POINTERS FOR SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

FINALS:

MEMORIZATION (RULES 66-71) 20%

ENUMERATION (RULES 62-71) 20%
ESSAY (RULES 62-71) 40%

INTERPLEADER- RULE 62

I. Meaning of interpleader

A Indispensable element of interpleader action

Mesina v. IAC, G.R. No. 70145, 13 November 1986
RCBC v. Metro Container Corp, GR No. 127913, 13 September
2001

B. Purpose of an action of interpleader

Wack Wack Golf and Country Club v. Won, G.R. No.
L-23851, 26 March 1976

C. Period to file an action – within a reasonable time

Wack Wack Golf and Country Club v. Won, G.R. No.
L-23851, 26 March 1976

II. How initiated – Section 1, Rule 62

III. Jurisdiction and venue of the complaint for interpleader

A. Jurisdiction – depending on value of claim

B. Venue – real or personal property

IV. Motion to dismiss and the grounds - Sec. 4, Rule 62

A. Impropriety of the interpleader action

B. Grounds Under Rule 16
Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. Zuellig Pharma Corp. et al.
G.R. No. 193494, 12 March 2014

DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES – RULE 63

I. Meaning of declaratory relief

Ferrer, Jr. v. Roco, Jr., G.R. No. 174129, 05 July 2010

II. Purpose of an action for declaratory relief – Section 1, Rule 63

Martelino v. NHMFC, G.R. No. 160208, 30 June 2008
Galicto v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193978, 28 February 2012

III. Requisites of an action for declaratory relief - Section 1, Rule 63

Salazar v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194830, 18 January 2011

A. Justiciable controversy
Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, 28 April 2004
Commissioner of Customs, et al. v. Hypermix Feeds Corp.,
G.R. No. 179579, 01 February 2012

1
 1. Effect of absence of justiciable controversy
Republic v. Roque, G.R. No. 204603, 24 September 2013
Jimenes v. Roa, G.R. No. L-30496, 31 May 1971

2 Effect where the law or contract has already been contravened

Malana v. Tappa, G.R. No. 181303, 17 September 2009

3. Action for declaratory relief after breach is objectionable

Sebastian Sarmiento, et al. v. Hon. Capapas, et al. G.R. No. L-
15509, 31 March 1962
Quisumbing v. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, 08 December 2008

B. Legal Interest in the Controversy

1. Third-party complaint is not proper when the main case is

declaratory relief
Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-21036, 30
June 1977

C. Issue is Ripe for Judicial Determination

Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, 90 Phil. 83 (1951)

IV. Notice of the Solicitor General – Section 3, Rule 63

V. Validity of Local Ordinances – Section 4, Rule 63

VI. Court action is discretionary - Section 5, Rule 63

A. Exceptions – action for reformation of instrument, for quieting of title,
For consolidation of ownership under Article 1607

VII. Conversion into ordinary action – Section 6, Rule 63

Quisumbing v. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, 08 December 2008

VIII. Remedy from adverse ruling

Commissioner of Customs, et al. v. Hypermix Feeds Corp.,
G.R. No. 179579, 01 February 2012

REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR

RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT - RULE 64

I. Scope of Rule 64 – Section 1, Rule 64

A. Review of COMELEC rulings by the Supreme Court En Banc

Ambil v. COMELEC, 398 Phil. 257 (2000)

B. Should be final, and not interlocutory, COMELEC order

Cagas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194139, 24 January 2012
Exceptions:
Court may take cognizance of a certiorari action directed against an
interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC when the
following circumstances are present: first, the order was issued without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and second, under the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the subject of the controversy is a
matter which (1) the COMELEC en banc may not sit and consider or

2
 (2) a Division is not authorized to act or (3) the members of the
Division unanimously vote to refer to the COMELEC en banc

C. COMELEC rulings on disqualifications subject of review under Rule 64

Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, 03 March 2004
Velez v. Poe, G.R. No. 161824, 03 March 2004

D. Review of COA rulings

Reblora v. AFP, G.R. No. 195842, 08 June 2013

II. Filing of Petition – Section 3, Rule 64

A. 30 days from notice of judgment/final order

B. Effect of filing of motion for reconsideration/denial
1. interrupts reglementary period for filing petition
2. no “fresh period rule”
Pates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184915, 30 June 2009
- reason is Constitution mandate to accord to elections and
the prompt determination of their results. Section 3, Article IX-C
of the Constitution expressly requires that the COMELECs rules
of procedure should expedite the disposition of election
cases. This Court labors under the same command, as our
proceedings are in fact the constitutional extension of cases that
start with the COMELEC.
-
Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193808, 26 June 2012
- distinguished electoral protest, quo warranto and certiorari

CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION MANDAMUS - RULE 65

I. Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 – Section 1, Rule 65

A. Definition - Angeles v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173, 12

March 2012

B. Distinguished from Appeal

Madrigal Transport v. Lapanday Holding Corp., G.R. No. 156067,
11 August 2004

Difference: Purpose, Manner of Filing (appellate v. original jurisdixn of

CA), Subject Matter, Period of Filing, Need for MR)

Sandoval v. Cailipan, G.R. No. 200727, 04 March 2013

Exclusivity of certiorari and appeal – remedies of appeal
and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or
successive. The simultaneous filing of a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under
Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be
allowed since one remedy would necessarily cancel out the
other. The existence and availability of the right of appeal
proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the
requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that
there should be no appeal.

C. Distinguished from certiorari under Rule 64

Perez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184915, 30 June 2009

3
 the most patent difference between the two i.e., the exception that Section 2,
Rule 64 refers to is Section 3 which provides for a special period for the filing of
petitions for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The
period is 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that
Rule 65 provides), with the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for
reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30 days (instead of the
fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides).

D. Grounds: Grave abuse of discretion –

Roquero v. Chancellor of UP Manila, G.R. No. 181851, 09 March
2010
The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed
violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and
secured; or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried

Without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction –

Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129368, August 2003

E. Against whom directed –

1. Definition of judicial function – Ruperto v. Torres, G.R. No. L-

8785, 25 February 1957

Judicial function presupposes the use of mental processes in the

determination of law or fact, and at times involves discretion as to
how the power should be used. What is a judicial function does not
depend solely upon the mental operation by which it is performed
or the importance of the act. Due regard must be had to the organic
law of the state and the division of powers of government.

