JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

CASE UPDATES ON
REMEDIAL LAW*
Prof. Manuel R. Riguera
 © 2024
by JURISTS REVIEW CENTER INC.
All rights reserved.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
• SB has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over civil forfeiture cases falling within
RTC jurisdiction (Republic v. Racho, 16
Jan 2023, Leonen, J.).
• RTC has jurisdiction over action for
cancellation of OCT arising from
Certificate of Ancestral Land Title; RTC
may pass on validity of NCIP proceedings.
(Republic v. Heirs of Paus, 14 Aug 2019,
Caguioa, J.).
 Jurisdiction
• MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over
action for enforcement of an amicable
settlement executed before the
Barangay regardless of amount involved
pursuant to Sec. 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.
(Heirs of Julao v. Sps. De Jesus, 29
September 2014).
• 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.
(Tumpag v. Tumpag, 29 September 2014).
• RTC is without jurisdiction over real
action if what was alleged is market
value, not assessed value. (Gabrillo v.
Heirs of Pastor, 2 Oct 2019, Reyes, J.).
• 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, Del Castillo, J.).
• Jurisdiction over real action is
determined by allegations in complaint,
not the averment in answer. (Berbano v.
Tapulao, 1 July 2019, Lazaro-Javier, J.).
 Jurisdiction
• Where there are Family Courts, RTCs in
the same area (here Angeles City) have
no jurisdiction over a petition for
nullification of marriage. RTC should not
order transfer of case to FC but should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
(David v. Calilung, 26 Jan 2021, e.b.,
Delos Santos, J.)
• Cancellation of emancipation patents,
CLOA, and certificates of titles issued
under agrarian reform program is within
exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR
Secretary. (Secretary of DAR v Heirs of
Redemptor, 12 Mar 2019, e.b., Leonen).
• RTC (not DARAB) has exclusive original
jurisdiction over petition for issuance of
new duplicate certificate of title, even
one emanating from a CLOA. Not an
agrarian dispute or agrarian reform
matter. (Patungan v. RD of Pangasinan,
28 June 2021, Inting, J.).
• Liquidated claim vs. the government is
within the primary jurisdiction of the
COA, not the courts. (MMDA v. D.M.
Consunji, 20 Feb 2019, Carpio, J.).
 COA
• Commission on Audit’s jurisdiction over
final money judgments rendered by
courts/tribunals pertain only to the
execution stage; COA cannot modify
CIAC’s final & executory judgment. (Taisei
Shimizu Joint Venture v COA, 2 June
2020, e.b., Lazaro-Javier, J.).
 COA
• COA’s decision disallowing a claim to
enforce an RTC’s final & executory
judgment was made with grave abuse of
discretion. COA has no jurisdiction to set
aside RTC’s final judgment v. govt for just
compensation. (Star Special Corp. v.
COA, e.b., 1 Sep 2020, Leonen, J.).
• CIAC has jurisdiction to settle
construction dispute v. govt to exclusion
of COA, but upon CIAC award, the
prevailing party must still file its claim
before the COA (Sunway Builders v. COA,
20 Sep 2022, e.b., Inting, J.).
• CIAC jurisdiction divests COA of its
general and primary jurisdiction re
money claims in construction contracts,
even if a government contract (Republic
v. Pascual, 29 March 2023, Gaerlan, J.).
• “Interest” which is excluded in DALIC per
§19(8) of B.P. Blg. 129 pertains only to
punitive interest and not to contractual
interest (Domasian v. Demdan, 17 Nov
2021, Gaerlan, J.; reiterating Gomez v.
Montalban, 548 SCRA 693 [2008]).
• An action for “breach of contract” is
capable of pecuniary estimation. Hence,
jurisdiction is with MTC where damages
sought ≯ ₱2M. (Pajares v. Remarkable
Laundry, 20 Feb 2017, Del Castillo, J.).
• MTC has jurisdiction over an action for
refund of security deposit ≯ ₱2,000,000.
The action is capable of pecuniary
estimation. (Phil-Japan Active Carbon
Corp. v. Borgaily, 15 Jan 2020, Carandang,
J.).
 Special Commercial Court*
• Where an intra-corporate case was
raffled to a non-SCC, the court should not
dismiss the case but refer it to the
Executive Judge for re-docketing as a
commercial case. (Gonzalez v. GJH Land,
Inc., 10 Nov 2015, e.b., Perlas-Bernabe,
J.). >
 Take Note
The matter of whether the RTC
resolves an issue in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction or of its limited
jurisdiction as a special commercial court is
only a matter of procedure and has
nothing to do with the question of
jurisdiction (id.).
• Suit by investor-client to 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
Inc., 17 Oct 2018, Peralta, J.).
• Derivative suits are to be tried by SCCs,
even if third parties (i.e., mortgagee
bank) are involved. Distinction between
“intra-corp” and “non-intra corp”
derivative suits has been removed
(Metro Bank v. Salazar Realty Corp., 9
Mar 2022, Gaerlan, J.).
• A claim for damages based on 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 Equipment Resources Inc.,
13 Jul 2020, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• CTA has exclusive jurisdiction to
determine constitutionality or validity of
tax law, rules, and regulations. (GAB v.
Klub Don Juan De Manila, 3 Nov 2020,
Carandang, J.; citing BDO v. Republic,
e.b., 16 Aug 2016; St. Mary’s Academy v.
Henares, 13 Jan 2021, Leonen, J.)
 Barangay conciliation
ABCDE v Deft X. A, B, C, & X reside
in Roxas City. D&E no longer reside in
Roxas City but authorized C who resides in
Roxas City. Does the requirement of prior
barangay conciliation apply?
 Barangay conciliation
No. Barangay conciliation is required
only if all the parties reside in the same city
or municipality. >
 The residence of the attorney-in-fact
of a real party in interest is irrelevant in so
far as the "actual residence" requirement
under the LGC for prior barangay
conciliation is concerned. (Abagatnan v.
Clarito, 7 August 2017, Del Castillo, J.). <
• Sec. 412 of the LGC states that parties
may go directly to court if the action is
coupled with provisional remedies. 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, Velasco, J.).
• The complaint for annulment of REM is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, even
if the property had been foreclosed, if at
the time the complaint was filed, the
certificate of sale was not registered with
the RD. (First Sarmiento Holdings, Inc. v.
Phil. Bank of Communications, 19 June
2018, Leonen, J.).
 Jurisdiction
• Complaint for nullification of REM is a
real action where there was foreclosure
sale and registration of certificate of sale,
even if mortgagor still in possession. RTC
has no jurisdiction since assessed value
not alleged in the complaint. Such value
cannot be inferred from loan amount
(Veloso v. BDO, 14 June 2023, Inting, J.).
• Where there is non-compliance with
requirement of barangay conciliation, the
court should dismiss the case and not
merely suspend it. (Ngo v. Gabelo, 24
Aug 2020, Hernando, J.).
 Docket fee
• 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 Oct
2018, Leonen, J.).
 Docket fee
• Plaintiff must pay docket fee 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, J.).
• Tolling of prescriptive period reckoned
from filing of amended not original
complaint when the amended complaint
introduced new demands that were not
specified and averred expressly in the
original complaint. (Alpha Plus Int’l
Enterprises v. Phil. Charter Insurance
Corp., 10 Feb 2021, Hernando, J.) >
• Original complaint: “Amount due under
the insurance policy + ₱1 million as
exemplary damages + ₱1 million as atty’s
fees.”
Amended complaint: “₱300 million as
insurance claim.”
 Joinder of causes of action
• The joinder of an action for injunction
with an action for quieting of title is not
allowed under S5 R2 since the latter is a
special civil action. (Salvador v. Patricia,
Inc., 9 Nov 2016, Bersamin, J.).
 Cause of action
• Stipulation in compromise agreement
allowing splitting of cause of action is
void. (Riviera Golf Club v CCA Holdings,
B.V., 17 June 2015).
