. No. 195445,
g) Reply December 7, 2016
• What constitutes forum shopping: Brown-Araneta v. Araneta, G.R. No. 190814, October 9,
• Rule 6, Rules of Court 2013; Clark Development Corp. v. Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corp., G.R. No. 150986,
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law 1, pp. 672-711 March 2, 2007
• Answer Ex Abudanti Cautela? See Rosete v. Lim, G.R. No. 136051, June 8, 2006
• Filing fees for compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims: See Korea Technologies Co. Inc. v. 4. Allegations in a pleading
Judge Lerma, G.R. No. 143581, January 7, 2008 a) Manner of making allegations
 (i) Condition precedent e) Modes of service
(ii) Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other (i) Personal service
condition of the mind, judgments, official documents or (ii) Service by mail
acts (iii) Substituted service
b) Pleading an actionable document (iv) Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions
c) Specific denials (v) Priorities in modes of service and filing
(i) Effect of failure to make specific denials (vi) When service is deemed complete
(ii) When a specific denial requires an oath (vii) Proof of filing and service
f) Notice of lis pendens
• Rule 8, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 761-793 • Rule 13, Rules of Court
• Tumpag v. Tumpag, G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 873-915
• Santos v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 183034, March 12, 2014 • Gagoomal v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 1092813, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 444
• Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas v. Limbaco, G.R. No. 175291, July 27, 2011 • Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank v. Felonia, G.R. No. 189477, February 26, 2014
• Heirs of Andres Naya v. Naya, G.R. No. 215759, November 28, 2016
8. Amendment
5. Effect of failure to plead a) Amendment as a matter of right
a) Failure to plead defenses and objections b) Amendments by leave of court
b) Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim c) Formal amendment
d) Amendments to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence
6. Default e) Different from supplemental pleadings f) 1
a) When a declaration of default is proper
b) Effect of an order of default • Rule 10, Rules of Court
c) Relief from an order of default • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 824-856
d) Effect of a partial default • Read Regalado and Riano on issue on amendment in case of jurisdictional issues on the
e) Extent of relief original pleading
f) Actions where default are not allowed • Swagman Hotels and Travel Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 455 SCRA 175
• Siasoco v. CA, G.R. No. 132753, February 15, 1999
• Rule 9, Rules of Court • Citystate Savings Bank v. Aguinaldo G.R. No. 200018, April 6, 2015
• Rule 11, Rules of Court • Dela Cruz v. Concepcion, October 11, 2012
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 794-823 • Dayao v. Shell Company, G.R. No. L-32475, April 30, 1980
• Read: Herrera Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 857-863 • Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013
• Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. v. Valbueco, Inc., G.R. No. 179594, September 11, 2013 • Ong Peng v. Custodio, 1 SCRA 780 and Pan Asiatic Travel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-62781,
• Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, March 21, 2006 August 19, 1988
• Lina v. CA, 135 SCRA 637
• Lui Enterprises v. Zuellig Pharma Corp., G.R. No. 193494, March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 88 G. Summons
• Arquero v. CA, G.R. No. 168053, September 21, 2011, 658 SCRA 70 1. Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem
• Sec. 8 (2), Special Rule of Procedure on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriage and quasi in rem
• Sec. 5 (b) and (c), Special Rule of Procedure in Legal Separation 2. Voluntary appearance
3. Personal service
7. Filing and service of pleadings
a) Payment of docket fees  Sec. 128, Corporation Code
b) Filing versus service of pleadings  Sec. 190, Insurance Code; now Sec. 196 of PD 612 as amended by 10607
c) Periods of filing of pleadings  Sec. 76, General Banking Law of 2000, R.A. No. 8791
d) Manner of filing  Onstott v. Upper Tagpos Neighborhood Association, G.R. No. 221047, September 14, 2016
 Sansio Philippines Inc. v. Mogol Jr., G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009 b) Actions of the court
c) Compliance with the order and effect of noncompliance
