Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Remedial Law Notes
Remedial Law Notes
Remedial Law Notes
PART I – EVIDENCE
While administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, are not
bound by technical rules of procedure, this is not a license to disregard fundamental evidentiary
rules (Universality of rules on evidence).
Proof is the objective sought to be obtained—ultimate fact (factum probandum); evidence is the
means by which to obtain proof (factum probans).
Collateral matters – no direct relation to the fact in issue. G.R.: Not allowed, except when they
tend in a reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue (e.g.
character evidence in civil cases, flight in criminal cases).
Confidential birth records remain competent evidence because both Article 7 of PD No. 603 and
the Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion of the same from evidence (De Jesus v.
Sanchez-Malit).
Void contracts may be admissible in evidence to prove matters pertaining to the execution of the
contract (Tan v. Hosana).
1. Relevant;
2. Competent;
3. Authenticated (for documentary evidence);
4. Offered in Evidence.
Doctrine of Multiple Admissibility – Where evidence is admissible and offered for two or more
purposes, such evidence must be admitted for the two or more purposes.
Page 1 of 130
Original Document Rule – Once known as the Best Evidence Rule, it was changed since it
applies only to documentary evidence. The rule provides that when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph, or other record, no evidence is
admissible other than the original document itself.
An original includes the document itself and any counterpart intended to have the same effect by
a person executing or issuing it. A negative of a photograph or any print therefrom is an original.
Data stored in a computer shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original.
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless: (1) a genuine question is
raised as to the authenticity of the original or, (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
The testimony of what the purser read to the witness from a notebook is not covered by the ODR
(Air France v. Carrascoso).
1. Custody/Control – Original is in the custody or control of the adverse party and he fails to
produce despite reasonable notice.
2. Lost/Destroyed – Production cannot be made and without bad faith on the part of the
offeror.
3. Accounts which are numerous and cannot be examined without great loss of time and
what is sought to be established is only the general result of the whole.
Rule 130, Section 3(b), of the new Rules contemplates two instances: (1) When the original is in
the custody or control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice, and (2) the original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures. The second part implies that secondary evidence is admissible if the
person is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Examples of #5: Incidental references by witnesses to road signs, names of establishments, etc.,
unless the terms of the writing have particular significance in the litigation.
Inscribed Chattel Doctrine – States that testing the unreliability of a witness’ memory is not
necessary where the inscriptions tend to be simple and brief and easily remembered (e.g. witness
testified that a person was hit on the head with a particular brand of tennis racket).
ODR does not apply where the contents of the document are not the subject of inquiry. Similarly,
documents are excepted from the application of ODR if they are merely collateral evidence.
Page 2 of 130
For #3: The proponent must lay a proper foundation for the admission of the original documents
on which the summary is based. The source documents should likewise be admissible and
accessible (Republic v. Mupas).
1. Manual copy;
2. Recital in an authentic document;
3. Testimony of a witness.
The proponent must account for the non-production of all the originals before resorting to
secondary evidence (Citibank v. Teodoro).
Best Evidence Rule under the Rules on Electronic Evidence – Originally applies to civil, quasi-
judicial and administrative cases (August 1, 2001), but its coverage was extended to criminal
actions as of October 14, 2002.
The REE applies whenever electronic documents are used or offered in evidence. An electronic
document refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols, or
other modes of written expression by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or
by which a fact may be proved, which is received, recorded, retrieved, produced, processed,
transmitted, or stored by electronic, optical, or similar means.
1. Computer-stored/generated documents;
2. Website data;
3. Emails;
4. Social Media communications;
5. Text messages
Where a law requires a document to be in writing, an electronic document can meet such
requirement if its integrity and reliability is maintained, and can be authenticated for subsequent
use.
Functional Equivalence Rule – For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the
functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws.
Parol Evidence Rule – Once an agreement has been reduced to writing, parol or extraneous
evidence (oral or written) of prior or contemporaneous terms and conditions may not be
presented by a party or his successor-in-interest to modify, explain, or add to the terms of the
written agreement. For the purpose of applying this rule, a will is considered a written contract.
The Parol Evidence Rule only applies between parties to the contract and their successors-in-
interest. Defendants who are not party to the contract are not covered under the rule.
A beneficiary under a stipulation pour autrui is considered party to a written contract and is
thereby bound by the parol evidence rule.
Page 3 of 130
The award of interest where the government acquires property through voluntary sale is not a
matter of law but of contract. Where the Deed of Sale did not provide for interest, the court cannot
award interest.
Exceptions to the parol evidence rule: Parol evidence may be presented where a party puts in
issue in his verified pleading the following (VISA):
Clear and convincing evidence is required to overcome the presumption of the rule. It must
likewise be of such credibility as to overturn the written agreement.
Latent ambiguity is that which is not apparent from the face of the document but appears from
some extraneous circumstance (as opposed to patent ambiguity). The court can only interpret a
contract for the parties but cannot create one for them.
Public and private contracts are covered under the rule. It likewise does not need to be a bilateral
contract (Inciong v. CA).
Section 10(b) of Rule 130 (intent of parties not expressed in the agreement) is available only
where the written contract is so obscure or ambiguous that the parties’ contractual intention
cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument.
Parol evidence of conditions precedent (suspensive conditions) may not be admitted, except
when the document refers to an agreement containing such condition (Ortañez v. CA).
Qualification of a Witness – Any person who can perceive, and perceiving, make known his
perception to others. A witness does not need to be qualified beforehand as there is a
presumption that the witness is qualified to be such. Only expert witnesses have to be qualified.
A party declared in default may still testify for a non-defaulted party (Cavili v. Fernando).
Disqualifications of Witnesses:
1. Marriage;
2. Privileged Communication;
There is no more Dead Man’s Statute under the 2020 Rules. Claimants against an estate may
now testify as to ante-mortem facts. Similarly, claimants against insane persons may testify as to
facts before the person’s insanity.
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness, but the court may conduct a competency
examination if substantial doubts exist as to the child’s competency to testify.
Page 4 of 130
Under the 2020 Rules, spouses may testify FOR each other, but the marital exception against
testifying AGAINST a spouse still stands. The exception comes in civil cases whereby one
spouse files a case against the other; or in a criminal case committed by one spouse against
another or the other’s direct ascendants or descendants.
Marriage must be existing at the time of the offer of testimony, even if the marriage happened
after the fact sought to be testified to.
In a prosecution for arson, where the spouses have been separated in fact for six months, there
is no more harmony of marriage to protect, thus the rationale for the Marital Disqualification Rule
ceases (Alvarez v. Ramirez).
The time to raise MDR as an objection is when the spouse is called to the witness stand and
his/her testimony is offered. Otherwise, the objection is waived.
Husband and wife cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any confidential
communication received from the other during the marriage. Exception: same as MDR. Unlike
MDR, this exception applies both during or after the marriage.
MCP only applies to confidential communication. A husband’s dying declaration is not included
under this privilege (US v. Antipolo).
For the attorney-client privilege to apply, the client must reasonably believe that the person to
whom he is consulting is licensed to practice law. In this case, the attorney cannot, without the
client’s consent, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice
given thereon in the course of, or with a view towards professional employment.
The 2020 Rules extends the privilege to legal secretaries, paralegals, stenographers, or other
persons assisting the attorney. In this case, both the consent of the client AND the employer
must be obtained.
The same privilege shall apply to similar communications made to or received by the law student
acting for a recognized law school’s Supreme Court-approved legal clinic (Law Student Practice
Rule).
1. Services knowingly obtained to enable the commission of crimes or fraud (the privilege
applies only to past, not future crimes);
2. Communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same
deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession
or inter vivos transaction;
3. Communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his client or vice
versa;
Page 5 of 130
4. Communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the
lawyer is an attesting witness;
6. Lawyer may reveal secrets when necessary to collect fees or \to defend himself, his
associates, or employees (CPR).
Generally, the client’s identity is not privileged, because there can be no privilege without a client.
However, there are certain exceptions:
1. Where the revelation of the identity would implicate the client for the very activity which
he sought the lawyer’s advice;
2. When the government’s lawyers have no case, and a chain of evidence linking the client
to a crime can only be established through identifying the client (Regala v.
Sandiganbayan).
In the case of corporate clients, the privilege extends not only to senior management but to
middle management and rank-and-file employees as well (Upjohn v. US).
The physician, psychotherapist, or person reasonably believed by the client to engage in the
practice of medicine or psychotherapy cannot, in a civil case, be examined as to confidential
communication made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, including status of alcohol or drug
addiction.
This privilege includes other persons who have participated in the patient’s diagnosis or
treatment, including members of his or her family. This privilege likewise applies to documentary
evidence with respect to treatment or diagnosis of the patient (Chan v. Chan).
In criminal cases, law and order considerations override the application of the privilege.
A priest, minister, or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the consent of the
affected person, be examined as to any communication or confession made to or any advice
given by him or her, in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by
the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
A public officer cannot be examined during or after his tenure as to communications made to him
in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
The Executive Privilege or Presidential Communications Privilege may be invoked not only by the
President, but by his close advisors under the Operational Proximity Test (Neri v. SCAPO, March
5, 2008).
The Deliberative Process Privilege protects from disclosure the deliberations forming part of a
process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. The privilege does not end
Page 6 of 130
when an agency has adopted a definite proposition or when a contract has been perfected,
otherwise the purpose of the privilege shall be defeated (DFA v. BCA International).
Testimonial Privileges – Pertains to privileges of the testifying witness, not the adverse party:
1. Filial and Parental Privilege – Testimony against one’s parents, other direct ascendants,
children or other direct descendants, except when such testimony is indispensable in a
crime against that person or by one parent against the other (exception provided by 2020
Rules).
2. Trade Secrets Privilege – A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret,
unless non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is
directed, the court shall take such protective measures as the interest of the owner of the
trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require.
1. Hearsay; (inadmissible)
2. Admissions (party or vicarious); (admissible)
3. Res inter alios acta; (inadmissible)
4. Independently relevant statements. (admissible)
An extrajudicial admission is one made outside the proceedings of the case, while a judicial
admission is made in the course of the same case. Extrajudicial admissions must be offered in
evidence in order to be considered by the court. On the other hand, judicial admissions do not
need to be offered because they already form part of the records of the case. The person who
makes an extrajudicial admission may contradict himself, but a judicial admission may not be
contradicted except by showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake.
Direct admission – made directly by the party; vicarious admission – Made by a person who
stands in close relation to a party such that his statement may be imputed to the party (e.g. agent,
co-conspirator, co-solidary debtors, etc).
Res inter alios acta – Acts, statements, or omissions of a third person (made out of court) cannot
be given in evidence against a party. They are generally considered hearsay. Exception:
Vicarious admission.
An importer-consignee may not be held criminally liable for false import declarations prepared
and signed by his customs broker (Mercado v. People).
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of liability and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise
negotiations admissible, except evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for other purpose,
such as proving bias of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Page 7 of 130
A party cannot immunize a document or information by producing or disclosing it during
compromise negotiations.
In criminal cases, offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt, except for quasi-offenses
and those specifically allowed by law to be compromised (e.g. tax crimes, BP 22).
An offer of compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be filed first before the offer
can be received (People v. Yparraguirre).
Failure to respond to a demand letter is not an implied admission of liability (Philippine First
Insurance v. Wallem Phils.).
Statements made by a privy may likewise be considered vicarious admission. Where one derives
title to property from another, the latter’s (the privy’s) act, declaration, or omission, in relation to
the property, is evidence against the titleholder if done while the privy was holding the title.
Admissions by a co-conspirator in furtherance of (replaced the words “in relation to”) the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
Presence during a hazing rite is prima facie evidence of participation and an exception to the res
inter alios acta rule (Fuertes v. Senate, LEONEN).
The common requirements in vicarious admissions are: (1) the admission must be within the
scope of the relationship, (2) during its existence, and that (3) the relationship must be proved by
evidence other than the admission itself (except relationship by privy, which need not be proved).
Adoptive admission is where a party, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopts or ratifies the
statement of another person (Estrada v Diserto).
An extrajudicial confession cannot be given in evidence against a person other than the
confessant, unless the same is used as corroborative or circumstantial evidence, as in the case
of interlocking confessions,
However, a confession made before barangay tanods, but in public, is admissible (People v.
Sace).
Similar Acts Rule – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time.
Exception: Where such evidence is received to prove (PIKICHUS):
Page 8 of 130
1. Plan
2. Intent
3. Knowledge
4. Identity
5. Custom
6. Habit
7. Usage
8. System
To prove habit or custom, the previous acts offered in evidence should exhibit uniformity and
sample adequacy of response (Boston Bank v. Manalo).
Rape Shield Rule – In prosecutions for rape, evidence of the complainant’s past sexual conduct,
opinion thereof, or of his/her reputation is inadmissible unless the court finds that such evidence
is material and relevant to the case.
The Hearsay Rule – Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by a person who is not presented
as a witness and which statement is offered to prove the truth of the fact asserted ( TOFA) therein
(DST Movers v. People’s General Insurance, LEONEN). It is generally excluded because since
the declarant is out of court, he cannot be cross-examined.
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing,
offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein (Section 37, Rule 130, 2020 Rules on
Evidence).
Under the Hearsay Rule, hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within any of the allowed
exceptions.
1. No opportunity to cross-examine;
2. The declarant’s statement is not under oath;
3. No opportunity for the court to observe the declarant’s demeanor.
Self-serving statements – Those made by a party out-of-court advocating for his own interest.
This does not include a party’s testimony in court as a witness. The proper ground for objecting to
a self-serving statement is not that it is self-serving, but that it is hearsay (People v. Omictin).
Admissions, whether direct or vicarious, are excluded from the hearsay rule, because a party
cannot complain that he did not have an opportunity to cross-examine himself.
Independently Relevant Statement – An out-of-court statement which is relevant not for the truth
of a matter asserted therein but for something else, e.g. state of mind, intent, belief, the mere fact
Page 9 of 130
of utterance, or legal effect. It is not an exception to the hearsay rule because it is not hearsay in
the outset.
Rule of thumb: If the statement will have probative value even if it was false, it is an
independently relevant statement.
In cases where a psychologist’s testimony is presented, the psychologist’s report based entirely
in interview with the respondent himself is hearsay, but when the same includes interviews of
other persons, such as his family members, the report will not be hearsay.
Survey evidence can be admissible to show state of mind or confusion caused in infringement
cases.
Hearsay is admissible in writ of Amparo cases, if it satisfies the basic minimum test of relevance
and consistency with other pieces of evidence (Razon v. Tagitis).
Medical reports are hearsay if the doctor signing the same is not presented to testify in court.
A complaint-affidavit is hearsay where the affiant did not testify and was not subject to cross-
examination on the contents thereof (Ibañez v. People).
There are two main groups of exceptions to the Hearsay Rule: (1) those where there is a
requirement that the declarant be dead or unavailable to testify, and (2) those wherein there is no
such requirement.
Hearsay exceptions ante litem motam – Must be made before the controversy arose.
Generally, hearsay exceptions do not need corroborating evidence, except: (1) declaration by
child declarant (2) declaration against interest.
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule – These are still considered hearsay, but are admissible for
reasons of necessity and/or reliability:
Applies to both criminal and civil cases. The requirements are as follows:
The very fact that the declarant survived bars the admissibility of the statement, even if it was
made with the intent of being a dying declaration.
A statement which is not admissible as a dying declaration may usually be admitted as part of the
res gestae (as an excited utterance) if it satisfies the requirements thereof.
Although a dying declaration failed to directly implicate the accused, it may nevertheless be used
as circumstantial evidence against him (People v. Suarez).
Page 10 of 130
#2 STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND
Where a claimant testifies against the estate of a decedent or against an insane person on an
ante-mortem fact or a fact occurring before the person became insane, the ante-mortem
statement of the decedent or the statement of the person before his insanity may be received in
evidence if the following requirements concur:
1. Personal knowledge;
2. Recent perception;
3. Recollection was clear;
4. Trustworthy
This exception is triggered once a claim is made against the estate of the deceased. This
balances the advantage given to the claimant by the repeal of the Dead Man’s Statute, thus
permitting the estate to introduce relevant hearsay statements of the deceased.
The testimony or deposition of a witness who is deceased or out of the country or who cannot,
with due diligence, be found therein, or is otherwise unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be
given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine the
witness.
Statements made under preliminary investigation are not covered by this exception, as there is no
right to cross-examination.
Depositions made in a criminal case for reckless imprudence are not transferrable to a civil case
for tort on vicarious liability resulting from the same criminal case.
A person whose pedigree is the subject of the declaration is related to the declarant by birth,
adoption, or marriage, or, in the absence thereof, with whose family the declarant was so
intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his pedigree.
If the declarant’s statement is about his own relationship to the subject, then preliminary proof of
relationship (#2) is no longer required (Tison v. CA).
The declaration of a person deceased or unable to testify, against his own interest, if the
declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant’s own interest that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be
true.
Page 11 of 130
This exception pertains to the declarant’s moral, pecuniary, and/or penal interest. It is
distinguished from a party admission, as statements under this exception must particularly be
against the party’s interest.
Where the declarant makes a statement against his penal interest, but likewise implicates others,
only the self-implicating statement shall be admitted.
Excited utterances – Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto under the stress of the excitement caused by the
occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof.
The statement of the purser regarding the commotion aboard the plane involving a person’s
forcible removal transfer to tourist class is part of the res gestae (Air France v. Carrascoso).
Statements of bystanders made immediately after a fraternity assault are admissible as part of
the res gestae (People v. Feliciano).
Statements of the chief engineer and chief mate of a ship which sank, made a few hours after the
incident, are admissible as part of the res gestae, even though the same were not presented as
witnesses (Aleson Shipping v. CGU Insurance, LEONEN).
Benchmarks of immediacy: Time and effects/stress. A statement was made admissible even
despite having been made eleven hours after the incident (Zarate v. People).
Verbal Acts – Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and giving it legal
significance.
The truth of the verbal act is not relevant, but what is important is that the statement gives legal
significance to the equivocal act. For example, the act of a person of handing money to another,
coupled with a statement that such money is a loan.
This exception is an innovation of the 2020 Rules. It made uniform the rules regarding all manner
of business records, including electronic records.
Page 12 of 130
Significant changes made under the new Rule on business records:
#8 COMMON REPUTATION
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy (ante litem motam), as to (1)boundaries
of or customs affecting lands in the community and (2)reputation as to events of general history
important to the community, or (3)respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence.
The 2020 Rules deleted the requirement for “facts of public or general interest more than 30
years old”.
Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation.
A family member’s testimony as to the family reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of any
of its members is admissible if it exists prior to the controversy (ante litem motam).
For example, a family member can testify that a person is an adopted member thereof. Likewise,
entries or engravings in family books and objects are admissible as proof of pedigree.
Family reputation exception may be used to prove age in statutory rape case.
Some examples of this exception are: stock market reports, foreign exchange tables, mortality
tables, etc. which are published for use and relied upon by the persons engaged in a profession
or enterprise.
Advertisements in newspapers are not included since they are separate and distinct offers, and
not data gathered for use by persons engaged in an occupation.
Likewise, price quotation letters for the replacement cost of a barge sent by shipbuilders to
plaintiff are not covered by the exception (PNOC Shipping v. CA).
Page 13 of 130
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. The entrant
must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or knowledge acquired through official
information (Caltex v. Africa).
Example: Entry by the Local Civil Registrar as to the details of marriage certificate is an official
record since it was supplied to him by the solemnizing officer who has specific legal duty to do so
under the Family Code (notwithstanding the fact that the registrar may not have personal
knowledge of the solemnization of marriage).
Private persons may likewise be enjoined by law to keep official records, such as log book entries
required by the Code of Commerce to be kept by a ship captain, or the stamp of dishonor
required from the drawee of a check under B.P. 22.
Not only are official records excepted from the hearsay rule, they are prima facie evidence of the
facts stated therein.
Traffic accident reports are hearsay where the police officer who prepared it did not have
personal knowledge off the cause of the accident (DST Movers vs. People’s General Insurance,
LEONEN).
POEA certification that the accused was a licensed recruiter is an official record (People v.
Ochoa).
The fact that the material is published online should not detract from its admission under this
exception.
Double or Multiple Hearsay – Where a hearsay declaration is embedded in another with the result
that there are two or more levels of hearsay, as when there are multiple levels of declarants. If all
the levels of hearsay are justified by an exception, the declaration or statement is admissible,
otherwise, it is inadmissible.
Hearsay not timely objected to is admissible because the ground will have been waived. If so
admitted, it has probative value and should be given the weight it deserves on a case-by-case
basis (Tison v. CA).
Residual Exception – Aside from specific exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, the residual exception
allows for a broad exception for statements having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness. This is an innovation of the 2020 Rules. It nevertheless requires that for residual
exceptions to apply, the court must determine that:
Page 14 of 130
However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the
case of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it
(advanced notice).
1. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross examination
concerning the statement; AND the statement is a
a. Prior inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under
oath subject to the penalty of perjury at trial, hearing, or other proceeding
or in a deposition;
b. Prior consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or
improper influence or motive; or
c. Prior identification of a person as someone the declarant perceived
earlier.
Under the RECW, a child’s statement regarding any act or attempted act of child abuse is
exempted from the hearsay rule, provided the proponent makes know to the adverse party his
intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide the latter with a fair opportunity to
object.
Where the child is available, the court, upon motion of the adverse party, shall require the child to
be present for cross-examination.
Where the child is unavailable, which the proponent must prove, the statement shall only be
admitted if corroborated by other admissible evidence.
Risk of exposure to severe psychological injury, lack of memory, or mental illness may be used to
justify the child’s unavailability.
Lack of firsthand knowledge vs. hearsay – A witness can testify only to those facts which he or
she knows of his or her personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his or her own
perception. Lack of firsthand knowledge can be invoked, as an example, where the witness was
absent from the country at the time he or she purportedly witness the declarant’s declaration.
Hearsay on the other hand, refers to a general out-of-court statement.
Opinion Rule – Generally, the opinion of a witness is not admissible in evidence. The exceptions
are as follows:
1. Expert opinion;
2. Lay opinion on handwriting, identity, and sanity of a person with whom the witness is
familiar, and short-hand impressions on condition, appearance, behavior, and
expression;
3. Witness’ opinion of a person’s character in cases where such character evidence is
admissible.
Expert Opinion – The opinion of a witness on a manner requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience, education, or skill which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The
Page 15 of 130
expert must be qualified by the proponent; however, failure to object to non-qualification of the
expert is waiver of such objection.
Unlike the ordinary witness, the expert witness may testify based on hypothetical or assumed
facts.
1. As Circumstantial Evidence – Shows that a person acted in conformity with his character
(Propensity Rule).
2. As Direct Evidence – Evidence of character where character itself is directly in issue.
3. To Impeach a Witness.
4. To rehabilitate a witness whose character has been impeached.
For civil cases, evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when pertinent to the
issue of character involved in a case. Thus character evidence cannot be used as circumstantial
evidence except to impeach or rehabilitate a witness.
For criminal cases, character can be used as circumstantial evidence under the following cases:
1. Mercy Rule – Evidence of the good moral character of the accused is permissible if
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
2. Proving the Character of the Offended Party – admissible if it tends to establish the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
The prosecution cannot adduce evidence of the bad moral character of the accused unless in
rebuttal.
1. Reputation evidence;
2. The witness’ opinion; or
3. Specific instances of conduct – only when character is directly in issue.
Burden of Proof – The duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. This burden is
established by law, and never shifts.
Burden of Evidence – This is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or
rebut a prima facie case. This may shift depending on the exigencies of the case.
Page 16 of 130
Equipoise Doctrine – Where the evidence on a particular issue is in equipoise or level, the party
with the burden of proof will lose out on that particular issue (Rivera v. CA).
The party having the burden of proof cannot rely on the weakness of the other party’s evidence,
but must rely solely on the strength of his own evidence.
A presumption is an inference resulting from a rule of law which requires a fact (presumed fact) to
be inferred from another set of facts (basic fact). A presumption is a legally mandated inference.
Inference simply means a conclusion drawn from a premise or premises.
Disputable Presumption – A basic or underlying fact gives rise to an inference to prove that
another fact (the presumed fact) exists, since there is a logical connection between the basic fact
and the presumed fact. An example is the presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns
Presumptions dispense with the need on the part of a party to present evidence.
Estoppel – A conclusive presumption whereby a party, by his own act, statement, or omission,
intentionally led another to believe a particular thing is true and to act upon such belief. He cannot
in any litigation arising out of such act, statement, or omission, be permitted to deny such thing.
A debtor who entered into a chattel mortgage over his machinery in favor of the creditor cannot
then argue that such machinery is real property under the Civil Code (Makati Leasing v.
Wearever Textile Mills).
Respondent corporation is estopped from asserting that the plaintiffs are not stockholders when it
allowed petitioners to be elected as members of the board of directors (Insigne v. Abra Valley
Colleges).
The other conclusive presumption in the Rules is the provision that tenants cannot deny their
landlords’ title at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant relation (Section 2(b), Rule
131).
This provision however, does not bar the tenant from challenging the landlord’s title subsequent
to the commencement of the tenancy, as where the tenant had later purchased the leased land
from the mortgagee-purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale (Ermitaño v. Paglas).
A check is by itself sufficient evidence of the debt; the check holder does not need to present the
covering documents or invoices(Travel-On v. CA).
Disputable presumption – A letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of
mail (Section 3(v), Rule 131). The only proof needed for the presumption is the affidavit of service
and the registry receipt. Requirements: (1) that the letter was properly addressed with postage
prepaid, and (2) that the letter was actually mailed.
The addressee’s categorical denial of receipt shifts the burden of evidence to the mailer to prove
that the letter was indeed received by the addressee (Barcelon, Roxas Securities v. CIR).
Page 17 of 130
Addressee PNB’s bare denial of receipt cannot prevail over the sender’s evidence of letter of
revocation and the registry receipt (Allied Services v. De Guzman). (There was no registry receipt
in the Barcelon case)
Disputable Presumption – That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life.
There is a 99% chance that a person born in Iloilo in 1968 would be Filipino; there is ample
probability, if not statistical certainty that her parents are Filipinos (Poe-Llamanzares v.