 Cause of action
• Cause of action against father’s debt is
the same against son who promised to
pay father’s debt in his behalf. (Marilag
v. Martinez, 22 July 2015, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
 Splitting of cause of action
• A bank which extrajudicially forecloses
on two PNs (PNs 1 to 2) cannot file
collection case for 4 other PNs (PNs 3 to
6) where the PNs were all granted under
one discounting line facility. (Asset Pool A
v. Berris, 26 April 2021, Hernando, J.)
 Basic Principles
• Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate
fiction requires that personal jurisdiction
over the corporation alleged to be liable
must be acquired. A corporation not
impleaded cannot be subject to court’s
process of piercing the veil of corporate
fiction (Amoroso v. Vantage Drilling
International, 8 Aug 2022, Leonen, J.).
• Unincorporated homeowners’
association (not registered w/ HLURB)
has no legal capacity to sue. (Alliance of
QC Homeowners Assoc. v. Q.C., 18 Sep
2018, e.b., Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• “Lack of legal personality to sue” means
that the plaintiff is not the real party in
interest. This is the affirmative defense
of failure to state a cause of action.
(Ambrose v. Suque-Ambrose, 23 June
2021, Gaerlan, J.).
Compare with lack of legal capacity to
sue.
• 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
Phils. 18 April 2018, Leonen, J.).
• A mere applicant of a homestead patent
is not a party-in-interest who can file an
action for reconveyance over the land
subject of the application. (Demegillo v.
Lumampao, 10 Feb 2021, Hernando, J.).
• Children of deceased father may not file
petition for declaration of nullity of their
father’s marriage to W2 on the ground of
non-compliance with Art. 52 & 53 of
Family Code. Only a spouse can file
petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage. (David v. Calilung, 26 Jan 2021,
e.b., Delos Santos, J.).
 The Court overlooked the rule that
Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code apply
only to marriages annulled under Article 45
or nullified under Article 40. Articles 52
and 53 do not apply to a marriage nullified
under Article 36 of the Family Code. Thus,
marriage may not be nullified. (See Diño v.
Diño, 19 January 2011, Carpio, J.).
• Prior spouse may file petition for
nullification of second bigamous
marriage. (David v. Calilung, 26 Jan 2021,
e.b., Delos Santos, J.).
• Republic, not BCDA, is the real party-in-
interest in action for reversion and
cancellation of title over land in Fort
Bonifacio. (Republic v. Heirs of Bernabe,
e.b., 6 Oct 2020, Caguioa, J.).
Atty in fact not a real party-in-interest

• In a collection suit brought by non-

resident plaintiffs as represented by their
attorney-in-fact, the real parties-in-
interest are the plaintiffs pursuant to S3
R3. >
 Hence, the venue should have been
laid in the place where the defendant
resides and not where the attorney-in-fact
resides. (Ang v. Ang, 22 August 2012).
• City councilors, as representatives of the
city (which is the real party in interest),
have the standing to sue for nullification
of a contract entered into by the city
mayor without the prior authorization of
the city council. (Lao v. Cagayan de Oro
City, 13 September 2017, Leonen, J.).
• SAFA Law Office is a partnership and thus
the real party-in-interest, not its
managing partner. Court ordered that
partnership be impleaded. (Saludo v
PNB, 20 Aug 2018, Jardeleza, J.).
 Indispensable party
• In an action for cancellation of a loan
contract entered into between a
municipality and the Land Bank, filed by
a taxpayer against LBP and the municipal
officers, the municipality itself is an
indispensable party. >
 Hence, all decisions up to SC were set
aside and case remanded to RTC for
disposition on the merits. (LBP v
Cacayuran, 22 April 2015).
 Indispensable party
• In ex parte petition by registered owner
to cancel deed of restrictions (DOR) over
subdivision lot in favor of Forbes Park
Association, FPA is an indispensable party
even if apparently the DOR had expired.
RTC decision cancelling DOR may be set
aside via R47. (RMFPU Holdings v. Forbes
Park Assoc., 14 June 21, Caguioa, J.)
 Indispensable Party
• In petition by purchaser at execution sale
for entry of new title to him, a possessor
is an indispensable party. Failure to
implead the possessor would result in a
void judgment that may be annulled
pursuant to R47 (Chico v. Ciudano, 4 Jul
2022, Gesmundo, C.J.).
• 2 consequences of non-joinder of
indispensable party: (1) all subsequent
proceedings are void, and (2) the case
should be remanded to trial court for
inclusion of indispensable parties (Tan v.
Yabut, 29 Sep 2021, Inting, J.).
• In action for recovery of possession of
land against Spring Homes (transferor) &
Sps. Lumbres (transferee), the transferor
is not an indispensable party. (Spring
Homes v. Tablada, 23 Jan 2017, Peralta,
J.)
• 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, J.).
• Haus Talk Inc. → CTS → Sabado

PVB vs Sabado (ejectment)

• In an unlawful detainer suit, the assignor
who had retained ownership in a deed of
assignment to the plaintiff PVB is not an
indispensable party. The reason is that in
ejectment, only possession de facto, not
ownership, is at issue. (Phil. Veterans
Bank v. Sabado, 30 August 2017, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
• In suit for damages by parents of
deceased med studes v. medical school,
the municipality which had an MOI with
the medical school for the operation of
the community clinic (where the studes
perished in a fire) is not an indispensable
party. (St. Luke’s College of Medicine v.
Perez, 28 Sep 2016, Perez, J.)
• In an action for cancellation of title filed
against the registered owner, his wife is
not an indispensable party if land is
registered as “Husband, married to
Wife.” (Onstott v. Upper-Tagpos
Neighborhood Assoc., 14 Sep 2016,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
 Class Suit
• Class suit by farmers vs NAPOCOR for
damages caused by construction of dams
is not proper because of differences in
reliefs (damages) sought (National Power
Corp. v. Abdo, 27 March 2023, Singh, J.).
 Substitution S16 R3
• In keeping with the peculiar nature of a
complaint for illegal dismissal, the rule is
that in case any of the parties to a
complaint for illegal dismissal dies during
the pendency of such proceedings, he or
she may be substituted by his or her
heirs (Nedira v. NJ World Corp., 6 Dec
2022, e.b., Gesmundo, C.J.).
 Personal action
• 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 Bank v Yujuico, 22 July 2015,
Bersamin, J.)
• 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
respondent. Hence, venue was properly
laid in Davao City. (Racpan v. Barroga-
Haigh, 6 June 2018, Velasco, J.).
 Restrictive or exclusive
venue stipulation
• “All actions filed in connection with
this lease shall be filed with the RTC
of Pasay City, exclusive of all others.”
• That 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, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• RTC cannot motu proprio dismiss on
ground of improper venue a R108
petition. (Cabrera v. Phil. Statistics
Authority, 3 June 2019, Perlas-Bernabe,
J.).
 Rule on Summary Procedure
• When 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, Mendoza,
J.).
 Compulsory Counterclaim*
• 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. (Sps. Mendiola v. CA,
18 July 2012, Bersamin, J.).
 Compulsory Counterclaim
• Plaintiff filed collection case v. defendant
to recover value of land which plaintiff
had ceded to defendant’s creditors.
Defendant filed a separate action for
nullification of plaintiff’s certificates of
title over the ceded land on ground >
that earlier sale by defendant to plaintiff
was simulated (to prevent land being
reached by defendant’s creditors). The
nullification case arose from a compulsory
counterclaim which should have been set
up in the collection case (Jose v. Quesada-
Jose, 15 March 2023, Gesmundo, C.J.).
 Permissive counterclaim*
• In suit by lessor against lessee for unpaid
rentals, the counterclaim by lessee for
damages for the taking over of the leased
premises and the harvesting of crops is
permissive. (Sy-Vargas v Estate of Ogsos,
5 Oct 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
• Where SPA authorized agent to file and
prosecute cases on behalf of principal,
the agent has personal knowledge of
whether he initiated suits, thus satisfying
the requirements for a valid CFS.
(Republic v. Ciruelas, 17 Feb 2021, Delos
Santos, J.).
 R7
• Rule on CFS complied with when it is
agent or attorney-in-fact who initiated
the action on the principal’s behalf and
who signed the CFS; provided there is
justification for such authority as when
principal was in Hungary (Clavecilla v.
Clavecilla, 6 Mar 2023, Gesmundo, C.J.).