2. Definition of quasi-judicial function – United Residents of

Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on Settlement of Land
Problems, G.R. No. 135945, 07 March 2001
Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the actions,
discretion, etc. of public administrative officers or bodies, who are
required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts,
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature

F. Against what directed – Interlocutory order vs. final judgment

Heirs of Sps. Reterta v. Sps. Mores, G.R. No. 159941, 17
August 2011

A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case,

leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect
thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of
the evidence presented at the trial declares categorically what the
rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the
right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the
ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once rendered,
the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or
determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned.
Nothing more remains to be done by the Court 

an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not
end the Courts task of adjudicating the parties contentions and

4
 determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but
obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the
Court, is interlocutory, e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss
under Rule 16 of the Rules, or granting a motion for extension of
time to file a pleading, or authorizing amendment thereof, or
granting or denying applications for postponement, or production
or inspection of documents or things, etc. Unlike a final judgment
or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an
interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only
as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final
judgment rendered in the case.

G. Error of fact v. error of jurisdiction

First Corp. v. Former 6th Div of the CA, G.R. No. 171989, 04 July
2007
Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error
of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of
judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of
was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ
of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court
in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions
anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law

H. Constitutional Issues - Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino, G.R. No. 177130,

07 June 2011

I. No appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of law

1. Adequate remedy – Conti v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134441,

19 May 1999
the continuous failure of respondent CSC to resolve Contis motion
for reconsideration for so long a time has virtually amounted to a
denial of his right to due process and right to the speedy disposition
of his case. In fact, there is yet no indication on record that CSC
has already resolved Contis motion for reconsideration. It cannot be
gainsaid that it is the inadequacy, not the total absence, of all other
legal remedies, and the danger of the failure of justice without the
writ, that should determine the propriety of certiorari

2. Motion for reconsideration requirement; exceptions

Republic v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, 05 June 2013

3. Certiorari not proper if appeal is available

Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129368, August 2003

4 . Certiorari not a substitute for a lost appeal

Banco Filipino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132703,
23 June 2000

J. No fixed enumeration of instances where certiorari will issue; rationale

Gutib v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131209, 13 August 1999

5
 a wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice
in certiorari proceedings. The cases in which certiorari will issue
cannot be defined, because to do so would be to destroy its
comprehensiveness and usefulness. So wide is the discretion of the
court that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more
discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. In the exercise of
our superintending control over inferior courts, we are to be guided by
all the circumstances of each particular case as the ends of justice
may require

K. Formal requirements of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 –

par. 2, Section 1, Rule 65
Section 3, Rule 46

1. Verification - Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986 10 December

2008
2. Statement of Material Dates
Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, 05 July 2001
insofar as verification is concerned, we have held that
there is substantial compliance if the same is
executed by an attorney, it being presumed that facts
alleged by him are true to his knowledge and belief.
However, the same does not apply as regards the
requirement of a certification against forum shopping. 

Lapid v. Laurea , G. R. No. 139607, 28 October 2002

The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 is for the purpose of determining its
timeliness

L. Effect of non-compliance with formal requirements -

Bacolor, et al. v. VL Makabali Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 204325, 18 April 2016

M. Period within which to file petition

Section 4, Rule 65 as amended By A.M. No. 07–7–12–SC
Thenamaris Phils, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
191215, 03 February 2014 –strict application of the period
Exception: Domdom v. 3rd and 5th Divisions of the Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010
A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC that no mention is made in the
above-quoted amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of a
motion for extension, unlike in the previous formulation,
does not make the filing of such pleading absolutely
prohibited. If such were the intention, the deleted
portion could just have simply been reworded to state
that no extension of time to file the petition shall be
granted. Absent such a prohibition, motions for
extension are allowed, subject to the Courts sound
discretion. The present petition may thus be allowed,
having been filed within the extension sought and, at all
events, given its merits

N. Jurisdiction – par. 2 Section 4, Rule 65

1. Supreme Court - par. 1, Section 5, Article VIII, 1987

Constitution

6
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over final orders and
resolutions of the CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, the
COMELEC, COA and the Ombudsman in criminal
cases
Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman (Visayas),
G.R. No. 149148, 05 April 2002

2. Court of Appeals - Section 9, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129

St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 13086, 16 September 1998

3. Regional Trial Court - Section 21, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129

Rodriguez v. Gadiane, et al., G.R. No.
152903, 17 July 2006
The Court has nonetheless recognized that
if the criminal case is dismissed by the trial
court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on
the criminal aspect of the case must be
instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of
the State. The capability of the private
complainant to question such dismissal or
acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of
the case

4. COMELEC - appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari

A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC
Bulilis v. Nunez, G.R. No. 195953, 09 Aug 2011
Galang v. Geronimo, G.R. No. 192793, 22 Feb 2011

II. Concurrency of Jurisdiction and Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

Banez, Jr. v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 159508, 29 August 2012
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of
courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious
consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court
from having to deal with causes that are also well within the competence
of the lower courts, and thus leave time to the Court to deal with the more
fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned
to it.

A.L. Ang Network v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, 22 January 2014

a becoming regard for judicial hierarchy dictates that petitions for the
issuance of writs of certiorari against first level courts should be filed with
the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of
Appeals, before resort may be had before the Court

III. Effect on Main case of Filing of Petition for Certiorari – Section 7, Rule 65
China Banking Corp. v. Cebu Printing & Packaging Corp., G.R. No.
172880, 11 August 2010

IV. Procedure after filing of Petition – Sections 7 and 8, Rule 65

Maralit v. PNB, G.R. No. 163788, 24 August 2009

V. Petition for prohibition under Rule 65 – Section 2, Rule 65

A. Definition and scope of prohibition – Holy Spirit Homeowner’s

Assoc. v. Defensor, G.R. No. 1634980, 03 August 2006

7
 B. Directed against whom and what - Section 2, Rule 65

1. Definition of ministerial function – Sps. Marquez v. Sps. Alindog,

G.R. No. 184045, 22 January 2014

C. Requisites - Section 2, Rule 65

Rivera v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 135547, 23 January 2002

VI. Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 - Section 3, Rule 65

A. Definition and scope of mandamus – Eng v. Lee, G.R. No. 176831,

15 Jan 2010

B. Directed against whom and what - Section 3, Rule 65

1. Distinguish ministerial function from f discretionary act – Roble

Arrastre, Inc. v. Villaflor, G.R. No. 1285090, 22 August 2006

A purely ministerial act or duty in contradiction to a discretional

act is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of
facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the
law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right
to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is
discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only
when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of
official discretion or judgment

but see also:

Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R.
No.160966, 11 October 2005
While, ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to compel a
discretionary act, the writ shall issue in instances of gross abuse
of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority,
equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is
entitled; and when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy. This Court has recognized that [a] judges decision to
refuse to act on account of some disqualification is not
conclusive, and his competency may be determined on an
application for mandamus to compel him to act.