COMELEC).
Disputable Presumption – Presumption of regularity in the performance of regular duty. Clear and
convincing evidence is needed to overthrow the sheriff’s return of service of summons showing
personal service on defendant who refused to receive (Yap v. Lagtapon).
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a
presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with
evidence to rebut or meet the presumption (Section 5, Rule 131, 2020 Rules).
Bursting Bubble or Thayer Theory – A presumption does not shift the burden of proof to the
opponent; it is enough for the opponent to produce evidence that contradicts the existence of the
presumed fact, even though not believed. The presumption then bursts like a bubble, that is, it
disappears.
In our jurisdiction, the presumption does not disappear entirely upon contradictory evidence; the
court may still infer the existence of the presumed fact from proof of the basic fact ( Intermediate
Variant to the Thayer Theory).
Morgan Theory – In contrast, this theory suggests that a legal presumption shifts the burden of
proof so that the opponent must rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. The
wording of the 2020 Rules explicitly rejects this theory. There are, however, certain presumptions
that require clear and convincing evidence to overcome, to wit:
In civil proceedings, if the presumptions are inconsistent, the one founded upon weightier policy
considerations shall apply. If the considerations are of equal weight, then neither presumption
applies.
In criminal proceedings, if a presumed fact that establishes guilt is an element of the offense
charged or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Disputable Presumption – A person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act (Section 3(j), Rule 131).
Judicial Notice and Admissions – There are things that the courts may or may not take judicial
notice of. The same do not require proof.
1. The existence of States, their political history, forms of government, and symbols of
nationality;
Page 18 of 130
2. International law, the admiralty, and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
3. Philippine Constitution and history, the official acts of the legislative, executive, and
judicial departments of the national government of the Philippines;
4. The laws of nature, measures of time, and the geographical divisions;
5. The law of nations.
The court cannot take mandatory judicial notice of ordinances, except when required to do so by
statute, or when the ordinance is of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable
demonstration. Charters on the other hand, are statues passed by the national legislature, and
thus subject to mandatory judicial notice.
Discretionary Judicial Notice – Matters which are of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known by judges by virtue of their official functions.
Existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan is a matter of judicial notice
(In re: Adoption of J. Bulayo, 1 October 2019).
A hearing is required before a court may take judicial notice of a matter, so as to allow the parties
to be heard, since taking judicial notice means that the court will no longer take evidence on the
matter.
The court cannot take judicial notice of the proprietary acts of government agencies (Asian
Terminals, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co.).
The court cannot take judicial notice of a resolution by the board of governors of the DBP
authorizing its branch managers to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping
(DBP v. CA). (DBP is a GOCC; not government act)
Judicial notice may be taken of the Senate Report on the Maysilo Estate, since it is an official act
of the government. However, it is not immediately binding on the CA (CLT Development v. Hi-
Grade Feeds).
The CA may not take judicial notice of cases previously decided by it (Bernas v. Estate of Yu Han
Yat). (Only SC decisions are capable of judicial notice)
The court cannot take judicial notice of assessed/market value of realty for purpose of conferring
jurisdiction (Cabrera v. Clarin).
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, the court cannot take judicial notice that land subject of
application for original registration is alienable and disposable. (Petitioner has burden of proof)
The RTC cannot take judicial notice of the terms of the merger between Bank of Commerce and
Pan-Asia Banking, Inc (Bank of Commerce v. Dela Cruz).
Judicial Admissions – Admissions made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case do not require proof. Likewise, they cannot be contradicted except if made through palpable
mistake.
Sections 7, 8, 10, and 11 of Rule 8, on actionable documents and general denial, are judicial
admissions.
Page 19 of 130
Failure to answer the complaint is not an implied admission of the allegations thereof (Heirs of De
Guzman v. Perona).
The benefit of a judicial admission may be lost by failure to object to the presentation of evidence
contradicting it (Dela Cruz v. Concepcion).
Presentation of Evidence – G.R. The examination of a witness shall be done in open court (oral
examination). Exceptions:
Testimony in Criminal Cases for Second Level (Appellate, CTA, SB) Courts:
Rights of a Witness:
1. Right not to be detained longer than the interest of the case demands;
2. Right against self-degradation;
3. Right to protection against impertinent or improper questions;
4. Right against self-incrimination.
The court shall strictly adhere to the rule that a witness has to be fully examined in one day
subject to the court’s discretion on whether to extend direct and cross examination for justifiable
reasons. In criminal cases, there is no exception to this rule.
While the witness has a right against self-degradation, he may be compelled to answer to the fact
of his prior FINAL conviction for an offense. This answer can be used to impeach him.
Page 20 of 130
Cross-Examination – the 2020 Rules merely clarified the rule on Cross-examination. In our
jurisdiction, we follow the English rule, which is to say cross-examination of a witness covers any
relevant matter with sufficient fullness and freedom from interest or bias tend to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue (Rule 132, 2020 Rules).
Nevertheless, the American Rule, which grounds the cross-examination only on matters covered
in the direct examination, still applies in the following instances:
The testimony of a witness who died before he could be cross-examined must be expunged if
there is no showing of delay by the party waiting to cross (Spouses Dela Cruz v. Papa).
Leading Question – One which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires. This is generally prohibited, as the examiner is essentially the one testifying. Exceptions:
1. On Cross-Examination;
2. On preliminary or background matters;
3. For ignorant witnesses, children of tender years, feeble-minded or deaf-mute witness;
4. Unwilling or hostile witness;
5. Adverse-party witness;
6. Child witness, in which case the court may allow leading questions if the same will further
the interest of justice.
Misleading Question – Assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to
that which he has previously stated. This is never allowed. (e.g. When did you stop beating your
wife?)
Impeachment – Attacks the credibility of the witness or his testimony. This may be done during
cross-examination or on independent evidence.
Impeachment by evidence of final conviction is allowed when (1)the crime was punishable by a
penalty of more than one year, or (2)if the crime involves moral turpitude, regardless of penalty.
Exception: If such conviction is the subject of an amnesty or annulment of conviction.
A party’s own witness may be impeached by the following (only when the witness is an adverse-
party witness or unwilling or hostile):
1. Inconsistent statement;
2. Contradictory evidence;
3. Final conviction of a crime or offense
Page 21 of 130
Impeachment by inconsistent statement requires that the predicate be laid as follows:
1. If the statement is in writing, the same must first be shown to the witness before
propounding questions;
2. The statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the time and place and
the persons present.
3. The person must be asked whether he made the statements;
4. If so, he must be asked to explain the inconsistency.
If the predicate is not laid, the impeachment is not complete and the witness has not been
impeached effectively. On appeal, the CA cannot consider an inconsistent statement of the
witness if the witness was not impeached in the trial court.
Contradictory Evidence – Not just to show that there is inconsistency but to show outright that the
witness is wrong.
Reputation Evidence – Only reputation evidence may be used and not evidence of particular
facts. However, a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction of an offense.
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact by a writing or record which is
written or recorded by the witness or under his direction at a time when the facts were fresh in his
memory and he knew that the fact was correctly written or recorded (Section 16, Rule 132).
However, the writing or record itself which was used to refresh the person’s memory has no
independent probative value. Nevertheless, it may be produced and inspected by the adverse
party, who upon cross-examination read it in evidence. Recordings or photograph may be
allowed.
If the witness retains no recollection of the particular facts, he may testify from the writing or
record provided he is able to swear that the same correctly stated the transaction when made.
This should be taken with caution, however.
Authentication and Proof of Documents – Means proving the authenticity and due execution of a
document which is offered in evidence as authentic. (Applies only to private documents)
Page 22 of 130
Ancient documents, more than 30 years old, needs no authentication where it is produced from
custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alteration or
suspicious circumstance.
Self-Authenticated Documents – Where the information in the writing could only have been
known by the writer or parties thereto; where codes or other revealing contents are used (e.g.
bills of lading).
Reply-Authenticated Letter – Where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the
sending to him and his receipt of the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is offering
in evidence.
Reply-Letter Rule – Where the reply to a letter indicates that the one writing the reply knew the
tenor of the letter, the reply itself is also deemed authenticated.
A party who does not deny the genuineness of an offered instrument may not object that it was
not authenticated before it was received in evidence (Estrada v. Desierto).
Where the genuineness and due execution of a document has been expressly or impliedly
admitted, authentication is no longer necessary.
Public Documents:
1. Written official acts or records of official acts of the sovereign authority, whether of the
Philippines or of a foreign country;
2. Acknowledged documents, except wills;
3. Public records of private documents required by law to be entered therein;
4. Documents considered public record under treaties and conventions in force between the
Philippines and the country of source (Apostille Convention) (new Rule)
An affidavit is not public record, because it contains a jurat, not an acknowledgement. Thus it
needs authentication.
Financial statements, whether audited or not, are generally private documents until they are filed
with a government agency pursuant to law (Republic v. Gimenez).
A divorce report validly issued by a Japanese mayor is admissible as proof of divorce (Moraña v.
Republic).
The English translation of the Japanese Civil Code was not an official publication since the
translation was published by a private Japanese company (Arreza v. Toyo, LEONEN).
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts state therein. These are in effect exceptions to the
hearsay rule.
Certification as to the income of the deceased, executed by his employer USAID is a public
document (Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S Transport).
Page 23 of 130
Chemistry report of forensic experts is a public document, and thus needs no authentication
(Kummer v. People).
However, a certified copy of the report of a government medical expert relating to a criminal case
shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents. The personal appearance
of the witness preparing such report is unnecessary unless specifically called for cross-
examination purposes (Section 13, A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, re accused under preventive detention).
An improperly notarized deed of sale is not a public document which carries the presumption of
due execution and authenticity. Hence the evidentiary standard to prove forgery is merely
preponderance of evidence, not clear and convincing evidence.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting party to a
treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public document
under such treaty or convention, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by
such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the
Philippines. The Apostille Convention on Authentication of Documents fulfills this requirement, as
it abolished the requirement of consularization for foreign documents. The Apostille (certification)
shall be prepared by the foreign country.
Proof of official records apply only to Section 19(a), and not 19(b) or 19(c) of Rule 132. Hence, an
SPA notarized abroad does not fall upon those requiring consular certificate (Tujan-Militante v.
Nustad).
Attestation is not proof of the COA’s concurrence to the engagement by the HDMF of a private
lawyer, as there was no showing that the corporate auditor was the legal custodian of the COA
records who was authorized to make the attestation (HDMF v. Sagun).
A photocopy of excerpts of the Civil Code of Japan, merely stamped “LIBRARY, Embassy of
Japan” is non-compliant, as it has no attestation (certified true copy), nor was there proof that the
embassy was the legal custodian of the Japanese divorce laws invoked (Nullada v. Ito).
1. Original record; or
2. Copy attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that
such officer has custody.
Proof of Lack of Record – Written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official
record or by his deputy that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to
exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. An
example is the Certificate of No Marriage, providing that no license was issued regarding the
marriage of particular individuals.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed denies the absolute necessity of
a statement that purports diligent search. The law does not require that there be a categorical
Page 24 of 130
statement that the record or entry does not exist. What is required is that “no record or entry is
found to exist.”
“After a diligent search on the files of the Registry Book on Application for Marriage License and
License Issuance available in this office, no record could be found on the alleged issuance of this
office of Marriage License No. xxx …” This certification does not prove that petitioner’s first
marriage was solemnized without a marriage license. It does not categorically state that the
marriage license does not exist (Vitangcol v. People, LEONEN).
The strict application applies due to the fact that the Vitangcol case involved a criminal
prosecution for bigamy, whereas the general rule was imposed based on cases involving civil
actions for petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Offer of evidence, comments or objections thereto, and the court ruling shall be made orally in
accordance with sections 35-40 of Rule 132. (new Rules)
Evidence not formally offered cannot be considered by the Court. Mere marking or identification
of evidence does not confer any evidentiary weight of the documents unless these are formally
offered (Heirs of Cruz-Zamora v. Multiwood International, Inc.).
Objections to Evidence:
Testimonial Evidence:
1. Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made.
2. Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be made as soon
as the witness begins to testify.
3. If Judicial Affidavit – At the start of the presentation of the witness, the party must move
to disqualify the witness or strike out the Judaff or answer.
Specific Objection – One which specifies its ground; General objection – Does not specify the
ground. General objections are not allowed.
Motion to Strike Out – Remedy of a party where the objectionable feature was not apparent from
the question or where the witness answered instantly without giving the lawyer a chance to
object. This is also allowed against testimonial evidence in the form of Judicial Affidavit.
1. When the question is not objectionable, but the answer is not responsive;
2. Where a witness testifies without a question being posed or testifies beyond limits set by
the court;
3. When the witness does a narration instead of answering the question.
Page 25 of 130
Continuing Objection – When a party has previously objected to a question, whether sustained or
overruled, and succeeding questions are of the same class as those previously objected to, it
shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record
his continuing objection to such class of questions.
Ruling – Generally, the court’s ruling should be made immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented.
Nevertheless, the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the
adverse party an opportunity to be heard.
In the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the court shall promptly rule on the motion to disqualify or strike out.
No further time allowance is allowed.
The court need not state the ground for its ruling except when the objection is based on two or
more grounds in which case a ruling sustaining the objection must state on what ground it is
based.
Tender of Exclusive Evidence – If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the
court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances
of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. The purpose of this is to allow the
appellate court to assess whether the exclusion of such evidence by the trial court is proper.
Before tender of excluded evidence may be made, the evidence must have been formally offered
to the court and denied admission by it (Yu v. CA).
1. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong; a special proceeding is a remedy by which
a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
2. A civil action is a formal demand of a right by one against another; A special proceeding
is a petition for a declaration of a status, right, or fact.
The enumeration of special proceedings under Rule 72 is not exclusive; as long as its purpose is
to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact, it is a special proceeding. All special proceedings
are actions in rem.
Page 26 of 130
4. Writ of Amparo;
5. Writ of Habeas Data
In the absence of applicable procedures, the rules in ordinary civil actions shall apply suppletorily.
Section 6, Rule 7 of the 2020 Rules should not apply to special proceedings, that is, the
requirement for a Judicial Affidavit, attaching evidence and witnesses thereto, etc. This is
because these provisions presuppose that there claims made in the pleadings (there is no settled
jurisprudence on this yet).
Earnest effort to compromise is not applicable to special proceedings, since it is not a suit or
ordinary action whereby a party sues another. Effectively, there is nobody to compromise with in
a special proceedings petition (Vda. de Manalo vs. CA).
Certification against forum shopping is required in special proceedings. This is because there are
no rules prohibiting such application, and the requirement would not pose an obstacle to said
proceedings. The rules on ordinary civil procedure applies wherever practicable (Sheker v. Estate
of Alice Sheker).
The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases.
Jurisdiction: Does not exceed ₱300k – outside MM; ₱400k – within MM.
A motion to dismiss for improper venue may be filed if such impropriety appears on the face of
the petition, otherwise, it may only be questioned in an appeal from the court in the original case
(Section 1, Rule 73). Motions to dismiss are still applicable in special proceedings under the 2020
Rules.
The probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction, only primarily concerned with the
administration, liquidation, and distribution of the estate. It has the authority to determine heirs
and to make a just and legal distribution of the estate (Solivio v. CA).
(Ruling Abandoned) The rule that the determination of a decedent’s lawful heirs should be made
in the corresponding special proceeding precludes the RTC, in an ordinary proceeding for
cancellation of title and reconveyance, from granting the same. The declaration of heirship should
be ventilated in the settlement of estate proceedings, and not in an ordinary civil action for
reconvevyance (Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon v. Ricaforte).
The compulsory or intestate heirs may commence and ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of
a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other action in the enforcement of their
ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior and separate
judicial declaration of their status as such. The ruling of the trial court shall only be in relation to
the cause of action of the ordinary civil action, i.e. the nullification of a deed or instrument, and
recovery and reconveyance of the property (Treyes v. Larlar, 2020).
The probate court cannot pass upon the title to property claimed to be part of the estate of the
deceased, because the court is one of limited jurisdiction. An exception however, comes when
the purpose is only to determine whether such property should be included in the inventory, then
Page 27 of 130
probate court can pass title on the property but the determination of ownership is not conclusive
but only provisional (Vda de Rodriguez v. CA).
The probate court may pass upon the title of the property with finality if the interested parties are
the heirs, who have all appeared in the proceedings, and no third-party right is impaired
(Munsayac-De Villa v. CA).
General Requisites:
Specific Requirements:
Self-Adjudication Process:
Within two years, if an heir or other person unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate
should surface, such heir may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the same
manner for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation.
A party to an extrajudicial settlement can no longer assail its validity after a period of two years
has lapsed (Pedrosa v. CA). Note that this rule is only a bar to a party to the settlement; this is not
a bar to third persons. The third party claimant may file an action for reconveyance within 10
years, commencing upon the issuance of a new title over the property or from actual notice in
case of unregistered deeds.
Page 28 of 130
Probate is necessary because the law prohibits wills from passing either real or personal property
unless proved and allowed in the proper court (Section 1, Rule 75). Probate determines the
extrinsic validity of the will, in that it tests compliance with the requirements of the Civil Code.
Due execution means the testator’s voluntariness of making the dispositions in the will. This also
looks into the soundness of mind of the testator, which is to say he knows the nature of the
estate, the object of his bounty, and the character of his testamentary act.
Generally, probate courts cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will, except if such defect is
apparent from the will, i.e. absolute preterition (Nepumoceno v. CA).
1. Executor;
2. Devisee;
3. Legatee;
4. Any other person interested in the estate, including the testator himself during his lifetime.
Jurisdictional Facts – Fact of death, the testator’s residence at the time of death in the province
where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in
such province (Paglanas v. Paglanas).
1. Notarial Will – Present all subscribing witnesses AND notary public, although if the
subscribing witnesses testify against it, the will may be allowed on the basis of the
testimony of other witnesses.
2. Holographic Will – Present three witnesses who know the testator’s handwriting and
signature. In the absence of competent witnesses, an expert witness may be used.
1. Holographic Will – Affirmation of the testator and his signature. If opposed, the burden is
on the oppositor.
Section 8, Rule 76 provides that if the witnesses are dead, insane, or do not reside in the
Philippines, the will may be proved by admitting the testimony of other witnesses as to the sanity
of the testator and the due execution of the will. The court may also admit proof of the handwriting
of the testator and of the subscribing witnesses, or any of them.
Proving a lost or destroyed will – Resort to secondary evidence after laying the foundation, thru:
Page 29 of 130
1. Proving its execution and validity;
2. Will is shown to have been in existence at the time of the testator’s death;
3. That it was fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without his
knowledge;
4. The provision of the will must be proved by two credible witnesses.
Photocopies of the original will may be allowed as secondary evidence because comparison can
be made with the standard writing of the testator (Bonilla v. Aranza).
Where the will was proved outside of the Philippines, it may yet be allowed in the country (re-
probate), provided the following things are proven:
1. The due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign law;
2. The testator is a resident of the foreign country;
3. The will has been admitted to probate;
4. It was allowed by a probate court;
5. The laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of the will.
Processual Presumption – If there is no proof of foreign law, it is presumed that the foreign law on
procedure is the same as the Philippines, and must be established as such.
It is not required that the will executed in the foreign country be first probated therein, it is
sufficient that it was made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place
where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country (Palaganas v.
Palaganas).
Administrator/Executor with a Will Annexed – Appointed by the court to execute a will without a
named executor
Qualifications:
1. Not a minor;
2. A resident of the Philippines;
3. Not unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or
want of understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction of an offense involving
moral turpitude.
Page 30 of 130
Letters Testamentary – Issued by the court upon the person named as executor, once the will is
proved and allowed, if he is competent, accepts the trust, and gives bond as required by the
Rules.
1. The surviving spouse, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such
persons as the surviving spouse or next of kin requests to have appointed, if competent
and willing to serve;
2. If #1 are incompetent or unwilling, or if the same neglects the duty for thirty days after the
death of the person to apply for administration or to request that administration be
granted to some other person, to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and
willing to serve;
There must be a strong, valid, and sufficient reason to ignore the preference (Gabriel v. CA).
A special administrator may be appointed when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or
of administration by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will.
Likewise, when the executor or administrator is a claimant against the estate he represents, the
court may also appoint a special administrator.
1. Power to possess and manage the estate of the deceased to pay debts and expenses of
administration.
2. Access to, examine, and take copies of books and papers relating to the partnership
business, and examine and make such invoices of the property belonging to such
partnership.
3. To compromise with the debtor of the decedent.
1. Neglect in rendering his account and settle the estate in accordance with law.
2. Neglect in the performance of a lawful order or judgment of the court or a duty expressly
provided by the court.
3. If the administrator absconds.
4. If the administrator becomes insane, or otherwise incapable of discharging his duties.
Section 1, Rule 86: Notice to creditors to be issued by the court – Immediately after granting
letters testamentary or letters of administration, the court shall issue a notice requiring all persons
having money claims against the decedent to file them in the office of the clerk of said court.
Claims against the estate shall not be more than 12 months and not less than six months after
the date of first publication of the notice, which must be published 3 consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Statute of Non-Claims (Section 2, Rule 86) – Claims not filed within the above period are above
forever, subject to the following guidelines:
Page 31 of 130
2. Period is mandatory;
3. The Statute of Non-Claims supersedes the Statute of Limitations
1. The creditor may apply with the court for a new period not exceeding one month before
entry of order of distribution for good cause shown (not exceeding one month).
2. The creditor can set up his claim as a counterclaim in an action filed by the executor or
administrator (Section 5, Rule 86).
Section 5, Rule 86 – Claims that must be filed under the notice/within the period, otherwise they
are barred forever (Exclusive list):
1. All money claim arising from contract, whether due, not due, or contingent;
2. All claims for funeral expenses;
3. All claims for the expense for the last sickness of the decedent;
4. Judgment for money against the decedent.
Section 20, Rule 3 – When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment, the claim shall not be dismissed, but allowed to
continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased
person. (this is #4)
Such money judgment, when it is final and executory, execution is not the proper remedy to
enforce payment. Present to probate court instead.
Claims for damages arising from breach of contract of transportation be filed in the settlement of
estate court (Bautista v. De Guzman).
Section 7, Rule 86 – Where the decedent’s debt is secured by a real estate mortgage, the
remedies available to enforce the mortgage are as follows:
1. To waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate;
2. To foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove the deficiency as an ordinary claim against
the estate;
3. To rely on the mortgage exclusively, or other security and foreclose the same at anytime.
Here no claim for deficiency is allowed. (this is extrajudicial foreclosure)
These are separate actions filed, not claims against the estate filed in the settlement of estate or
probate court. This rule proves that not all money claims should be filed against the estate.
Page 32 of 130
As a general rule, where the estate is represented by the executor or administrator, every suit
shall be brought by his or her name, but if the same refuses to bring suit, or if the same is alleged
to have participated in the act complained of, then the heirs may bring the suit for the estate
(Borromeo v. Borromeo). Other grounds where this is allowed are:
When may the creditor bring action in the name of the executor or administrator?
1. There is deficiency of assets in the hands of the administrator for the payment of debts;
2. The deceased during his lifetime had made a fraudulent conveyance of his real or
personal property;
3. The subject of the conveyance would be liable to attachment by anyone of them during
his lifetime;
4. Executor or administration has no intention to file
Distribution and partition of estate may be made when the debts, funeral expenses, expenses of
administration, the allowance of the widow, and the inheritance tax have been paid (Section 1,
Rule 90). However, when the distributes or any of them gives a bond conditioned upon payment
of said obligation, distribution can commence before full payment of the charges and claims
against the estate.
Controversies regarding the identity of the lawful heirs or their respective shares shall be heard
as in an ordinary civil case.
The order of distribution directing the delivery of the residue of the estate to the persons entitled
thereto that brings a close to the intestate proceedings ad putts an end to the administration and
relieves the administrator of his duty (PCIB v. Escolin).
Nevertheless, closed intestate proceedings may still be reopened within the prescriptive period
upon petition thereof by a preterited heir (Quinon v. Claridad).
No independent action to annul the decision of the probate court can be allowed under the
Doctrine of Non-Interference (Solivio v. CA).
1. To satisfy the contributive shares of the devisees, legatees, and heirs in possession of
the decedent’s assets (Section 6, Rule 88).
2. To enforce payment of expenses of partition (Section 3, Rule 90).
3. To satisfy the cost when a person is cited for examination (Section 13, Rule 142).
TRUSTEES
Rule 98 applies when an express trust is created by a will or written instrument. For instance, if
there is property which under the provision of the will should be held in trust for a certain period
and for a stated purpose, then, a trustee may be appointed by the court.
Trust – Confidence reposed on one person, called a trustee, for the benefit of another called the
cestui que trust, with respect to the property held by the former for the benefit of the latter.
Unlike claims against administrators, which can be filed in MTC or RTC depending on the gross
amount of the estate, claims against trustees are filed exclusively in the RTC.
Page 33 of 130
ESCHEATS
Rule 91 defines escheat proceedings whereby the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and
claims the real or personal property of a person who dies intestate, leaving no heir. It is the
Solicitor General who files for escheat proceeding.
Venue:
Petitions are initiated by the OSG. All interested parties shall be personally notified and given
opportunity to file their valid claims. Interested parties are those alleging to have direct interest in
the property sought to be escheated.
Lawful heirs appearing and filing claims with the court within five years from the date of judgment
shall have possession or title to the same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable
to him for the proceeds after deducting reasonable charges (Section 4, Rule 91).
GUARDIANSHIP
Guardianship is a trust relation in which the guardian acts for the ward, whom the law regards as
incapable of managing his own affairs. This safeguards the rights and interests of minors and
incompetent persons.
Legal Guardian – One who is such by provision of law, without need for judicial appointment. The
parents of an emancipated child are legal guardians of the minor and his or her property (Art.
225).
Judicial Guardian – One appointed by the court for the persons, property, or both, of the ward and
to represent the latter in all litigations.
Page 34 of 130
6. Those who, not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and
other similar causes cannot take care of themselves and manage their property.
Venue and jurisdiction: RTC where the ward resides; in case of non-resident, the RTC of the
place where his or her property is situated.