• When there is willful & deliberate forum
shopping, the penalty is dismissal of both
actions. Wrong to say that only one of
the actions is dismissible and that the
litigant may choose which remedy to
maintain. (Heirs of Mampo v. Morada, 3
Nov 2020, Caguioa, J.).
 S5 R8
• S5 R8 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, Brion, J.)
 Evidentiary not actionable document

• Letter which states value of stocks of

unsold lubricants is not an actionable
document but an evidentiary document.
Hence, failure to specifically deny under
oath will not amount to an implied
admission. (BP Oil v. Total Distribution, 6
Feb 2017, Mendoza).
• Accomplishment billing not an actionable
document. (Young Builders Corp. v.
Benson Industries Inc., 19 June 2019,
Caguioa, J.).
• Invoices for purchases of petroleum
products, signed by party sought to be
charged, are actionable documents
which are deemed admitted when not
specifically denied under oath (Chevron
Phils. v. Looyuko, 29 March 2023,
Gaerlan, J.).
 S10 R8
• Denial based on lack of knowledge or
information ineffective where paragraph
in complaint averred matters that the
Defendant ought to have known or could
have easily known. (Fernando Medical
Enterprises v. Wesleyan University Phil.,
Inc., 20 Jan 2016, Bersamin, J.).
• The allegation that an obligation has
prescribed without specifying the
circumstances behind it is a mere
conclusion of law. Hence, no judicial
admission on defendant’s part even if not
specifically denied. (Mercene v. GSIS, 10
January 2018, Martires, J.).
 Affirmative defense
• Defense that defendant was an IPV will
not lead to the failure of the complaint to
state a cause of action. It is an
affirmative defense to be proved during
the trial. (Colmenar v. Colmenar, 21 June
2021, Lazaro-Javier, J.).
• Q Plaintiff filed an action for
redemption of land. After he had filed
his answer, defendant raised for the first
time the failure of the plaintiff to tender
or consign the redemption price. May
the court consider this defense?
A No. The defense of failure to tender or
consign the redemption price is an
affirmative defense of failure to comply
with a condition precedent which is waived
if not raised in the answer. (Baltazar v.
Miguel, 28 June 2021, Delos Santos, J.).
• Corporation estopped from challenging
legal capacity of an unlicensed foreign
corporation to sue after having
contracted with it. (Magna Ready Mix v.
Andersen Bjornstad Kane Jacobs Inc., 20
Jan 2021, Hernando, J.).
 Default
• A party declared in default may appeal
from default judgment and file
appellant’s or appellee’s brief. (Royal
Plains View Inc. v. Mejia, 12 Nov 2018,
Reyes, J.).
• While there was an invalid service of
summons, the defendant’s filing of
motion to lift/set aside order of default is
equivalent to voluntary appearance.
However, court should lift default order
and allow defendant to take part in trial.
(Belo v. Marcantonio, 8 Sep 2020, Reyes,
J.).
 Amendment
• Substitution of a sole proprietorship by
the owner-operator is merely a formal
amendment. (Yon Mitori International
Industries v. Union Bank, 14 Oct 2020,
Caguioa, J.).
 S5 R10
• Fact that tax declaration (showing
assessed value of realty subject of action)
was offered by plaintiff without
objection from defendant will not cure
jurisdictional defect. S5 R10 cannot cure
jurisdictional defects. (Cabrera v. Clarin,
28 Nov 2016, Peralta, J.).
• Service of notice of pretrial on OSG
binding even if no notice was sent to the
deputized counsel. (Republic v. Viaje, 27
January 2016, Reyes, J.).
 Service of Pleadings & Papers
• In a marriage nullification case, appeal
period is reckoned from service of the
judgment on the OSG, not on the
deputized public prosecutor (Baldovino-
Torres v. Torres, 20 July 2022, Inting, J.).
• Service of resolution denying MR upon
collaborating counsel already binds client
even if no service upon lead counsel.
(Philippine Asset Growth Two Inc. v.
Fastech Synergy Phils. Inc., 28 June 2016,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• R14. SUMMONS.
 R14. Summons.
• Defendant estopped to raise affirmative
defense of lack of personal jurisdiction
where mail receiver of Globe Tower was
authorized or instructed by defendant to
receive summons (Abayon v. BPI, 29
March 2023, Dimaampao, J.).
• Service of summons on wife deemed
binding on husband where obligation
was chargeable to the conjugal
partnership. (Villarama v. Guno, 6 Aug
2018, Tijam, J.).
• No longer good case law under S11 R14
of 2020 Rules which provides that
“[w]hen spouses are sued jointly, service
of summons should be made to each
spouse individually.” <
• Substituted service presupposes that the
place where the summons is being
served is the defendant's current
residence or office/regular place of
business. (Express Padala v. Ocampo, 6
September 2017, Jardeleza, J.).
 S6(b) R14
• A “competent person in charge” refers to
one managing the office or the business,
such as the president, manager, or the
officer-in-charge. A property custodian
cannot be considered as such. (Ang v.
Chinatrust Commercial Bank Corp., 18
April 2016, Brion, J.).
Gentle Supreme Phils. Inc. v. Consulta,
1 Sep 2010, Abad, J.
• Under S6(b) R14, it is not necessary that
the person in charge of defendant’s
regular place of business be specifically
authorized to receive the summons. It is
enough that he appears to be in charge.
A secretary would be properly
considered as a person in charge. <
• Substituted service done in one day and
in only two tries upheld by SC where the
defendants were roving newspapermen
who most often were out of the office
(Abante Tonite). (Macasaet v. Co, 5 June
2013, Bersamin, J.). >
• No longer good case law coz of S6 R14
2020 RCP. <
 Extraterritorial service
• In petition for nullification of marriage,
court order for extraterritorial service to
be effected by publication in a NGC, w/o
stating that there be service at
defendant’s last known address, is
service by the [4th] and not the [third]
mode. (Arrieta v. Arrieta, 19 Nov 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• Extraterritorial service of summons by
publication under S17 R14 requires that
copy of summons and order be sent to
the defendant’s last known address by
registered mail; otherwise, such service
would be void. (Sarol v. Diao, 9 Dec 2020,
Carandang, J.).
 Extraterritorial Service
• Last known address in summons by
publication under S17 R14 may be in
Philippines or outside of it (see Solis v.
Solis-Laynes, G.R. 235099, 29 March
2023, Gaerlan, J.).
 S18 R14
• US citizen who maintains a PH residence
is considered as a resident temporarily
out of PH; thus, substituted service of
summons may be effected against her.
(Barber v. Chua, 12 Jan 2021, Zalameda,
J.).
 R16
• Court cannot motu proprio dismiss a
complaint for failure to comply with Art.
151 of the Family Code. (Moreno v.
Kahn, 30 July 2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• Motu proprio dismissal of case after
defendant had been declared in default is
improper. (Lansangan v Caisip, 6 Aug
2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
 S2 R17 Dismissal upon
plaintiff’s motion
• If 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, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide
for provisional dismissal. Order of
provisional dismissal of a civil case is
void. (PNB V. Daradar, 28 June 2021,
Hernando, J.).
 R18
• When defendant was present during the
pretrial, his counsel’s absence shall not
ipso facto result in allowing the plaintiff
to present evidence ex parte (Gemina v.
Heirs of Espejo, 13 Sep 2021, Hernando,
J.).
 Rule 18. Pre-trial
Although S2(g) R18 provides that the
court during the pretrial may consider
the propriety of dismissing the action
should a valid ground therefor be found
to exist, this applies only to the issues
that would govern the trial proper. >
The issue of failure to state a cause of
action can no longer be taken up by the
trial court since it had been waived under
S1 R9. (Pacana-Contreras v. Rovila Water
Supply, Inc., 2 December 2013, Brion, J.).
 R19
• OMB has right to intervene in appeals
from its rulings in administrative cases
(R43) before rendition of judgment by
CA. (OMB v Bongais, 23 July 2018, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
 Default in R19
• 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 Nov 12).
Rule 23. Deposition pending action
• No requirement in R23 that the specific
purpose of the deposition be stated in
order to ensure that matters are relevant
and not privileged. (Malonzo v. Sucere
Foods Corp., 5 Feb 2020, Inting, J.).