C. Distinguished from Prohibition

Ongusco v. Malones, G.R. No. 182065, 07 October 2009
petition for prohibition against any tribunal, corporation, board, or
person -- whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions -- who has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner prays that judgment
be rendered, commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceeding in the action or matter specified in the petition. On the
other hand, the remedy of mandamus lies to compel performance
of a ministerial duty

D. When Mandamus may Issue - Abaga v. Panes, G.R. No. 147044

24 Aug 2007
there are two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue: (1)
when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully

8
 neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2)
when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which the other is entitled

E. Requisites - Section 3, Rule 65

Pefianco v. Moral, 379 Phil. 468
It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main
objective. It does not lie to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary
duty. It is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that
petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and
it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act
required. It never issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be
necessary that the duty be absolutely expressed, it must
nevertheless be clear. The writ will not issue to compel an official to
do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to
do, or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by
law. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply
a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform
a duty already imposed.

1. Must be instituted by an aggrieved party – Guingona v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 191846, 06 May 2010

2. Rights must be well-defined, clear and certain

Olama, et al. v. PNB (Marawi), et al., G.R. No. 169213
22 June 20060

QUO WARRANTO - RULE 66

I. Action by Government against individuals (Section 1, Rule 66)

A. Nature of quo warranto proceeding as a legal remedy

Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. N. 134577, 18 November
1998
A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine
the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder
from its enjoyment.  The action may be brought by the solicitor
general or a public prosecutor or any person claiming to be entitled
to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or
exercised by another. The action shall be brought against the
person who allegedly usurped, intruded into or is unlawfully holding
or exercising such office

B. Distinction between quo warranto and mandamus

Lota v. CA, G.R. No. L-14803, 30 June 1961
While quo warranto and mandamus are often concurrent remedies,
however, there exists a clear distinction between the two. The
authorities are agreed that quo warranto is the remedy to try the
right to an office or franchise and to oust the holder from its
enjoyment, while mandamus only lies to enforce clear legal duties,
not to try disputed titles,; that where here is usurpation or intrusion
into an office, quo warranto is the proper remedy, , and that where
the respondent, without claiming any right to an Office, excludes

9
 the petitioner therefrom, he remedy is mandamus, not quo
warranto

C. Distinction between quo warranto and election protest

Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179431-42, G.R. No. 180443, 22
June 2010

D. Quo warranto against persons usurping an office in a private

corporation improper (Calleja v. Panday, G.R. No. 168696, 28
February 2006)

II. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action (Secs. 2
& 3, Rule 66)

III. OSG’s discretion to suspend/turn down filling of an action for quo warranto
Topacio v. Assoc. Justice of the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 179895
18 December 2008

IV. When hearing had on application for permission to commence action (Sec. 4,
Rule 66)

V. When an individual may commence such an action (Sec. 5, Rule 66)

A. Action commenced by OSG or fiscal or by an individual in his own

name
Feliciano v. Villasin, G.R. No. 174929, 27 June 2008

B. The private person suing must show a clear right to the contested
office
Topacio v. Assoc. Justice of the Sandiganbayan (supra.)

C. Effect of absence of the element showing petitioner entitled to the

office
Garcia v. Perez, G.R. No. L-28184, 11 September 1980
Topacio v. Assoc. Justice of the Sandiganbayan (supra.)

D. Effect when plaintiff is not entitled to public office – dismissed at

any stage in the absence of evidence proving allegations
Feliciano v. Villasin (supra.)

VI. Parties and contents of petition against usurpation (Sec. 6, Rule 66)

A. Usurpation defined
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona (supra.)

VII. Venue (Sec. 6, Rule 66)

A. Jurisdiction on quo warranto cases

1. Supreme Court (Section 5 [1], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

2 Court of Appeals (Sec. 9 [1], BP 129
3. Regional Trial Court (Sec. 21 [1]. BP 129)
4. Sandiganbayan (PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249)

B. Filing of petition for quo warranto subject to hierarchy of courts

Mendoza v. Villas, G.R. No. 187256, 23 February 2011

10
VIII. Period for pleadings and proceedings may be reduced; action given
precedence (Sec. 8, Rule 66) - to secure expeditious determination
of matters involved

IX. Judgment where usurpation found (Sec. 9, Rule 66)

A. Judgment in quo warranto in case of usurpation into the office

Mendoza v. Allas, G.R. No. 131977, 04 February 1999

B. Judgment in quo warranto does not bind successor in office

Mendoza v. Allas (supra.)

X. Rights of persons entitled to public office and delivery of books and papers;
damages (Sec. 10, Rule 66)

XI. Limitations (Sec. 11, Rule 66)

A. Prescriptive period to file petitions for quo warranto and mandamus

Madrigal v. Lecaros, G.R. No. L-46218, 23 October 1990 - one
year after cause of ouster; action for damages – 1 year after entry
of judgment establishing petitioner’s right to office.

B. Prescriptive period of quo warranto under Omnibus Election

Code Sec. 248, BP 881 – ten days from proclamation

C. Administrative remedy does not abate period for filing a quo

warranto action -
Sison v. Pangramuyen, G.R. No. L-40295, 31 July 1978

E. Judgment for costs (Sec. 12, Rule 66)

EXPROPRIATION - RULE 67

I. Constitutional provisions of the power of eminent domain and its limitations

A. Power of eminent domain

Sec. 18, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 4, Art. XIII, id.
Sec. 22, Art. XVIII, id.

B. Limitations of eminent domain

Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution – just compensation
Sec. 9, Art. III, id. – due process of law

II. Allegations of the complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 67)

A. The right of eminent domain

Bgy. Sindala v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, 22 March 2007
Power of state to take private property for public use without
owners consent conditions on payment of just compensation

Republic v. Legaspi, Sr., G.R. No. 177611, 08 April 2012

2 stages: condemnation/acquisition for public use and
determination of just compensation

11
 B. The term “public use”
Manosca v. CA, G.R. No. 106440, 29 January 1996
Use concerning the whole community and not private individuals

C. Expanded definition of “public use or purpose”

City of Manila v. Te, G.R. No. 169263, 21 September 2011
Socialized housing expands definition of public use

D. Taking of private property necessarily originates from the necessity

therefor
Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, 23 January 2006

E. Power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the

government - Masikip v. City of Pasig (supra.)