4. Substituted service d) Effect on the period to file a responsive pleading
5. Constructive service (by publication)
a) Service upon a defendant where his identity is unknown or where • Rule 12, Rules of Court
his whereabouts are unknown • Read Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 864-872
b) Service upon residents temporarily outside the Philippines
6. Extra-territorial service, when allowed oooOOOooo
7. Service upon prisoners and minors
8. Proof of service SYLLABUS FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE
Atty. Victor Y. Eleazar
• Rule 14, Rules of Court Rule 16 to 36
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 916-985
• Atiko Trans Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance 3. Motion to dismiss
Inc., G.R. No. 167545, August 17, 2011 a) Grounds
• De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp. G.R. No. 194751, November 26, 2014 b) Resolution of motion
• NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Ltd. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No. c) Remedies of plaintiff when the complaint is dismissed
175799, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 328 d) Remedies of the defendant when the motion is denied
• A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC e) Effect of dismissal of complaint on certain grounds
• Samartino v. Raon, July 3, 2002 f) When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses
• Manotoc v. CA, 499 SCRA 21 g) Bar by dismissal
• Pascual v. Pascual, December 4, 2009 h) Distinguished from demurrer to evidence under Rule 33
• Yuk Ling Ong v. Co., G.R. No. 206653, February 25, 2015
• Ang v. Chinatrust, G.R. No. 200693, April 18, 2016 • Rule 16, Rules of Court
• Republic v. Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 621 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 1004-1054
• Note Art. 151, Family Code
H. Motions • Obando v. Figueras, 322 SCRA 148
1. Motions in general • Film Development Council of the Philippines v. SM Prime Holdings Inc., G.R. No. 197937,
a) Definition of a motion April 3, 2013
b) Motions versus pleadings • Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No. 181132, June 5, 2009
c) Contents and form of motions • Pacana-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply Inc., G.R. No. 168979, December 2, 2013
d) Notice of hearing and hearing of motions • Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk v. Spouses Sison, G.R. No. 191132, January 27, 2016
e) Omnibus motion rule • Koppel Inc. v. Makati Rotary Club Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 198075, September 4, 2013
f) Litigated and ex parte motions • Mallion v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, October 31, 2006
g) Pro-forma motions
I. Dismissal of actions
• Rule 15, Rules of Court 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff; two-dismissal rule
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 986-1003 2. Dismissal upon motion by plaintiff; effect on existing counterclaim
• De los Reyes v. Ramnani, G.R. No. 169135, June 18, 2010 3. Dismissal due to the fault of plaintiff
• Ramos v. Teves, A.M. No. P-12-3061, June 27, 2012; see Pojas v. Gozo-Dadole, 192 SCRA 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint
575
• Victory Liner Inc. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007 • Rule 17, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 1055-1073
2. Motions for bill of particulars • Strongworld Construction Corp. v. Perello, 496 SCRA 700
a) Purpose and when applied for
Date of last revision: 25 February 2017

• Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago, 494 SCRA 393 • Rule 20, Rules of Court
• FAJ Construction v. Saulog, G.R. No. 200759, March 25, 2015 • Rule 22, Rules of Court
• Macedonio v. Ramo, G.R. No. 193516, March 24, 2014 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 1137-1144
• Ching v. Cheng, G.R. No. 175507, October 8, 2014 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 1155-1161
• Yap-Co v. Uy, G.R. No. 209295, February 11, 2015
• Padilla v. Globe Asiatique Realty, G.R. No. 207376, August 6, 2014 M. Subpoena
1. Subpoena duces tecum
J. Pre-trial 2. Subpoena ad testificandum
1. Concept of pre-trial 3. Service of subpoena
2. Nature and purpose 4. Compelling attendance of witnesses; contempt
3. Notice of pre-trial 5. Quashing of subpoena
4. Appearance of parties; effect of failure to appear
5. Pre-trial brief; effect of failure to appear  Rule 21, Rules of Court
6. Distinction between pre-trial in civil case and pre-trial in criminal case • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 1145-1154
7. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) • Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013
• People v. Montejo, L-24154, October 31, 1967
• Rule 18, Rules of Court • Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154115, November 29, 2005
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 1074-1115 • Autographics Inc. v. CA, 224 SCRA 198
• A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, August 16, 2004
• A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC or Judicial Affidavit Rule N. Modes of discovery
• A.M. No. 14-03-02-SC (Piloting of a New System for Speedy Court Trial), Rule 22 on 1. Depositions pending action; depositions before action or pending appeal
Preliminary Conference a) Meaning of deposition
• Sec. 13 (a) and (b), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC b) Uses; scope of examination
• Sec. 10 (1) and (2), A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC c) When may objections to admissibility be made
• RA 876 d) When may taking of deposition be terminated or its scope limited
• RA 9285 2. Written interrogatories to adverse parties
• Paredes v. Verano, G.R. No. 164375, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 264 a) Consequences of refusal to answer
• Aguilar v. Lightbringers Credit Cooperative, G.R. No. 209605, January 12, 2015 b) Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
• Chan Kent v. Micaraez, 645 SCRA 176
 Spouses Afulugencia v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014
K. Intervention  Pajarillaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163515, October 31, 2008
1. Requisites for intervention  Rosete v. Lim, G.R. No. 136051, June 8, 2006
2. Time to intervene  Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co. Inc., G.R. No. 146018, June
3. Remedy for the denial of motion to intervene 25, 2003
 Dulay v. Dulay, G.R. No. 158857, November 11, 2005
• Rule 19, Rules of Court  Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Africa), G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 1116-1136
 Ayala Land Inc. v. Judge Tagle, G.R. No. 153667, August 11, 2005
• Virra Mall Tenants Association Inc. v. Virra Mall Greenhills Association Inc., 658 SCRA 728
• Pinlac v. CA, G.R. No. 91486, September 10, 2003
3. Request for admission
• Otto Gmur Inc. v. Revilla, 55 Phil. 627
a) Implied admission by adverse party
• Saw v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 170
b) Consequences of failure to answer request for admission
• Office of the Ombudsman v. Sison, G.R. No. 185954, February 16, 2010
c) Effect of admission
d) Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission
L. Calendar of cases and Computation of Period
4. Production or inspection of documents or things
5. Physical and mental examination of persons
 6. Consequences of refusal to comply with modes of discovery criminal case
7. Compare with modes of discovery available in criminal cases
• Rule 33, Rules of Court
• Rules 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, Rules of Court • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 110-112
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, 2006 Ed., pp. 1-77 • See Rule 119, Sec. 23
• Agustin v. CA, June 15, 2005
• Herrera v. Alba, June 15, 2005 Q. Judgments and final orders
• Compare with Criminal Procedure: See Sec. 3 (b), 2nd paragraph, Rule 112 1. Judgment without trial
• See also Secs. 13 and 15, Rule 119 2. Contents of a judgment
3. Judgment on the pleadings
O. Trial 4. Summary judgments
1. Adjournments and postponements a) For the claimant
2. Requisites of motion to postpone trial b) For the defendant
a) For absence of evidence c) When the case not fully adjudicated
b) For illness of party or counsel d) Affidavits and attachments
3. Agreed statement of facts 5. Judgment on the pleadings versus summary judgments
4. Order of trial; reversal of order 6. Rendition of judgments and final orders
5. Consolidation or severance of hearing or trial 7. Entry of judgment and final order
6. Delegation of reception of evidence
7. Trial by commissioners • Rule 34, Rules of Court
a) Reference by consent or ordered on motion • Rule 35, Rules of Court
b) Powers of the commissioner • Rule 36, Rules of Court
c) Commissioner’s report; notice to parties and hearing on the report • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 113-117, 118-138, 139-2003
• Estrada v. Consolacion, 71 SCRA 523
• Rule 30, Rules of Court • Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190
• Rule 31, Rules of Court • Bank of Philippine Islands v. Yu, January 20, 2010
• Rule 32, Rules of Court • Estate of Lim Cheng v. Bacala, March 14, 2007