 S4(c) R23
• Deposition of non-resident Plaintiff may
be taken abroad pursuant to S4(c)(2) R23
since Plaintiff is “out of the Philippines.”
(Santamaria v. Cleary, 15 June 2016,
Leonen, J.).
 R26 Exception to
implied admission rule
• 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, Velasco, J.).
• R26 not applicable in criminal cases,
either against the prosecution (not the
adverse party) or against the accused
(violative of right v. self-incrimination).
(People v. Ang, 6 Oct 2020, e.b.,
Carandang, J.).
 R27. Production or inspection of
documents or things
• The availment of R27, as one of the
modes of discovery, is not limited to the
pre-trial stage. R27 does not provide for
any time frame within which it can be
utilized. (Eagle Ridge Dev’t Corp v
Cameron Granville Asset Mgt Inc., 24 Nov
2014, Leonen, J.).
 R27
• Motion for production of documents
under R27 properly denied if made after
rendition of judgment. (CIR v SMC, 25
January 2017, Leonen, J.)
• Service of written interrogatories and
motion for production of documents not
mandatory in an administrative
proceeding. (Sibayan v. Ada, 17 January
2018, Velasco, J.).
 Summary Judgment
• A summary judgment which did not
make any determination as to damages is
a final judgment and thus appealable.
(Trade & Investment Dev’t Corp. v. Phil.
Veterans Bank, 1 July 2019, Caguioa, J.).
• RTC decision which merely narrated facts
and then proceeded to the dispositive
portion is void because no legal basis.
(PNB v. Entapa, 7 Sep 2016, Leonen, J.)
 Several Judgment
• In action by bank vs 4 defendants, grant
of demurrer as to one defendant while
case is pending as to other defendants is
covered by S1(f) R41. R65 proper
remedy where RTC not acting on motion
for leave to appeal (International
Exchange Bank v. Lee, 4 Jul 2022, Leonen,
J.).
 RULE 38.
• The petition for relief ground on extrinsic
fraud (i.e., that wrong address provided
for service of summons) meant that the
court did not acquire personal
jurisdiction. Hence petition for relief can
be filed at anytime unless barred by
laches/estoppel. (Duremdes v. Jorilla, 26
Feb 2020, Inting, J.).
 Motion for reconsideration
• A.M. No. 02-11-10-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,
Reyes, J.)
• Awards of moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees may not be the
subject of execution pending appeal.
(Tiorosio-Espinosa v. Hofileña-Europa, 20
January 2016, Jardeleza, J.). The reason
is that unlike actual damages, such
damages remain indefinite until final
resolution. (Id.)
• There is nothing in the law that limits the
period within which the court may order
or issue a decree in a land registration
case. S6 R39 does not apply in land
registration proceedings. (Republic v. Yap,
7 February 2018, Velasco, J.).
• In a criminal case S6 R39 does not apply
to the enforcement of the penalty of
imprisonment since it is Art. 93 of the
Revised Penal Code which applies. S6
R39 applies however to civil liability
arising from crime. (Basilonia v. Villaruz,
10 Aug 2015, Peralta, J.).
 Action for revival of judgment,
jurisdiction over
• The RTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over an action for revival of
judgment since it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. (Anama v. Citibank,
N.A., 13 December 2017, Jardeleza, J.)
• Take note that under the 2022 RSP,
actions for revival of judgment of MTC
judgment are governed by the RSP and
thus fall within MTC jurisdiction.
 S6 R39
• Action for revival of order dismissing
action for failure to prosecute is not
proper. There is nothing to execute or
enforce. (Ganal v. Alpuerto, 12 Feb 2020,
Inting, J.).
 Remedy from denial
of third-party claim
• Neither appeal (because third-party
claimant is not a party) nor certiorari as
there is adequate remedy of filing
separate reivindicatory action. (PSALM v
Maunlad Homes, 8 Feb 2017, Peralta, J.)
 S21 R39
• Judgment obligee need not pay in cash
even if there is a third-party claim.
(Crisologo v. Hao, 2 Dec 2020, Gaerlan,
J.).
 S36 R39
• Notwithstanding last sentence of S36
R39, RTC Pasig can examine officers of
judgment obligor corporation whose
principal business address is in Makati
City. Basis is RTC’s supervisory control
over its executory processes per S5 R135
(Linden Suites v. Meridien Far East
Properties, 4 Oct 21, Hernando, J.).
 S36 R39
• Even conceding that judgment obligor
could not be compelled under S36 R39 to
appear before Pasig RTC since he’s a
Mandaluyong resident, the RTC could
have easily appointed a commissioner
who can go to Mandaluyong City to
examine the j. obligor re his property and
income. >
RTC should not have denied motion or
delayed its ruling for a long time (Zabarte v.
Puyat, 13 Feb 2023, Zalameda, J.). <
 Res Judicata
• Petition for recognition of foreign divorce
concerns Edna’s status. Hence, res
judicata does not apply and case may be
re-filed. Court however simply ordered
remand of case to RTC to avoid waste of
time and resources. (Kondo v. Civil
Registrar General, 4 March 2020, Lazaro-
Javier, J.).
 Res Judicata
• Registered owner of land not barred by
res judicata from filing second petition to
replace owner’s duplicate certificate of
title. (Phil. Bank of Communications v.
Register of Deeds, 11 March 2020,
Caguioa, J.).
 Conclusiveness of Judgment
• Finding by DARAB that Petitioner was a
bona fide tenant meant that the RTC in
criminal case cannot convict him of theft.
(Ligtas v. People, 17 August 2015,
Leonen, J.).
 Conclusiveness of Judgment
• In an indirect contempt case, MGCCI was
absolved from liability because no notice
of garnishment was served on it. The
validity of the garnishment cannot be
relitigated in another case even if it
involves a different cause of action. (Ang
v. Bitanga, 28 Nov 2019, Peralta, C.J.).
 Conclusiveness of judgment
• If criminal case prosecuted based on
same facts found to be absent in
administrative case, criminal case is
barred by conclusiveness of judgment.
(Pahkiat v. OMB, 3 Nov 2020, e.b.,
Caguioa, J.).
 Extended Resolution
• Unsigned resolution can still be
considered as case law if it states clearly
the facts & law on which it is based.
Compare with a minute resolution
which dismisses a case without
discussing its merits. (Eizmendi v.
Fernandez, 27 Nov 2019, Peralta, C.J.).
• Unsigned resolution is neither reported
nor doctrinal but constitutes res judicata
as among the parties. (Denila v. Republic,
15 July 2020, Gesmundo, J.).
 Recognition & enforcement
of foreign judgment
• Matters of remedy and procedure, such
as service of process, are governed by lex
fori. (Mercantile Insurance Co. v. Yi, 18
March 2019, Reyes, J.).
 S1 R41
• MTC order in ejectment case approving
survey report of court-appointed
commissioners during execution not
appealable because it was part of the
execution process (Agdao Landless
Residents Assoc. v. Eugenio, 6 Dec 2021,
Inting, J.).
• OMB has legal standing to intervene in
appeals from or challenges of its rulings
in administrative cases, whether before
CA in R43 or in R65 (Siniclang v. CA, 18
Oct 2022, e.b., Dimaampao, J.).
 R43
• CSC has standing to appeal R43 case
involving its decision/resolution to SC
(CSC v. Fuentes, 10 Jan 2023, e.b., Lopez,
J, J.).
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES &
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
• Provisional deposit order valid; basis is
S5(g) & S6 R135. (Lorenzo Shipping Corp.
v. Villarin, 6 March 2019, Reyes, J.).
• 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,
Jardeleza, J.).
 Preliminary attachment
• Where cause of action is based on fraud
and a writ of attachment obtained on
that ground, adverse party cannot
dissolve writ by showing that there was
in fact no fraud. (Davao Light & Power
Co. v. CA, 204 SCRA 343).
 Not covered by previous rule
• In a complaint for damages based on
fraud, the defendant may move to
dissolve writ of attachment by showing
not the falsity of the allegations but by
showing that Plaintiff failed to
particularly allege any circumstance
amounting to fraud. (Watercraft Venture
Corp v. Wolfe, 9 Sep 2015, Peralta, J.)