F. Power of eminent domain maybe delegated to local gov’ts and

public utilities
National Power Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 106804, 12 August 2004

G. Requisites for LGU to validly exercise the power of eminent

domain
Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corp., G.R. No.
127820, 20 July 1998
1 local ordinance 2 exercise of power of eminent domain for public
Use 3 just compensation 4 valid and definite offer previously made
to owner who refused

H. Eminent domain not barred by res judicata

Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corp. (supra.)

I. Jurisdiction of the complaint for eminent domain

Bgy. San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco
Pastor (supra.)

J. Expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation

Bardillon v. Bgy. Masili, Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, 30
April 2003

K. Judicial review is limited to some areas of concern

Masikip v. City of Pasig (supra.) - 1necessity of taking 2 public
use character of purpose of taking 3 just compensation

N. Execution pending appeal is not applicable to expropriation

proceeding
Curata v. Phil. Ports Authority, G.R. No. 154211-12, 22 June
2009

III. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government depositary
- Sec. 2, Rule 67

A. Expropriation procedures under RA No. 8974 and Rule 67

distinguished
Republic v. Holy Trinity Realty Development Corp., G.R. No.
172410, 14 April 2008
two crucial differences between the respective procedures under
Rep. Act No. 8974 and Rule 67. Under the statute, the Government
is required to make immediate payment to the property owner upon

12
 the filing of the complaint to be entitled to a writ of possession,
whereas in Rule 67, the Government is required only to make an
initial deposit with an authorized government depositary. Moreover,
Rule 67 prescribes that the initial deposit be equivalent to the
assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation, unlike Rep.
Act No. 8974 which provides, as the relevant standard for initial
compensation, the market value of the property as stated in the tax
declaration or the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR), whichever is higher, and the value of the
improvements and/or structures using the replacement cost
method. Also, Rep. Act No. 8974, which provides for a procedure
eminently more favorable to the property owner than Rule 67,
inescapably applies in instances when the national government
expropriates property for national government infrastructure
projects. Thus, if expropriation is engaged in by the national
government for purposes other than national infrastructure projects,
the assessed value standard and the deposit mode prescribed in
Rule 67 continues to apply

B. When the issuance is the writ of possession is ministerial

City of Iloilo v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 154614, 25 November 2004
The requisites for authorizing immediate entry are as follows: (1)
the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and
substance; and (2) the deposit of the amount equivalent to fifteen
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property to be
expropriated based on its current tax declaration. Upon compliance
with these requirements, the issuance of a writ of possession
becomes ministerial

E. Purpose of preliminary deposit

Zaballero v. NHA, G.R. No. L-49291-92, 29 October 1987
this preliminary deposit serves the double purpose of a prepayment
upon the value of the property, if finally expropriated; and as an
indemnity against damage in the eventuality that the proceedings
should fail of consummation 

IV. Defenses and objections (Section 3, Rule 67)

A. No objection/defense
C. Filing of answer
D. Contents of answer
E. Prohibited pleadings
F. Failure to allege defenses/objections
G. Amendment of answer
H. Presentation of defense evidence for compensation

V. Order of expropriation (Sec. 4, Rule 67)

A. If defenses/objections overruled; no defendant appears

B. Determination of just compensation
C. Appeal
D. Effect of rendition of order

VI. Hearing is necessary before the issuance of an order of expropriation

Republic v. Phil-ville Development and Housing Corp., G.R. No.
172243, 26 June 2007

13
VII. Period to appeal in an action for expropriation
National Power Corp. v. Paderanga, G.R. No. 155065, 28 July 2005

VIII. When may a record on appeal be filed

Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260, 22 December 1989

IX. Ascertainment of compensation (Sec. 5, Rule 67)

A. Determination of just compensation in eminent domain is judicial

function
Cabahug v. NPC, G.R. No. 186069, 30 January 2013

B. Just compensation, defined

Bgy. Sindalan v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, 22 March 2007
the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by
the expropriator, and that the gauge for computation is not the
takers gain but the owners loss. In order for the payment to be just,
it must be real, substantial, full, and ample. Not only must the
payment be fair and correctly determined, but also, should be made
within a reasonable time from the taking of the property.

I. Compensation must be just not only to property owner but also to

the public - Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 147245, 31 March 2005

D Remedies of landowner when property taken for public use

Sec. of the DSWD v. Heracleo, G.R. No. 179334, 01 July 2013
1 recover property or 2 demand payment for just compensation

E. Market value -property’s fair market value at the time of the filing
of complaint or that sume of money which a person may but is not
compelled to buy and an owner is willing but is not compelled to sell

F. Article 1250 of Civil Code is not applicable in obligation arising from

law
Commissioner of Public highways v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-36706
31 March 1980 - extraordinary inflation/deflation of currency not
applicable in expropriation cases and applies only in cases where a
contract or agreement is involved

X. Action upon commissioner’s report (Sec. 8, Rule 67)

A. Trial Court may accept or reject commissioners report

NPC v. Zabala, G.R. No. 173520, 30 January 2013

B. Due process is required before the commissioners make report

NPC v. Sps. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, 02 February 2007

XI. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims (Sec. 9, Rule 67)

Republic v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 187677, 17 April 2013
- court in expropriation pleading also has jurisdiction to determine issue of
ownership of land sought to be expropriated

XII. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment (Sec. 10, Rule 67)

14
XIII. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect by reversal (Sec. 11, Rule 67)

A. Factors to consider in the determination of damages

Metropolitan Water District v. Sixto Delos Angeles, G.R. No. L-
33545, 07 March 1931
(1) The loss resulting from the dispossession of the land; (2) the
loss resulting from the deprivation of the use and occupation of the
land; (3) the expenses incurred during the pendency of this action,
including attorney's fees, etc.; (4) the destruction of buildings,
canals and growing crops at the time of the occupation of the land
by the petitioner; and (5) all of the damages of whatever kind or
character which the defendants may be able to prove and which
have been occasioned by virtue of the institution of the present
action. So ordered.