1. Any relative, friend or other person on behalf of an incompetent who has no parent or
lawful guardian;
2. The incompetent himself may petition the court;
3. An officer of the Federal Administration of the U.S. in the Ph (archaic, never amended)
4. The Director of Health
Any interested person may file by written opposition, contests to the petition on the ground of
competency of the ward or the unsuitability of the guardian.
The guardian posts a bond after being issued letters of guardianship, subject to the following
conditions:
Bonds given by a guardian may be prosecuted in the same proceeding or in a separate action for
the use and benefit of the ward or of any other person legally interested in the estate.
The property of the ward can only be sold or encumbered upon petition to be filed by the guardian
in the court which issued the letters of guardianship. The sale or encumbrance must be for the
benefit of the ward which benefit must be shown to the court.
It is not necessary for the grant to sell the estate to state the insufficiency of the ward’s income or
the yield of his estate. It is enough that it appears to the satisfaction of the court that it is for the
benefit of the ward that part or all of his estate should be sold (Pardo de Tavera v. El Hogar
Filipino).
1. Have the care and custody of the person of his ward and the management of his estate;
2. Pay the debts of the ward out of his personal estate;
3. Settle accounts, collect debts, and prosecute and defend suits for the ward;
4. Manage the estate frugally;
5. Make inventory and accounting.
Generally, the guardianship court exercising limited jurisdiction cannot order he delivery of the
property of the ward found to be embezzled, concealed, or conveyed, only to cite a person to
obtain information on the property. Only in extreme cases where the property f the ward or his
Page 35 of 130
title thereto has been judicially decided, may the court direct its delivery to the guardian (Parco v.
CA).
Termination of Guardianship:
1. Relative;
2. Other person on behalf of the minor;
3. The minor himself, if 14 years or over;
4. DSWD or DOH for insane minor who needs to be hospitalized.
Jurisdiction and venue: Family Court of the province or city where the minor resides; if non-
resident, in the Family Court where his property is located.
1. Moral character;
2. Physical, mental and psychological condition;
3. Financial status;
4. Relationship of trust with the minor;
5. Availability to fully exercise the duties of a guardian;
6. Lack of conflict of interest with the minor;
7. Ability to manage the property of the minor.
1. Surviving grandparents;
2. Oldest sibling over 21 years old;
3. Actual custodian of the minor over 21 years old;
4. Relationship of trust with the minor;
5. Any other person in the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the best interest
of the child.
The guardianship may be terminated when (1) the ward is already of legal age, (2) upon death of
the ward, or (3) motu propio or verified motion.
ADOPTION
Page 36 of 130
1. Any Filipino citizen of legal age, with full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral
character, not previously convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, who is
emotionally and psychologically capable of caring of children, at least 16 years older than
the adoptee (unless the adopter is the biological parent of the child, or the spouse of such
parent), and who is in a position to support and care for his children in keeping with the
means of the family.
2. Any alien possessing the same qualification as the above-stated qualifications, provided:
3. The guardian, with respect to the ward, after termination of his guardianship and
clearance of his financial accountabilities.
Residency and required certification requirement for aliens may be waived under these
circumstances:
1. A former Filipino citizen seeking to adopt a relative within the 4 th degree of consanguinity
or affinity;
2. One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse;
3. One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his spouse a
relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.
1. If one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of one spouse by the other spouse;
2. If one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child, provided however, that the other
spouse has signified his consent thereto;
3. If the spouses are legally separated from each other.
1. Any person below 18 years of age who has been voluntarily committed to the DSWD, or
judicially declared available for adoption;
3. An illegitimate child, by a qualified adopter to raise the status of the former to that of
legitimacy;
4. A person of legal age, regardless of civil status, if, prior to adoption, said person has
been consistently considered and treated by the adopters as their own child since
minority.
6. A child whose biological or adoptive parents have died, provided that no proceedings
shall be initiated within six months from the time of death of said parents;
Page 37 of 130
Jurisdiction and venue – Family court of the province or city where the prospective adoptive
parents reside.
Effects of adoption:
The relationship created in adoption is strictly limited to the adopter and the adoptee.
The adopter cannot file a petition to rescind the adopter; only the adoptee is authorized and
empowered to file a petition for rescission of adoption on these valid grounds:
The venue for rescission is the Family court of the city or province where the adoptee resides.
Only a legally free child may be the subject of inter-country adoption. This means that the child
has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to the DSWD pursuant to the Child and Youth
Welfare Code (Suzuki v. OSG).
A verified petition to adopt under this rule may be filed with the Family Court having jurisdiction
over the place where the child resides or may be found. It may likewise be filed before the Inter-
Country Adoption Board. The function of the Family Court is to receive the application and, upon
finding the same sufficient in form and substance, refer the petition to the Board.
HABEAS CORPUS
Petitions for Habeas Corpus covers the unlawful deprivation of liberty or the deprivation of the
rightful custody of any person from the person entitled thereto. This is governed by Rule 102.
The Supreme Court or any member thereof under concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals and the RTC may grant a writ of Habeas Corpus. The writs issued by the SC are
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and are returnable before the SC, or any member
thereof, or before the CA or any member thereof, or the RTC or any judge thereof.
In the case of writs issued by RTCs, it is only enforceable where the RTC has jurisdiction and is
returnable thereto.
Page 38 of 130
Sandiganbayan likewise has jurisdiction over petitions for issuance of the writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction (R.A. 8049, amended by R.A. 10660).
The petition may be filed by a party whose relief it is intended, or by some person on behalf of the
detained person.
A judge cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus without the pertinent copies of detention and
judgment of conviction (OCA v. Judge Perello). A copy of the commitment or detention order
must be provided.
The writ is only available against cases of illegal confinement or detention, as its objective is to
inquire into the cause of detention of a person, and to release him of such cause is wanting.
The subsequent filing of charges and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest against
a person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to
be released due to such defect.
1. An officer – In which case it commands him to have the body of the restrained person to
the court within the time and place specified.
2. A private individual – In which case the writ is addressed to a public officer to command
the private individual to produce the body in court within the time and place specified.
Return of the Writ – Refers to a responsive pleading to the petition, and it shall be filed by the
officer to whom the writ is directed, including the day and cause of the capture and restrain of
such person according to the command thereof.
Peremptory writ of habeas corpus vs. writ of preliminary citation – A peremptory writ of habeas
corpus is a written document unconditionally commanding the respondent to have the body of the
detained person before the court at a time and place specified therein (final order) . A writ of
preliminary citation however, requires the respondent to appear and show cause why peremptory
writ should not be granted (interlocutory) (In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Alejano v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005).
In a habeas corpus petition, the order to present an individual before the court is a preliminary
step in the hearing of the petition. The respondent must produce the person and explain the
cause of his detention. However, this order is not a ruling on the propriety of the remedy or on the
substantive matters covered by the remedy.
Appeals on the writ – 48 days from notice of judgment and final order appealed from.
Writ vs. Privilege of the Writ – A writ is issued by the Court after finding that the petition is
sufficient in form and substance. The privilege of the writ on the other hand, is issued after the
writ is filed and a hearing was conducted. If the court finds the person is illegally detained or
Page 39 of 130
whose custody is being possessed by a person who is not authorized by law, the petition will be
granted and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus will be issued.
Habeas Corpus in Custody of Minors – A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, April 22, 2003; The Family Court
has jurisdiction. In places where there are no regular courts, it may be filed in the appropriate
regular courts, even before the SC, CA, or with any of its members.
WRIT OF AMPARO
The remedy of the Writ of Amparo is available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof. The writ is both curative and preventive.
Extrajudicial killings are those committed without due process, i.e. those without legal safeguards
or judicial proceedings.
Enforced disappearances are the arrest, detention, abduction, or any other form of deprivation of
liberty by agents of the State, followed by refusal to acknowledge such deprivation or by
concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, thereby placing such person outside the
protection of the law.
The writ does not operate against private individuals or groups. Government participation is
required (Spouses Santiago v. Tulfo).
The petition may be filed against public officials, employees, or private individuals or entity. In the
latter case, only if there is governmental intervention.
Venue – RTC of the place where the threat or omission happened, or any place where one of its
elements occurred, or with SB, CA, SC. The writ is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When it is issued by the RTC or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before such court
or judge.
The respondent shall file within five WORKING days the return, containing the lawful defenses
showing that the respondent did not violate or threaten to violate the rights of petitioner. The
period to file return cannot be extended except on highly meritorious ground. General denials are
not allowed.
Standard of Totality of Evidence – The consideration of all the pieces of evidence adduced in
their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under the usual Rules to be
inadmissible if consistent with the admissible evidence adduced (Razon v. Tagitis). The quantum
Page 40 of 130
of evidence required in Amparo proceedings is substantial evidence. The burden of proof is on
the respondent to prove ordinary diligence as required by laws and regulations was observed in
the performance of his or her duty.
Judgment – Within 10 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision.
Appeal – Supreme Court under Rule 45 within five working days from the date of notice of
adverse judgment.
When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed, but
the reliefs available under this writ shall be available in the criminal case.
Writ of Amparo proceedings are initiated through a petition filed before the RTC, Sandiganbayan,
CA, or SC. Upon evaluation by the judge, the judge has the option to issue the Writ or dismiss the
case. (De Lima v. Gatdula, LEONEN).
Summary hearing on the petition will only be conducted after the Return is filed to determine the
merits of the petition. If no return is filed, hearing shall proceed ex parte.
(Possible bar question: Rule on Amparo and Habeas Data available on Red-Tagging)
HABEAS DATA
This writ is available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party. Availment of the writ
requires a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty, or
security on the other.
Habeas data only covers informational privacy. It may be filed against a respondent, whether
private or public, engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information. It is protection
against unlawful acts or omissions against the informational privacy of the petitioner. Such
individual entity thus need not be in the business of collecting or storing data, e.g. a school
(Vivares v. St. Therese College).
General rule: Only the aggrieved party may file for habeas data, except in the case of extralegal
killings or enforced disappearances.
Jurisdiction and venue – RTC where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data is gathered, collected, or stored. If it concerns public
data files of government offices, petition may be filed before SC, CA, SB.
CHANGE OF NAME
Page 41 of 130
Rule 103 – A person desiring to change his name shall present a petition before the RTC of the
province in which he resides, or in the City of Manila, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court (now Family Courts).
1. That petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for
at least three years prior to date of filing;
2. The cause for which the change of name is sought;
3. The name asked for.
In petitions for change of name under Rule 103, a person avails of a remedy to alter the
designation by which he is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best
known (Republic v. Marcadera). This precludes petitions to change clerical errors in entries of
birth records.
An illegitimate child may take the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly
recognized by their father through a record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an
admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father (R.A.
9255).
Before a person can change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any
compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by
the use of his original name (Silverio v. Republic).
Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) the
determining factor as to his gender is what the individual thinks of it (Republic v. Cagandahan,
LEONEN). It is this reason why respondent was allowed to change his name.
Rule 108 – Any person interested in any act, event, order, or decree concerning the civil status of
persons which has been recorded in the civil register may file a verified petition for cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the RTC of the province where the civil registry is
located.
This rule covers clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her documents with the civil register, as
well as the correction of substantial errors in the entry of information as well as those affecting
civil status, citizenship, and nationality. The proceedings under this rule may be summary, if the
correction pertains to clerical mistakes, or adversarial for substantial errors.
Page 42 of 130
When proceedings are adversarial, those interested in the change or correction must be notified.
If the interested party is not impleaded, the validity of the judgment will not be affected, because
the publication cures the defect.
Administrative Correction of Entries (R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 10172) – No entry in a civil
register shall be changed or corrected without judicial order, except for clerical or typographical
errors and change of firs name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth, or sex of a
person where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the
entry, which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulation.
A person seeking (1) to change his or her first name, (2) to correct clerical or typographical errors
in the civil register, (3) to change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or
(4) to change/correct his or her sex where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or
typographical error or mistake, must first file a verified petition before the local civil registry office
of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in
accordance with the administrative proceeding in R.A. 9048. A person may only avail of the
appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 in the above-mentioned entries after
the petition in the administrative proceedings is filed and later denied.
A person seeking (1) to change his or her surname or (2) to change both his or her first name and
surname may file a petition for change of name under Rule 103, provided that the jurisprudential
grounds discussed in Republic v. Hernandez are present.
A person seeking substantial cancellations or corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a
petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108.
Where both clerical and substantial errors are sought to be corrected, the filing of two petitions,
one before the civil registrar, and one under Rule 108 is not required, as it will create multiplicity
of suits. In any case, regular courts maintain the authority to make judicial corrections of entries in
the civil registry (Republic v. Ontuca).
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is the power to hear, try, and decide cases. It is conferred by law and determined by
the allegations of the complaint or information.
When the court has general jurisdiction, special jurisdiction is just a matter of exercise of
jurisdiction. An RTC that is not a special commercial court does not need to dismiss a case
involving intra-corporate matters; the judge merely needs to refer it to the executive judge for re-
raffle.
Continuing Jurisdiction – Even after a court has rendered its decision, it may yet retain jurisdiction
in order to satisfy itself that its terms are satisfactorily met (as in Continuing Mandamus;
Procedure in Environmental Cases).
Page 43 of 130
Residual Jurisdiction – When the court renders a final judgment and the losing party files a notice
of appeal, thus perfecting the appeal, the lower court may still act on matters of compromise,
execution pending appeal, application as indigent, or any other order that may protect the parties.
1. Claims for Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Habeas Corpus, Habeas Data, Amparo,
Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus (original and concurrent);
2. Annulment of judgment of the RTC (respecting the hierarchy of courts)
1. For officers with a salary grade of at least 27, and the act is bribery, malversation, or
against R.A. 3019;
2. For officers with a salary grade of at least 27, but the office is a constituent element of the
crime, without which the crime would not have been committed;
3. Claims against trustees or directors of state university, president or director of GOCCs;
4. Recovery of damages exceeding 1M.
1. Claims for Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Habeas Corpus, Habeas Data, Amparo,
Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus (original and concurrent);
2. Disciplinary actions against members of the bench and bar;
3. Disciplinary actions against ambassadors, ministers, and ministers plenipotentiary;
4. Constitutionality of laws, treaties
Page 44 of 130
The only way to appeal directly to the Supreme Court is Rule 45 in civil cases, citing only matters
of law. For criminal cases, also Rule 45, except in case the penalty is death, life imprisonment, or
reclusion perpetua.
As a general rule, the court will not entertain a claim for writ of habeas corpus as a post-
conviction remedy, because the respondent’s detention is for a lawful purpose. However, the writ
may also be availed of as a post-conviction remedy in the following instances (Labrador v.
Paredes):
Where there is a dispute between two government agencies or instrumentalities, the Secretary of
Justice has jurisdiction (CIR v. Secretary of Justice and Metropolitan Cebu Water District).
A judgment of the lower court on a case involving R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act) may be appealed to the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals (Muñez v. People).
Jurisdiction over cases of change of name under Rule 108 – Where what petitioners seek is not a
mere clerical change, but to act in such a way that respondent’s filiation will be affected, this
cannot be addressed in a petition under Rule 108, but under a direct action filed against the
proper party, not a collateral attack. Moreover, impugning the legitimacy of a child is governed by
Article 171 of the Family Code, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (Miller case).
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by the filing of the complaint, and the
payment of filing fees. If the respondent relied on the assessment of the clerk of court in good
faith, and the clerk erroneously undervalued the fees that need to be paid, the court cannot
dismiss the case. However, the clerk must make a subsequent assessment (Cu v. RCBC
Securities, 2018).
If there was bad faith however, there could be intent to defraud the government, and thus
dismissal is the proper recourse.
Filing fees are NOT required on a compulsory counterclaim, but it is required for a permissive
counterclaim.
Lien on the Judgment Award - Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing
of the pleading and the payment of the filing fee, but subsequently, the judgment awards a (1)
claim not specified in the pleading, or (2) cannot be then estimated, or a (3) claim left for
determination by the court, then the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment
(Heirs of Hinog v. Mellcor).
In a criminal case, even if moral, nominal, and temperate damages are not included in the
information, they can constitute a lien on the judgment award.
1. Writ of Amparo
2. Writ of Kalikasan
3. Writ of Continuing Mandamus
Citizen’s suits are not exempt from payment of filing fees, but it is merely deferred, subject to a
lien on the judgment.
Page 45 of 130
The filing fees is always based on the amount prayed for in the claim, but if it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation (specific performance, rescission), then the filing fee is a fixed amount.
Annulment of a deed of sale includes title to and interest over real property, thus it is not
incapable of pecuniary estimation, thus the amount of the filing fees will be based on the
assessed value (FMV or zonal valuation of BIR, whichever is higher) of the property (Ruby
Shelter case).
Indigents – If the income of the person claiming to be an indigent does not exceed double the
monthly minimum wage, and he does not own real property with a FMV exceeding 300k, then he
is an indigent. However, if the person’s status as an indigent is questioned and the court is
convinced thereof, he will be made to pay filing fees. Upon failing to pay, the court may issue a
writ of execution even before final judgment, or dismissed for failure to prosecute (Algora v. Gov’t
of Naga).
If no amount is alleged in the complaint, the court may be guided not only on the complaint itself,
but even the attachments thereto to determine jurisdiction.
In an action for specific performance, a personal action, it would be erroneous for the court to
treat it as a real action which prescribes for 30 years. Thus transfer of property in this case is
merely incidental to the determination of whether or not there was a contract (Specified
Contractors v. Pobocan).
Under the new Rules, lack of payment of filing fees goes into the ground of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant – Acquired upon proper service of summons or
voluntary appearance (filing an answer, seeking relief, etc.). This is no longer a ground for a
motion to dismiss, but it may as yet be filed as an affirmative answer.
Estoppel by Laches on Question of Jurisdiction – When a party has actively taken part in the
proceedings, jurisdiction cannot be raised just because an adverse judgment or order has been
reached by the court (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy).
Agencies impleaded in cases under Rule 65 are nominal parties, thus they are not required to
respond thereto unless the court mandates otherwise (National Electrification case).
A writ of Kalikasan under the Rules on Environmental Procedure is distinct and separate from a
filing against the Solid Waste Management Act or the Clean Air Act. A writ of Kalikasan is an
extraordinary remedy covering environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice life,
health, and property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. This writ allows direct action
to the CA or SC, it is dictated by public welfare. Thus the 30-day prior notice rule provided for in
Citizen’s Suit is inapplicable (Osmeña v. Garganera, et. al.).
Presumptive Death – Petitions for presumptive death under Rule 41 of the Family Code is for the
purpose of remarriage, Articles 390 & 391 of the NCC on the other hand, is the proper ones to
invoke in order to establish the disputable presumption of death in evidence for special
proceedings involving a person’s death.
Page 46 of 130
The NCIP only has jurisdiction over cases and disputes between indigenous groups. When
claims are between IPs and non-IPs, then the regular courts have jurisdiction (Sta. Lucia case).
Actions in rem:
A corporation’s right to use its name is a property right, thus it is a right in rem. (Dela Salle
Montessori Malolos v. Dela Salle).
Actions quasi-in rem – still against the whole world, but there is a designated defendant.
Civil Action – When a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or for the
prevention or redress of a wrong.
1. Ordinary Civil Action – Has a cause of action in that a person violates another’s right;
covered by ordinary Rules;
Criminal Action – When the state prosecutes another for an act or omission punishable by law.
Prosecution starts only when the information is filed in court.
Special Proceeding – When a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
The Rules of Court do not cover election, insolvency, naturalization, cadastral and land
registration cases, and agrarian cases.
Commencement of the Action – Filing of the complaint and payment of the proper filing fees.
Liberal construction of the Rules –The Rules of Court are liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition if every action and
proceeding. There is no absolute doctrinal ruling governing non-compliance of the Rules; court
application is always on a case-to-case basis.
Cause of Action – A cause of action is the act or omission by which party violates the right of
another. Elements:
1. Right of plaintiff;
2. Duty of defendant;
3. Breach of such duty, violating the right
Failure to State a Cause of Action – If, when looking plainly at the material allegations of the
case, the court cannot render a judgment. For example, when a person not a party to the contract
Page 47 of 130
claims to exercise rights over stipulations in the contract, the plaintiff fails to state a cause of
action, because there is no right violated, thus there can be no breach thereof. (Not a ground for
motion to dismiss, only affirmative defense in answer)
Lack or Absence of Cause of Action – This can only be established upon presentation of the
plaintiff’s evidence. Unlike failure to state a cause of action, this is a ground for dismissal through
demurrer to evidence.
Sufficiency of Cause of Action – It is sufficient if the court can already render judgment based on
the minimum allegations in the complaint, regardless of its truthfulness.
If, upon the finding of the court, there is no cause of action, the case shall be dismissed. A case
whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured by an amendment or supplemental
pleading alleging the existence or accrual of the cause of action (Turner v. Turner).
Splitting of Cause of Action – When a cause of action is split or severed, judgment on one may
cause the dismissal of the others under res judicata. When it involves basically the same case,
both shall be dismissed. The pendency of one may also be a ground for a motion to dismiss
under litis pendentia.
Where there is but one delict, there is only one cause of action, regardless of the number of rights
asserted or prayed for. The rule is: One suit for a single cause of action. Otherwise, there would
be forum shopping, and the case should be dismissed on the basis of res judiicata or litis
pendentia.
Joinder of Causes Actions – Permissive; not mandatory (option of plaintiff). Parties may in one
pleading, join as many causes as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues
or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
4. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for the recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
As opposed to joinder of actions, permissive joinder of parties (Rule 6) must arise from the same
transaction or series of transactions, jointly, severally, or in the alternative.
There can be no joinder of causes of action covered by different rules (e.g. rescission under
ordinary rules + recovery of rentals under small claims). Likewise, it is impractical to join causes
of action that can potentially have different rules on venue, as improper venue may be raised by
the defendant in its affirmative review.
Misjoinder of Causes of Action – Misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal of the case. The court
may, motu propio or on motion, drop or sever causes of action which cannot be joined. In this
case, the case is not dismissed, but separate actions therein may be refilled.
Real Party in Interest – A person who will be affected by the avails of the suit; who stands to
benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit. This primarily concerns private suits.
Locus Standi – Standing against governmental actions. There are several tests to determine
Page 48 of 130
1. Direct Injury Test – That a person will sustain direct injury as a result of government
enactment (e.g. taxpayers suit);
2. Transcendental Importance Test – Even if the plaintiff will not suffer direct injury, if the
case has such importance to public interest, any person may have locus standi.
Any person filing under any of these tests is but a mere instrument of the public interest.
If the person suing is not a real party in interest, it can be cited as an affirmative defense on the
ground that the claim states no cause of action.
1. Natural Persons:
Of legal age
Minors can sue and be sued with the assistance of parents or guardians
Incapacitated persons can likewise sue and be sued with assistance
Married persons must sue and be sued as spouses (service of summons to
BOTH; new Rule), except where one is sued in the practice of their profession, or
suit involves the separate property of one spouse (capital or paraphernal), or if
there is judicial separation of property.
Imprisoned persons
Sole proprietorships are sued under the proprietor’s name
2. Juridical Persons:
Possessing legal capacity (duly incorporated)
Domestic (service of summons to officers wherever they may be found or their
secretaries) or foreign entity (publication; summons to resident agents)
If the party dies (plaintiff or defendant), the pending action survives. If the case is for a sum of
money, Section 20, Rule 3 may apply if the defendant dies, but it is Section 16 of Rule 3 that
applies for the plaintiff’s death.
Substitution by reason of death is not jurisdictional. It is merely required to satisfy the requirement
of due process.
Notice of death – 30 days from the fact of death. Even if the lawyer was belatedly made aware,
the period will still be counted from the fact of death.
If there are multiple parties, and one member dies, but is not substituted, whatever judgment is
rendered is null and void as to the one whose interest was not thusly protected.
Page 49 of 130
For Section 20 to apply, it should be the defendant who died, and the nature of the action must be
for collection of a sum of money. In this case, there is no substitution. The case will not be
dismissed but it will proceed against the defendant’s estate.
Kinds of Substitution:
When a public officer ceases to hold his office, the action may be continued or maintained by his
successor when, within 30 days after the successor takes office, it is satisfactorily shown that
there is a substantial need for continuing it and that the successor adopts or continues to threaten
to adopt or continues the action of his predecessor (Section 17).
In case of any transfer of interest the action may be continued by or against the original party
unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be
substituted in the action or joined with the original party (Section 19).
Where a transfer of interest was effected to a co-party, without the knowledge of the court, and
then the transferor dies, Section 16, not Section 19 will apply. The latter will only apply when the
court was informed of the transfer within the lifetime of the transferor.
Necessary vs. Indispensable Party – A necessary party should be impleaded in order to have a
complete determination of the case, whereas an indispensable party must be impleaded in order
to have a final determination of the case. A misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary parties will not
result to the dismissal of the case.
Example of necessary party – a co-debtor in a joint obligation; surety. The absence of such party
will not affect the validity of the judgment. However, if the court orders the inclusion of a
necessary party, and it is not complied with, then the claim against the non-impleaded party shall
be waived.
Failure to implead an indispensable party may be dismissed by the court, as the case is null and
void. This is not automatic however, but there must first be an order to implead. If there is
evidence of extrinsic fraud, this failure may be ground for annulment of judgment (Heirs of Mesina
v. Heirs of Fian).
The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions and decisions of the court
are null and void.
Class Suit vs. Citizen Suit – A class suit is one of common or general interest wherein the parties
involved are so numerous as to render it impracticable to join them all as parties. Instead, a
representative sues or defends for the benefit of all. A citizen suit is one where any Filipino citizen
in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to
enforce rights or obligations under environmental law (e.g. Oposa v. Factoran).
RULE 4 – VENUE
The sales invoice cannot be the basis of a venue stipulation even if it contains words of
exclusivity (Hygienic Packaging v. Nutri-Asia).
Page 50 of 130
Venue in real actions – Place where the property is located; in actions for ejectment, the MTC of
the place where the property is located.
Venue of personal actions – Place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs or the
defendant or any of the principal defendants reside.
Venue stipulation in a contract where the signature of the supposed borrower was forged –
cannot bind party acting in good faith.
If there are no words of exclusivity – the venue stipulation is only in addition to what the law
provides.