 R57
• The “deposit” referred to in S2 & 5 R57
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 attachment is
through a cash deposit or the filing of the
counter-bond. (Luzon Dev’t Bank v
Krishnan, 13 April 2015, Peralta, J.).
 Preliminary attachment
• A standby letter of credit cannot be
considered as a substitute for a
counterbond in dissolving preliminary
attachment (Coca-Cola FEMSA Phils. V.
Pacific Sugar Holdings, 27 June 2022,
Leonen, J.).
 R58. Preliminary Injunction
• “Judicial courtesy” is not a ground for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction (De Lima v. CA, 15 Aug 2022,
Lopez, M., J.).
 R58
• Prohibition on TRO and WPI vs. national
government projects under RA 8975 not
applicable to a CDO issued by the
National Commission for Culture & the
Arts (NCCA) against destruction of
national cultural treasures. NCCA is not a
court. (Bernal v. De Leon, 29 Jul 2020,
Inting, J.).
 R58
• Action for injunction v. gov’t
infrastructure project is not barred by
P.D. No. 1818 since the preclusion applies
only to TRO & WPI. (Soller v. Singson, 3
February 2020, Reyes, J.).
 Where SQAO improper*
• A status quo ante order directing the
developer to post security guards on the
property subject of the joint-venture
agreement is improper. (Mega-World
Properties & Holdings Inc. v. Majestic
Finance & Investment Co., 9 December
2015, Bersamin, J.)
• Q May a status quo ante order be used
to extend the effectivity of a TRO?
A No. (First Sarmiento Holdings,
Inc. v. Phil. Bank of Communications, 19
June 2018, Leonen, J.).
• RTC Judge’s order: TRO effective “within
a period of 20 days from date hereof or
until further orders from this court.”
Italicized phrase should be disregarded.
(OCA v. Alaras, 23 July 2018, Bersamin,
J.).
 Preliminary injunction*
First par. of Sec. 14, RA 6770 which
bars courts from issuing a TRO or WPI
against investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman, encroaches upon the SC’s
rule-making authority. (Carpio Morales v.
CA, 10 Nov 2015, e.b., Perlas-Bernabe,
J.).
 Preliminary injunction
A writ of preliminary injunction is
deemed dissolved or lifted upon the
dismissal of the main case, even if such
dismissal is appealed. Hence, the
defendants cannot be cited for contempt
if they close the right of way. (Buyco v.
Baraquia, 21 December 2009).
• When the Court dismissed the petitions,
the lifting of the SQAO is effective
immediately despite the existence of the
right to file and the actual filing of a MR
or appeal. (Ocampo v. Enriquez, 8 August
2017, e.b., Peralta, J.).
 R60
• Application for damages against replevin
bond must be filed before judgment
becomes final and executory, pursuant to
S10 R60 in relation to S20 R57. (DBP v
Carpio, 1 Feb 2017, Mendoza, J.).
 R60
• Where 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 amount of
the bond. (Enriquez v. Mercantile Ins.
Co., 15 Aug 2018, Leonen, J.)
 Interpleader
• An adverse claimant in an interpleader
case may be declared in default under S5
R62. 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 Zuellig Pharma, 12 March
2014).
 R63
• Ordinance imposing regulatory fee, not a
tax or revenue measure. Hence, need
not be appealed to Sec. of Justice.
Declaratory relief to challenge ordinance
proper. (City of Cagayan de Oro v.
CEPALCO, 17 Oct 2018, Reyes, J.).
 Declaratory Relief
• In petition for declaratory relief
questioning constitutionality of a law, the
Republic need not be impleaded. Mere
notice to OSG is sufficient. (Zomer Dev’t
Co. v. CA, 7 Jan 2020, e.b., Leonen, J.).
• R65 petitions are not per se remedies to
address constitutional issues. Declaratory
relief proper when questions of validity
or constitutionality cannot be resolved in
a factual vacuum. (Falcis v. Civil Registrar
General, 3 Sep 2019, e.b., Leonen, J.)
 R63
• RTC has jurisdiction over action seeking
to set aside GSIS rules on computation of
retirement benefits. (GSIS v. Daymiel, 11
March 2019, Reyes, J.).
 R65. Certiorari
• R65 not a replacement for a lost appeal
even if aggrieved party (OMB) claims that
R45 not adequate because petition raises
factual questions. Petitioner should have
filed R45 and invoked exceptions which
allow factual questions to be raised.
(Ciriaco v. Marquez, 29 Mar 2023,
Zalameda, J.).
 R65.
• 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, J.).
 Doctrine of hierarchy of courts
• Direct recourse to SC proper only to
resolve questions of law, notwithstanding
the invocation of paramount or
transcendental importance of the action.
(Gios-Samar Inc. v. DOTC, e.b., 12 Mar
2019, Jardeleza, J.).
• Expanded judicial power permits the use
of R65 to challenge constitutionality of
law. Facial challenge of law expanded
not only to free speech but to other
fundamental rights. (Pimentel v. Legal
Education Board, 10 Sep 2019, e.b.,
Reyes, J.).
• R65 certiorari not proper to set aside
issuance by BIR of revenue regulation
imposing VAT on importation of
petroleum into freeport and SEZs. (Clark
Investors & Locators Assoc. v. Secretary
of Finance, 6 July 2015).
• Issuance by DOH of CDO is an exercise of
quasi-judicial power and may be
challenged by certiorari and/or
prohibition. The petition should have
been filed not in RTC but in CA per S4
R65. (Association of Medical Clinics v.
GCC Medical Centers, 6 Dec 2016, Brion,
J.).
• Certiorari & prohibition proper to declare
unconstitutionality of RA 10932 (Anti-
Hospital Deposit Law) even if no judicial,
quasi-judicial, or ministerial function
involved. (Private Hospitals Assoc. v.
Medialdea, 6 Nov 2018, e.b., Tijam, J.).
 R65 where no appeal
• Judgment declaring presumptive death
under Article 41 of the Family Code is
immediately final and executory and
cannot be appealed, the remedy of the
aggrieved party is a special civil action for
certiorari under R65. (Republic v Cantor,
10 December 2013).
• A prior motion for reconsideration of a
judgment declaring presumptive death
is not a condition precedent for a R65
petition. The reason is that the
judgment is immediately final and
executory per Art. 247 of the Family
Code. (Republic v. Catubag, 18 April
2018, Reyes, J.).
• Small-claims decision may be assailed by
a special civil action for certiorari under
R65. (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v Mondejar,
22 January 2014).
 Mandamus
• Power of Mayor to issue permits/licenses
is discretionary (Lacap v. SB, 21 June 17)
and hence not compellable by
mandamus.
 Mandamus
• 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 stock certificates in his
name. (Andaya v. Rural Bank of
Cabadbaran, Inc., 3 Aug 2016, Sereno,
C.J.).
• Mandamus proper to compel DBM to pay
retirement gratuity differentials of retired
CA justices. (Assoc. of Retired CA Justices
v. Abad, 10 July 2018, Velasco, J.).
 Mandamus
• Mandamus may issue to direct ERC to
perform its discretionary duty to act
upon and consider the market fees
application of an electricity market
operator (Independent Electricity Market
Operator of the Phils. v. ERC, 23 Mar
2022, Zalameda, J.).
• Mandamus does not lie to compel
payment of informer’s reward since the
grant thereof is discretionary. (Lihaylihay
v. Tan, 23 July 2018, Leonen, J.).
 Mandamus
• 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 Dev’t Co. v. CA, 7 Jan
2020, e.b., Leonen, J.).
• Dep Ed may not be compelled by
mandamus to deduct salary of teachers
and pay to creditor. (Dep Ed v. Rizal
Teachers Kilusang Bayan for Credit, 3 July
2019, Lazaro-Javier, J.).
 Mandamus
• Non-compliance with the substitution
procedure pursuant to S17 R3 is a ground
for the dismissal of a mandamus petition
to compel payment of salaries. (Del
Rosario v. Shaikh, 10 Dec 2019, Reyes, J.).