XIV. Effect of appeal by owner and judgment is affirmed – (Sec 12, Rule 67)

XV. Recording judgment and its effect (Sec. 13, Rule 67)

A. When former owners may seek the reversion of the property

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada
G.R. No. 176625, 25 February 2010
- land acquired for public use under a condition that has not
Materialized

FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE - RULE 68

I. Allegations of complaint for closure (Sec. 1, Rule 68)

A. Concept of foreclosure of mortgage

Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Colarina
G.R. No. 158635, 09 December 2005

B. Judicial foreclosure; an action quasi in rem and its purpose

Ocampo v. Dimalanta, G.R. No. L-21011, 30 August 1967

C. Action for foreclosure of mortgage over real property prescribes

in ten years - Nunez v. GSIS Family Bank, G.R. No. 16398
17 November 2005

D. Remedies of secured creditor

Sycamore Ventures Corp. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.
G.R. No; 173183, 18 November 2013
A secured creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either
a personal action for the collection of the debt, a real action to
judicially foreclose the real estate mortgage, or an extrajudicial
judicial foreclosure of the mortgage. The remedies, however, are
alternative, not cumulative, and the election or use of one remedy
operate as a waiver of the others

E. Remedy preliminary to effect foreclosure - replevin

Filinvest Credit Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 115902, 27 September
1995

F. Prohibition on pactum commissorium - mortgagee to sell property

in case of default on loan
Article 2088, New Civil Code

15
 DBP v. CA, G.R. No. 118342, 05 January 1998
Garcia v. Villar, G.R. No. 158891, 27 June 2012

G. Jurisdiction
Secs. 19(1), 19(2), 33(3) of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691

H. Venue
Secs. 1 and 2 , Rule 4

I. Application of doctrine of estoppel

Limpin, Jr. v. IAC, G.R. No. 70987, 30 January 1987
- party cannot invoke court jurisdiction to secure
affirmative relief and failing to obtain such relief question the
court’s jurisdiction

II. The judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale (Sec. 2, Rule 68)

A. Appeal is the remedy to assail judgment in judicial foreclosure

Sps. Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, Inc.,
G.R. No. 144029, 19 September 2002

B. Extrajudicial foreclosure and Judicial foreclosure distinguished

Prudential Bank v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-51768, 04 September
1990
1. governing law/rule 2 no deficiency judgment/ there is 3 right of
redemption vs equity of redemption

C. Distinction between equity of redemption and right of redemption

Limpin, Jr. v. IAC, supra.
Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 128567, 01 September
2000

D. Reckoning point of one (1) year period of redemption under Act No.
3135 – registration of certificate of sale in title
Malonzo, et al. v. Mariano, G.R. No. 53998, 31 May 1989
Bernardez V. Reyes, G.R. No. 71832, 24 September 1991

E. Effect of allowing redemption after the one (1) year period

Expired – nothing in the law which prevents waiver of prescriptive
period
Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 98147, 08 March 1993

F. Reckoning period of equity of redemption – date of finality of

judgment
Sps. Publico v. Bautista, G.R. No. 174096, 20 July 2010

G. Second mortgagee merely takes what is called an equity

of redemption – subordinate to superior lien of first mortgagee
Ramirez v. CA, supra.

H. Rule on period of redemption

Sec. 47, RA 8791
Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank
G.R. No. 195540, 13 March 2013

I. Right of redemption in judicial foreclosure

Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. v. CA, supra.

16
 Sec. 47, RA 8791

J. Requisites for valid redemption under Section 30, Rule 69

Rosales v. Yboa, G.R. No. L-42282, 28 February 1983
1 within 12 month redemption period 2 payment of purchase price
plus 1% interest after foreclosure sale 3 written notice of
redemption given to foreclosing officer plus copy served on Reg.
of Deeds

K. Redemption and repurchase, distinguished

Sps. Robles v. CA, G.R. No. 128053, 10 June 2004

L. When purchaser can enter and take possession of property

under RA 8791

1. Mortgagee is a bank, quasi-bank, trust entity - Sec. 47, RA 8791

2. Mortgagee is not a bank, quasi-bank or trust entity
par. 2, Sec. 3, Rule 68

M. Appealability of order denying motion to quash writ of possession

Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc.,
G.R. No. 171386, 17 July 2009
- issuance is ministerial therefore not subject of appeal
- remedy is petition to set aside sale and writ of possession under
Sec 8 of Act 3135

N. Cases where the court withheld the issuance of writ possession

Cometa, et al. v. IAC, G.R. No. 69294, 30 June 1987
Sulit v. CA, G.R. No. 119247, 17 February 1997
← peculiar circumstances will work injustice to the mortgagor
←
O. Bond to enjoin or restrain foreclosure proceedings under RA 8791
Sec. 47, RA 8791

P. Person who can exercise the right to redeem

Sec. 27, Rule 39
Sec. 6, Act No. 3135
De Castro v. IAC, G.R. No. 73859, 26 September 1988

Q. Exemption of family home on forced sale and right of redemption

Sps. Fortaleza v. Sps. Lapitan, G.R. No. 178288, 15 August
2012

III. Sale of mortgaged property; effect –Sec. 3, Rule 68

A. Notice and hearing required for judicial confirmation of foreclosure

sale
Rural Bank of Oroquieta v. CA, G.R. No. L-53466, 10 November
1980

B. Rule on issuance of writ of possession – ministerial in nature

Sps. Fortaleza v. Sps. Lapitan, supra.

C. Prescription of the right to a writ of possession - none

Sps. Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank

17
 G.R. No. 168523, 09 March 2011

D. Right of a mortgagee who is in possession of the mortgaged

property – determine if it is a mortgage or contract of antichresis
Diego v. Fernando, G.R. No. L-15128, 25 August 1960
Enriquez v. PNB, G.R. No. L-33584, 15 December 1930
Gardner v. CA, G.R. No. L-31340

E. Foreclosure of equitable mortgage governed by Section 2 and 3

of Rule 68 - allowed
Sps. Rosales v. Sps. Alfonso, G.R. No. 137792, 12 August 2003

F. Right of redemption not recognized in a judicial foreclosure

Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. v. CA, supra.

