In Sy Ha v.

Galang, 7 SCRA 797 (1963): (M)andamus will not issue to control the
exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to
exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required to act, because
it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.

"Mandamus wiJI not issue to establish a right, but only to enforce one that is
already established."

The grant of an informer's reward for the discovery, conviction, and punishment
of tax offenses is a discretionary quasi-judicial matter that cannot be the subject of a writ
of mandamus. It is not a legally mandated ministerial duty. (Lihaylihay vs. Ta11, 872
SCRA 277, G.R. No. 192223 July 23, 2018)

Sole Issue in ejectme11t proceedings

It is settled that the only issue that must be settled in an ejectment proceeding is
physical possessjon of the property involved. (]11tra111uros Ad111i11istratio11 vs. Offshore
Co11structio11 Develop111e11t Co111pa11y, 857 SCRA 549, G.R. No. 196795 March 7, 2018)

The issue of ownership may be provisionally passed upon if the issue of possession
cannot be resolved without it. Any final disposition on the issue of ownership, however,
must be resolved in the proper forum. (Eversely Childs Sa11itariu111 vs. Barbarona, 860
SCRA 283, G.R. No. 195814 April 4, 2018)

Prior demand to vacate is a jurisdictional requirement in an ejectment case

Refusal to vacate despite demand will give rise to an action for summary ejectment.
Thus, prior demand is a jurisdictional requirement before an action for forcible entry or
unlawful detainer may be instituted. Under Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, an action for unlawful detainer may be brought against a possessor of a
property who unlawfully withholds possession after the termination or expiration of
the right to hold possession. Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires
that there must first be a prior demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease
and to vacate before an action can be filed.

Exception: The jurisdictional requirement of prior demand is unnecessary if the

action is premised on the termination of lease due to expiration of the terms of contract
(not on the nonpayment of rentals or noncompliance of the terms and conditions of the
lease). (Cruz vs. Christe11se11, 842 SCRA 65, G.R. No. 205539 October 4, 2017)

Unlawful Detainer
Action for unlawful detainer is brought against a possessor who unlawfully
withholds possession after the termination and expiration of the right to hold
possession. To determine the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court, the

REMEDIAL LAW
Page 20of 29

# JOJ11AR
allegations in the complaint must be examined. The jurisdictional facts must be evident
on the face of the complaint.

There is a case for unlawful detainer if the complaint states the following:

(1) initially, possession of properly by the defendant was by contract with or by

tolerance of the plaintiff;

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of
the termination of the latter's right of possession;

(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and

(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the
plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. (/11tramuros Ad111i11istratio11 vs. Offshore
Co11structio11 Development Company, 857 SCRA 549, G.R. No. 196795 March 7, 2018)

A case for unlawful detainer must state the period from when the occupation by
tolerance started and the acts of tolerance exercised by the party with the right to
possession.

Respondents' Complaint before the Municipal Trial Court states: That [the
occupants) are presently occupying the above mentioned property of the [Spouses
Barbarona] without color [of] right or title. Such occupancy is purely by mere tolerance.
Indeed, [the occupants') occupying the lot owned by [the Spouses Barbarona] is illegal
and not anchored upon any contractual relations with the [Spouses Barbarona]. Indeed,
no mention has been made as to how petitioner came to possess the property and as to
what acts constituted tolerance on the part of respondents or their predecessors-in-
interest to allow petitioner's occupation. (Eversely Childs Sanitarium vs. Barbaro11a, 860
SCRA 283, G.R. No. 195814 April 4, 2018)

Jurisdiction i11 Ejectment case

Regardless of the claims or defenses raised by a defendant, a Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) has jurisdiction over an ejectment complaint once it has been shown that the
requisite jurisdictional facts have been allege. (111tramuros Administration vs. Offshore
Co11structio11 Development Company , 857 SCRA 549, G.R. No. 196795 March 7, 2018)

Judgme,1t of Eviction
A judgment of eviction against respondent will affect its sublessees since the latter's
right of possession depends entirely on that of the former. (lntramuros Admi11istratio11 vs.
Offshore Co11structio11 Develop111e11t Company , 857 SCRA 549, G.R. No. 196795 March 7,
2018)

REMEDIAL LAW
Page 21 of 29

# JOJ1BAR
Possession by Tolerance
Petitioner's tolerance of respondent's occupation and use of the leased premises after
the end of the lease contracts does not give the latter a permanent and indefeasible right
of possession in its favor. When a demand to vacate has been made, as what petitioner
had done, respondent's possession became illegal and it should have left the leased
premises. (lntrnmuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction Oet1elopme11t Company, 857
SCRA 549, G.R. No. 196795 March 7, 2018)