 R66. Quo Warranto
• Judges who merely have an expectant
not a clear right to SB positions, are not
proper party to file petition for quo
warranto under S5 R66. (Aguinaldo v.
Aquino, 29 Nov 2016, Leonardo-De
Castro, J.)
• Execution of quo warranto judgment
unjust if petitioner found liable for
falsification of bachelor’s degree and
thus ineligible for contested position.
(Arroyo v CA, 10 April 2019, Reyes, J.).
• The taxpayers-movants do not possess
the required legal interest to intervene in
a quo warranto suit since they neither
claim to be entitled to the questioned
position nor are they the ones charged
with the usurpation thereof. (Republic v.
Sereno, 11 May 2018, e.b., Tijam, J.).
 RULE 66. QUO WARRANTO
• The one-year limitation under S11 R66 is
not applicable when 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, e.b., Tijam, J.).
• Prescription applies when the petition for
quo warranto is filed by the Sol Gen or
public prosecutor at the request and
upon the relation of another person
under S3 R66. (Republic v. Sereno, e.b.,
19 June 2018 [res.]).
 RULE 67. Expropriation
• Q In expropriation cases, interest should be
awarded to landowner. From when is the
interest computed?
A From the taking of the property.
Here, legal interest shall run not from filing of
complaint but from issuance of writ of
possession, since that is when the deprivation
of property can be established. (Republic v.
Macabagdal, 10 Jan 18, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• RA 8974 on payment of 100% zonal
valuation applicable to inverse
condemnation proceeding. (Felisa
Agricultural Corp. v. National
Transmission Corp., 2 July 2018, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
 Expropriation
• Award of capital gains tax & transfer
taxes to landowner as consequential
damages in an expropriation case is
improper. (Republic v. Bunsay, 10 Dec
2019, Caguioa, J.).
 Interest rate timeline
LAW EFF. RATE
Act No. 2655 1 May 1916 6%
CB Cir. 416 29 July 1974 12%
BSP Cir. 799 1 July 2013 6%
• Execution pending appeal not applicable
to expropriation proceedings. (National
Power Corp. v. Rabie, 17 Aug 2016).
 R67
• In inverse condemnation, landowner
should also be paid compound interest
on FMV of property at time of taking,
aside from the legal interest (Republic v.
Nocom, 15 Nov 2021, Leonen, J.).
 RULE 68. FORECLOSURE OF REM
• 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, Peralta, J.).
 R68. Foreclosure
• Judicial foreclosure is a real action.
Hence, the assessed value of the realty
involved must be alleged; otherwise, the
court will not acquire subject-matter
jurisdiction (Libiran v. Elisan Credit Corp.,
13 Feb 2023, Lopez, J., J.).
• Condo unit assessments a lien thereon
and may be enforced by judicial or
extrajudicial foreclosure. (Welbit Const.
Corp. v. De Castro, 23 July 2018, Tijam,
J.).
• A transferee from the purchaser at the
foreclosure sale may file a petition for
the issuance of a writ of possession, but
it should not be ex parte but with
hearing. (Reyes v. Chung, 13 September
2017, Velasco, J.; Okabe v. Saturnino, 26
August 2014, e.b., Peralta, J.).
 Remedy from writ of possession
in EF foreclosure
• Remedy from issuance of a writ of
possession in extrajudicial foreclosure
under Act 3135 is a separate action and
not appeal if the redemption period has
lapsed (Jayag v. BDO, 14 Sep 2021,
Gesmundo, J.).
 Foreclosure
• In extrajudicial foreclosure, remedy of
aggrieved party from ex parte issuance of
writ of possession after redemption
period is no longer appeal but certiorari
(Uy v. 3Tops De Phils. Estate Corp., 16 Jan
2023, Hernando, J.).
 S33 R39
• Agricultural tenancy is a 3rd party claim
that bars ex parte issuance of writ of
possession under Act 3135. Tenant has
independent right and not a mere
transferee or successor-in-interest of
judgment obligor (Land Bank v. Basilan,
13 June 22, Leonen, J.).
• In extrajudicial foreclosure under Act.
3135, condo unit and subdivision lot
buyers are 3rd parties who are entitled to
protection against summary possessory
writs. The reason is their preferential
treatment under P.D. 957 (New San Jose
Builders v. GSIS, 28 July 2021, Zalameda,
J.).
 R69. Partition
• 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 B.P. Blg. 129. (Agarrado
v. Librando-Agarrado, 6 June 2018, Reyes,
J.).
 Rule 69
• Dismissal with prejudice under S3 R17
cannot bar co-owner’s right to ask for
partition at anytime, if there is no
adjudication of ownership of shares yet.
Between S3 R17 and the right granted to
co-owners under Art. 494 of the Civil
Code, the latter must prevail. (Quintos v.
Nicolas, 16 Jun 14).
 Rule 70. Ejectment
• Ejectment suit may not be resorted to in
order to resolve a boundary dispute.
(Javier v. De Guzman, 2 Sep 2015,
Peralta, J.).
• Boundary dispute arising from metes and
bounds of Torrens title may be threshed
out not in a forcible entry case but only
through an accion reivindicatoria.
(Martinez v. Heirs of Lim, 11 Sep 2019,
Bersamin, C.J.).
 Rule 70. Ejectment
• The MTC cannot be ousted of jurisdiction
over an unlawful detainer case just
because the determination of the issue
of possession requires the interpretation
of the contract (contract to sell). (Union
Bank v. Maunlad Homes, Inc., 15 August
2012, Brion, J.).
 Ejectment
• The prior physical possession required in
a forcible entry case is not limited to
actual physical possession but also
contemplates possession through legal
acts & formalities. (Madayag v.
Madayag, 20 Jan 2020, Reyes, J.).
 In UD based on tolerance, the
tolerance must have been from start
• To justify an action for unlawful detainer,
it is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed
acts of tolerance must have been present
right from the start of the possession
which is later sought to be recovered.
Otherwise, if the possession was
unlawful from the start, unlawful
detainer would be improper. >
 Where the complaint did not satisfy
the jurisdictional requirement of a valid
cause for unlawful detainer, the municipal
trial court had no jurisdiction over the
case. (Zacarias v. Anacay, 24 September
2014).
 Jurisdictional demand under S2 R70

• Letter to lessee informing him that lease

is unilaterally rescinded and demanding
that lessee vacate is not the jurisdictional
demand required under S2 R70 (Quesada
v. Bonanza Restaurants, 14 Nov 2016,
Brion, J.).
 R71
• Just because decision of a quasi-judicial
body is pending appeal before the SC
does not mean that the SC has
jurisdiction over a petition for indirect
contempt committed against the quasi-
judicial body. (Rodriguez v. HLURB, 19
June 2019, Caguioa, J.).
 R71.
• Dismissal of indirect contempt charge
amounts to an acquittal and thus can no
longer be appealed (Standard Chartered
Bank v. Phil. Investment Two [SPC-AMC],
26 April 2023, Lopez, J., J.).
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
• Jurisdiction in probate case is based on
gross value of estate as stated in the
petition. If probate court should
eventually apprise the estate value >
alleged amount, the difference in docket
fees should be paid prior to closure of
proceedings. >
• The definitive assessment need not be
done during the commencement of the
proceedings for as long as payment of
full amount is done prior to cessation. S2
R76 requires only a declaration of the
“probable” value and character of estate
(Bullozos v. Heirs of Aguilar, 29 Mar 2022,
Gaerlan, J.). <
 Probate Proceedings
• Probate court cannot motu proprio
dismiss petition for probate of a will on
the ground of improper venue (Gacad v.
Corpuz, 3 Aug 2022, Hernando, J.).
• Probate court cannot pass upon
ownership of bank account in name of 3rd
person and decree that it belongs to the
estate (Heirs of Punongbayan v. St.
Peter’s College, 27 June 2022, Leonen,
J.).
• SC upheld dismissal of an action to annul
an affidavit of self-adjudication by
plaintiffs who are alleged heirs where
their heirship had not been determined
in the proper heirship proceedings. (Heirs
of Ypon v Ricaforte, 8 July 2013).