IV. Disposition proceeds of sale – Sec. 4, Rule 68

A. Summary of distribution of proceeds of sale

1. cost of sale
2. claim of foreclosing person
3. claims of junior encumbrances
4. balance, if any, paid to mortgagor

B. Mortgagee’s duty to return any surplus in the selling price to the

mortgagor
Sulit v. CA, G.R. No. 119247, 17 February 1997

V. How sale to proceed in case the debt is not all due - Sec. 5, Rule 68

VI. Deficiency judgment - Sec. 6, Rule 68

A. Deficiency judgment, defined

Phil. Bank of Commerce v. de Vera, G.R. No. L-18816
29 December 1962
Prudential Bank v. Martinez, G.R. No. 51768, 14 September
1990

B. Prescription of an action to recover deficiency – ten years

Quirino Gonzales Logging Concessionaire v. CA
G.R. No. 126568, 30 April 2003

C. Stipulation of upset price or ”tipo” –minimum price at which

property is to be sold at foreclosure - null and void because Rule
mandates that the property shall be sold to the highest bidder

D. When no deficiency allowed

PNB v. CA, G.R. No. 121597, 29 June 2001
Article 1484, New Civil Code - Recto law
Sec. 7, Rule 68 – mortgage debt due from estate
3 options – 1 abandon security and charge estate directly
2 foreclose upon security by court action w/ option
of deficiency judgment
3 foreclosure extrajudicially w/o right to claim deficiency

E. Right to recover deficiency from debtor under Act No.3135

Prudential Bank v. Martinez, supra.

18
 F. Proof of deficiency claim necessary
PNB v. Sps. Rocamora, G.R. No. 164549, 18 September 2009

G. Prescriptive period for filing deficiency of extrajudicial foreclosure

Articles 1142 and 1144, New Civil Code – ten years from time
right of action accrues

VII. Registration - Sec. 7, Rule 68

IX. Act No. 3135

A. Extrajudicial foreclosure when proper

1 Extrajudicial foreclosure sales are proper provided under a

special power
Sec. 1, Act 3135
Paguyo v. Gatbunton, A.M. No. P-06-2135, 28 March 2007

2 Foreclosure of real estate mortgage

DBP v. Zaragosa, G.R. No. L-23493, 23 August 1978
Landrito, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 133079, 09 August 2005

3. Three types of sale arising from failure to pay mortgage debt

The Abaca Corp. of the Philippines v. Garcia and CA
G.R. No. 118408, 14 May 1997
1 judicial foreclosure sale 2 EJF sale 3 ordinary sale on execution

4. Power to foreclose extrajudicially survives the death of the

Mortgagor - Perez v. PNB, G.R. No. L-21813, 30 July 1966

B. Where sale must be made – Sec. 2, Act 3135

Province where property is situated

1. Effect of stipulation that lacks exclusivity

Heirs of the late Sps. Maglasang v. Manila Banking Corp.
G.R. No. 171206, 23 September 2013

C. Notice and publication requirement – Sec. 3, Act 3135

1. In general

2. If property worth more than P400

3. Sheriffs duty to cause publication of the Notice of sheriff’s sale

Paguyo v. Gatbunton, supra.

4 Republication of Notice of Sheriffs sale of a postponed extrajudicial

sale
DBP v. CA, G.R. No. 125838, 10 June 2003

5. Section 3 of Act No. 3135 does not require notice to mortgagors

Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 90369, 31 October 1990

6. Parties to mortgage contract can agree on personal notice to

the mortgagor
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Wong, G.R. No. 120859
26 une 2001

19
 7. Burden of proving non-compliance with publication on party alleging
the same
Philippine Savings Bank v. Sps. Geronimo, G.R. No. 170241
19 pril 2010

8. Statutory requirements governing publication must be strictly

complied with
Tambunting v. CA, G.R. No. L-48278, 08 November 1988

9. Parties cannot waive posting and publication requirements

of Act No.3135 - Ouano v. CA, G.R. No. 129279, 04 March 2003

10. Certificate of posting is not indispensable for validity of a

foreclosure sale
DBP v. CA, G.R. No. 125838, supra.

11. Purpose of notice and publication

Ouano v. CA, supra.
Olizon v. CA, G.R. No. 107075, 01 September 1994

12. Time of sale of public auction –Sec. 4, Act 3135

1. Sale at anytime between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm regardless

of duration is valid
PNB v. Cabtingan, G.R. No. 167058, 09 July 2008

2. Consequences of non-payment of full amount as highest bidder

Sulit v. CA, supra.

3. Gross inadequacy of price will not nullify the sale

The Abaca Corp. of the Philippines v. Garcia and CA, supra.

F. Those who can redeem and period to redeem - Sec. 6, Act 3135

1. The law of redemption of mortgage property

Landrito v. CA, G.R. No. 133079, 09 August 2005
Unionbank v. CA, G.R. No. 134068, 25 June 2001

G. When to take possession and how – Sec. 7, Act 3135

H. Setting aside of sale and writ of possession – Sec. 8, Act 3135

1. Sec. 8 of Act No. 3135 finds no application when redemption period

expired
680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 206599, 29 Sept
2014

I. Redemption after possession given to purchaser – Sec. 9, Act 3135

PARTITION - RULE 69

I. Complaint in action of partition of real estate -Sec. 1, Rule 69

A. Partition and its two phases

Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 192383, 04 December 2013

20
 B. Substantive law on partition
Arts. 494-496, 498, New Civil Code
Arts. 1083-1084, New Civil Code

C. Effect when partition is incidental to the main action that is

incapable of pecuniary estimation - RTC
Russell v. Vestil, G.R. No. 119347, 17 March 1999
Genesis Investment Inc. v. Heirs of Ebarasabal, G.R. No.
181622, 20 November 2013

II. Order for partition and partition by agreement thereunder – Sec. 2, Rule 69

III. Commissioners to make partition when parties fail to agree –Sec. 3, Rule 69

A. Two ways by which partition can take place under Rule 69

Figuracion-Gerilla v.vda. de Figuracion, G.R. No. 154322
22 August 2006
1 by agreement of the parties 2 by commissioners if parties cant
agree

B. The two stages in every action for partition under Rule 69

Dadizon v. Bernadas, G.R. No. 172367, 05 June 2009
1 determination if co-ownership exists and partition is proper
2 if no agreement to partition, by not more than 3 commissioners

IV. Oath and duties of commissioners – Sec. 4, Rule 69

A. Interpretation of notice under Section 4, Rule 69

Heirs of Cesar Marasigan v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 156078
14 March 2008 - lack of notice as to viewing and examination
not fatal

V. Assignment or sale of real estate by commissioners – Sec. 5, Rule 69

A. Interpretation of Section 5, Rule 69 in relation to Arts. 494,495

And 498 of the Civil Code
Heirs of Cesar Marasigan v. Marasigan, supra.