In a contract of lease, the parties can stipulate that the exclusive venue is in a place other than
where the property is located.
Venue against a non-resident – Court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
Principal plaintiffs or defendant means that the person has substantial interest or stake in the
case (Marcos-Araneta v. CA).
The procedure in the MTC and RTC are the same, except where a particular provision expressly
or impliedly applies only to either, or in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Ordinary Procedures
Summary Procedures
Small Claims
Page 51 of 130
1. Complaint - Certificate of non-forum shopping, certificate stating that it is not splitting of
cause of action and filing multiple suits. No lawyer required, only complaint form to
include any actionable document.
2. Summary cases wrongly filed as small claims will not be dismissed, only re-docketed.
3. Response/Answer – Within 10 days from notice.
4. 1-day Hearing – If defendant did not file a response, his answers during hearing will be
considered his response.
5. Judgment – 24 hours after hearing. FINAL, EXECUTORY, AND UNAPPEALABLE (direct
resort to Rule 65).
In summary proceedings, if there is no answer to the complaint, the court can already render
judgment, but it does not need preponderance of evidence to do so.
Prohibited pleadings in summary proceedings are the same as those in small claims cases.
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
As a rule, if a witness’ judicial affidavit is not attached to the complaint or answer, the witness’
testimony cannot be presented during trial, except for meritorious circumstances. However, Rule
18, Section 2 allows the reservation of evidence, stating the name of the party and the substance
of the purported testimony.
Complaint – States the material allegations that support the cause of action.
Compulsory counterclaim and cross claim not raised is barred. The remedy to this is amendment
with leave of court.
Negative Defense – A specific denial of the material facts or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause of action. A general denial amounts to an admission.
Negative Pregnant – A denial, pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading
responded to which are not squarely denied It is in effect an admission of the averment it is
directed to. A negative pregnant does not qualify as a specific denial, but is in fact an admission
(Philamgen v. Sweet Lines).
Page 52 of 130
Reply – Under the new 2020 Rules, there is no longer a requirement for a reply. Any new matters
raised in the answer, an amended or supplemental complaint should be filed. A reply should only
be filed where the answer includes an actionable document, and it is necessary for the plaintiff to
deny the same under oath, otherwise it will be admitted as to its genuineness and due execution.
Third Party Complaint – A claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, be made against
a person not a party to the action, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief in
respect of his opponent’s claim. Third party complaint is denied when the issue is extraneous to
the case at hand, or if it seeks to introduce a new matter.
Within 30 days upon grant of leave of court, jurisdiction over the third party defendant should be
obtained; otherwise, a separate action must be filed.
Rule 6 Section 5(b), Rule 8 Section 12, Rule 15 Section 12 – Affirmative defenses are grouped
into two: those covered by Section 5 (b) and those five enumerated in Rule 8 Section 12. For the
first group of defenses, the court may entertain a summary hearing and resolve the defenses
motu propio within 30 calendar days from filing the answer. Any action on an affirmative defense
CANNOT BE the subject of a motion for reconsideration (including the grant or denial thereof).
However, if the defense is granted, appeal is allowed, as this has the effect of dismissing the
original complaint.
1. Fraud
2. Statute of Limitations
3. Release
4. Payment
5. Illegality
6. Statute of Frauds
7. Estoppel
8. Former Recovery
9. Discharge in Bankruptcy
10. Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance
11. Lack of jurisdiction
12. Litis pendentia
13. Res judicata
For #1-#10, the court is allowed to conduct summary hearing within 15 calendar days from the
allegation of these affirmative defenses, to be resolved within 30 calendar days. The amended
Rules however do not provide a time for which the court must act upon #11-#13.
Signature – Constitutes a certificate that the lawyer has read the pleading; that based on his or
her knowledge, information, and belief, there is, formed after inquiry reasonable under the
Page 53 of 130
circumstances, a case may be filed. It should also contain the lawyer’s affirmation that the
pleading or document:
1. Is not being presented for any improper purpose to harass, delay, or increase cost of
litigation;
2. Has claims, defenses, and other legal contentions warranted by law or jurisprudence, and
not based on frivolous circumstances;
3. Has factual contentions that have evidentiary basis or supported by evidence after
availlment of modes of discovery;
4. The denials of facts are based on evidence or on belief of lack of information if
specifically so identified.
Verification – Generally not required, except when required by law. Verification is an affidavit by
the client attesting that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on personal
knowledge or authentic documents, and are not filed for any improper purpose.For example, the
following requires verification:
Lack of verification is a mere formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. In such a case, the case
may be dismissed without prejudice.
The authorization of the affiant on behalf of the party, whether in the form of a secretary’s
certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading. Failure to provide
such requirement amounts to non-compliance with the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping rule, and is thus a valid cause for the dismissal of the case.
Certification against forum shopping – Affirms that several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, were not filed, substantially founded on the same transactions
and essential facts, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.
If the party filing subsequently learns of the existence of a pending case, the court must be
informed within five days from such knowledge.
1. Parties;
2. Rights or causes of action; and
3. Relief sought
1. Prescription;
2. Res Judicata;
3. Litis Pendentia;
4. Subject matter jurisdiction.
Page 54 of 130
Failure to raise compulsory counterclaims amounts to a waiver. A compulsory counterclaim not
raised in the same action is barred (Rule 6, Section 7). Subject to amendment, subject to the
jurisdiction of the court (Rule 11).
Default – To declare a person in default, a motion must be filed, giving notice thereof to the
adverse party (no more notice of hearing under new Rules), establishing the proof of the adverse
party’s failure to file an answer.
1. The court must have validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant;
2. The defendant must have failed to file his answer within the time allotted therefor;
3. The plaintiff must file a motion to declare defendant in default;
4. Plaintiff must provide proof of failure to file answer;
5. Defendant must be notified;
6. There must be a hearing set on the motion.
Upon a judgment of default, the court may render judgment on the pleadings, or order the plaintiff
to present evidence ex parte upon its discretion.
A declaration of default is not tantamount to an admission of the truth or validity of the plaintiff’s
claims.
Remedy – Motion to lift order of default, made under oath (verification or affidavit), setting forth
the reason, such as fraud, accident, mistake, and excusable neglect. Only extrinsic fraud (not the
fault of the defending party) is allowed.
Effect of an order of default – Party in default is entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but
shall not take part in the trial. He may nevertheless still participate as a witness.
Partial default – takes place when the complaint states a common cause of action against several
defendants, and only some filed an answer. In this case, the court should only declare the
defendants who did not filed answers in default, and proceed with the trial against the rest of the
defendants. If the defense is personal to those who answered, it will not benefit those who did not
answer.
There cannot be default in annulment, legal separation, and nullity of marriage, because the court
should always investigate collusion.
Motion for general default – In actions in rem, after the lapse of the period for filing a claim upon
publication.
Judgment by default – Final judgment arrived at upon the defendant’s default. Remedies: motion
for new trial, appeal. If final and executory: petition for relief from judgment, petition for annulment
of judgment (lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud), Rule 65.
Amendment as a matter of right – Once before a responsive pleading is filed, the complaint (or
similar pleadings) may be amended as a matter of right, regardless of whether the amendment
sought is formal or substantial. The same is true in the case of a reply where the same is allowed.
Page 55 of 130
Amendment by leave of court – After a responsive pleading has been filed, substantial
amendments may only be filed with leave of court (even change of cause of action, except where
there is no cause of action in the outset). However, such leave shall be refused under the
following circumstances:
Supplemental pleadings – Involves transactions, events, or occurrences that happened after the
filing of the document or pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may plead
within 10 days from the notice admitting the supplemental pleading. Admitting the supplemental
pleading supersedes the previous pleading.
1. Period to file an answer – 30 days, extendible (another 30 days) only once, upon valid
considerations.
2. Period to answer if defendant is a foreign private juridical entity, and summons was
served upon designated government official – 60 days.
When the counterclaim or cross claim was only available after the filing of the answer, a
supplemental answer may be filed to admit the new issue, with the consent of the court.
In civil cases – Filed at any time before filing an answer. It is motion telling the court of the
vagueness of the complaint; that it was not alleged with sufficient definiteness and particularity,
specifying therein the details sought to be clarified or expounded upon.
The court cannot motu propio issue an order for bill of particulars.
In criminal cases – Filed before arraignment, because the accused must be properly apprised of
the charge against him.
In civil cases, the court may grant or deny the motion outright, but it may also call for a hearing
therein.
A motion for a bill of particulars is a litigious motion, i.e. it will prejudice the rights of the adverse
party. As such, the adverse party must file a comment or opposition within 5 days from notice of
the motion. The judge then has 15 days to resolve the matter. Compliance is within 10 days from
notice of the order granting the motion, unless the court declares another period.
Page 56 of 130
Effect of non-compliance – Vague or unclear allegations may be stricken out. The complaint may
also be dismissed by reason of default of the plaintiff.
Filing a motion for bill of particulars interrupts the period to file a responsive pleading.
Remedies for grant of motion for bill of particulars – Plaintiff compliance, motion for
reconsideration (then 65 if MR is denied).
Remedies for denial of motion for bill of particulars – Defendant file an answer, motion for
reconsideration (then 65 if MR is denied).
In ordinary cases, the failure to allege specific fraudulent acts does not constitute a ground for
dismissal, since such defect can be cured by a bill of particulars. However, in cases where such
motion is a prohibited pleading, the fraudulent act must be shown on the petition’s face, otherwise
it may be dismissed and the court cannot take jurisdiction therein (Reyes v. Makati RTC).
Modes of Filing:
1. Personal – Endorsed with date and time of filing, appears on court record.
Primary proof of filing by personal filing – its appearance on the records of the case, receiving
copy with date and time of filing.
Primary proof of filing by registered mail – registry receipt, affidavit of person mailing, and return
card.
Primary proof of filing by accredited courier – affidavit of person mailing, official receipt, and
tracking number.
Primary proof of electronic filing – affidavit and pleading served electronically, official receipt,
return card.
Modes of Service (DO NOT CONFUSE SERVICE UNDER R13 AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS
UNDER R14):
2. Ordinary Mail – Only if there is no registered mail available in the area (only in service,
not available in filing).
Page 57 of 130
3. Registered Mail
4. Accredited Courier
5. Electronic Mail
6. Facsimile Transmission
Proof of Electronic Mail, Facsimile, other Electronic Transmission – Affidavit and proof of the
transmittal, with printed copy.
TAKE NOTE: Administrative Order No. 251-2020 – Implementing the Hague Service Convention
on the Service Abroad of Judicial Documents (civil and commercial cases only) – The convention
of service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, concluded
in 1965, establishes a streamlined transmission of documents between state parties, and
provides transnational litigants with methods for service of documents abroad.
For the provisions under this convention to apply, the following requisites must concur:
1. A document is to be transmitted from one state party to be served to another state party;
2. The address of the intended recipient in the receiving state is known;
3. The document to be served is a judicial document, relating only to a civil or commercial
matter.
Judicial document – Orders, resolutions, judgments, and other officials issued by courts as well
as pleadings as well as other party submissions to such civil or commercial transactions.
For electronic means to be employed, it is essential that the parties should consent and agree to
the same, or upon the direction of the court.
Email addresses are presumed to be valid, until there is notice of the change of the same. It is the
duty of the person changing his email to inform the court within 5 calendar days.
Completeness of Service
Page 58 of 130
4. Accredited Courier – Upon actual receipt, or after at least two attempts by the courier
service, or upon expiration of 5 days, whichever comes first
5. Electronic Service – Upon the time of the electronic transmission of the document.
However, electronic service is not effective or complete if the party serving learned that it
did not reach the addressee.
6. Facsimile – Completed upon receipt of the other party as indicated
Presumptive Service – Pertains ONLY to a notice of a court setting. If there is a showing that
there is a notice of hearing issued by the court within the same judicial region, after the lapse of
20 calendar days from the release thereof, it is considered presumptively served. If the addressee
is outside the judicial region, at least 30 calendar days.
Tiers: (1) Final Decisions, (2) Orders, and (3) Those Which Must be Conventionally Filed or
Served
Final Judgments:
1. Personal
2. Registered Mail
3. Accredited Courier (upon ex parte motion by party, who will shoulder expenses)
4. If summons is by publication, also publication, at the expense of the prevailing party
Orders (interlocutory):
1. Electronic
2. Electronic Mail
Notice of Lis pendens – The annotation of a notice of lis pendens is caused when there is an
action affecting title, right or possession over real property, and a written memorandum
addressed to Register of Deeds of the region where the property is located must be provided,
describing the nature of the action, the title subject to the lis pendens, etc. The duty of the RD in
this case is ministerial.
Even defendants filing an answer can cause the annotation thereof where he claims lis pendens
as an affirmative defense.
Nevertheless, any auction sale from a foreclosure of mortgage retroacts to the date of registration
of the mortgage, thus putting the auction sale beyond the reach of any intervening lis pendens
sale or attachment. Thus a prior annotated mortgage takes priority over any subsequent lis
pendens claim.
The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to attachment, execution, or proceedings for the
probate of wills or administration of the estate of deceased persons.
Page 59 of 130
Even if title or possession of real property is incidentally involved, but the main subject of a
complaint is money claim, a petition for lis pendens will not apply. It is necessary that the real
property be directly affected.
Grounds for Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens (requires an order of the court):
The RTC has inherent power to cancel lis pendens. However, the appellate court may likewise do
the same under its power of review.
In annotating a notice of lis pendens, the party seeking annotation does not need to show or
prove his right or interest over the property. Annotation does not create a right or relief.
Only original parties may move for the annotation of lis pendens.
RULE 14 – SUMMONS
Summons – Within 5 calendar days, clerk of court will issue if the case is not dismissible.
Who may serve summons: The sheriff, his deputy, or other court personnel.
Failure of service (unsuccessful attempt to serve at the address) – The court may authorize the
plaintiff to serve with the sheriff (new rule).
If the defendant is outside of the judicial region – The court may authorize the plaintiff ( without the
sheriff) to serve through an SPA.
Plaintiff makes false representation of service of summons – Case dismissed with prejudice, all
proceedings will be null and void plaintiff may be meted appropriate sanctions.
Summons is returned unserved upon any or all defendants – Court will order plaintiff to serve
summons through other available means.
Validity of Summons – Summons shall remain valid until it is duly served or recalled (new rule).
Alias summons is only proper when the summons is lost or destroyed.
Tender of Summons – By leavening the summons within the view and in the presence of the
defendant, it has been tendered to him.
Personal service upon an individual (natural persons) – Service directly to the person, or his or
her guardian if he is a minor, informing him or her that he or she is being served therewith. If
there is impossibility of service for at least three attempts in two separate dates, for justifiable
causes, substituted service may be resorted to.
1. Service to a person of legal age, of suitable discretion, residing in the addressee’s home.
2. Leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s office to a competent person in charge
thereof (includes persons who customarily receive correspondence for the defendant).
3. If, upon making his purpose and authority known, the person serving is refused entry, by
leaving copies with an officer of the homeowners’ association or condominium
Page 60 of 130
corporation or its chief security officer in charge of the community or building where the
defendant may be found.
Personal service of summons may be effected to a person wherever he may be found in the
Philippines, not just in the address indicated in the complaint.
By sending electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if allowed by the court.
Constructive Service:
1. Service upon a defendant where his identity is unknown or where his whereabouts are
unknown: Service by Publication – With leave of court. The order shall specify a
reasonable time not less than 60 calendar days within which the defendant must answer.
It shall be effected within 90 calendar days from commencement of the action, in a
newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may
order. Publication may only be resorted to after diligent efforts to serve the defendant
personally have failed, and substituted service is not available.
2. Service upon residents temporarily outside the Philippines – Service may be made, by
leave of court, out of the Philippines by extraterritorial service.
1. When the defendant does not reside or cannot be found in the Philippines, and
2. The action:
1. By personal service;
2. By means provided for in international conventions (Apostille);
3. By publication AND a copy of the summons sent by registered mail to last known address
of the defendant;
4. In any other manner the court deems sufficient
There was proper extraterritorial service even when the summons was published but not mailed
to defendant’s last known address where the defendant was out of the country for long enough
that there is no known address in the country (Arrietta v. Arrietta).
Service Upon Prisoners – Service is effected upon him by the officer having management of the
jail or institution. The server shall file a return within five calendar days from service of summons.
Service Upon Spouses – When spouses are sued jointly, service of summons shall be made to
each spouse individually.
Page 61 of 130
A corporation is domestic if it is incorporated in the Philippines, regardless of degree of Filipino
ownership. Service upon them is effected upon:
1. The president;
2. Managing partner;
3. General manager;
4. Corporate secretary;
5. Treasurer;
6. In-House Counsel
If the officers cannot be found or are unavailable, service may be effected upon their secretaries.
If it still cannot be made thereon, the summons can be served upon the person who customarily
received the correspondence for the defendant’s principal office (new Rule).
In case of refusal by any of the persons mentioned, despite at least 3 attempts on 2 different
dates, service may be made electronically, if allowed by the court (Section 12, Rule 14).
1. Foreign juridical entity is registered/has a resident agent and is doing business in the
Philippines – Service is made on:
Its resident agent designated in accordance with the law,
If there is no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that
effect, or
On any of its officers, agents, directors, or trustees within the Ph.
2. Juridical entity not registered/has no resident agent but has transacted or is doing
business in the Philippines – Service may, with leave of court, be effected outside the
Philippines through:
Personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country
with the assistance of the DFA;
Publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the
defendant may be fund and by serving a copy of the summons and the court
order by registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
Facsimile;
Electronic means with the prescribed proof of service; or
Other means as the court, in its discretion, may direct.
Return – A narrative of what transpired during the service of summons. If there is substituted
service, the return should include:
Proof of publication:
Voluntary Appearance – Defendant voluntarily appears without having been served summons.
Automatic submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Page 62 of 130
RULE 15 – MOTIONS
A motion is any application for relief other than by a pleading. Both pray for a relief. A motion
contains allegations of fact, but a pleading must contain allegations of the ultimate fact. A
pleading must always be in writing, but a motion may be oral, when made in open court or during
the course of a hearing or trial.
There is no more notice of hearing in motions under the new Rules. The judge should resolve the
motion in open court. However, if the motion is based on facts not appearing on the record, the
judge could require the parties to submit affidavits or deposition, and the court may direct that the
matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or deposition.
Litigious v. Non-Litigious Motion – A motion is litigious motion when it requires the parties to be
heard before a ruling on the motion is made before the court. If the motion is non-litigious, the
parties need not comment, and the judge must resolve the same within five days from receipt. No
hearing is required. In other words, a motion is non-litigious if it will not prejudice the rights of the
adverse party when granted.
Period to oppose litigious motion – 5 days. The court shall rule on the matter within 15 days from
expiration of the period or from filing of the opposition. The court has the discretion on whether or
not to conduct a hearing on the motion.
Prohibited Motions:
Page 63 of 130
Omnibus Motion Rule: G.R. A motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall
include all objections then available. All objections not included in the motion are deemed waived.
This is to require the movant to in include all available exceptions for relief. Exceptions:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Litis pendentia
3. Res Judicata
4. Prescription
Dismissal by the plaintiff – Notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a
motion for summary judgment. The court shall then issue an order confirming the dismissal (no
longer conducting a hearing the motion).
Effect of dismissal – Without prejudice; not a judgment on its merits. Not appealable. However, a
notice operates as a adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim (two-dismissal
rule).
Dismissal by the plaintiff upon motion – If there has already been an answer with counterclaim. In
this case, the dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute the
counterclaim in a separate action unless within 15 calendar days from notice of the motion he
manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. The counterclaim
will have to stand on its own merits.
Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff – Upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own
motion if:
Joint motion to dismiss – Often filed when parties have submitted to a compromise.
RULE 18 – PRE-TRIAL
Pre-trial is a procedural device by which the court is called upon, after filing of the last pleading,
when the issues are joined, to compel the parties and their lawyers to appear before it, and
negotiate an amicable settlement or otherwise make a formal settlement and embody in a single
document the issues of fact and law involved in the action, and such other matters as may aid in
the prompt disposition in the action. Period to file notice of pre-trial is five days from the
submission of the last pleading (duty of the court). The pre-trial should be scheduled no less than
60 days from the time of the filing of the last responsive pleading.
Pre-Trial Brief – Must be filed at most three days before the date of pre-trial. Contents:
The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that documentary or object evidence must be marked and
attached to the judicial affidavits, with such evidence being marked in alphabetical order for the
plaintiff, and numerical order for the defendant. Judicial affidavits must be submitted five days
Page 64 of 130
before pre-trial. Failure without just cause to bring the evidence required shall be deemed a
waiver of the presentation of such evidence.
Failure to timely submit a pre-trial brief has the same effect as absence during pre-trial.
Preliminary conference – Comparing and marking pieces of evidence before the clerk of court,
before a pre-trial. This does not include authentication and admitting of evidence.
Failure to appear without just cause – waiver of objections to the faithfulness of the reproductions
marked or their genuineness and due execution.
If the documents to be marked are not available during pre-trial – waiver of its presentation. This
is why reservation is necessary.
When duly notified, the failure of the plaintiff AND counsel to appear, without just cause – The
action will be dismissed with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court (new Rules).
If the defendant AND counsel fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex
parte within 10 calendar days from termination of pre-trial, and judgment shall be rendered on the
evidence offered.
Mediation – Under the present rule, there can be no referral to mediation without first completing
the pre-trial procedure. Mediation 15 days + JDR 15 days.
Pre-Trial Order – Issued within 10 calendar days from termination of the pre-trial. The contents of
the order shall control the subsequent course of action, unless:
1. Acts of God;
Page 65 of 130
2. Force Majeure; and
3. Duly substantiated inability of the witness to appear and testify
RULE 19 - INTERVENTION
Intervention (requires leave of court) is a proceeding in a suit or an action by which a third person
is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either:
The purpose of intervention is to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain right/interest
in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or prove his
right/interest.
When to file – At any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. However, in the interest
of justice, and to avoid multiplicity of suits, appellate courts may likewise allow complaints-in-
intervention. Likewise, if the intervenor is an indispensable party, he may be allowed to intervene
beyond the period to file.
RULE 21 - SUBPOENA
Kinds of Subpoena:
1. Subpoena ad testificandum –
Not bound thereby (witness is disqualified by relation or privilege, e.g. marital
disqualification, attorney-client privilege, etc.)
kilometrage (distance of the person required from the court – 100km)
Page 66 of 130
irrelevant;
did not tender cost of production, witness fees, transportation;
kilometrage (distance of the person required from the court – 100km)
Bench warrant – Issued against persons violating the subpoena issued to them.
Discovery is a device employed by a party to obtain information about relevant matters on the
case from the adverse party in the preparation for trial.
1. Written Interrogatories
2. Oral Deposition
Written interrogatories under Rule 23 may be served against a party or a non-party, whereas
under Rule 25, it is only served against a party.
Written interrogatories under Rule 25 must only contain questions from the person who is
supposed to call the adverse party to the stand.
Rule 23 was applied suppletorily in the Mary Jane Veloso case, considering the extraordinary
circumstances of her incarceration abroad at the time when her testimony was required.
1. Privileged information;
2. Irrelevant;
3. Intended to embarrass, annoy, or oppress the adverse party.
Oral depositions likewise have direct, cross, redirect, and re-cross. Judicial affidavit may be used
instead of direct.
Uses of depositions:
In the Philippines, the following are the persons before whom deposition is to be taken:
Page 67 of 130
1. Any judge;
2. Notary public, or
3. Any person authorized to administer oath and stipulated uponby the parties writing.
Outside the Philippines, the following are the persons before whom deposition is to be taken:
1. Secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the
Philippines;
2. Before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters
rogatory;
3. Any person authorized to administer oaths as stipulated by the parties in writing.
Letters rogatory v. commission – Letters rogatory is a communication from one judicial authority
to another. In this context, this means the foreign court engages itself to undertake the deposition,
in which case its own rules will apply. On the other hand, a commission is an appointment of a
Philippine court, in which case the Philippine Rules of Court will apply (Dulay v. Dulay).
1. Deponent is related to the party or his employee or counsel within 6 th degree of affinity or
consanguinity.
2. Relative within the same degree or employee of the party’s counsel.
3. Deponent is financially interested in the action.
Lack of notice is also an error that can lead to the deposition being objected. All objections can be
waived, except for competency of the evidence.
Deposition before action – Sole purpose of filing the action is to perpetuate his own testimony or
that of another person.
The petition herein shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the
persons sought to be examined who are named in the petition.
Depositions pending appeal – Party desires to perpetuate makes a motion for leave to take the
deposition, stating the names and addresses of the persons to be examined, the substance of the
testimony, and the reasons for perpetuating such testimony.
Must be filed in the court that rendered the judgment, unless the records have already been
elevated to an appellate court. Written interrogatories must first be filed before filing depositions
pending appeal.
Page 68 of 130
No cross, redirect, or recross. Objections may be made within 10 days after receipt. Responses
are to be made in a period within 15 days.
No party, without leave of court, shall serve more than one set of interrogatories to be sent to the
same party.
This Rule contemplates interrogatories seeking clarification in order to determine the truth of the
allegations in a pleading. It allows one party to request the adverse party for clarification as to
matters which will not be disputed during the trial (includes genuineness and due execution of
documents).
This mode of discovery is not only for the benefit of a party, but also for the court and for it to
discover all the relevant and material facts in connection with the case. This does not apply where
the document sought to be produced is privileged.
As opposed to a subpoena duces tecum, this mode of discovery is limited only to the parties, and
must be for good cause. Thus it may be quashed for lack of good cause shown.
The court may order, upon motion physical and mental examination only upon a showing of good
cause that the physical or mental condition is in controversy. If the order is granted, the opposing
party must disclose his medical records, be it past, present, or subsequent to the order.
Sanctions:
1. Refusal to answer any question – The court may issue an order compelloong an answer
upon application. If the application is granted, the court shall:
If it also finds that the refusal was without substantial justification, it may require
the refusing party or deponent to pay the proponent the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney’s fees.
An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the
character or description of the thing, or any other designated facts shall be taken
Page 69 of 130
to be established for the purpose of the action in accordance with the claim of the
party obtaining the order;
In lieu of any of the foregoing, an order directing the arrest of any party or agent
of party for disobeying such orders, except an order to submit to a physical or
mental examiatino.