 Treyes v. Larlar
• A prior determination of heirship in a
separate special proceeding is no longer
a prerequisite before one can file an
ordinary civil action to enforce ownership
rights acquired by virtue of succession.
(Treyes v. Larlar, e.b., 8 Sep 2020,
Caguioa, J.). >
 The rule laid down in Heirs of Ypon v.
Ricaforte, 700 SCRA 778 (2013),
Yaptinchay, Portugal and other similar
cases is abandoned. (Id.). <
• Probate court cannot order BPI to release
proceeds of foreign currency deposit to
administrator without consent of co-
depositor since it violates Sec. 8 of
Foreign Currency Deposit Act which
states that FCD is exempt from court
process. (Pacioles v. Pacioles, 15 Oct
2018, Tijam, J.).
 Adoption
• Aliens may adopt under Domestic
Adoption Act if they have resided for at
least 3 years in PH.* (Park v. Liwanag, 27
Nov 2019, Hernando, J.).
• Foreign (Japanese) judgment of
adoption of a Filipino citizen can be
judicially recognized in the
Philippines. >
 It bears to emphasize that there are
two parties involved in an adoption
process: the adopter and the adoptee. The
RTC in this case failed to consider that
Hayashi, the adopter, is a Japanese
citizen.(Suzuki v. OSG, 2 Sep 2020, Inting,
J.). <
 Habeas Corpus
• Petition for Habeas Corpus of convict
based on release by GCTA not proper if
filed with SC. Besides petitioner not
entitled to request because convicted of
heinous crime. (Reyes v. Bantag, 10 June
2020, Zalameda, J.).
• In habeas corpus case involving rightful
custody of a child, the court must
conduct a trial of who has rightful
custody. (Masbate v. Relucio, 30 July
2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
• Petition for writ of habeas corpus
available in case of incommunicado
detention. (Boratong v. De Lima, e.b., 8
Sep 2020, Leonen, J.).
• Writ of Habeas Corpus not available to a
case where a 19-year-old lass joined
Anakbayan. No illegal detention.
Allegation of indoctrination or
brainwashing was merely speculative.
(Lucena v. Elago, e.b., 15 Sep 2020,
Peralta, C.J.).
 Writ of Amparo
• Privilege of writ granted where estranged
wife of deceased alleged NPA and her family
were under constant police surveillance &
monitoring. Writ primarily meant to address
concerns such as, but not limited to,
extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances, or threat thereof. (Sanchez v
Darroca, 15 Oct 2019, e.b., Leonen, J.).
• Writ of Amparo confined merely to EKED
or threats thereof. That a 19-year-old
lass joined Anakbayan is not a case of
EKED or threat thereof. (Lucena v. Elago,
e.b., 15 Sep 2020, Peralta, C.J.).
 Writ of Habeas Data
• Petition for Writ of Habeas Data vs.
President Duterte should be dismissed
because of presidential immunity. (De
Lima v. Duterte, 15 Oct 2019, Bersamin,
C.J.).
• Habeas Data not available to compel DOJ
to produce documents to justify
Boratong’s transfer from NBP to NBP
extension facility. No expectation of
privacy of a convict. (Boratong v. De
Lima, e.b., 8 Sep 2020, Leonen, J.).
 R103
• Jurisdictional defect in a R103 proceeding
that published order did not specify
cause for change of name waived by
Republic when it did not raise it before
the trial court (Tan v. LCR of Makati City,
10 Nov 2021, Zalameda, J.).
 R108
• A petition by 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 LCR, is
a fatal defect. (Republic v. Ontuca, 15 Jul
2020, Lopez, J.).
 R108
• Legitimacy and filiation of children
cannot be collaterally attacked in a
petition for correction of entries (COLB)
under R108 (Ordoña v. LCR of Pasig
City, 9 Nov 2021, e.b., Inting, J).
 R108
• In a R108 case, RTC cannot cancel
“affidavit of legitimation” of petitioners
on ground that parents’ marriage was
bigamous. Filiation cannot be resolved
in a R108 case per Braza. Petitioners
cannot impugn their own legitimated
status (Republic v. Boquiren, 13 Feb
2023, Inting, J.).
 R108
• Civil Service Commission an
indispensable party to R108 to correct
year of birth of govt employee from 1952
to 1956 since that would affect a
government employee's service records.
(CSC v Rasuman, 17 June 2019, Peralta,
J.)
 R108
• Where child of petitioner was born in
Canada, her birth was recorded in the
national office of the Philippine Statistics
Authority in Manila. The venue of the
R108 is in Manila and not in Davao City
where she resides. (Fox v. PSA, 6 March
2019, Reyes, J.).
 R108
• RTC cannot motu proprio dismiss petition
for correction of entry (year of birth) filed
by Petitioner in RTC Davao instead of in
QC where national office of PSA located.
Venue is not jurisdictional and can be
waived. (Cabrera v. PSA, 3 June 2019,
Perlas-Bernabe, J).
• Petition for recognition of foreign divorce
decree and for correction of status from
“married” to “single” cannot be granted
as to latter relief if not compliant with
R108 (Ordaneza v. Republic, 24 Nov
2021, Carandang, J.). >
 Where certificate of divorce did not
state any restriction on the right to remarry
of the parties, it can be assumed that the
parties are capacitated to remarry (id.).
 RA 9048
• Petition to change “Feliciano
Bartholome” to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome”
is covered by RA 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 Jan 2018, Leonen, J.; Bartolome
v. Republic, 28 Aug 2019, Caguioa, J).
• A petition by the mother to correct her
first name in her daughter’s birth
certificate from “MARY ANNABELLE” to
“ANNABELLE” is properly filed with LCR
per RA 9048. >
 By referring to Annabelle's existing
records or documents (passport and postal
ID), the innocuous errors in her first name
and middle name may be corrected under
RA No. 9048. (Republic v. Ontuca, 15 July
2020, Lopez, J.).
 RA 9048
• Medical certificate by gov’t physician
that respondent was “phenotypically
male” no longer requires certification
that petitioner has not undergone sex
change or sex transplant. (Republic v.
Unabia, 11 Feb 2019, Del Castillo, J.).
 R109
• Order of distribution in probate case is
appealable by filing both a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal within 30
days from notice of order (Manguerra v.
Manguerra-Aberasturi, 24 Nov 2022,
e.b., Gaerlan, J.).
 R109
• Order denying motion for leave to
intervene in a probate case should be
appealed by filing a notice of appeal and
a record on appeal per S1 R109 (Brual v.
Contreras, 7 Mar 2022, Hernando, J.)
•Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases
• While Sections 1 & 15, Rule 7 of the RPEC
do not explicitly include revocation of
permits and ECCs, these reliefs may be
granted in a petition for a Writ of
Kalikasan (PTK2 H20 Corp. v. CA, e.b., 16
Nov 2021, Zalameda, J.).
• That resort-hotel would lose investment
and profits is not a ground for issuance of
TEPO since this does not involve
protection of environmental rights or
enforcement of environmental laws
(Aquino v. Agua Tiera Oro Mina Dev’t
Corp., 25 Jan 2023, Gaerlan, J.).
• Writ of Continuing Mandamus not
applicable in Dengvaxia case; controversy
does not involve violation of
environmental law but of right to health;
not applicable to discretionary acts
(Abines v. Duque, 20 Sep 2022, e.b.,
Leonen, J.).
• Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan requires
evidence; allegations not evidence;
precautionary principle cannot be
invoked to dispense with need to present
evidence (Water for All Refund
Movement [WARM] v. MWSS, 28 Mar
2023, e.b., Hernando, J.).
 CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
 Prescription
• For BP 22 cases filed on or after 15 Apr
2003 (eff. of RSP amendment including
BP 22 cases), the prescriptive period is
interrupted only upon filing of
complaint/info in court (Republic v.
Desierto, 16 Jan 2023, Hernando, J.).