VI. Report of commissioners; proceedings not binding until confirmed - Sec. 6,

Rule 69

VII. Action of the court upon commissioner’s report – Sec. 7, Rule 69

A. Nature of judgment in partition

De Mesa v. CA, G.R. No. 109387, 25 April 1994

XI. The judgment and its effect; copy to be recorded in registry of deeds
Sec. 11, Rule 69

A. Period to file appeal and multiple appeal in partition

Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260
22 December 1989
- Record on appeal 30 days from notice of order of partition
-
XII Neither paramount rights nor amicable partition affected by Rule 69
Sec. 12, Rule 69

21
 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER- RULE 70

I. Who may institute proceedings and when - Sec. 1, Rule 70

A. Three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession of real

property - Bokingko v. CA, GR No. 161739, 04 May 2006
accion interdictal accion publiciana accion reinvidicatoria

B. Distinct and different causes of action under Sec. 1, Rule 70

Sarmienta v. Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc.,
GR No. 182953, 11 October 2010
Sps. Munoz v. CA, GR No. 102693, 23 September 1992
David v. Cordova, GR No. 152992, 28 July 2005
1 forcible entry 2 unlawful detainer

C. Venue of ejectment cases – Sec. 1, Rule 4

Exceptions: 1. specific rule or law provides otherwise

2. parties stipulated in writing as to venue

Union Bank of the Phils. v.Maunlad Homes, Inc.

GR No. 190071, 15 August 2012

D. Jurisdiction of actions to judicially recover possession of real

property - Dela Cruz v. CA, GR No. 139442, 06 December 2006
first level courts exclusive orig jurisdixn over ejectment axns
Nunez v. Slteas Phoenix Solutions, Inc.
G.R. No. 180542, 12 April 2010

F. What to allege in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases

Sarmienta v. Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc.,
GR No. 182953, 11 Oct 2010
In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint, and prove,
that he was in prior physical possession of the property in dispute until
he was deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the means
provided in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules either by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth. In unlawful detainer, there must be an
allegation in the complaint of how the possession of defendant started
or continued, that is, by virtue of lease or any contract, and that
defendant holds possession of the land or building after the expiration
or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract,
express or implied.

G. What constitute sufficient allegations for unlawful detainer

Cabrera v. Getaruela, GR No. 164213, 21April 2009
(1)  initially, possession of property by the defendant was by
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
 
(2)  eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice
by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latters right
of possession;
 
(3)  thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof;
and
 

22
 (4)   within one year from the last demand on defendant to
vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment

H. What constitute sufficient allegations for forcible entry

Dela Cruz v. CA, supra.
In actions for forcible entry, three (3) requisites have to be met for the
municipal trial court to acquire jurisdiction. First, the plaintiffs must
allege their prior physical possession of the property. Second, they
must also assert that they were deprived of possession either by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Third, the action must be filed
within one (1) year from the time the owners or legal possessors
learned of their deprivation of physical possession of the land or
building

I. Matters to be resolved in the action for forcible entry

Sps. Munoz v. CA, supra.
questions to be resolved in an action for forcible entry are: First, who
had actual possession over the piece of real property? Second, was
the possessor ousted therefrom within one year from the filing of the
complaint by force, threat, strategy or stealth? And lastly, does the
plaintiff ask for the restoration of his possession?

J. Matters to be resolved in the action for unlawful detainer

Barrientos v. Rapal, GR No. 169594, 20 July 2011
The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is:
who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to
the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure.

K. Issue of possession in the concept of an owner

distinguished in forcible entry
Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, GR No. 174191
30 January 2013
Possession in forcible entry – possession de facto only not de jure

L. Complaint based on possession by tolerance is a specie of unlawful

detainer
Dela Cruz v. CA, supra.
person who occupies property at anothers tolerance is bound by a
implied promise to vacate upon demand

M. Non-abatement of ejectment actions; Cases that do not

constitute litis pendentia sufficient for dismissal/suspension of
ejectment actions
Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. v. CA, GR No. 97637, 10 April 1992
Rationale : actions do not invo0le physical or de facto possession
and/or are ploys to to delay disposition of ejectment proceeding

N. Parties to an ejectment action

Catedrilla v. Lauron, GR No. 179011, 15 April 2013
Tiac v. Natividad, GR No. L-1457, 26 January 1948
Vda. De Salazar v. CA, GR No. 121510, 23 Nov 1995
- Ejectment action not extinguished by death of defendant
- co owner can institute ejectment action

23
 O. Parties bound by judgment in ejectment suit
Oro Can Enterprises v. CA, GR No. 128743, 29 Nov 1999
Includes: squatters, agents of defendant, guests of defendant
Transferees pendent lite
Sublessee
Co-lessee
Family members of defendant

II. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand – Sec. 2, Rule 70

A. When demand would not necessary according to substantive

law – Articles 1669, 1670, 1687, Civil Code

B. Effect of owners demand to vacate and tenants refusal to do so

Siapian v. CA, GR No. 111928, 01 March 2000
Casilan v. Tomasi, GR No. L-16574, 28 February 1964
Lesaca v. Cuevas, GR No. L-484419, 27 October 1983
Cebu Automatic Motors, Inc. v. GMC, GR No. 151168
25 August 2010

C. When demand to vacate is prequisite in action for unlawful

detainer - Lanuza v. Munoz, GR No. 147372, 27 May 2004
Republic v. Sunvar Realty Devt Corp, GR No. 194880
20 June 2012

D. Demand to vacate not jurisdictional when ground is expiration of

term of lease - Tubiano v. Razo, GR No. 132598, 13 July 2000

E. The one-year period to bring an action for forcible entry

when counted – Nunez v. Slteas Phoenix Solutions, Inc.,
supra.