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 78-95 • Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas v. Limbaco, 654 SCRA 643
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 96-102 • Basbas v. Sayson, 656 SCRA 151
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 103-109 • Fernando v. Santamaria, December 10, 2004
• A.M. No. 14-03-02-SC (Piloting of a New System for Speedy Court Trial), Rule 24 on Trial of • Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, 594 SCRA 434
Issues • Agoy v. Araneta Center Inc., G.R. 196358, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 883
• Yu v. Basilio Magno Construction, G.R. No. 138701-02, October 17, 2006 • GSIS v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc., G.R. No. 165585, November 20, 2013
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 152 • Olivarez Realty Corp. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 196251, July 9, 2014
• What if the cases are before different courts sitting in different jurisdictions, is consolidation • Philippine National Bank v. San Miguel Corp., G.R. No. 186063, January 15, 2014
possible? See Delta Motors Sales Corp. v. Mangosing, 70 SCRA 598; Superlines • Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010
Transportation Co. v. Victor, 124 SCRA 939; Vallacar Transit v. Yap, 126 SCRA 500 • Philippine Woman’s Christian Temperance Union Inc. v. Teodoro R. Yangco Foundation,
• Metrobank v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 169677, February 18, 2013 Inc., G.R. No. 199595, April 2, 201

P. Demurrer to evidence oooOOOooo

1. Ground
2. Effect of denial Post Judgment Remedies and Appeals
3. Effect of grant
4. Waiver of right to present evidence R. Post-judgment remedies
5. Demurrer to evidence in a civil case versus demurrer to evidence in a
 1. Motion for new trial or reconsideration • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 658-672
a) Grounds • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 711-729
b) When to file • General Milling Corp. v. Ramos, 654 SCRA 256
c) Denial of the motion; effect
d) Grant of the motion; effect j) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA
e) Remedy when motion is denied, fresh 15-day period rule
f) Compare with Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration in • Rule 45, Rules of Court
Criminal cases • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 730-779
• Tan v. People, April 12, 2002
• Rule 37, Rules of Court
• See Rule 121 (i) Procedure before the CA
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 204-246
• Legarda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, Decision dated March 18, 1991; Resolution • Rules 46 and 48 to 55, Rules of Court
dated June 10, 1992; Resolution dated October 16, 1997 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 780-794, 824-901
• Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96027-28, March 8, 2005, 453 SCRA 24 • Review Internal Rules of Court of Appeals
• San Juan Jr. v. Judge Cruz, G.R. No. 167321, July 31, 2006; Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. (ii) Procedure before the SC
No. 152375, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 152
• Antonio v. Register of Deeds of Makati City, June 20, 2012 • Rule 56, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 902-911
2. Appeals in general • Review Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
a) Judgments and final orders subject to appeal • People v. Caruncho, January 23, 1994
b) Matters not appealable
c) Remedy against judgments and orders, which are not appealable k) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CTA
d) Modes of appeal
(i) Ordinary appeal • See RA 9282
(ii) Petition for review
(iii) Petition for review on certiorari l) Review of final judgments or final orders of the COA
e) Issues to be raised on appeal
f) Period of appeal • Rule 64, Rules of Court
g) Perfection of appeal
h) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC m) Review of final judgments or final orders of the Comelec

• Rule 40, Rules of Court • Rule 64, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 566-579
• Mejillano v. Lucillo, 590 SCRA 1 n) Review of final judgments or final orders of the CSC
• De Grano v. Lacaba, 589 SCRA 148
• Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 655 SCRA 553  Rule 43, Rules of Court
• Spouses Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, July 18, 2012
o) Review of final judgments or final orders of the Ombudsman
i) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC
• Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998