4. Refusal to admit under Rule 26 – Upon motion, the court may order the offending party to
pay the proponent reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees, provided that party
requesting proves the genuineness of such document of truth, unless the court finds that
there were good reasons for the denial, or that admissions sought were of no importance.
Strike out any or all parts of any pleading of the disobedient party
RULE 30 – TRIAL
Trial is the judicial examination and determination of the issues between the parties to the action.
Schedule of Trial:
3. The period for presentation of evidence on the third-party claim, counterclaim, or cross-
claim shall be determined by the court, the total of which in no case shall exceed 90
calendar days.
4. If deemed necessary, the court shall set the presentation of the parties’ rebuttal evidence,
to be completed within 30 calendar days.
After the plaintiff’s formal offer of evidence, the defendant may file demurrer to evidence. Denial
of the demurrer to evidence cannot be subject of an appeal or certiorari. Demurrer to evidence
Page 70 of 130
shall follow the rules on motion (litigious) under Rule 15 (new Rules). Leave of court to file
demurrer to evidence is not required in civil cases. MR is allowed.
If the demurrer is granted, the case is dismissed. The plaintiff may appeal or file a motion for
reconsideration, as the order granting demurrer is adjudication on the merits. Reversal in the
appellate court reinstates the case, and then the court renders judgment based on the plaintiff’s
evidence.
Period of Judgment – The court shall decide and serve copies of its decision to the parties within
a period not exceeding 90 days from submission of the case for resolution.
Postponement – Grounds
1. Acts of God;
2. Force majeure;
3. Physical inability to testify; Sickness or illness of a party which would render his non-
appearance excusable, and that his presence at trial is indispensable
Order of Trial:
Reverse Order – Where the answer of the defendant admitted in the obligation stated in the
complaint, although special defenses were pleaded, the plaintiff has every right to insist that it
was for the defendant to come forward with evidence to support his special defenses.
Partial judgment is allowed when there is an agreement between the parties as to certain facts.
Kinds of consolidation:
1. Quasi-Consolidation – Where all, except one, of several actions are stayed until one is
tried, in which case the judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to others.
2. Actual Consolidation – Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate
identity, and become one single action in which judgment is rendered.
Page 71 of 130
3. Consolidation for Trial – Where several actions are ordered to be tried together, but each
retains its separate character, and requires the entry of separate judgment. In this case,
deposition previously taken cannot be automatically used.
Severance – The court may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or
third-party complaint, or of any separate issue.
A commissioner is a person to whom a case pending in court is referred, for him to take
testimony, hear the parties, and report thereon to the court, and upon whose report, if confirmed,
judgment is rendered. This is usually applicable in ex parte proceedings, and it is necessary in
expropriation and partition.
Order of reference – When a reference is made, the clerk shall furnish the commissioner with a
copy of the order of reference, detailing the specifications or limitations on the powers of the
commissioner, a direction to report only upon particular issues or do particular acts, and the date
for beginning and closing the hearings.
Upon the submission of the commissioner’s report, the parties have 10 days to comment, and the
court has the discretion to accept, reject, or recommit, in whole or in part, the report.
The court may, motu propio or on motion of that party, direct judgment on the pleadings when the
answer:
This is a judgment which a court may render before trial, but after both parties have pleaded upon
application by one party supported by affidavits, depositions, or other documents, with notice
upon the adverse party who may file an opposition (within 5 days) supported also by such
documents, should the court find after summarily hearing both parties with their respective proofs
that there exists no genuine issue between them.
Unlike judgment on the pleadings, the defendant may file for summary judgment, and it may be
partial judgment. Likewise, in the case of summary judgment, there is no genuine issue as to a
material fact.
Genuine issue – An issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as opposed to a
sham, fictitious, contrived, or false claim.
A partial summary judgment is in the category of a separate judgment, but it does not finally
dispose of the case, therefore it is not subject to appeal. Instead, a petition for certiorari is proper.
Page 72 of 130
Judgments – The final ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction regarding the rights and
obligations of the parties or other matters submitted to it in an action or proceeding.
1. Authority of the court to hear and determine the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter;
3. Parties must have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence on their behalf;
4. Evidence must have been considered by the tribunal;
5. Judgment must be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge;
6. Judgment must state clearly the facts and law on which it is based.
Judgment is issued the day after the expiration of the reglementary period.
Several judgments – Rendered by the court against one or more defendants and not against all of
them, leaving the action to proceed against others.
Judgment nunc pro tunc – It is a judgment intended to enter into the record the acts which have
already been done, but which do not appear on the record.
Judgment sin perjuicio – Traditionally understood to be a brief judgment containing only the
dispositive portion.
It is not required that the judge who heard the case will be the same judge who renders judgment.
1. Within reglementary period (15 days ordinary appeal, 30 record on appeal) – Motion for
reconsideration, motion for new trial, appeal;
2. Outside of reglementary period (already final and executory) – Rule 38 Petition for Relief
from Judgment;
1. Contrary to law;
2. Excessive damages;
3. Judgment is not supported by evidence.
Filing of motion for reconsideration interrupts the running of the reglementary period. Fresh period
of 15 days upon denial of MR. MR is litigious, adverse party files comment in 5 days. No
extension of time to file. No second MR.
In a motion for new trial, a second MR is allowed, as long as the ground was not available at the
time of filing the first. A granted new trial will vacate the judgment, but to such extent as the
evidence will stand, it shall remain on the record.
Page 73 of 130
Effect of MR – The court will set aside judgment upon terms as may be just, or may deny or
amend the same.
Petition for Relief from Judgment – The person filing must be one of the parties. Grounds:
Period to file under Rule 38 (must be filed at the court which rendered the judgment, not an
appellate court) – Within a period of 60 days from knowledge of the final judgment, not exceeding
6 months from entry of judgment.
Petition for relief from denial of appeal – Also under Rule 38; prevented from filing appeal
because of FAME.
Petitioners were made to believe that they are not parties to the settlement of estate, thus they
filed an annulment of judgment. The court ruled that they should have filed a petition for relief
from judgment (Alaban v. CA).
Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an original action before the CA to annul the judgment of
the RTC, or before the RTC to annul judgments of the MTC. It is not an appeal. As it is an original
action, there should be attached a verification and certification against forum shopping. It is a rare
instance where the CA may issue summons and the adverse party be required to file an answer.
Ordinary rules applies.
Effect of grant: A judgment will be rendered declaring the assailed judgment null and void, without
prejudice to refiling of an action. However, when the ground is extrinsic fraud of the plaintiff, the
court may order the trial court to try the case as if there was filed a timely new trial (the
prescriptive period will not be interrupted if the reason for extrinsic fraud is the plaintiff).
RULE 46 – 55 – APPEALS
Ordinary Appeals
1. Notice of appeal
Filed by appellant
MR allowed; fresh period if denied
No extension
Material allegations:
a. Decision received;
b. Elementary period;
c. Payment of docket fees
Page 74 of 130
2. Record on appeal
In case of multiple appeals; special proceedings, probate, etc.
It is a record on appeal where a case is still left at the court of original jurisdiction.
It is a compilation of all court records on the case.
No extension unless court orders amendment
Perfected upon approval, not filing.
Even if the same is not in issue, the RTC can examine the entire records of the case. This is not
so for the second scenario.
If the case was dismissed by the MTC for lack of jurisdiction and elevated to the RTC on appeal,
the latter may try it as if it was originally filed therein.
Appellant’s memorandum to the RTC (15 days); appellee’s memorandum (15 days). After the
period therefor, the court will render judgment. If appellant fails to file memorandum, the appeal
will be dismissed.
1. Notice of appeal
Filed by appellant
MR allowed; fresh period if denied
No extension
Material allegations:
a. Decision received;
b. Elementary period;
c. Payment of docket fees
2. Record on appeal
In case of multiple appeals; expropriation.
It is a record on appeal where a case is still left at the court of original jurisdiction.
It is a compilation of all court records on the case.
No extension unless court orders amendment
Perfected upon approval, not filing.
Assignment of errors filed in appellant’s brief (45 days); appellee’s brief (45 days); appellant’s
reply (20 days).
No assignment of errors, no page reference or table of contents: appeal is dismissed (Rule 50).
Scenario 1: Petition for Review (Rule 42) – MTC to RTC and then to the CA
It is a petition in the form of an appeal, originating from the MTC. 15 days to file MR. No second
extension of time except for most compelling reason.
Page 75 of 130
Because Rule 43 does not originate from the regular courts, all records and documents from the
tribunal of origin should be authenticated or certified true copies, whereas under Rule 42, only the
judgment assailed needs to be certified true copy.
Ordinary appeals and Rule 42 also applies to criminal cases, except Rule 43.
This is the only way to go up to the SC in civil cases and in criminal cases whose penalty is not
life, death, or reclusion perpetua.
Cases from the RTC may go directly to the SC under Rule 45 on pure questions of law (e.g.
jurisdiction).
Cases from the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals (en banc) may also be appealed
before the SC under Rule 45.
Even if the case is under the original or appellate jurisdiction of the CA, it must be filed as a
petition for certiorari under Rule 45.
Period to file: 15 days, one time extension of 30 days upon compelling reasons and upon
payment of docket fees.
The petition does not need to implead the erring court, because it is an appeal, not a petition
under Rule 65. Verification, certification against forum shopping.
Examples: Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, writ of Amparo, writ of Kalikasan
No summons – For the CA to acquire jurisdiction, the court will have to issue a resolution
requiring the respondent to take action thereto. There must be a showing that the initial resolution
was served upon the respondent. Likewise, voluntary appearance is also submitting to the
jurisdiction of the court.
The CA may conduct a hearing en banc or by division. The same can be delegated to the RTC
for the reception of evidence.
Rule 36 mirrors Rule 51 on judgment. In the CA, cases are heard by divisions of three, in which
case the court promulgates its judgment upon a unanimous vote. If it is not unanimous, the case
will be referred to the presiding justice, who shall create a special division of five to render its
decision.
Page 76 of 130
Under Rule 53, the only ground for new trial in the CA is newly discovered evidence. The period
is at any time before the CA loses jurisdiction over the matte.
This rule adopts the procedure for original cases, in the CA, namely Rule 46, including other
exclusive actions such as:
In the SC, judgments are rendered on divisions of five, in which case a majority vote will suffice.
MR is allowed. Motion for new trial is not allowed except upon the discretion of the SC, in the
exercise of justice.
Motion for execution is filed in the court of origin. If the case has been appealed and it reached a
final and executory status therein, it is still to be filed in the court of origin, but this time, a certified
true copy is to be attached in the motion.
The CA and SC may only order writs of execution on original actions filed before them.
Execution as a matter of execution: Execution pending appeal – upon good cause to be stated in
a special order of the court after hearing.
Discretionary execution can execute for as long as the records have not yet been elevated to the
appellate court.
This type of execution may be observed in cases of receivership where the assets are in danger
of being wasted or dissipated.
Discretionary execution may be elevated not as an appeal but a petition for certiorari under Rule
65.
As a rule, appeal stays execution, unless the case is by nature executory, such as ejectment,
injunction, receivership, etc.
When the judgment is already final and judgment, it may be enforced by filing a motion for
execution within a period of 5 years. The court will then issue a writ of execution, which shall have
an effective life of 5 years.
Page 77 of 130
Execution by motion or independent action – After 5 years from entry of judgment, but before 10
years (expiration of a judgment), an independent action must be filed, or colloquially, a petition for
revival of action.
Family home may be subject to execution, subject to the minimum requirements under the Family
Code.
Levy on real property – Notice to the public AND notice to the obligor. For perishable goods, three
days in three conspicuous places. For personal property, notice not less than 5 days, three public
places. For real property, posting for 20 days in three public places. If the RP exceeds 50k, a
corresponding need for publication.
If there is a claim by a third person, the same shall be indicated or annotated in the certificate of
sale. Service of the affidavit by a third party claimant suspends or interrupts the execution. If the
obligee wants the execution to continue, he will post a bond in favor of the third party claimant.
Redemption period – at any time within 1 year from registration of the certificate of sale. Only real
property may be redeemed. Once the judgment obligor redeems, there can be no further
redemption.
During the redemption period, the judgment obligor will be in possession of the real property.
Profits during the same period will accrue to him. He cannot change the nature of the property
that will amount to a waste thereof.
Alternatively, under Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage under Rule 68, the redemption
period is not less than 90 days or more than 120 days (equity of redemption), unless the law
provides a longer period. In this period, the mortgagor will be in possession, and the profits and
rents likewise accrues to the mortgagor.
In extrajudicial period, the redemption period is 1 year. Possession is with the mortgagor, and he
will likewise receive the fruits.
Page 78 of 130
If the mortgagee is a banking institution, and the borrower or mortgagor is a juridical entity, the
redemption period is 90 days or registration of the certificate of sale, whichever comes first. This
applies only to extrajudicial foreclosure (equity of redemption applies in judicial). In light of the
Banking Law, the bank or the purchaser who shall be in possession during the redemption period.
If the lender/mortgagee is a bank and the borrower/mortgagor is an individual, the law provides
that the redemption period be one year. If the mortgagor wants to remain in the possession, he
may post a bond. The same rule is applied in both judicial and extrajudicial foreclosure.
There is no contempt under this section (#1 only), because if the court orders another person it
has authorized to perform the conveyance, it shall have the force and effect of a duly executed
conveyance under the law.
Refusal to vacate upon order of the law, refusal to comply with injunction – indirect contempt.
In this case, the writ itself should have a certified copy of the judgment attached to writ of
execution. Special judgments are such that requires the performance of any act other than
payment of money or conveyance of property (such as those under innominate contracts).
Contempt for failure to comply.
Examination of the judgment obligor – If the prevailing party cannot effectively execute, the court
may issue a subpoena to examine the judgment obligor or his debtors for funds or assets to apply
to the judgment debt. Properties identified will be bound to the judgment obligor.
The judgment obligor can make direct payments to the obligee, even on installment, except in the
latter situation; there should be a showing upon investigation that the obligor’s income and
expenses could be satisfied based on the means of the family. Failure to pay fixed monthly
installment imposed by the court is indirect contempt.
Properties in the custody of persons other than the judgment obligor – The receiver may be
obliged to sell and convey such real estate of the obligor to satisfy the judgment.
If the possessor is adverse to the obligor, the court can issue an order requiring the judgment
obligee to recover such interest or debt. The obligee is required to recover such interest or debt
and prohibit its transfer within 120 days. Failure is contempt.
Effect of judgment:
1. Domestic Judgment
Conclusive as to a specific thing; title of property, will, personal r political
condition, status, etc., but prima facie as to the death pertaining to probate of the
will or letters of administration.
Res judicata.
Conclusiveness of judgment or preclusion of issue
Page 79 of 130
2. Foreign Judgment
Conclusive as to title to a specific thing, presumptive as between the rights of
parties and their successors-in-interest
Not immediately enforceable in the Philippines (petition for enforcement before
the RTC, not capable of pecuniary estimation. No need to retry case in Ph)
Arbitral award – recognition, not enforcement
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Attachment is a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal
custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that can be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. It may be
applied for by the plaintiff or any proper party, such as a defendant who filed a counterclaim or a
third-party claimant.
Grant of preliminary attachment is discretionary upon the court. It is never a matter of right.
Attachment is merely adjunct to the main suit. It cannot have a separate legal interest from the
suit on which it is based. Therefore any issue or relief sought on the attachment cannot be the
subject of a separate action or intervention (Yu v. Miranda).
A preliminary attachment can be dissolved if it includes government property that may hamper
GOCC operations.
Upon service of writ of garnishment, the garnishee becomes a virtual party or forced intervenor
into the case, thus the court acquires jurisdiction to bind the garnishee. He needs not be
impleaded for the court to have jurisdiction over him. All that is required is service of the writ of
garnishment upon him (BPI v. Lee).
All provisional remedies have a chance to be resolved. In the case of preliminary attachment:
An affidavit and a bond are required to be filed alongside the application for attachment. The
affidavit should contain at least one of the grounds required, that the complaint has a cause of
action, that the amount appearing is that equivalent to the claim above all legal counterclaims,
and that there is no sufficient security. If there is security, attachment cannot be allowed.
Grounds (Exclusive):
1. For the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral and
exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or
quasi-delict against a party about to depart from the Ph with intent to defraud creditors.
Page 80 of 130
2. For money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use
by a public officer or an officer of a corporation, an attorney, or any other person in a
fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty.
4. Against a party who has been guilty of fraud in contracting the debt, or in the
performance thereof.
5. Against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with
intent to defraud his creditors.
6. Against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom
summons may be served by publication, to wit:
Service when the defendant is outside the Ph, and the action:
Service to juridical entities not registered or have no resident agent but have
transacted or are doing business in the Ph.
Properties under custodia legis may be attached. Rules on priority of claims will apply. Likewise,
personal property, shares of stock, royalties, commissions, etc. may likewise be attached.
1. The proceeds of all sales of perishable and other properties sold shall be applied;
2. Selling so much of the property, real or personal, as may be necessary to satisfy the
balance;
3. Ordinary execution (Rule 39), if there is still balance remaining.
If the bond given is a cash deposit, it can be used to satisfy judgment under the court’s direction.
Damages may be recovered on the bond for irregular, improper, or excessive attachment before
the trial court, before trial, before appeal is perfected, and before the judgment becomes
executory.
A preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy, and one who comes to claim for equity must
come with clean hands. This writ is issued by the court to prevent threatened or continuous
irreparable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated and
during the pendency of an action.
Page 81 of 130
An injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits of the case. Such writ is based solely on initial
and incomplete evidence – interlocutory.
This relief can be applied for in prohibition, in an ordinary action, or special proceeding if:
Service of summons may be held prior to or contemporaneous with the initiatory pleading.
Temporary Restraining Order – An order issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the
application of a writ of preliminary injunction because the injunction cannot be issued ex parte.
After the judge issues a TRO, he will then conduct a summary hearing for preliminary injunction.
Under the new Rules, even if a case is elevated on a petition for certiorari, the court will not stop
with the proceedings, because in the absence of a TRO or a preliminary injunction, the court will
have no reason to cease proceedings.
Likewise, if a judge, a court, or a tribunal issues a preliminary injunction against a board, officer,
court, or a quasi-judicial agency, it is incumbent upon the court that issued the injunction to
resolve the main case within 6 months from issuance of the writ.
1. Upon affidavits convincing the court that there is no clear reason to issue an injunction (4
requisites).
2. Upon showing that the damage the defendant will suffer is greater than that of the
applicant.
If the ground is the insufficiency of the bond, it is not a ground to dissolve but a ground to deny.
A preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be used to compel the Dean to change the
composition of the thesis committee, because such decision is purely discretionary to himi
(Calauag v. UP).
A preliminary injunction cannot be used to stop a judgment that has acquired finality.
Only an executive judge can issue a 72-hour TRO, not a judge of a regular court.
If an act has already been accomplished, it is fiat accompli, in that there is nothing more to stop
by injunction. It is rendered moot and academic.
Page 82 of 130
RULE 59 – RECEIVERSHIP
Receivership is the only provisional remedy that can be applied for even if the judgment is
already final and executory.
A receiver is a person appointed by the court on behalf of all parties to the action for the purpose
of preserving and conserving the property in litigation and preventing its possible destruction or
dissipation if it were left in the possession of any of the parties. The receiver is not an agent of
any of the parties but an officer of the court.
1. When it appears from the verified application that it involves interest in the property or
fund which is the subject of the action or proceeding, and that property is in danger or
being lost, removed, or materially injured.
2. When it appears in an action by the mortgagee of for the foreclosure of a mortgage that
the property is in danger of being wasted or dissipated, and that its value is probably
insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt, or that the parties have so stipulated in the
contract of mortgage;
3. After judgment, to preserve the property during the pendency of appeal, or to dispose of it
according to the judgment, or to aid execution when the same has been returned
unsatisfied or the judgment obligor refuses to apply his property in satisfaction of the
judgment;
4. Whenever in other cases it appears that the appointment of a receiver is the most
convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering, or disposing the property in
litigation.
Bonds in receivership – bond of the applicant and bond of the receiver. The latter shall be placed
under oath. This is required as receivership establishes trust.
The receivership may be terminated when the necessity for a receiver no longer exists. Likewise,
if the other party posts a counterbond.
If the receiver neglects his duty – liable for contempt plus value of property lost by his breach of
duty.
RULE 60 – REPLEVIN
Page 83 of 130
Replevin is a provisional remedy seeking for the possession of the property prior to the
determination of the main action for replevin, the latter having the ultimate goal of recovering
personal property capable of manual delivery wrongfully detained by a person. Thus if the
deprivation is lawful, as in attachment, replevin cannot lie. Essentially, replevin determines only
the right of possession.
In replevin, application can only be made at the commencement of the action, but before an
answer is filed.
Who may file – owner of property claimed. If merely a possessor, as long as he is entitled to
possession of the property, he may file replevin.
The applicant must show his entitlement in an affidavit. He should also execute to the adverse
party a bond constituting double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit with the
following conditions:
In replevin, the sheriff takes possession of the property for a period of five days, within which the
defendant can post a counterbond, equivalent to the value of the bond, in which case the sheriff
must return the property to the defendant. In case there is no counterbond, the sheriff surrenders
the property to the applicant. If the sufficiency of the bond is questioned, there can be no
immediate return.
1. That the applicant is the owner of the properly claimed, particularly describing it, or is
entitled to the possession thereof;
2. That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of
detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief;
3. That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or fine pursuant
to law, or otherwise seized legally; AND
4. The actual market value of the property
An ancillary remedy that can be applied for in the following principal cases:
1. VAWC;
2. Annulment of marriage;
3. Nullity of marriage;
4. Action for support
5. Criminal cases whereby the civil liability includes the relief of support.
The court must consider not only the needs of the applicant, but also the means and resources of
the person against whom it must be applied. If support pendente lite is not complied with, the
court may issue a writ of execution without prejudice to liability for contempt.
A court may temporariliy grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of a final order or
judgment without first delving fully into the merits of the case. All the court has to do is to
Page 84 of 130
determine the kind and amount of evidence that will suffice in enabling it to justify resolution of the
application (Mangonon v. CA).
If money was given by one who is not required to be giving support, the person receiving the
same should return it, otherwise, the former can ask reimbursement in a separate action from a
proper person who has the duty to give support.
Reimbursement in a separate action is only required where the judgment has already been
rendered.
RULE 62 – INTERPLEADER
Interpleader is a special civil action filed by a person against whom two conflicting claims are
made upon the same subject matter and over which he claims no interest whatsoever, or if he
has an interest, it is one which, in whole or in part, not disputed by the claimants.
When to file: General Rule: An action for interpleader should be filed within a reasonable time
after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the contending parties.
Otherwise, it will be barred by laches. Exception: When the stakeholder acts with reasonable
diligence in view of environmental circumstances, the remedy is not barred.
Upon complaint for interpleader, the court issues an order requiring the parties to interplead.
Period to file an answer is 15 days.
Effect of failure to answer: the court may declare him in default, or render judgment barring him
from any claim in respect to the subject matter.
1. Impropriety of interpleader;
2. Allowable grounds for motion to dismiss:
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
Litis pendentia;
Res judicata;
Prescription
The plaintiff files the filing fees despite his non-interest in the conflict, but the same shall be a lien
on the judgment award, to be paid back to the applicant by the prevailing party.
Declaratory Relief – Declaratory relief is an action by any person interested in a deed, will,
contract, or any other written instrument, executive order, or resolution, to determine any question
of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute,
and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereof (section 1, par. 1).
Must be instituted in the RTC, because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation, because there is
no claim for damages, as there is as yet no breach.
It is discretionary upon the court to determine if it could resolve the matter presented before it.
Thus the court may refuse entirely to issue declaratory relief until an actual controversy arises.
Page 85 of 130
1. Subject matter must be a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, statute,
executive order, or regulation, or ordinance;
2. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction;
3. There must not have any breach of the documents or statutes in question;
4. There must be an actual justiciable controversy between persons whose interests are
adverse;
5. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or
proceeding.
Similar remedies – An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or
remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may
be brought under this Rule (section 1, par. 2).
Under the second paragraph, the court cannot shy away from determining the rights of the
parties.
Reformation – There should be mutual mistake between the parties. Filed in the RTC.
Quieting of title or removal of cloud – The action shall be instituted in the RTC, if it is purely
quieting, as opposed to an action to recover possession, or accion publiciana.
Consolidation – This pertains to a pacto de retro sale, which should be filed in the RTC.
Where, pending the action for declaratory relief, a breach has occurred, the case will not be
dismissed but instead conversion will occur. The action shall revert from a special civil action to
an ordinary action, in which case the parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings as may be
necessary or proper.
A customs memorandum order is akin to a legislative act, thus certiorari cannot stand. The proper
remedy is declaratory relief (Hypermix case).
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can only be invoked against a tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. As the respondent did not act in such a manner in
issuing the revenue regulation, but rather in a quasi-legislative capacity, then it should have been
subject of declaratory relief (Clark Investors Assn. v. Secretary of Finance).
A judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC and COA may be brought by the
aggrieved party to the SC on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided (Section 2).
Reglementary period – 30 days from notice of judgment or final order sought to be reviewed. No
extension allowed. The period refers to a petition directed against a FINAL order. If such is
directed against an interlocutory order, the 60-day period must be followed.
The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration interrupts the period therein fixed. If the
motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but shall
not be less than five days in any event.
Page 86 of 130
Certiorari is a writ emanating from the proper court directed against any tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the purpose of which is to correct errors of
jurisdiction, i.e. without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Requisites:
Jurisprudence states that even if the petition was packaged as certiorari under Rule 65, but it was
filed within the reglementary period for filing a Rule 45 appeal, and there are allegations on errors
of judgment, then the court may consider it as an appeal as such. (Rule 65 – errors of
jurisdiction).
Certiorari under Article VIII of the Constitution covers every act of government, not just those
judicial in nature.
Prohibition is a writ issued by the proper court and directed against any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions,
commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified
therein.
Requisites:
Mandamus is a writ to compel a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner when the respondent unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of the law.