 SC en banc tackles
divergent rulings
• The private complainant has no legal
personality to appeal or file a petition for
certiorari to question the judgments or
orders re criminal aspect of case, unless
made with the OSG’s conformity. >
 The private complainant must request
the OSG's conformity within period to
appeal or file a petition for certiorari. The
private complainant must attach the
original of the OSG's conformity. >
 Otherwise, the private complainant
must allege in the appeal or petition the
pendency of the request. If the OSG denied
the request, the court shall dismiss the
appeal or petition for certiorari for lack of
legal personality of the complainant.
(Austria v. AAA, e.b., 28 June 22, Lopez, M,
J.)<
 Substitution
• Court may motu proprio order
substitution under S14 R110 (People v.
XXX, 13 Jul 2022, Caguioa, J.).
• Payee not barred from recovering the
face value of checks in BP 22 case, even
though it had earlier filed a civil case to
collect on the checks. (Buenaflor v.
Federated Distributors, Inc., 28 Mar
2022, Lopez, J., J.).
 Does Case 1 pose a
prejudicial question?

WIFE 1

HUSBAND

WIFE 2
 See Pulido v. People, 27 July 2021,
e.b., Hernando, J.
• The motion for suspension on the
ground of prejudicial question should
be granted. The resolution of the issue
of whether the prior marriage between
Husband and W1 is void is
determinative of whether the criminal
case for bigamy will proceed. >
 The SC held that the requirement of
a prior judicial declaration of nullity
under Article 40 of the Family Code,
which is for purposes only of remarriage,
should not have been extended to
criminal cases. <
 R112
• Under §53.1 of SRC, no need for SEC to
conduct its own preliminary investigation
before it refers case to DOJ; investigation
enough. SEC has discretion on how to
conduct investigation (Tengco v. People, 1
Feb 2023, Zalameda, J.).
• Carpio Morales did not give CA certiorari
jurisdiction over OMB orders/resolutions
in criminal cases. Doctrine that proper
remedy is R65 certiorari to SC was not
abandoned by Carpio Morales (Patdu v.
Carpio Morales, 27 Sep 2021, Hernando,
J.).
• In drugs case, if drugs were illegally
seized (illegal search, no chain of custody,
required witnesses not present during
seizure), there would be no probable
cause for the issuance of an arrest
warrant under S5 R112 (Sio v. People, 2
Mar 2022, Leonen, J.).
 Inquest
• An inquest should be stopped the
moment the timelines in Art. 125 RPC
have lapsed; otherwise, the inquest is
illegal. Inquest prosecutor cannot
convert the inquest to a P.I. w/o signed
waiver of provisions of Art. 125 (Ta-Ala v.
People, 20 June 2022, Lazaro-Javier, J.).
 R113
• Summary Deportation Order issued by
Bureau of Immigration is valid. It is not
an arrest or search warrant that may be
issued only by courts (Board of
Commissioners v. Yuan Wenle, 28 Feb
2023, e.b., Gesmundo, C.J.).
 R113
• Valid warrantless arrest under S5(b) R113
where robbery victim went to police
station and identified accused from
photo array of suspects (People v. Togon,
11 Oct 2021, Inting, J.).
 Sec. 29 ATA
• Section 29. Detention without Judicial
Warrant of Arrest. - The provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to
the contrary notwithstanding, any law
enforcement agent or military
personnel, who, having been duly
authorized in writing by the ATC >
has taken custody of a person suspected of
committing any of the acts defined and
penalized under Sections 4-12 of this Act,
shall, without incurring any criminal
liability for delay in the delivery of detained
persons to the proper judicial authorities, >
deliver said suspected person to the proper
judicial authority within a period of 14 days
counted from the moment the said
suspected person has been apprehended
or arrested, detained, and taken into
custody by the law enforcement agent or
military personnel. <
 Calleja v. Executive Secretary
(7 Dec 2021, e.b.)
Under Section 29, a person may be
arrested without a warrant by law
enforcement officers or military personnel
for acts defined or penalized under
Sections 4 to 12 of the ATA but only under
any of the instances contemplated in Rule
9.2, >
i.e., arrest in flagrante delicto, arrest in hot
pursuit, and arrest of escapees, which
mirrors Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court. >
 Once arrested without a warrant
under those instances, a person may be
detained for up to 14 days, provided that
the ATC issues a written authority in favor
of the arresting officer pursuant to Rule
9.1, >
upon submission of a sworn statement
stating the details of the person suspected
of committing acts of terrorism and the
relevant circumstances as basis for taking
custody of said person. >
 If the ATC does not issue the written
authority, then the arresting officer shall
deliver the suspected person to the proper
judicial authority within the periods
specified under Article 125 of the RPC - the
prevailing general rule. >
 The extended detention period is
therefore deemed as an exception to
Article 125 of the RPC based on Congress'
own wisdom and policy determination
relative to the exigent and peculiar nature
of terrorism >
and hence, requires, as a safeguard, the
written authorization of the ATC, an
executive agency comprised of high-
ranking national security officials (Calleja v.
Executive Secretary, 7 Dec 2021, e.b.,
Carandang, J.). <
 Plea Bargain in Drugs Cases
• In plea bargain in drugs cases, judges
may overrule prosecution’s objection if
based solely on the ground that the
accused’s plea bargain is inconsistent
with DOJ rules or guidelines (People v.
Montierro, 26 July 2022, e.b., Caguioa,
J.).
 Plea Bargain
• RTC gravely abused its discretion in
overruling prosecution’s objection to
plea bargain that there was sufficient
evidence to convict for original charge
(Billoso v. People, 11 Jan 2023, e.b.,
Lopez, J. J.).
 R117
• Lack of probable cause is not a ground of
a motion to quash the information or
complaint (Wu v. People, 16 Mar 2022,
Hernando, J.).
 R119
• Filing of a demurrer to evidence w/o
leave cannot be considered as a gross
error since sanctioned under S23 R119.
Hence, not a ground for a new trial
(Roxas v. People, 14 July 2021, Inting, J.).
 R120
• Acquittal of accused because his
knowledge of fund insufficiency was not
proved does not bar an award of civil
liability not arising from crime. Here,
accused ordered to pay offended party as
he was an accommodation party (liability
arising from law) (De Leon v. Roqson Ind.
Sales, 23 Nov 2021, Caguioa, J.)
 Variance Doctrine
• Accused charged with robbery
(extortion) cannot be convicted of direct
bribery since this would violate his right
to be informed (Remolano v. People, 6
Oct 2021, Lazaro-Javier, J.).
• Accused charged with violation of §5(i) of
VAWCHI (denying financial support to
inflict anguish or ridicule) may not be
convicted of violation of §5(e)
(deprivation of FS for the purpose of
controlling the woman or to make her or
child lose their agency) (Acharon v.
People, e.b., 9 Nov 2021, Caguioa, J.). >
 Previous doctrines in Melgar v. Reyes
(14 Feb 2018), etc., which held that there
could be conviction based on variance
doctrine were abandoned. <
 Appeal
• Even in appeal from CA judgment which
imposed reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, accused may avail of R45
if he raises only legal questions (People v.
Olpindo, 15 Feb 2022, e.b., Gesmundo,
C.J.).
 R122
• Even if SB judgment did not impose
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
but rendered in exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the appeal to the SC is by a
notice of appeal and not via R45 (Tidalgo
v. People, 13 Feb 2023, Singh, J.).
• Where an accused acquitted because of
illegal warrantless arrest, appeal should
benefit other accused who did not
appeal pursuant to S11(a) R122 (People
v. Malado, 14 July 2021, Carandang, J.).
• S11(a) R122 is applicable also to a
petition for certiorari taken by one of the
accused in which the CA granted the
petitioner’s motion to quash (People v.
Ramoy, 9 March 2022, Gaerlan, J.)
 R126
• Administrative search by FDA exempt
from search warrant requirement.
(Venus Commercial Co. v. DOH & FDA, 18
Nov 2021, Lazaro-Javier, J.).
 R126
• Invalid search warrant (2 offenses) which
led to warrantless arrest of another
person alleged to have been caught in
flagrante in searched premises renders
evidence seized from such person
inadmissible. Plain view doctrine not
applicable. >
 Waiver of illegality of arrest does not
include waiver of inadmissibility of
evidence seized (Mendoza v. People, 5 Dec
2022, Zalameda, J.). <
THANK YOU AND
GODSPEED!