• Rule 41, Rules of Court
• Rule 42, Rules of Court p) Review of final judgments or final orders of the NLRC
• Rule 44, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 580-657 • St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, September 16, 1998
 3. How a judgment is executed
q) Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial a) Execution by motion or by independent action
agencies b) Issuance and contents of a writ of execution
c) Execution of judgments for money
• Rule 43, Rules of Court d) Execution of judgments for specific acts
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 673-710 e) Execution of special judgments
• Uy v. Public Estates Authority, 589 SCRA 1 f) Effect of levy on third persons
• Rom v. Roxas & Co. Inc., 656 SCRA 691 4. Properties exempt from execution
• Fildams Pharma Inc. v. CA, 426 SCRA 460 5. Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons
• Orosa v. Roa, 495 SCRA 22 a) In relation to third party claim in attachment and replevin
6. Rules on redemption
3. Relief from judgments, orders and other proceedings 7. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment is unsatisfied
a) Grounds for availing of the remedy 8. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor
b) Time to file petition 9. Effect of judgment or final orders
c) Contents of petition 10. Enforcement and effect of foreign judgments or final orders

• Rule 38, Rules of Court • Rule 39, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 247-277 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, 278-565
• Mesina v. Meer, July 2, 2002 • Urban Bank v. Pena, 659 SCRA 418
• Samonte v. S.F. Naguiat Inc., October 2, 2009 • Cometa v. Court of Appeals, February 6, 2001
• Republic v. Court of Appeals, August 6, 2008 • De los Reyes v. Ramnani, June 18, 2010
• Solidum v. Court of Appeals, June 22, 2006
4. Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions • Rural Bank of Santa Barbara (Pangasinan) Inc. v. Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus
a) Grounds for annulment Christ of Latter-day Saints, Inc., August 19, 2009
b) Period to file action • Spouses de Mesa v. Spouses Acera, January 16, 2012
c) Effects of judgment of annulment • Golden Sun Finance Corp. v. Albano, 654 SCRA 375
• Cayton v. Zeonnix Trading Corp., October 9, 2009
5. Collateral attack of judgments • Yap v. Dy Sr., 654 SCRA 593
• Co v. People, July 13, 2009
• Rule 47, Rules of Court • Selga v. Brar, September 21, 2011
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. II, pp. 795-823 • Heirs of JBL Reyes v. CA, 338 SCRA 282
• Llamas v. Court of Appeals, September 29, 2009 • Suntay v. Keyser Mercantile, Inc., G.R. No. 208462, December 10, 2014
• Manila v. Gallardo-Manzo, 657 SCRA 20
• Antonio v. Register of Deeds of Makati City, June 20, 2012 oooOOOooo
• Barco v. Court of Appeals, 420 SCRA 162
• Villanueva v. Nite, July 25, 2006 Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions
• Mejia-Espinoza v. Cariño, G.R. No. 193397, January 25, 2017
• Imperial v. Armes, G.R. No. 178842, January 30, 2017 T. Provisional remedies
1. Nature of provisional remedies
S. Execution, satisfaction and effect of judgments 2. Jurisdiction over provisional remedies
1. Difference between finality of judgment for purposes of appeal; for 3. Preliminary attachment
purposes of execution a) Grounds for issuance of writ of attachment
2. When execution shall issue b) Requisites
a) Execution as a matter of right c) Issuance and contents of order of attachment; affidavit and bond
b) Discretionary execution d) Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of summons
 e) Manner of attaching real and personal property; when property • Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 610 SCRA 399
attached is claimed by third person
f) Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond 6. Replevin
g) Satisfaction of judgment out of property attached a) When may writ be issued
b) Requisites
• Rule 57, Rules of Court c) Affidavit and bond; redelivery bond
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, 2006 Ed., pp. 1-66 d) Sheriff’s duty in the implementation of the writ; when property is
• Phil-Air Conditioning Center v. RCJ Lines, 775 SCRA 265 claimed by third party
• Watercraft Venture Corp. v. Wolfe, 770 SCRA 179
• Excellent Quality Apparel v. Visayan Surety, 761 SCRA 464 • Rule 60, Rules of Court
• Ligon v. RTC of Makati Branch 56, 717 SCRA 373 • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 183-211
• Smart Communication Inc. v. Astorga, 542 SCRA 434
4. Preliminary injunction • Agner v. BPI Family Savings Bank, 697 SCRA 89