Requisites:
1. Respondent unlawfully
Neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station; or
Excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled; and
2. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
If it is a quasi-judicial agency whose act is in question, the case should be filed before the CA,
unless there is a law to the contrary.
Page 87 of 130
The respondent tribunal or government agency, despite being nominal parties, must be
impleaded.
The proper remedy for a decision of the Ombudsman (always executory under the law) absolving
the respondent government employee of a charge in an administrative case is Rule 65, under the
Court of Appeals (Mandangan v. Dela Cruz).
The Secretary of Justice has jurisdiction to decide the petition for arbitration filed by the GOCC
regarding the validity of a tax assessment (exclusive jurisdiction over all cases between the
government and a GOCC) (CIR v. Secretary of Justice).
A quo warranto proceeding is the proper remedy to determine the right or title to the contested
public office and to oust a holder from its enjoyment. The subject matter of quo warranto is
usurpation of public office. It is a prerogative writ, and the primary party who could institute the
action is the government (SolGen; Republic vs…).
Original jurisdiction RTC, CA, SC. If RTC, the venue is the residence of the would-be adverse
party. If the Solicitor General institutes the action – Manila RTC.
1. A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds public office, position, or
franchise;
2. A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a
ground for forfeiture of office;
3. An association which acts as a corporation in the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority to so act.
Section 2, Article IX of the Constitution allows the institution of a quo warranto proceeding against
an impeachable officer. After all, the quo warranto petition is founded on grounds distinct from
those of impeachment. The former questions the validity of a public officer’s appointment, while
the latter indicts him for so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the office
he holds (Republic v. Sereno).
1. Initiated by the Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor when directed by the President.
2. Upon a sufficient complaint, and the Solicitor General finds good reason that the case
should be instituted.
3. The Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor if upon the relation of another person. The
relator prompted the SolGen and the latter asks the court to institute the case.
4. An aggrieved party may institute the action if he claims to be entitled to the office. The
moment it is shown that he is not entitled thereto, the case should be dismissed.
Damages may be recovered, and such can be instituted within 1 year from entry of judgment.
If the aggrieved government employee filing under entitlement to the office was dismissed for
falsifying his academic records, cannot validly commence quo warranto proceedings (Arroyo v.
CA).
Page 88 of 130
When there is failure to comply with a legislative franchise, then the right to act as a corporation
based on the franchise is put into question, in which case quo warranto is proper.
RULE 67 – EXPROPRIATION
The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensible power of the State. It is the highest
and most exact idea of property that may be acquired for some public purpose through a medium
in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State.
The genuine necessity requirement does not mean absolute but only practical necessity, such as
would combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least inconvenience to the condemning
party and the private owner (City of Manila vs. Arellano).
The city of Pasig failed to establish the necessity requirement where it was found that the
intended beneficiaries of the expropriation are merely the Homeowners’ Association, which is a
private non-profit organization, not the citizens of Brgy. Caniogan (Masikip v. City of Pasig).
National government vs. local government expropriation – The latter is inferior, requiring an
ordinance.
Who may expropriate: The government or any instrumentality, including local government units.
Who may be defendants: Private landowners, or those who are lawful occupants therein who may
be subject to appropriation and thus just compensation.
Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. It is the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, which is defined as the
price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and
competition.
If the government wants to take immediate possession, it should pay first the assessed value of
the property for purposes of taxation, deposited in a government depositary bank. If LGU, deposit
15% of the fair market value. If it is a government infrastructure project, deposit proffered value,
which is used to determine the fair market value.
Procedure:
Page 89 of 130
Personal property may likewise be appropriated.
First Stage: Determining the propriety of expropriation. In this stage, the court determines the
authority of the plaintiff to exercise eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise. It ends with
an order of dismissal or of condemnation. An order of condemnation may be appealed, but such
appeal will not stay the court from determining just compensation.
Second Stage: Determining just compensation. It requires the assistance of not more than three
disinterested commissioners who will submit a report under Rule 36. The order fixing the just
compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners are final,
and leave nothing more to be done by the court regarding the issue.
There does not need to be an actual transfer of title under the name of the government. The
recording of the judgment of expropriation immediately vests title under the government over the
property so defined in the order.
If the government has already taken possession, the private owner may recover damages
sustained during the government’s activities in the property.
If the order has become final and executory, there should be proper appropriation in law to
execute the order and pay just compensation.
Execution pending appeal does not apply in expropriation, because the government funds are
already allotted, and government operations cannot be hampered by a discretionary execution.
Where there are various claimants, the DPWH may be allowed to present evidence to assert its
ownership over the property, but only for the purpose of determining who is entitled to just
compensation. The existence of doubt as to the title of persons claiming ownership over the
property sought to be expropriated does not prevent the commencement of the action, nor
prevent the court from assuming jurisdiction (Republic v. Henato).
Foreclosure of mortgage is the process by which a mortgagee acquires an absolute title to the
property of which he had previously been only the conditional owner, or upon which he had
previously a mere lien or encumbrance (Benedicto v. Yulo). Rule 68 establishes the rules of
judicial foreclosure, whereas extrajudicial foreclosure is governed by Act No. 3135. Foreclosure is
a real action.
Equity of redemption applies in judicial foreclosure, which is to say the redemption period is not
less than 90 but not more than 120 days.
In extrajudicial foreclosure, there is no action filed in court, but a petition filed before the clerk of
court or ex officio sheriff under the leadership of the executive judge. Redemption period under
this mode is 1 year.
As a rule, redemption period cannot be extended. However, if there is an issue as to the period
itself, it could be interrupted, as long as the controversy posed is in good faith.
If there was a foreclosure sale, and there was a balance, the junior encumbrancers are entitled to
the balance in judicial foreclosure, but this rule does not apply in extrajudicial foreclosure.
Likewise, in case of deficiency, a motion must be filed therefor in judicial foreclosure, but in
extrajudicial foreclosure, the claimant must file an action to recover the deficiency (because there
is no court case in the outset).
Page 90 of 130
Under BP 129, exclusive jurisdiction would fall either in the MTC or RTC depending on the
assessed value.
Venue – RTC of the province where the land or any part thereof is situated. For extrajudicial
foreclosure the sale shall be in the place where the property is located.
Where to sell – Under judicial foreclosure, the notice of sale shall specify the place, date, and
exact time of the sale. The place of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. In the absence of
such agreement, the sale of real property shall be held in the office of the clerk of court in the
RTC or MTC which issued the writ or designated by the appellate court.
Notice is to be posted for 20 days in three conspicuous public places in the municipality or city
where the sale is to take place. Failure to comply with posting requirement is not a ground for
invalidating the sale provided that the notice thereof is duly published in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Publication – If the assessed value exceeds 50k, one must also publish a copy of the notice once
a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the province or
city.
Personal notice – In judicial foreclosure, the mortgagor is notified through service of summons.
RULE 69 - PARTITION
Partition is the separation, division, and assignment of a thing held in common among those to
whom it may belong. Every act which is intended to put an end to indecision among co-heirs and
legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition. All co-owners are indispensable parties whose
paramount rights cannot be prejudiced (annulment of judgment is the proper remedy for failing to
implead).
Rule 69 defines judicial partition, whereas extrajudicial partition requires no court intervention.
Partition is an action quasi-in rem, which is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s
interest in a specific property and not to render a judgment against him.
Prescription does not run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir as long as there is recognition of the
co-ownership, expressly or impliedly. However, if a co-owner asserts adverse title to the property,
in which case, the prescription period runs from such time of assertion of the adverse title.
Jurisdiction – MTC or RTC depending on the value of the property. Venue – Place where the
property is located, unless it is personal property, in which case it is dictated by the residence of
the parties. If it is mixed real and personal, the case may be joined.
Page 91 of 130
Second stage – Effect partition, impleading all co-owners as indispensable parties
The parties may agree as to how to partition the property among themselves by the proper
instruments of conveyance. If the parties do not agree, the matter will be referred to a
commissioner. In this case, the court shall appoint not more than three disinterested but
competent commissioners to apportion the property in question.
A certified true copy of the judgment must be registered with the Register of Deeds.
Extrajudicial partition is covered by Rule 74 if there is no will, there are no debts, and minors are
properly represented by guardians. Affidavit of self-adjudication if single heir; notarized public
document duly published and bond given therefor for co-owners in agreement of the terms of
partition. May be questioned within 2 years by heirs or creditors.
If there is an agreement in an action for judicial partition, it would likewise require publication.
Demand, containing an order to pay and vacate, or comply and vacate, is indispensable for
ejectment cases. Otherwise, dismissed. If the person cannot be found on the premises of the
property in question, demand may be served by leaving it in the premises within a period of 15
days in case of land or 5 days in case of building.
Forcible entry – Deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth. Prior
physical possession should be established. Reckoning point: Counted from date of actual entry
on the land, except in case of stealth or strategy, in which case from the time the plaintiff learned
of the entry.
Unlawful detainer – Lessor, vendor, vendee, or other persons against whom any land or building
is unlawfully withheld from him or his legal representatives or assigns. Reckoning point – Counted
from the date of last demand.
1. Complaint;
2. Compulsory counterclaim pleaded in answer;
3. Cross-claim pleaded in answer;
4. Answers
Procedure:
1. Complaint
2. Answer – 10 days; if no answer – judgment motu propio based on pleadings
3. Preliminary conference – From filing of last pleading (court may also render judgment at
this point)
Page 92 of 130
4. Submission of judicial affidavits and position papers – 10 days from issuance of
preliminary conference order
5. Judgment – 30 days from submission of affidavits
6. Notice of appeal (decision of MTC is executory but may be stopped by proper appeal
within reglementary period, filing of fees and supersedas bond, including monthly rentals
before the RTC. If lessee-appellant fails to pay rentals, the appeal will proceed, but
possession will fall into the hands of the adverse party. Execution of the decision of the
RTC on appeal cannot be stayed, unless preliminary injunction is availed of from the CA).
The court may make a provisional determination on the issue of ownership, if any, except that it is
not conclusive. Accion reinvidicatoria may still be filed in the RTC.
No MR in ejectment cases. However, preliminary mandatory injunction may be filed within 5 days
from the commencement of the action or the filing of the complaint.
(Bermuda, the private landowner, sought to file an ejectment case against NTC, but the latter filed
an expropriation case in retort) Any action to compel a public utility corporation to vacate private
property is unavailing, since the landowner is denied the remedies of ejectment and injunction for
reasons of public policy and public necessity, as well as equitable estoppel. The proper recourse
is (1) to dismiss the case without prejudice to the landowner filing the proper action for recovery
of just compensation and consequential damages or (2) to dismiss the ejectment case and direct
the public utility corporation to institute the proper expropriation proceedings, or (3) to treat the
case as if it were an expropriation case and determine therein the just compensation and
consequential damages pursuant to Rule 67 (National Transmission Corp. vs. Bermuda
Development).
Preliminary determination of ownership – Not conclusive, an action can still be instituted in the
proper court for ownership.
RULE 71 - CONTEMPT
Contempt of court is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition of its authority, justice, and
dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience to the court’s orders but also
conduct tending to bring the authority of the court and administration of law into disrepute, or, in
some manner, to impede the due administration of justice.
Direct Contempt – Act committed in the presence of or so near the court or judge so as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same. It is summary in nature. Penalties (per
count):
1. MTC – Fine not exceeding ₱200 or imprisonment not exceeding one day.
2. RTC or higher – Fine not exceeding ₱2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 10 days.
Indirect Contempt – One not committed in the presence of the court, as it is an act done at a
distance which tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct, or embarrass the courts and justice. For one to
be charged with indirect contempt there must be notice and opportunity to be heard. Penalties
(per count):
1. MTC – Fine not exceeding ₱5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month.
2. RTC or higher – Fine not exceeding ₱30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months
Page 93 of 130
2. Upon filing of a verified petition for indirect contempt filed and docketed separately, but
with an option to consolidate (motion for indirect contempt is not allowed)
1. Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions;
2. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court;
3. Any abuse or unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt;
4. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
5. Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of the court and acting as such without authority;
6. Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
7. The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by
virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.
Criminal Contempt – Offense or disobedience or disrespect to the authority of the court. The
dismissal of criminal contempt amounts to an acquittal.
Where quasi-judicial agencies like NLRC, DTI, DAR, etc., have their own rules on contempt, their
rules will prevail, and the provisions of Rule 71 will only apply suppletorily.
In criminal cases, determination of jurisdiction is the period of imprisonment, and the threshold
period is imprisonment exceeding 6 years, in which case it shall be filed before the RTC,
regardless of fine or accessory penalties. Otherwise, it shall be before the MTC.
Where the penalty consists purely of a fine, the threshold amount is ₱4,000, in excess of which
the RTC has jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is effected by voluntary surrender or arrest. It is not
arraignment that determines jurisdiction.
Page 94 of 130
Jurisdiction in criminal cases for summary proceedings – Imprisonment not exceeding 6 months
or a fine not exceeding ₱5,000, except in cases of criminal negligence where the damages does
not exceed ₱10,000.
Lupong Tagapamayapa – Not a court, does not render judgment, but a prerequisite for the filing
of a criminal action in certain cases.
Offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding ₱5,000 and
where parties actually reside in the same or adjoining barangays in the same city or municipality
have to be filed before the Lupon. Exception: If the action includes a prayer for preliminary
injunction against government agencies.
Hold Departure Orders – Issued by the RTC where the case is assigned. Discretionary, based on
the nature of the offense. The Sandiganbayan can likewise issue such an order (Santiago case).
A Family Court can issue a hold departure order over a minor whose custody is subject to the
determination of the court.
Precautionary Hold Departure Orders – When the case is not yet in court, but the public
prosecutor determines probable cause to file such an HDO. This is so because the Department of
Justice CANNOT issue a hold departure order.
The Sandiganbayan
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: Public officers with a salary grade at least 27; and the
offenses are:
Those who are not salary grade 27 but commit such crimes are likewise liable if, by provision of
law, they are intended to be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (e.g. assessors, city
treasurers, sanggunian members).
Even if the offender is not salary grade 27, but commits an offense in relation to his office (that
without which office the crime would not have been committed), he may be liable under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Public officer SG27, act committed in relation to office, but in conspiracy with employees or
officers below SG27 – All of them will still be charged before the Sandiganbayan.
Public officer SG27 plus private contractors – If there is an allegation of conspiracy, all of them
will be charged before the Sandiganbayan.
If the claim for bribery or the resulting damage to the government exceeds ₱1M, the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. However, if it does not exceed the amount, or if the allegation
shows no damage to the government, even if the offender is SG27, the case falls under the
jurisdiction of the RTC, and the Sandiganbayan shall only have appellate jurisdiction (New Rule).
The Ombudsman
Page 95 of 130
The Office of the Ombudsman is not a court. It can (1) motu propio conduct field investigations,
(2) preliminary investigation to determine probable cause to file information in court, and (3) it can
conduct determinations of administrative liability of public officers. (4) The Ombudsman can
dismiss, censure, and reprimand public officers (administrative sanctions). However, it can also
(5) prosecute offenses through the Office of the Special Prosecutors, who appear before the
Sandiganbayan to prosecute for the State.
Remedies:
1. Office of the Ombudsman issues an administrative order with penalties ranging from
dismissal from service to suspension – Rule 43 – Petition for Review with the CA;
2. On the other hand, if the administrative case has been dismissed, or if the penalty is
reprimand, censure, or salary forfeiture, the decision is executory, thus appeal is not
available – Rule 65 before the CA.
3. If the Ombudsman issues an order on the criminal aspect – Rule 65 before the SC.
The Solicitor General is the general counsel of the State. The public prosecutors represent the
state before the trial courts.
In case of an acquittal of a criminal case, the offended party cannot question the acquittal without
the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General. Remedy: Rule 65.
The Office of the Prosecutor cannot conduct investigations (it should be the NBI under the DOJ,
but they will then file the complaint before the Prosecutor’s Office), but may conduct preliminary
investigations to determine probable cause.
The Prosecutor’s Office may conduct an inquest, which applies to persons arrested without
warrant, for determination whether to detain or release for further preliminary investigation. The
office may also prosecute criminal cases before it.
Doctrine of Territoriality – In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. This means actions can only
be instituted in the place where the crime was committed.
Where, in a case of Estafa, the complainant alleges the place where the crime was committed,
but fails to substantiate the same by evidence, but evidence actually points to the crime having
been committed elsewhere, the case should necessarily fail, because it did not satisfy the
requirement of venue, which is jurisdictional. (Cabral v. Bracamonte).
Exact location is not required except in case of election offenses, where distance from the polling
place is essential, as well as in arson, violation of domicile or trespass to dwelling.
While it is essential to institute an action in the proper venue for the purpose of jurisdiction, after
such institution, the venue of the trial may be changed or transferred in the interest of public
policy or public safety, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court (Maguindanao massacre
case).
Page 96 of 130
In instances of vessels or moving vehicles, the action may be instituted in the place of departure
or arrival, and in the case of vessels, in any port on which the vessel passed in the Philippines.
The venue rule does not apply to search warrant, as the power to issue and enforce search
warrants is inherent in every court.
The institution of a criminal action generally depends upon whether the offense is one which
requires a preliminary investigation or not, i.e. those where the prescribed penalty is at least 4
years, 2 months, and 1 day. In this case, the case is instituted by filing the complaint with the
appropriate officer for preliminary investigation.
All cases in Metro Manila and chartered cities may only be filed before the Office of the
Prosecutor, regardless of whether the case needs preliminary investigation. MTC judges can no
longer conduct preliminary investigations.
Outside Metro Manila and chartered cities, cases requiring preliminary investigation should be
filed before the Office of the Prosecutor. Cases not requiring the same, including cases requiring
summary proceedings, may be filed directly before the courts.
Institution interrupts the running of the prescriptive period of the offense charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws. Limitation: Interruption shall not exceed 60 days from filing of the
complaint with the punong barangay.
If it is a violation of an ordinance, the prescriptive period is interrupted upon filing of the complaint
in court.
General Rule: Complaint or information may only be filed or dismissed if there is prior written
authority or approval by the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the
Ombudsman or his deputy. Exceptions (cannot be prosecuted de officio):
Page 97 of 130
Parents, grandparents, guardians; in which case the right to file shall be
exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in order.
The State; only in case the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before
filing the complaint, and he has no parents, grandparents, or guardians
5. Acts of Lasciviousness
6. Defamation – Offended Party
Desistance does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action, but instead operates as
a waiver of the civil indemnity (People v. Amaca).
The death of the offended party after filing the complaint would not deprive the court of
jurisdiction. Likewise, the death of the offended party in private crimes is essential solely for the
initiation of the action (People v. Diego).
As a general rule, pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action but civil
liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver. If
there is more than one accused, the pardon must be extended to all of them. Exception:
Seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted if the offender has been
expressly pardoned by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian.
Pardon must be made before the filing of the criminal complaint in court, except that marriage
between the offender and the offended party constitutes an effective pardon when the offender
has already commenced service of his sentence (People v. De Guzman).
1. The complainant who prepared an affidavit complaint will have to appear before the
prosecutor to be sworn in before him. If there is no prosecutor available, the notary public
may certify the complaint affidavit.
3. Case is raffled.
Page 98 of 130
prosecutor may recommend him to prepare an information instead or prepare
one himself.
Complaints against a finding of the prosecutor – DOJ on petition for review (covered by NPS 70
of the DOJ).
Case from Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to the office of the Regional State Prosecutor.
Issue: DOJ or CA on Rule 65? Ruling: No need to go to the DOJ. The ORSP ruling was with
finality (Mina v. CA).
If the city or regional prosecutor files the information in court, the person accused is already
indicted. In this stage, a filing of a petition for review before the DOJ will be a bar to arraignment.
If the DOJ declares that there is no probable cause, then the DOJ will instruct the assistant
prosecutor to file a motion in court for the withdrawal of the information. However, this motion
should not just be adopted by the court outright. Instead, the judge must conduct an independent
personal examination of the facts and evidence to determine the existence of probable cause.
1. RTC may dismiss the case for absence of probable cause within 10 days;
2. RTC may issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause within 10 days;
3. RTC may conduct a hearing for the judge to accurately determine probable cause.
OR
Motion for determination of probable cause is now a prohibited pleading under the new Rules.
Inquest – Section 6, Rule 112 and Section 5, Rule 113 – Inquest only applies where there has
been a warrantless arrest. The accused must be brought into the police station, and the arrest will
be booked. This is important, as the records of the arrest must be brought before the inquest
prosecutor.
1. Arrested:
Ask for a preliminary investigation, waiving Article 125 of the RPC (arbitrary
detention);
Wait until information is filed, then apply for bail.
Within five days from knowledge of the filing of an information, file a motion for
preliminary investigation.
2. Released:
Page 99 of 130
File records of arrest before the prosecutor’s office.
Motion for reinvestigation – Filed with leave of court once the information is already filed in court.
Cannot be filed if preliminary investigation is not required. Matters pertaining to trial (evidence)
cannot be the subject of reinvestigation.
If the Office of the Prosecutor finds probable cause, it files the information in court, with the public
prosecutors representing the State.
1. Name or appellation;
2. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances (even generic);
3. Designation of the offense by statute;
4. Acts or omissions complained of;
5. Name of the offended party;
6. Approximate date of the commission of the offense (unless exact date and time is an
essential element, e.g. infanticide, election offenses);
7. Place where the offense was committed.
Defects in the sufficiency of information – Dismissal of the case upon a motion to quash.
Information that makes conclusions of law instead of designating the acts constituting the offense
is defective, and thus should be dismissed (People v. Reyes, 2018).
1. If there are multiple offenses in one information, and there is no objection by the
accused, and each of those offenses were established and proven.
2. If there is a single punishment for the various offenses constituting a complex crime.
Section 14, Rule 110, Amendments of information – Before plea, amendments may be made as a
matter of form and a matter of substance. Substantial amendments require a new preliminary
investigation. After the plea, only amendments as to matters of form may be made, for as long as
the same will not prejudice the rights of the accused.
The standard after plea – That which would make the penalty more grave, or that which would
require the accused to change the nature of his defense.
Exclusion and Downgrading – Only takes place before a plea. Exclusion removes accused upon
motion of the prosecution, with leave of court, and with notice to the offended party. Downgrading
decreases the gravity of the offense upon motion of the prosecution, with leave of court, and with
notice to the offended party.
Private prosecutors may obtain from the chief prosecutor the authority to prosecute in the
absence of the public prosecutor.
The sufficiency of the information is also essential to motion for a bill of particulars.
General Rule: Once a criminal action is instituted, a civil action is likewise instituted, except:
Independent Civil action Art. 31, 32, 33, 2176, NCC need no reservation.
If there is a petition for writ of Amparo in a subsequent criminal case, it will be consolidated in the
criminal case.
If there is a civil, criminal, and administrative aspect, and a writ of Amparo, the writ will be
consolidated with the criminal aspect.
Death of the accused before plea – Case is dismissed, but without prejudice to proceeding
against the estate.
Death of the accused after plea – At whatever stage, even on appeal, both the criminal aspect
and the civil aspect arising from the delict is extinguished. However, those arising from other
sources of obligations are not extinguished. Liikewise, independent civil actions are not
extinguished.
No reservation in BP 22, but civil case may be filed ahead of the criminal case, except that the
former will be suspended if the latter commences.
There is filing fee in criminal cases except for actual damages. Damages will be constituted as a
lien on the judgment award. An exception for this rule is BP 22, where filing fees is assessed for
actual damages on the face value of the check.
Prejudicial Question – One which arises in a case, where the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
Results to the suspension of the CRIMIINAL proceedings. Under the guidelines on continuous
trial, no motion to suspend the criminal proceeding may be filed on the ground of a prejudicial
question if the criminal case was instituted before the civil case. Prejudicial question arises when
the civil is instituted first.
Motion to suspend due to prejudicial question may be filed before the Prosecutor’s Office or
before the court, before the prosecution rests its case.
The grant of bail is a judicial function. Its purpose is for provisional liberty. It can be found at the
bottom of the information. Types of bail:
1. Cash bond;
2. Property bond;
3. Corporate surety;
4. Recognizance.
If the case is originally non-bailable and is now bailable after conviction, the application for bail
should be filed before the appellate court.
1. Flight risk;
2. Habitual delinquency, recidivism, quasi-recidivism
3. Violation of parole, conditional pardon
If there are bail negating circumstances, the court cannot exercise its discretion to grant bail.
Non-bailable offenses:
Petition for bail is field only when the prosecutor recommends non-bailable, and it is heard on a
summary hearing (not more than 30 days). During the pendency of the hearing, if the evidence of
guilt is not strong, the accused may be provisionally released.
Where to apply:
1. In the court where the action is pending. If the judge is unavailable, before any RTC or
MTC therein;
2. In a court in the place where the accused was arrested;
3. For bail on a matter of discretion or on recognizance, only in the court where the action is
pending;
4. In the court where the crime was committed, if there is no pending case.
If the person detained has served the maximum of the sentence that could be imposed on him,
he should be released, without prejudice to the dismissal of the case. If he served only the
minimum, without considering the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he could be released on a
reduced bail or on recognizance.
Forfeiture – An accused, having been notified during trial, failed to appear. The bondsman should
explain within 30 days why the bond should not be forfeited in favor of the government. Failure to
comply – bond shall be forfeited.
Cancellation:
After conviction, and the accused applies for probation, he may be provisionally released based
on his original bail, or upon recognizance.
Remedy for forfeiture of bail – MR to reinstate the bail. Judgment against the bond may be
considered a final judgment, thus subject of appeal.
The accused is entitled to a counsel of his choice. If he cannot secure the services of one, the
court may appoint a counsel de officio to assist for purposes of arraignment.
Duty of the clerk of court is to certify that the accused wants a counsel de officio, in which case it
shall form part of the record of the case should the case be elevated on appeal.
Speedy Trial v. Speedy Disposition – Speedy trial is provided under the Rules of Court.
Generally, this may be invoked at any time before trial. Under the guidelines on continuous trial
however, speedy trial may be invoked even during trial. Trial should have been concluded within
180 days, except for exclusions, such as absence of the accused, delays by reason of pre-trial,
unavailability of witnesses, etc. On the other hand, speedy disposition is provided for under the
Constitution, and includes judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative matters, and could be
invoked at any time even before appeal (Magante v. Sandiganbayan).