F. The one-year to bring an action for unlawful detainer when counted

Republic v. Sunvar Realty Devt Corp, GR No. 194880
20 June 2012

G. Effect of dispossession lasting for more than one year

H. Rule on tacita reconduccion – implied new lease

Allegations of tacita reconduccion cannot oust MeTC
of jurisdiction - Yuki, Jr. v. Wellington Co., GR No. 178527
27 Nov 2009
Arevalo Gomez Corp. v. Lao Lian Hiong
GR No. 70360, 11 March 1987
Samelo v. Manotok Services, Inc., GR No. 170509
27 June 2012

III. Summary procedure in ejectment actions – Section 3, Rule 70

A. Exceptions/when summary procedure not applicable:

1. when law provides otherwise

2. cases involving agricultural tenancy laws

B. Nature and purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure

24
 Gachon v. De Vera, GR No. 116695, 20 June 1997

C. Referral for conciliation – Section 12, Rule 70

1. Effect of non-compliance  dismissal without prejudice
2. non-compliance not jurisdictional – Aquino v. Aure, GR No. 153567
18 February 2008
D. Pleadings

1. Allowed pleadings – Section 4, Rule 70

2. prohibited pleadings – Section 13, Rule 70

3. petition for certiorari - Bayog v. Natino, GR No. 118691

05 July 1996
Go v. CA, GR No. 128954, 08 Oct 1998

E. Action on complaint – Section 5, Rule 70

1. dismissal motu proprio

2. service of summons

F. Preliminary injunction – Sections 15 and 16, Rule 70

G. Answer – Section 6, Rule 70

H. Effect of Failure to File Answer – Section 7, Rule 70

Don Tino Realty and Devt Corp. v. Florentino, GR No. 134222
10 September 1999
Gachon v. De Vera, supra.
Rosales v. CA, GR No. 95697, 05 August 1991
Co Keng Kian v. IAC, GR No. 75676, 29 August 1990

I. Preliminary conference – Section 8, Rule 70

J. Record of preliminary conference – Section 9, Rule 70

K. Submission of affidavits and position papers – Sec. 10, Rule 70

1. Contents of Affidavits – Section 14, Rule 70

L. Period for rendition of judgment – Section 11, Rule 70

N. Authority of the trial court to interpret contracts in an unlawful detainer

action - Union Bank of the Phils. v.Maunlad Homes, Inc., supra.

O. Guidelines on jurisdiction to resolve ownership as incident to an

ejectment action - Sps. Refugia v. CA, GR No. 118284, 05 July 2006

P. Judgment – Section 17, Rule 70

1. Relief afforded plaintiff

a. Restitution of premises
b. arrears of rent and legal costs
2. other damages must be claimed in an ordinary action
Hualam Construction and Devt Corp. v, CA, GR No. 85466
16 October 1992

25
 Azcuna, Jr. v. CA, GR No. 116665, 20 March 1996

3. judgment on counterclaim
Rodriguez v. Salvador, GR No. 171972, 08 June 2011

4. conclusive only as to possession; not conclusive in actions

involving title or ownership – Section 18, Rule 70
Heirs of Basilia Hernandez v. Vergara, Jr., GR No. 166975
15 September 2006

5. immediate execution; how to stay execution – Section 19, Rule 70

Acbang v. Luczon, Jr., GR No. 164246, 15 Jan 2014
Exception:
Aznar Bros. Realty Inc. v. CA, GR No. 128102, 07 Mar 2000

6. Motion for reconsideration of judgment on the merits prohibited

Lucas v. Fabros, AM No MTJ-99-1226, 31 January 2000

Q. Appeal – par. 2, Section 18, Rule 70

R. Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of appeal – Section 20,

Rule 70

S. Immediate execution of RTC judgment on appeal to the CA or the SC –

Section 21, Rule 70
ALPA-PCM, Inc. v. Bulasao, GR No. 197124, 19 March 2012
La Campana Devt Corp. v. Ledesma, GR No. 154152
25 August 2010
Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR No. 167471, 05 February 2007

CONTEMPT - RULE 71

I. Direct contempt – Section 1, Rule 71

A. Definition, nature and purpose of contempt of court

Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management
Association of the Phils., GR No. 155849, 31 August 2011

B. Distinctions between civil and criminal contempt

Rosario Textile Mills, Inc. v. CA, GR No. 137326, 25 Aug 2003
Ceniza v. Wishtehuff, Sr., GR No. 165734, 16 June 2006

C. Contemptuous statements in pleadings constitute direct

contempt – Cruz v. Gingoyon, GR No. 170404, 28 Sept 2011

D. In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense

St. Louis University, Inc. v. Olairez, GR No. 162299, 26 March 2014

E. Failure to attend hearing not direct contempt but indirect

contempt - Silva v. Lee, Jr., AM No. R-225-RTJ, 26 Jan 1989

F. Other provisions on contempt

Section 5, Rule 7
Section 9, Rule 21

26
 Section 2, Rule 29
Section 43, rule 39

II. Remedy from direct contempt - Section 2, Rule 71

III. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing – Section 3,

Rule 71

A Acts constituting indirect contempt

Roxas v. Tipon, GR Nos. 160641-42, 20 June 2012
Patagan v. Panis, GR No. L-55730, 08 April 1988
GR No. 117266, 13 March 1997
Reer v. Lubao, AM OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ, 20 July 2012
Tinagan v. Perlas, Jr., GR No. L-23965, 30 January 1968
But see: Cortes v. Bangalan, AM No. MTJ-97-1129
19 January 2000

B. Definition and procedure for indirect contempt

Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management
Association of the Phils., supra.

IV. How proceedings commenced – Section 4, Rule 71

A Procedure for indirect contempt

Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Sanchez
GR No. 182738, 24 February 2014

V. Where charge to be filed - Section 5, Rule 71

A. Indirect contempt must be filed before the court against

which the indirect contempt was committed
Lee v. RTC-Quezon City, GR No. 146006, 22 April 2005

VI. Hearing; release on bail - Section 6, Rule 71

VII. Punishment for indirect contempt – Section 7, Rule 71

Lee v. RTC-Quezon City, supra.

VIII. Imprisonment until order obeyed – Section 8, Rule 71

Montenegro v. Montenegro, GR No. 156829, 08 June 2004

IX. Proceeding when party released on bail falls to answer - Section 9, Rule 71
X. Court may release respondent - Section 10, Rule 71

XI. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay - Section 11, Rule 71
Yasay, Jr. v. Recto, GR No. 129521, 07 September 1999
Digital Telecommunications, Inc. v. Cantos, GR No. 180200
25 Nov 2013

XII. Contempt against quasi-judicial entitles – Section 12, Rule 71

LBP v. Listana Jr., GR No. 152611, 05 August 2003

GOOD LUCK!

27
28