a) Definitions and differences: preliminary injunction and temporary • Hao v. Andres, 555 SCRA 8
restraining order
b) Requisites 7. Support
c) Kinds of injunction a) Application for support pendent elite
d) When writ may be issued b) Comment, hearing, Order
e) Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction c) Enforcement of Order
f) Grounds for objection to, or for the dissolution of injunction or d) Restitution
restraining order
g) Duration of TRO • Rule 61, Rules of Court
h) In relation to R.A. 8975, ban on issuance of TRO or writ of • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 212-222
injunction in cases involving government infrastructure projects • Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, 744 SCRA 516
i) Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of summons in relation • Salas v. Matusalem, 705 SCRA 560
to attachment • Republic v. Yahon, 726 SCRA 438

• Rule 58, Rules of Court 8. Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under the Rule of
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 67-162 Procedure in Environmental cases
• Novecio v. Lim, 754 SCRA 111
• Plaza v. Lustiva, 718 SCRA 19  Issuance of TEPO, Sec. 8, Rule 2 of the Rule of Procedure in Environmental cases
• Solid Builders, Inc. v. China Bank, April 3, 2013  Action on motion for dissolution of TEPO, Sec. 9, Rule 2 of the Rule of Procedure in
Environmental cases
5. Receivership  Prohibition against TRO and PI, Sec. 10, Rule 2 of the RPEC
a) Cases when receiver may be appointed  Monitoring by the SC, Sec. 11, Rule 2 of the RPEC
b) Requisites  Permanent EPO, Sec. 3, Rule 5 of the RPEC
c) Requirements before issuance of an order  Monitoring of compliance of EPO, Sec. 4, Rule 5 of the RPEC
d) General powers of a receiver  Return of the writ of execution, Sec. 5, Rule 5 of the RPEC
e) Two kinds of bonds
f) Termination of receivership U. Special civil actions
1. Nature of special civil actions
• Rule 59, Rules of Court 2. Ordinary civil actions versus special civil actions
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 163-182 3. Jurisdiction and venue
• Tantano v. Espina-Caboverde, 702 SCRA 508
• Koruga v. Arcenas, 590 SCRA 49 4. Interpleader
 a) Requisites for interpleader b) Requisites
b) When to file c) When petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is proper
c) Procedural peculiarities d) Injunctive relief
e) Exceptions to filing of motion for reconsideration before filing
• Rule 62, Rules of Court petition
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 223-233 f) Reliefs petitioner is entitled to
• Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank, 681 SCRA 521 g) Actions/omissions of MTC/RTC in election cases
• Pasricha v. Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA 273 h) When and where to file petition
i) Effects of filing of an unmeritorious petition
5. Declaratory reliefs and similar remedies j) Procedural peculiarities
a) Who may file the action
b) Requisites of action for declaratory relief • Rule 65, Rules of Court
c) When court may refuse to make judicial declaration • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 259-367
d) Conversion to ordinary action • Cawad v. Abad, 764 SCRA 1
e) Proceedings considered as similar remedies • Province of Leyte v. Energy Development Corp., 760 SCRA 149
(i) Reformation of an instrument • Maglalang v. PAGCOR, December 11, 2013
(ii) Consolidation of ownership • Corales v. Republic, August 27, 2013
(iii) Quieting of title to real property • Villanueva v. JBC, 755 SCRA 182
f) Procedural peculiarities • Cudia v. Superintendent of PMA, February 24, 2015
• Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, February 4, 2014
• Rule 63, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 234-250 8. Quo warranto
• Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries Inc., 542 SCRA 470 a) Distinguish from quo warranto in the omnibus election code
• Department of Finance v. dela Cruz, 768 SCRA 73 b) When government commence an action against individuals
• Republic v. Roque, 706 SCRA 273 c) When individual may commence an action
• Sabitsanan v. Muertegui, 703 SCRA 145 d) Judgment in quo warranto action
e) Rights of a person adjudged entitled to public office
6. Review of judgments and final orders or resolution of the Comelec and f) Procedural peculiarities
COA
a) Application of Rule 65 under Rule 64 • Rule 66, Rules of Court
b) Distinction in the application of Rule 65 to judgments of the • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, 368-387
Comelec and COA and the application of Rule 65 to other • Velasco v. Belmonte, 779 SCRA 81