Arraignment happens after the information has been filed. The moment the court acquires
jurisdiction over the accused, arraignment and pre-trial shall be set 30 days therefrom. For
detained persons, the period is 10 days. Notice is required to be sent to all parties, their
respective counsel, and the law enforcement officers including the public prosecutor. However,
the absence of the offended party is not fatal.
Absence of the accused during arraignment – The court will issue a warrant for his arrest and his
bail shall be forfeited in favor of the government.
Suspension of arraignment:
Waiver of reading of information – Under the guidelines for continuous trial, reading of the
information may be waived, but it is the duty of the court to conduct a personal examination of the
accused, to determine that the accused consents thereto and understands the consequences of
the same. The waiver should appear expressly in the minutes and certificate of arraignment and
the order of arraignment.
Rule in Criminal Procedure in Environmental Cases – If it is made as a condition of the bail, and
the accused in absent, not only is the reading waived, but including the entry of the plea, in which
case the court is authorized to enter a plea of not guilty.
Types of plea:
1. Plea of guilt to a non-capital offense (less than death) – The court may enter a sentence,
without hearing, except for purposes of determining the extent of the penalty to be meted.
3. Improvident plea of guilt – Made without proper information as to all the circumstances
affecting it; based upon a mistaken assumption or misleading information or advice.
If the sole basis for conviction is an improvident plea, the court will not make a
judgment, and will simply remand the case.
If there are other pieces of evidence that can establish the exact culpability of the
accused, then the court must pass judgment
4. Plea of guilt to a lesser offense – May be made during arraignment, after arraignment,
and during pre-trial (plea bargaining). Under the amended Rules, any conduct or
communication made during the negotiations for plea bargaining will not be taken against
the accused.
Plea Bargaining is now allowed in Drugs Cases (Estipona v. Lobrigo) – Plea bargaining should be
with the consent of the prosecution, notice to the offended party is given, and with the approval of
the court.
Sale of trading of drugs may be subject of a plea bargaining to possession of dangerous drugs,
provided the amount should be less than 5 grams of shabu or less than 300 grams for marijuana.
Archiving – If, after the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for a period
of 6 months from the delivery of the warrant to the peace officer, the case will be archived. The
following instances shall likewise lead to the archiving of the case:
Must be made in writing, and filed at any time before plea. No other grounds are allowed except
those enumerated under Rule 117 (exclusive), namely:
Provisional dismissal – Dismissal without prejudice to its being refilled or revived. It happens
when the accused has already been arraigned and he consented to a provisional dismissal.
Notice to the offended party is likewise essential. If the penalty for the offense exceeds 6 years, it
will become permanent upon the expiration of 2 years from the time of dismissal. No grounds are
expressly stated in the Rules.
Double jeopardy – Double jeopardy presupposes that a first jeopardy has already attached prior
to the second, and that the first has been terminated by the conviction or acquittal of the accused,
or if the case against him was dismissed without his express consent. The requisites for double
jeopardy to attach are as follows:
1. Valid indictment
2. Before a competent court
3. Arraignment
4. A valid plea entered
5. The accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him was dismissed
without his express consent.
Double jeopardy cannot attached if, even after entering a plea, supervening events happened,
such as the death of the offended party in cases of physical injuries or frustrated homicide.
Plea of guilt to a lesser offense can still be made even in the absence of the offended party, as
long as the same was notified, and that the subject of the plea bargaining is included in the
offense charged. In this case, double jeopardy will set in.
Pre-trial is mandatory in criminal cases (30 days from the time the court acquires jurisdiction).
Under the guidelines on continuous trial, pre-trial proper must first be terminated before it can be
referred to Court Annexed Mediation (no JDR under continuous trial) for the appropriate cases, to
wit (only as to civil aspect):
Consolidation – In criminal cases, consolidation is only for purposes of trial. Joint trial will be held,
but each count still has to be proven, because each is a separate offense. When newly filed
cases involving offenses based on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of a
similar character, the raffle shall be caused only on one court.
Pending cases with multiple accused subjected to further investigation by the office of the
prosecutor over incidents which has the same subject matter as an information against a different
accused, said subsequent cases when filed should be accompanied by a motion for
consolidation, and it shall be assigned directly by the executive judge to the court where the initial
case was pending.
If the case is already in the trial stage, the parties may be allowed to adopt the evidence so far
presented without prejudice to the additional direct examination questions and cross.
For first level courts, all written statements given before law enforcement officers, even affidavits
and counter-affidavits submitted before the prosecutor could be used in court in lieu of direct
examination, subject to additional direct examination and cross-examination (alternatively, judicial
affidavits).
Judicial affidavits in the RTC, Sandiganbayan, CA, in offenses transactional in nature, where
culpability may be established through documentary evidence – Where the demeanor is not
essential, and it is not important to determine the credibility of the witness, such as medico legal
officers, expert witnesses, etc. who are only to determine the authenticity and due execution, as
well as the contents of documents.
Demurrer to evidence – On leave of court. Oral leave is now allowed. If no leave of court was
sought, and the judge denies the motion, he can immediately render judgment. Demurrer is to be
filed within a non-extendible period of 10 days from grant of leave, and the adverse party is given
the chance to comment within a period of 10 days. Demurrer must be resolved within 30 days
upon filing of the comment or expiration of the period thereto.
If the motion for demurrer to evidence is filed by the accused, or with the consent of the accused,
there will be no double jeopardy. If the leave was denied, no certiorari may be filed until the
termination of the case.
One-day examination of witnesses rule – Direct, cross, redirect, recross in one day.
Discharge as a state witness – The accused must have already been arraigned, and the person
applying for a discharge will submit his affidavit, upon which the court will conduct a hearing.
Granting of the discharge acquits the accused turned state witness. In this case, the affidavit will
be adopted in evidence. If the court refuses to grant the affidavit, it is rendered inadmissible in
trial. Application for discharge must be made before the prosecution rests its case.
90 days from termination of trial. Promulgation in criminal cases is unique. Where in civil cases,
the judgment is rendered and served, in criminal cases, promulgation is done in person. Notice of
promulgation should be served upon the accused, indicating the date and time when the accused
will have to be present. If the accused jumped bail, it should be served on his last known address.
The judgment must be read to the accused, except in light offenses, where the accused may
send a substitute in his stead. If the accused is absent, the court will promulgate and render the
judgment on the records, and the absent accused is barred from availing of all remedies under
the law.
If there is a variance from that which is alleged and that which is proven, the judgment is valid if
the latter is necessarily included in the offense charged.
The only remedies against judgment of conviction in a criminal case are (15 days):
An acquittal is immediately executory, except that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be
filed if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and it should
have the conformity of the Solicitor General (except interlocutory orders do not need such
consent).
Motions in criminal cases – meritorious vs. non-meritorious (no non-litigious motions in criminal
proceedings). Period to file is 10 days, and the court will resolve the same in 10 days. Final
judgments are subject to MR in 15 days, but MR for meritorious motions – 5 days, comment also
5 days, and resolution of the court within 5 days.
Original jurisdiction of the RTC – Notice of appeal to CA, 15 days no extension. MR is not a pe-
requisite, but not prohibited.
Procedure (RTC-CA): Submission of Appellant’s brief, 30 days, appelle’s brief, 30 days, reply
brief 20 days. Jump bail – dismissed. No assignment of error – dismissed. Failure to file –
dismissed.
Petition for Review – MTC – RTC – CA – This is Rule 42. One-time extension applies.
Originated from the MTC – Resort to the SC may only be held through a petition for review oon
certiorari in Rule 45, except where the penalty is death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.
15 days to file. Extension 30 days upon filing of proper filing fees.
Originated from the RTC – Resort to the SC through Rule 45, except where except where the
penalty is death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.
If originating from the Sandiganbayan, notice of appeal. If appealed case, Rule 45.
Section 13, Rule 124 – If the penalty for the offense is death, no more filing of notice of appeal.
Automatic review by the CA (intermediate review). For life and reclusion perpetua, notice of
appeal is required, otherwise, it will become final and executory.
Intermediate review – CA will render a judgment but will not enter the same. To do so would be a
constitutional violation, because only the SC can review death cases. Instead, the case will be
certified to the SC, which will review the records and render a decision accordingly.
The CA may render and enter a judgment of life or reclusion perpetua instead if it finds the same
appropriately. This judgment is appealable to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal. If the
finding is reclusion temporal, the method of appeal is Rule 45 instead, because it is below the
threshold.
A search warrant is an order in writing; issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by the judge, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
property described in the warrant and bring it before the court. Under the exclusionary rule, any
evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional mandate for search warrants is inadmissible in
any purpose or proceeding.
Where to apply for search warrant – In the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was
committed, unless a compelling reason is established to not apply therein.
Scattershot warrant – One where there are multiple offenses in one warrant. This is prohibited.
However, this does not apply where there are several counts of certain offenses, such as multiple
pirated tapes constituting one case of infringement of copyright (Columbia v. CA).
The description of the place should be such that the place to be search is identifiable. No further
details are necessary if the full address is available. The person enforcing the search warrant is
only bound by what is specifically stated in the warrant. Exception: items in plain view.
Search as an incident of a lawful arrest – The valid arrest must be contemporaneous with, and
not come after the search (People v. Laguio).
Search warrant must be served upon the occupant, and implemented in the presence of at least
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the community. If items are found, the
searching officer must leave a receipt to the occupant, or if there are none, it must be left in the
premises, except in cases of entrapment or buy-bust operations. The officer will then submit an
inventory to the court, upon pain of contempt.
Motion to suppress items may be filed at the latest during pre-trial. If there is a search warrant but
not yet implemented – motion to quash search warrant. If there is as yet no criminal case, file the
motion before the court where the application for the warrant is pending. Otherwise, it should be
filed where the criminal case is pending.
Application for a search warrant before the executive judge in Manila or Quezon City or the vice-
executive judge thereof – Enforceable anywhere in the Philippines (Bar question). This only
applies if the type of offenses are any of the following:
1. Drugs
2. Illegal Gambling
3. Heinous Crimes
4. Violation of Intellectual Property
Precautionary hold order – Application for compelling reasons before the RTC where the crime
was committed if the same is known. The RTC of Manila, Quezon City, Cebu City, Iloilo City,
Cagayan de Oro City, and Davao City have the authority to act on applications filed by
prosecutors based on claims instituted by the NBI, regardless of where the crime was committed.
Cyber warrant application – RTC of Quezon City, Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City, Iloilo
City, Cagayan de Oro City, and Davao City, enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
There is no reasonable justification for conducting a search of the vehicle of a person who was
stopped for traffic violation, i.e. riding a motorcycle without a helmet. When they found no weapon
on Cristobal, and yet continued the search, it was already an unlawful search (People v.
Cristobal).
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9285) institutionalized the use
of alternative modes of dispute resolution in the Philippines. Contextually, conventional dispute
resolution is litigation.
ADR – Any process or procedure used to resolve a dispute or controversy other than by
adjudication of a presiding judge of a court r an officer of a government agency, in which a neutral
third party participates to assist in the resolution of issues, which includes arbitration, mediation,
conciliation, early neutral evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof.
Generally, the neutral third party is a private person, and not an officer of the court. Arbitration is
the only form of ADR where the neutral third party renders an award that binds both parties. The
arbitral award has the force and effect of a judgment.
Arbitration – A voluntary dispute resolution process in which one or more arbitrators, appointed in
accordance with the agreement of the parties, or rules pursuant to R.A. 9285, resolve a dispute
by rendering an award.
1. Of legal age;
2. In full possession of civil rights;
3. Must be able to read and write.
The parties have the freedom to set their arrangements for the settlement of their dispute (party
autonomy). If, within a certain period, the parties fail to agree on an arbitrator, the court will
appoint one for the parties. This way, one party cannot paralyze the arbitration process by
refusing to participate in appointment.
Institutional arbitration – When the parties chose to adopt the rules of an arbitration institution.
Otherwise, it is an ad hoc arbitration.
Mediation – A voluntary process in which a mediator, selected by the disputing parties, facilitates
communication and negotiation, and assists the parties in reaching a voluntary agreement
regarding a dispute.
A mediation clause often states that disputes be referred to mediation before filing judicial action.
Mediation-Arbitration – A step dispute resolution process involving both mediation and arbitration.
Court-Annexed Mediation – A mediation process conducted under the auspices of the court, after
such court has acquired jurisdiction of the dispute. (pre-trial stage)
Mini-Trial – A structured dispute resolution method in which the merits of a case are argued
before a panel comprising senior decision makers, with or without the presence of a neutral third
party, after which the parties seek a negotiated settlement.
Conciliation – Not defined in R.A. 9285, but is often used interchangeably with mediation.
1. The parties to an arbitration agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that
agreement, their places of business in different States; or
2. One of the following places is situated outside the State in which the parties have their
place of business:
The place of arbitration if determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration
agreement;
Any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial
relationship is to be performed or the place with which the subject matter of the
dispute is mostly connected; or
The parties have expressly agreed that the subject-matter of the arbitration
agreement is related to more than one country
Confirmation – At any time within one month after the award is made, any party to the
controversy which was arbitrated may apply to the RTC on motion for an order confirming the
award. Exception: A Construction Industry Arbitration Commission arbitral award need not be
confirmed by the RTC to be executory.
Execution – A domestic arbitral award, when confirmed, shall be enforced in the same manner as
final and executory decisions of the RTC.
Rejection – A party to a domestic arbitration may question the arbitral award with the appropriate
RTC in accordance with the rules promulgated by the SC. Grounds:
2. The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them, not affecting the
merits of the decision upon the matter submitted; or
If the RTC is asked to set aside an arbitral award in a domestic or international arbitration on any
ground other than those specifically provided in the Special ADR Rules, the court shall entertain
such ground for the setting aside or non-recognition of the arbitral award only if the same
amounts to a violation of public policy. Otherwise, the court shall disregard any other ground.
Rejection – The RTC may vacate its decision and on application of the party claiming recognition
or enforcement, order the party to provide appropriate security.
Foreign arbitral awards, when confirmed by the RTC, are enforced as a foreign arbitral award and
recorded as such, not as a judgment of a foreign court. It shall be enforced in the same manner
as final and executory decisions of courts of law in the Philippines.
Appeal from decisions on arbitral awards – Appealed to the CA in accordance with the Rules of
Court. The appellant will post a counterbond executed in favor of the prevailing party.
Venue and jurisdiction – Proceedings for recognition and enforcement, vacation and setting
aside, correction, or modification of an arbitral award, and any application for arbitral assistance
and supervision, shall be deemed as special proceedings and shall be filed with the RTC:
Notice of proceedings shall be sent to the address of record of the parties, or at their last known
address if they cannot be served at the former.
All proceedings under the Special ADR Rules are special proceedings.
Prohibited submissions:
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial or reopening of trial;
4. Petition of relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension, except where an ex parte temporary protection order is issued;
6. Rejoinder;
7. Motion to declare a party in default;
8. Other pleadings specifically disallowed
1. Relationship with any of the parties within the 6th civil degree;
2. Financial interest in the dispute or its outcome;
3. Bias against any of the parties
Arbitrators may issue subpoena, but do not have the concurrent power of contempt.
Interim Measures of Protection – A party to an arbitration agreement may petition the court for
interim measures of protection. Such a petition may be made:
Grounds:
The arbitral tribunal shall be accorded the first opportunity or competence to rule on the issue of
whether or not it has the competence or jurisdiction to decide a dispute submitted to it for
decision, including any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration
agreement.
The court must exercise judicial restraint and defer to the competence or jurisdiction of the arbitral
tribunal by allowing the tribunal to rule upon such issues, whether before or after the tribunal is
constituted.
Principle of Separability – The Special ADR Rules recognizes that the arbitration clause shall be
treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract of which it forms part. A
decision that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration
clause.
Commencement of arbitration (ad hoc) – By service by either party upon the other of a demand
for arbitration.
Judicial Relief Before Arbitration Commences – Any party to an arbitration agreement may
petition the court to determine any question concerning the existence, validity, and enforceability
of such an agreement. Despite the pendency of the petition in court, arbitral proceedings maybe
commenced and continue even to the rendition of an award.
Judicial Relief After Arbitration Commences – Any party to arbitration may petition the appropriate
court for judicial relief from the ruling of the arbitral tribunal on a preliminary question upholding or
declining its jurisdiction. The petition should be filed within 30 days after having received notice of
that ruling by the arbitral tribunal.
If the arbitral tribunal renders a final arbitral award and the court has not rendered a decision on
the petition from the tribunal’s preliminary ruling affirming its jurisdiction, the petition shall become
ipso facto moot and academic and shall be dismissed.
The arbitral tribunal is only a nominal party, and the court shall not require the tribunal to submit
any pleadings or written submissions.
The petition shall not be allowed where the arbitral tribunal defers its ruling on preliminary
questions regarding its jurisdiction until its final award. In this case, the parties must wait for the
final award before seeking judicial recourse.
Referral to arbitration – A court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject
matter of an arbitration agreement shall, if at least one party so requests not later than the pre-
trial conference, or upon the request of both parties thereafter, refer the parties to arbitration
unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being
performed. If the court determines that the agreement is valid, the court MUST refer the same to
arbitration.
An appeal does not stay the award, judgment, or final order sought to be reviewed unless the CA
deems otherwise.
Certiorari under Rule 65 may be resorted to in annulling the ruling of the RTC.
The RTC (as opposed to the NCIP) has jurisdiction over actions for cancellation of OCT arising
from Certificate of Ancestral Land Title; RTC may pass on the validity of NCIP proceedings
(Republic v. Heirs of Paus, 14 August 2019).
The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for enforcement of an amicable settlement
executed before the Barangay regardless of amount involved pursuant to Section 417 of the LGC
(Sebastian v. Lagmay, 22 April 2015).
In an action for recovery of possession filed with the RTC, the failure to allege the assessed value
of the land meant that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction (may be raised at any time, even on
appeal) (Heirs of Julao v. Spouses De Jesus, 29 September 2014).
However, the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the
documents annexed to it. The RTC should have considered the facts contained in the Declaration
of Real Property attached to the complaint to determine if the RTC had jurisdiction (annexed
documents are made part of the complaint) (Tumpag v. Tumpag, 29 September 2014).
RTC is without jurisdiction over real actions if what was alleged was the market value, not the
assessed value. The court cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value (Gabrillo v. Heirs of
Pastor, 2 October 2019).
In a real action, the assessed value of the land must be alleged in the complaint. Presumption
cannot take the place of allegation (Regalado v. Dela Rama, 13 December 2017).
Jurisdiction over real action is determined by allegations in the complaint, not the averments in
the answer (Berbano v. Tapulao, 1 July 2019).
Liquidated claims vs. the government are within the primary jurisdiction of the COA, not the courts
(MMDA v. DM Consunji, 20 February 2019).
The COA’s jurisdiction over final money judgments rendered by the courts/tribunals pertains only
to the execution stage; COA cannot modify CIAC’s (Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission) final and executory judgment (Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture v. COA, 2 June 2020).
COA’s decision disallowing a claim to enforce an RTC’s final and executory judgment was made
with grave abuse of discretion. COA has no jurisdiction to set aside RTC’s final judgment against
the government for just compensation (Star Special Corp. v. COA, 1 September 2020, LEONEN).
An action for ’breach of contract’ is capable of pecuniary estimation where damages sought did
not exceed ₱300k. Hence jurisdiction is with the MTC (Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry, 20
February 2017).
MTC has jurisdiction over a refund of security deposit wherein the amount did not exceed ₱300k.
The action is capable of pecuniary estimation (Philippines-Japan Active Carbon Corp v. Borgaily,
15 January 2020).
RTC has jurisdiction in an action assailing the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by government agencies pursuant to its quasi-legislative power (Chairman, Palawan
Council for Sustainable Development v. Lim, 24 August 2016). (test: If the governmental function
being challenged does not involve a judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function, Rule 65 cannot
lie)
Where an intra-corporate case was raffled to a non-Special Commercial Court (RTC), the court
should not dismiss the case but refer it to the executive judge for re-docketing as a commercial
case (Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc. 10 November 2015). (note: special commercial courts do not
have jurisdiction, because they are not created by law, but by the judiciary. Thus this is not a
jurisdictional issue that warrants dismissal)
Suit by investor-client too recover value of equity investment with securities broker is not an intra-
corporate dispute but an ordinary civil action triable by a non-commercial court (Ku v. RCBC
Securities, 17 October 2018).
HLURB has jurisdiction over cases for annulment of REM over subdivision lot/condo unit made by
a developer without HLURB approval (Concorde Condominium Inc. v. PNB, 26 November 2018).
Under R.A. 11201, the HLURB was reconstituted and renamed as the Human Settlements
Adjudication Commission (HSAC). It has jurisdiction over a claim for recession of purchase of
memorial park lot (Park Developers, Inc. v. Daclan, 27 November 2019).
A claim for damages based on the employer’s negligence to provide safe working conditions is a
quasi-delict case falling under the jurisdiction of the regular courts (Heirs of Andag v. DMC
Construction, 13 July 2020). (rule of thumb: What law will the decision-maker PRIMARILY rely
upon: Civil law or labor law?)
Section 412 of the LGC states that parties may go directly to court if the action is coupled with
provisional remedies (in this case, preliminary injunction). As good faith is presumed, the court’s
assumption that plaintiff was solely intent on evading the requirements was an error (Racpan v.
Barroga-Haigh, 6 June 2018).
The complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage is incapable of pecuniary estimation, even if
the property had been foreclosed. At the time the complaint was filed, the certificate of sale was
not registered with the Register of Deeds. In real actions, registration is the operative act which
binds the world (First Sarmiento Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine Bank of Communications, 19 June
2018, LEONEN).
Where there is non-compliance with the requirement of barangay conciliation, the court should
dismiss the case and not merely suspend it (Ngo v. Gabelo, 24 August 2020).
Where the RTC did not require payment of the docket fee for the increased amount in the
amended complaint, the court still retains jurisdiction. The docket fee for the increased amount is
considered a lien on the judgment award (ICTS v. City of Manila, 17 October 2018, LEONEN).
Plaintiff must pay docket fees on interests, penalties, and attorney’s fees which have accrued as
of the time of the filing of the complaint (Dragon v. Manila Banking Corp. 6 March 2019,
LEONEN).
The joinder of an action for injunction with an action for quieting of title is not allowed under
Section 5 of Rule 2, since the latter is a special civil action (Salvador v. Patricia, 9 November
2016).
Stipulations in compromise agreements allowing splitting of cause of action is void (Rivera Golf
Club v. CCA Holdings, 17 June 2015). (reason: imbued with public interest; multiplicity of suits is
not allowed)
Cause of action against a father’s debt is the same against the son who promised to pay father’s
debt in his behalf (Marilag v. Martinez, 22 July 2015).
Unincorporated homeowners’ association (not registered with the HLURB) has no legal standing
to sue (Alliance of QC Homeowners’ Association v. Quezon City, 18 September 2018).
Stewards may be allowed to file under Rule 65 to enforce environmental laws not in
representation of marine mammals but in their own right by way of a citizen’s suit which allows
any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring suit to enforce environmental laws (Resident
Marine Mammals v. Reyes, 21 April 2015).
The beneficial users of an electric service have a cause of action against the distribution utility
even though the service contract with MERALCO was registered in the name of another person
(Manila Electric Co. v. Nordec Philippines, 18 April 2018, LEONEN).
SAFA Law Office is a partnership, and thus the real party in interest, not its managing partner.
The Court may order that the partnership may be impleaded (Saludo v. PNB, 20 August 2018).
In an action for cancellation of a loan contract entered into by a municipality and the Land Bank,
filed by a taxpayer against the LBP and the municipal officers, the municipality itself is an
indispensable party. Hence all decisions, up to the Supreme Court level, were set aside and the
case was remanded to the RTC for disposition on the merits (LBP v. Cacayuran, 22 April 2015).
(failure to implead an indispensable party is not a dismissible omission, but the court must render
an order impleading the same, otherwise the proceedings will be null and void)
In a petition for certiorari filed with the CA to implead the assignee of the deceased husband as
party in the RTC case, the widow of the deceased husband is an indispensable party (Santiago v.
Vilar, 6 March 2018).
In an action for recovery of possession of land against Spring Homes (transferor) and Spouses
Lumbres (transferee), the transferor is not an indispensable part (Spring Homes v. Tablada, 23
June 2017).
In an action for reconveyance against the defendant, the person who had sold the land to the
defendant is not an indispensable party (Aboitiz v. Po, 5 June 2017, LEONEN).
In an unlawful detainer suit, the seller who had retained ownership in a contract to sell to the
plaintiff is not an indispensable party. The reason is that in ejectment, only better right of
possession, not ownership, is in issue (Philippine Veterans Bank v. Sabado, 30 August 2017).
In a suit for damages by parents of deceased medical students against the medical school, the
municipality which had a Memorandum of Intent with the medical school for the operation of the
community clinic (where the students perished in a fire) is not an indispensable party (St. Luke’s
College of Medicine v. Perez, 28 September 2016).
In an action for cancellation of title filed against the registered owner, his wife is not an
indispensable party if the land is registered as “Husband, married to Wife” (Onstott v. Upper-
Tagpos Neighborhood Association, 14 September 2016).
An action to recover the deficiency after extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is a
personal action since it does not affect title to or possession of real property or any interest
therein (BPI Family v. Yujuico, 22 July 2015).
Complaint for nullification of sale of land is a personal action since there was no allegation that
the possession and title to the property was transferred to the respondent. Hence venue was
properly laid in Davao City (the property was located in Davao del Norte) (Racpan v. Barroga-
Haigh, 6, June 2018).
Where there is a restrictive or exclusive venue stipulation in the contract – That the defendant
had filed several motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading, or that he interposed
a counterclaim or third-party complaint in his answer does not mean that he waived the defense
of improper venue (Ley Construction Corp. v. Sedano, 23, August 2017).
1. Summary proceedings;
2. Ejectment cases under Rule 70;
3. Small claims cases
In a summary proceeding, when a defendant fails to file an answer, the court can render
judgment based solely on the allegations in the complaint. No need for plaintiff to present
evidence (Fairland Knitcraft Corp. v. Po, 27 January 2016).