tribunals, persons and officers • De Castro v. Carlos, April 16, 2013
c) Procedural peculiarities • Aratea v. Comelec, 683 SCRA 105
• Calleja v. Panday, 483 SCRA 680
• Rule 64, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 251-258 9. Expropriation
• Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 209219, a) Matters to allege in complaint for expropriation
December 2, 2014 b) Two stages in every action for expropriation
• Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy v. Comelec, 705 SCRA 340 c) When plaintiff can immediately enter into possession of the real
property, in relation to R.A. 8974
7. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus d) New system of immediate payment of initial just compensation
a) Definitions and distinctions e) Defenses and objections
(i) Certiorari distinguished from appeal by certiorari f) Order of expropriation
(ii) Prohibition and mandamus distinguished from injunction g) Ascertainment of just compensation
 h) Appointment of commissioners; commissioner’s report; court
action upon commissioner’s report 12. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
i) Rights of plaintiff upon judgment and payment a) Definitions and distinction
j) Effect of recording of judgment b) Distinguished from accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria
k) Procedural peculiarities c) How to determine jurisdiction in accion publiciana and accion
reivindicatoria
• Rule 67, Rules of Court d) Who may institute the action and when; against whom the action
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 388-430 may be maintained
• NPC v. YCLA Sugar Development Corp., 712 SCRA 550 e) Pleadings allowed
• Abad v. Fil-Homes Realty, November 24, 2010 f) Action on the complaint
• Republic v. Andaya, June 15, 2007 g) When demand is necessary
h) Preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction
10. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage i) Resolving defense of ownership
a) Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale j) How to stay the immediate execution of judgment
b) Sale of mortgaged property; effect k) Summary procedure, prohibited pleadings
c) Disposition of proceeds of sale l) Procedural peculiarities
d) Deficiency judgment
(i) Instances when court cannot render deficiency judgment • Rule 70, Rules of Court
e) Judicial foreclosure versus extrajudicial foreclosure • Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 492-611
f) Equity of redemption versus right of redemption • Erorita v. Dumlao, 781 SCRA 551
g) Procedural peculiarities • De la Cruz v. Hermano, 754 SCRA 231
• Sugapo v. De Jesus, 756 SCRA 211
• Rule 68, Rules of Court • Manalang v. Bacani, January 12, 2015
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 431-476
• Metropolitan Bank v. CP Promotions and Marketing Inc., 760 SCRA 59 13. Contempt
• Robles v. Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75 a) Kinds of contempt
• Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank, March 13, 2013 b) Purpose and nature of each
c) Remedy against direct contempt; penalty
11. Partition d) Remedy against indirect contempt; penalty
a) Who may file complaint; who should be made defendants e) How contempt proceedings are commenced
b) Matters to allege in the complaint for partition f) Acts deemed punishable as indirect contempt
c) Two stages in every action for partition g) When imprisonment shall be imposed
d) Order of partition and partition by agreement h) Contempt against quasi-judicial bodies
e) Partition by commissioners; appointment of commissioners, i) Procedural peculiarities
commissioner’s report; court action upon commissioner’s report
f) Judgment and its effects • Rule 71, Rules of Court
g) Partition of personal property • Read, Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 612-695
h) Prescription of action • Baculi v. Judge Belen, April 20, 2009
i) Procedural peculiarities • Garcia v. Manrique, October 12, 2012
• Balindong v. Court of Appeals, 773 SCRA 27
• Rule 69, Rules of Court • Pulumbarit v. CA, 772 SCRA 244
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. III, pp. 477-491 • Tormis v. Paredes, 749 SCRA 505
• Dadizon v. Bernadas, 588 SCRA 678
• Quimpo Sr. v. Vda. de Beltran, 545 SCRA 174 14. Rule of Procedure in Environmental Cases
• Salas, Jr. v. Aguila, G.R. No. 202370, September 23, 2013 a) Writ of Kalikasan
 b) Writ of Continuing Mandamus

15. Writ of Amparo

 The Rule on the Writ of Amparo

16. Writ of Habeas Data

 A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data)

 Meralco v. Lim, G.R. No. 184769, October 5, 2010

oooOOOooo