Where the mortgagee after an extrajudicial foreclosure, had filed an action for the deficiency, the
mortgagor’s claim for the nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure is a compulsory counterclaim
which cannot be set up in a separate action (Spouses Mendiola v. CA, 18 July 2012).
(Compulsory counterclaim not set up is barred. Res judicata. No docket fees. Rule of thumb: Can
the court grant the complaint and the counterclaim at the same time? If no, compulsory)
In a suit by lessor against lessee for unpaid rentals, the counterclaim by the lessee for damages
for taking over the leased premises and the harvesting of crops is permissive (Sy-Vargas v.
Estate of Ogsos, 5 October 2016).
Rule 8, Section 5 requires that in all averments of fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud
must be stated with particularity. The mere invocation of the words “surreptitiously and
fraudulently” does not make the allegation particular (Villalon v. Lirio, 3 August 2015).
Failure to attach/set forth actionable documents does not preclude its subsequent offer in
evidence (Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co. v. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance, 28 January 2019).
A letter which states value of stocks of unsold lubricants is not an actionable document but an
evidentiary document. Hence failure to specifically deny the same under oath will not amount to
an implied admission (BP Oil v. Total Distribution, 6 February 2017). (Under this case, the basis
for the claim by BP Oil is the agency or distribution agreement entered into by the parties, not the
assailed letter)
Rule 8, Section 10 – Denial based on lack of knowledge or information is ineffective where the
paragraph in the complaint averred matters that the defendant ought to have known or could
have easily known (Fernando Medical Enterprises v. Wesleyan University Philippines, Inc. 20
January 2016).
The allegation that an obligation has prescribed without specifying the circumstances behind itt is
a mere conclusion of law. Hence no judicial admission on the defendant’s part even if not
specifically denied (Mercene v. GSIS, 10 January 2018).
A party declared in default may appeal from the default judgment and file appellant’s or appellee’s
brief (Royal Plains View, Inc. v. Mejia, 12 November 2018).
Filing of a motion to lift/set aside order of default is equivalent to voluntary appearance. However,
the court should lift order of default instead of insisting on validity of the service of summons.
If there is no allegation of the assessed value, the fact that the tax declaration (showing assessed
value of realty subject of action) was offered by plaintiff without objection from the defendant will
not cure the jurisdictional defect. Rule 10, Section 5 cannot cure jurisdictional defects (Cabrera v.
Clarin, 28 November 2016).
Service of notice of pre-trial on OSG is binding even if no notice was sent to the deputized
counsel (Republic v. Viaje, 27 January 2016).
Service of resolution denying MR upon collaborating counsel already binds the client even if no
service upon the lead counsel was made (Philippine Asset Growth Two, Inc. v. Fastech Synergy
Philippines, Inc. 28 June 2016).
In a petition for nullification of marriage, the court order for extraterritorial service to be effected by
publication in a NGC, without stating that there be service at defendant’s last known address, is
service by the fourth (registered mail) and not the third mode (publication) (Arrieta v. Arrieta, 19
November 2018). Modes:
1. Personal Service;
2. International Treaties;
3. Publication;
4. Other manner the court may deem sufficient.
Motu propio dismissal of a case after defendant had been declared in default is improper
(Lansangan v. Caisip, 6 August 2018).
If the defendant desires to prosecute his counterclaim in the same action, he is required to
manifest his preference within 15 days from notice of plaintiff’s motion for dismissal. Otherwise,
the counterclaim may be prosecuted only in a separate action (Blay v. Baña, 7 March 2018).
The Ombudsman has a right to intervene in appeals from its rulings in administrative cases
before rendition of judgment by the Court of Appeals (OMB v. Bongais, 23 July 2018).
The 1997 Rules requires the original parties to file an answer to the complaint-in-intervention
within 15 days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by
the court. Failure to do so can give rise to default (Lim v. NAPOCOR, 14 November 2012).
There is no requirement under Rule 23 that the specific purpose for the deposition be stated in
order to ensure that matters are relevant and not privileged (Malonzo v. Sucere Foods Corp, 5
February 2020).
Deposition of non-resident plaintiff may be taken abroad pursuant to Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2)
since plaintiff is out of the Philippines (Santamaria v. Cleary, 15 June 2016).
An exception to the implied admission rule is when the party to whom such request for admission
is served had already controverted the matter subject of such request (Duque v. Yap, 19
February 2018).
Motion for production of documents under Rule 27 was properly denied where it was made after
the rendition of judgment (CIR v. SMC, 25 January 2017, LEONEN).
An RTC decision which merely narrated facts and then proceeded to the dispositive portion is
void because it has no legal basis (PNB v. Entapa, 7 September 2016, LEONEN).
Rule 38 – The petition for relief from judgment grounded on extrinsic fraud (i.e. that wrong
address provided for in service of summons) meant that the court did not acquire personal
jurisdiction. Hence the petition for relief can be filed at any time unless barred by laches or
estoppel (Duremdes v. Jorilla, 26 February 2020).
A.M. No. 01-11-10-SC (Rule on Nullification of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages) which requires an MR as a condition precedent for appeal does not apply to judgment
in petition for recognition of foreign divorce decree (Republic v. Cote, 14 March 2018).
In a criminal case, Rule 39, Section 6 does not apply to the enforcement of the penalty of
imprisonment since it is Article 93 of the RPC which applies. Rule 39, Section 6 however will
apply to the civil liability arising from a crime (Basilonia v. Villaruz, 10 August 2015).
The RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over an action for revival of judgment since it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation (Anama v. Citibank, 13 December 2017).
An action for revival of order dismissing an action for failure to prosecute is not proper, as there is
nothing to execute or enforce (Ganal v. Alpuerto, 12 February 2020).
Remedy from denial of third-party claim – Neither appeal (because the third-party claimant is not
a party to the action denying his claim) nor certiorari because there is adequate remedy of filing a
separate reinvindicatory action (PSALM v. Maunlad Homes, 8 February 2017).
Petition for recognition of foreign divorce decree concerns Edna’s status. Hence res judicata does
not apply and the case may be re-filed. The court however simply ordered the case to be
remanded to the RTC to avoid waste of time and resources (Kondo v. Civil Registrar General, 4
March 2020). (Petition was initially dismissed for failure to present evidence of the foreign divorce
law of Japan)
The finding by DARAB that Petitioner was a bona fide tenant meant that the RTC in a criminal
case cannot convict him of theft of the crops he harvested (Ligtas v. People, 17 August 2015,
LEONEN). Bar by prior judgment: Same subject matter, parties, and cause of action.
Conclusiveness of judgment: Same subject matter and parties, but different causes of action.
Extended Resolution – Unsigned resolutions can still be considered as case law if they state
clearly the facts and the law on which it is based. Comparatively, a minute resolution dismisses a
case without discussing its merits (Eizmendi v. Fernandez. 27 November 2019).
Matters of remedy and procedure, such as service of process, are governed by lex fori (law of the
forum) (Mercantile Insurance Co. v. Yi, 18 March 2019). (The issue in this case is which law the
service of summons should follow, Philippine law or California law).
A party can file a notice of appeal even if there is a pending motion for reconsideration by the
adverse party (Bernardo v. Soriano, 19 June 2019).
Appeal from the RTC decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over an action to rescind
memorial park lot purchase raises only a question of law and should have been taken to the SC
(Rule 65) and not the CA (Park Developers, Inc. v. Daclan, 27 November 2019).
Remedy from an order dismissing a case for failure to state a cause of action is Rule 65, since
the dismissal is without prejudice (Sadhwani v. Sadhwani, 14 August 2019). If the dismissal is
due to: Prescription, Unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds, Res judicata, or Extinction of
the action, remedy is appeal, because such is with prejudice. Otherwise, remedy is R65. Basis =
Rule 41.
Remedy from an order dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is Rule 65,
because it is without prejudice (Soller v. Singson, 3 February 2020).
The power of the RTC to dismiss appeals is limited to two grounds in Rule 41, Section 13 (failure
to pay docket fees, or failure to file a timely appeal). Hence, the RTC cannot dismiss appeals on
the ground that it was not the proper remedy (an act only the appellate court can do) (PBCom v.
CA, 15 Februar’y 2017).
Neypes Rule (denial of motion for reconsideration) is applicable to a Writ of Amparo case
(Mamba v. Bueno, 7 February 2017). The movant will have a fresh 5-working day period to file a
petition under Rule 45.
Commercial arbitration awards are not reviewable by Rule 43 since commercial arbitration is not
a quasi-judicial proceeding (Fruehauf Electronics, Phils. v. Techology Electronicis Assembly, 23
November 2016).
Arbitral awards by the CIAC may be reviewed via Rule 43 but only on questions of law (Metro
Bottled Water Corp. v. Andrada Construction Corop. 6 March 2019, LEONEN).
Decisions of the Secretary of Justice on the legality of a tax ordinance may be reviewed under
Rule 43 since it is an exercise of quasi-judicial power (De Lima v. City of Manila, 17 October
2018).
From the ruling of voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators, the aggrieved party should first file
MR and, if denied, then Rule 43 15 days from notice of denial of MR (Guagua National Colleges
v. CA 28 August 2018).
The remedy from the Ombudsman’s ruling exonerating respondents from administrative liability is
not Rule 43 (since ruling is final and unappealable), but Rule 65 (Madangan v. Dela Cruz, 8
October 2018).
The Ombudsman may appeal to the CA a decision in an administrative case (OMB v. Chipoco,
19 August 2019).
Respondent’s remedy from a consolidated ruling of the Ombudsman (for administrative and
criminal cases) is Rule 43 from the administrative aspect and Rule 65 to the Supreme Court from
Remedy from decisions or final orders of the DAR Secretary is Rule 43, not Rule 65 (Fil-Estate
Properties v. Reyes, 18 September 2019, LEONEN).
Appeals from a decision or final order in a case governed by the Rules of Procedure for Intra-
Corporate Controversies is via Rule 43, pursuant to A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC (San Jose v. Ozamiz,
12 July 2017).
In case of a Rule 47 action based on lack of jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, no
need to aver that ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, and MR are no longer available without
fault (Alvarez v. Domantay, 3 June 2019).
Where the principal objective of the Republic’s action is to nullify the CFI judgment (acting as a
land registration court) on ground that the property is public domain, the proper action is not for
reversion but annulment of judgment under Rule 47 (Yujuico v. Republic, 26 October 2007).
Rule 47 is for nullifying only judgments or final orders, not writs or processes issued pursuant to a
final and executory judgment (Mejia-Espinoza v. Cariño 25 January 2017).
Rule 47 is not available against judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial bodies, such as the
SEC (Imperial v. Armes, 30 January 2017).
A petition for reconstitution is not the proper remedy to cancel TCT, since it is a proscribed
collateral attack. Rule 47 should be used instead (Aquino v. Estate of Aguirre, 14 January 2019).
Judgment of a court granting a petition for the issuance of duplicate certificate of title, filed by the
transferee in a deed of sale, is void where no notice was given to heirs of the registered owner.
The judgment may be nullified under Rule 47 (Heirs of Ramirez v. Abon, 24 July 2019).
Lack of jurisdiction under Rule 47 means lack of either personal or subject matter jurisdiction.
Thus petitioner must show not only an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an absolute lack
thereof (Spouses Manila v. Spouses Manzo, 7 September 2011).
In an accion publiciana case filed by the plaintiff registered owner against the defendant, the RTC
judgment awarding ownership to defendant was void since ownership cannot be adjudicated in
accion publiciana. Judgment may be set aside through Rule 47 (Heirs of Cullado v. Gutierrez, 30
July 2019). (only possession may be ruled upon; recovery of ownership is accion reinvindicatoria)
Judgment which did not implead the indispensable party may be nullified under Rule 47 on lack of
jurisdiction (Fernando v. Paguyo, 18 September 2019).
In appeals in civil cases, the CA may receive evidence only when it grants a new trial based on
newly-discovered evidence (Crispino v. Tansay, 5 December 2016, LEONEN). (CA may always
accept evidence in appealed criminal cases)
The existence of a maritime lien in accordance with the Ship Mortgage Decree, is not a ground
for preliminary attachment (Tsuneishi Heavy Industries v. MIS Maritime Corp., 4 April 2018).
The deposit referred to in Rule 57 Sections 2 and 5 which the adverse party may make in order to
stop or lift the attachment refers to a cash deposit. The remedy of the adverse party in lifting the
Prohibition on Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction against national
government projects under R.A. 8975 is not applicable to a Cease and Desist Order issued by the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts against destruction of national cultural treasures
(against the DPWH). The NCCA is not a court (Bernal v. De Leon, 29 July 2020).
Actions for injunction against government infrastructure projects are not barred by P.D. 1818
because the preclusion applies only to TRO and WPI (Soller v. Singson, 3 February 2020).
A status quo ante order cannot be used to extend the effectivity of a TRO (First Sarmiento
Holdings v. Philippine Bank of Communications, 19, June 2018, LEONEN). (TROs can never be
extended. It can be re-issued if it is on a different ground)
The RTC judge issued a TRO “effective within a period of 20 days from the date hereof or until
further orders from this court.” The italicized phrase should be disregarded (OCA v. Alaras, 23
July 2018).
The first paragraph of Section 14, R.A. 6770, which bars courts from issuing a TRO or WPI
against investigations conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches upon the SC’s rule-making
power (Carpio-Morales v. CA, 10 November 2015).
Where the replevin suit was dismissed because of failure to prosecute, but the movable cannot
be returned by plaintiff, the plaintiff is liable only for the value of the movable and not the full value
of the bond (Enriquez v. Mercantile Insurance Co., 15 August 2018, LEONEN).
Interpleader – An adverse claimant in an interpleader case may be declared in default under Rule
62 section 5. The Rules would not have allowed claimants in interpleader cases to be declared in
default if it would ironically defeat the very purpose of the suit (Lui Enterprises v. Zuelliig Pharma,
12 March 2014).
In a petition for declaratory relief questioning the constitutionality of a law, the Republic need not
be impleaded. Mere notice to the OSG is sufficient (Zomer Development Co. v. CA, 7 January
2020, LEONEN).
Rule 65 petitions are not per se remedies to address constitutional issues. Declaratory relief is
proper when questions of validity or constitutionality cannot be resolved in a factual vacuum
(Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, 3 September 2019, LEONEN).
The RTC has jurisdiction over actions seeking to set aside GSIS rules on computation of
retirement benefits (GSIS v. Daymiel. 11 March 2019).
Administrative agencies such as the DARAB are not courts of law and may not issue writs of
certiorari to annul acts of officers or state organs even when they exercise supervisory authority
over these officers or organs (Zoleta v. Land Bank, 9 August 2017, LEONEN).\
Expanded judicial power permits the use of Rule 65 to challenge the constitutionality of law.
Facial challenge of law was expanded not only to cover free speech but other fundamental rights
as well (Pimentel v. LEB, 10 September 2019).
The power of the mayor to issue permits/licenses is discretionary, and thus not compellable by
mandamus (Lacap v. SB, 21 June 2017).
Transferee of shares of stock may compel the corporation to record share transfer in its stock-
and-transfer book, as well as to issue new certificates in his name (Andaya v. Rural Bank of
Cabadbaran, Inc., 3 August 2016).
Mandamus is proper to compel DBM to pay retirement gratuity differentials of retired CA justices
(Association of Retired CA justices v. Abad, 10 July 2018).
Mandamus however does not lie to compel the payment of informer’s reward, because the grant
thereof is discretionary (Lihaylihay v. Tan, 23 July 2018, LEONEN).
Courts have the discretion to entertain an action for declaratory relief. They cannot be compelled
by mandamus to resolve the case when they exercise this discretion (Zomer Development Co. v.
CA, 7 January 2020, LEONEN).
The Department of Education may not be compelled by mandamus to deduct salary of teachers
to pay to the creditor (Dep.Ed v. Riizal Teachers Kilusang Bayan for Credit, 3 July 2019).
Judges who merely have an expectant, not a clear right to Sandiganbayan positions, are not the
proper party to file a petition for quo warranto under Rule 66, Section 5 (Aguinaldo v. Aquino).
The one-year limitation under Rule 66, Section 11, is not applicable where the petitioner is not a
mere private individual pursuing a private interest, but the government itself seeking relief for a
public wrong and suing for public interest (Republic v. Sereno, 11 May 2018). (prescription does
not lie against the State, except where the petition for quo warranto was filed by the Solicitor
General or public prosecutor at the request and upon the relation of another person)
In expropriation cases, the interest awarded to the landowner should be computed from the time
of the taking of the property. Here, legal interest shall run not from filing of the complaint, but from
the issuance of writ of possession, since that is when the deprivation of property can be
established (Republic v. Macabagdal, 10 January 2018).
Award of capital gains tax and transfer taxes to landowners as consequential damages in an
expropriation case is improper (Republic v. Bunsay, 10 December 2019).
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage is a real action, since it involves title to real property. Since
the assessed value of the mortgaged property is only ₱13,380.00, the action falls within the
jurisdiction of the MTC (Roldan v. Barrios, 23 April 2018).
While an action for partition of real estate is incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction still
depends on the subject property’s assessed values in accordance with BP 129 (Agarrado v.
Librando-Agarrado, 6 June 2018).
Boundary disputes arising from metes and bounds of Torrens title may be threshed out not in a
forcible entry case but only through an accion reinvindicatoria (Martinez v. Heirs of Lim, 11,
September 2019).
The prior physical possession required in a forcible entry case is not limited to actual physical
possession but also contemplates possession through legal acts and formalities (Madayag v.
Madayag, 20 January 2020).
Petition for Habeas Corpus of a convict based on release by Good Conduct Time Allowance is
not proper if filed with the SC (resort to the SC is barred where factual issues are still to be
resolved). Besides, petitioner is not entitled to request because he was convicted of heinous
crime (Reyes v. Bantag, 10 June 2020).
In a habeas corpus case involving the rightful custody of a child, the court must conduct a trial to
determine who has rightful custody (Masbate v. Relucio, 30 July 2018).
Petition for writ of habeas corpus is available in case of incommunicado detention (Boratong v.
De Lima, 8 September 2020, LEONEN).
Writ of habeas corpus is not available in a case where a 19-year old lass joined Anakbayan.
There is no illegal detention where the act was voluntary. Allegation of indoctrination or
brainwashing was merely speculative (Lucena v. Elago, 15 September 2020).
The privilege of the writ of Amparo is granted where the estranged wife of the deceased alleged
NPA and her family were under constant police surveillance and monitoring. The writ is primarily
meant to address concerns such as, but not limited to, extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances, or the threats thereof (Sanchez v. Darroca, 15 October 2019, LEONEN).
Writ of Amparo is confined merely to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or the
threats thereof (Lucena v. Elago, 15 September 2020). (follow the more recent ruling)
The writ of Habeas Data is not available to compel the DOJ to produce documents to justify
Boratong’s transfer from NBP to the NBP extension facility. No expectation of privacy for convicts
(Boratong v. De Lima, 8 September 2020, LEONEN).
A petition by the mother to change her status in her daughter’s birth certificate from married to
unmarried is a substantial change. Her failure to implead the Republic and other interested
parties, aside from the Local Civil Registrar, is a fatal defect (Republic v. Ontuca, 15 July 2020).
R.A. 9048 – A petition to change “Felicianoo Bartholome” to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome” is covered
by R.A. 9048. A prayer to enter a person’s middle name is a mere clerical error, which may be
corrected by referring to existing records (Republic v. Gallo, 17 January 2018, LEONEN;
Bartolome v. Republic, 28 August 2019).
Section 90 of the CDDA, or R.A. 9165 is a special law which prevails over Section 4(b) of P.D.
1606, which is a general law. Hence even if the illegal drug trading was office-related, it is the
RTC and not the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the offense charged (De Lima v.
Guerrero, 10 October 2017).
ERC Commissioners charged with violation of the Anti-Graft Law – The information should be
filed in the RTC in the judicial region other than where the official holds office per R.A. 10660.
RTC of Pasig has no jurisdiction (Non v. OMB, 8 September 2020).
Tolling of prescriptive period – Filing of the complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office already tolls the
running of the prescriptive period even if the offense is for the violation of a special law (in this
case BP 22). The phrase ’proceedings’ in Section 2 of Act No. 3326 by which prescription is
interrupted should be deemed to refer to proceedings judicial or executive in character
(Panaguiton v. DOJ, 25 November 2008).
Prescriptive period for violation of R.A. 7787 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law) is tolled upon filing of
the complaint with the Ombudsman (People v. Lee, 16 September 2019).
However, in cases of violations of ordinances, the prescriptive period is tolled only upon filing of
the information in court, because violations of ordinances necessitate a summary proceeding
(Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. v. Lidua, 7 October 2013).
The accused cannot be convicted of Estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b),
absent allegation in the information of fiduciary relationship between the accused and the private
complainant. Mere allegation that complainant invested his money with the corporation is
insufficient (Legaspi v. People, 15 October 2018).
Where rape by sexual assault occurred on March 2012, the accused cannot be convicted if
information alleged that the rape took place ’on or about March 2014.’ The alleged date is far
removed from the actual date (People v. HHH, 26 August 2020).
Amendment to include new accused and allegation of conspiracy between the former accused
and the new accused, although a mere formal amendment should not be allowed after plea, as it
will prejudice the right of the accused (it will change the nature of the defenses) (Corpus v.
Pamular, 5 September 2018, LEONEN).
Substitution of information is applicable only before judgment has been rendered. The CA order
to remand the case to the RTC to substitute the information for rape through sexual intercourse
with one for rape by sexual assault was erroneous since there was already a conviction (not
necessarily included in the offense charged) (People v. Caoili, 8 August 2017).
Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction over an offense of psychological violence under R.A.
9262 committed through marital infidelity, even if the alleged illicit relationship occurred outside
the country (AAA v. BBB, 11 January 2018).
Information filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor of Makati City was void where there was no
prior written authority from the City Prosecutor, even if the information contained a certification
that the ACP had prior written authority from the CP (Quisay v. People, 13 January 2016).
If the investigating fiscal filed the drugs case despite absence of showing that chain of custody
was observed, the court may either refuse to issue a commitment order or arrest warrant, or
dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause (People v. Turematsu, 10 April 2019,
LEONEN).
The judge is not obligated to first resolve a motion to quash, even if grounded on lack of
jurisdiction, before issuing an arrest warrant (De Lima v. Guerrero, 10 October 2017).
The trial judge cannot remand the case to the prosecutor for another preliminary investigation n
the ground that earlier PI was improperly conducted. Judge’s choices are limited to Rule 112,
Section 5 (dismiss, issue arrest warrant) (Maza v. Turla, 15 February 2017, LEONEN).
The Sandiganbayan has the power to issue Hold Departure Orders even if the same was not
mentioned in SC Circular 39-97 (Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 17 October 2018).
Rule 116, Section 3 (searching inquiry), applies when an accused pleads guilty to murder. Murder
remains a capital offense notwithstanding the prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty
since death is the imposable penalty under the RPC. Hence, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal when the prosecution failed to present any witness despite having the opportunity to do
so (People v. Pagal, 29 September 2020).
The provision of Rule 116, Section 11(c), limiting suspension of arraignment to 60 days from filing
of petition for review is mandatory and not directory (People v. Goyala, 15 July 2020).
Failure to allege specifically facts relative to treachery, a ground for quashal under Section 3(e)
(failure to comply with the prescribed form), and not Section 3(a) of Rule 117 (no offense
charged), is thus waived if not raised in a motion to quash or motion for bill of particulars (People
v. Solar, 6 August 2019).
Although Section 8 of Rule 117 states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one
year after the issuance thereof without the case having been revived, the one-year period should
be reckoned from the service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of
the prosecution. If the offended party is represented by a private counsel, the better rule is that he
reckoning period should commence to run from the time such private counsel was actually
notified of the order of provisional dismissal (Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, Inc., 30 June
2014). (provisional dismissal must be with express consent of the accused and with notice to
offended party)
The conditional examination of a witness for the prosecution shall be made before the court
where the case is pending, not before a Philippine consular officer abroad, pursuant to Rule 119,
Section 15 (Go v. People, 18 July 2012).
Accused charged of transporting illegal drugs necessarily includes possession thereof (Musa v.
People, 25 September 2019).
Accused charged with intentional felony of falsification of public document may be convicted f
reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents (Sevilla v. People, 13 August
2014).
Accused charged with Estafa through misappropriation may be convicted of qualified theft if
allegations in the information contain the elements of the latter crime (Tan v. People, 28 July
2020). (Estafa through misappropriation requires juridical , not just physical, possession)
A mayor charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (causing undue injury to the
government in the discharge of official functions through evident bad faith), cannot be convicted
of violating Section 3(e) through gross inexcusable negligence (Villarosa v. People, 23 June
2020).
Appeals in criminal cases throw open the entire case for review, including questions not raised by
the parties. The SC acquitted an accused on the ground of violation of his right to be informed of
the nature of the charge against him, even if not raised on appeal (Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan,
2 August 2017).
An appeal erroneously taken by the accused from conviction by the RTC of malversation to the
CA should be endorsed by the CA to the Sandiganbayan instead of being dismissed. The error is
not attributable to the accused, as the duty to transmit the records of the case to the proper court
devolves upon the RTC (Dizon v. People, 24 January 2018).
The proper remedy from an order of dismissal upon a demurrer to evidence is Rule 65, not Rule
45. Appeal is not proper, since it will place the accused in double jeopardy (Bowden v. Bowden,
17 July 2019).
In an application for search warrant under Section 4 of Rule 126, it is not necessary that both the
complainant and the witnesses must be examined by the judge (People v. Gabiosa, 29 January
2020).
1. Prior to entry, passengers and their bags can be subjected to a routine inspection akin to
airport and seaport security protocol.
2. While in transit, a bus can still be searched by government agents or the security
personnel of the bus owner in the following instances:
1. In the Saluday case, the search was merely visual and minimally intrusive, wheras in
Sapla, the search was extensive;
2. The search in Saluday targeted the vehicle, whereas the search in Sapla targeted a
specific person;
3. Purpose of the search in Saluday was to ensure public safety (illegal firearms). On the
other hand, in Sapla, the purpose was to arrest persons illegally transporting drugs.