Certiorari

Rule 45 vs. Rule 65

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 should not be confused with a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65. The first is a mode of appeal; the latter is an extraordinary
remedy used to correct errors of jurisdiction. It is through the latter that a writ of
certiorari is issued. Precisely, for the writ to issue, there must be "no appeal, or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy" available. (Heirs of Eliza Q. Zoleta vs. Land Bank of
the Philippines, 836 SCRA 367, G.R. No. 205128 August 9, 2017)
"Acted without Authority"
A lower court or tribunal is deemed to have acted "without jurisdiction" when it
decides a case even if no law gives it the jurisdiction over its subject matter. The
decision of a lower court or tribunal can also be overturned by certiorari when it acts
"in excess of jurisdiction" or when it was given jurisdiction over the subject matter
under the law but it "has transcended the same or acted without any statutory
authority." (Heirs of Eliza Q. Zoleta vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 836 SCRA 367, G.R. No.
205128 August 9, 2017)

Any petition for certiorari against an act or omission of Bangko Sentral, when it
acts through the Monetary Board, must be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA). (Banco
Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bangko Sentrnl ng Pilipinas, 864 SCRA 32, G.R. No.
200678 June 4, 2018)

The proper remedy to question a resolution of the Monetary Board is through a

petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals. (Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank vs Ba11gko Se11tral ng Pilipinas, 864 SCRA 32, G.R. No. 200678 June 4, 2018)

Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court requires that there be "no appeal, or a11y plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy i11 the ordi11ary course of law" available before a petition
for certiorari can be filed.
When an interlocutory order is sought to be reviewed or annulled by means of any
of the extra legal remedies of prohibition or certiorari, it is required that a motion for
reconsideration of the question[ed] order must first be filed, such being considered a

REMEDIAL LAW
Page 22of 29

# JOJ1IAR
speedy and adequate remedy at law which must first be resorted to as a condition
precedent for filing of any of such proceedings (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court).
(Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 864 SCRA 32,
G.R. No. 200678 June 4, 2018)

Ge,reral Rule: A motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non condition for the filing of
a petitio,r for certiorari

Exceptio,rs: There are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule, namely:

(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the Court a quo had no jurisdiction;

(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the
lower court;

(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further
delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject
matter of the action is perishable;

(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;

(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;

(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable;

(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h)
where the proceedings [were] ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to
object; and

(/1 ) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs.Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 864 SCRA 32, G.R.
No. 200678 Jrme4, 2018)

DARAB possesses no power to issue writs of certiorari.

DARAS's exercise of the innately judicial certiorari power is an executive encroachment

into the judiciary. It violates the separation of powers; it is unconstitutional. With or
without a law enabling it, DARAS has no power to rule on jurisdictional controversies
via petitions for certiorari. DARAS's self-serving grant to itself of the power to issue
writs of certiorari in the 1994 DARAS New Rules of Procedure is itself a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It must be annulled for running
afoul of the Constitution.

Administrative agencies, such as the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAS), are not courts of law exercising judicial power. The
power to issue writs of certiorari is an incident of judicial review. Thus, administrative
agencies 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. (Heirs of Eliza Q.
Zoleta vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 836 SCRA 367, G.R. No. 205128 August 9, 2017)
Page 23of 29

REMEDIAL LAW # ioi1BAR

Foreclosure of Mortagage

Section 6 of Act No. 3135, as amended, provides that a property sold through an
extrajudicial sale may be redeemed "at any time within the term of one (1) year from
and after the date of the sale." (First Sar111ie11to Property Holdi11gs, Jue. vs. P/rilippi11e Ba11k
of Com1111111icntio11s, 866 SCRA 438, G.R. No. 202836 June 19, 2018)

The registration of the certificate of sale issued by the sheriff after an extrajudidal sale
is a mandatory requiremei,t

Thus, if the certificate of sale is not registered with the Registry of Deeds, the
property sold at auction is not conveyed to the new owner and the period of
redemption does not begin to run. In the case at bar, the Ex Officio Sheriff of the Gty of
Malolos, Bulacan was restrained from registering the certificate of sale with the Registry
of Deeds of Bulacan and the certificate of sale was only issued to respondent after the
Complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage was filed. Therefore, even if the
properties had already been foreclosed when the Complaint was filed, their ownership
and possession remained with petitioner since the certificate of sale was not registered
with the Registry of Deeds. (First Sarmiento Property Holdings, 111c. vs. Philippi11e Ba11k of
Comm1111icatio11s, 866 SCRA 438, G.R. No. 202836 June 19, 2018)
Contempt

The court's contempt power should be exercised with restraint and for a preservative,
and not a vindictive, purpose. "Only in cases of dear and contumacious refusal to obey
should the power be exercised." (Steamship Mutual U11denoriti11g Association (Bermuda)
Limited vs. Sulpicio Li11es, l11c., 840 SCRA 203, G.R. No. 196072, G.R. No. 208603 September
20, 2017)

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Preliminary lnjundio11

A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to: (P]reserve the status quo ante, upon the
applicant's showing of two important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be
protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that
right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an
irreparable injustice. (Bico/ Medical Ce11ter vs. Botor, 842 SCRA 143, G.R. No. 214073
October 4, 2017)
Requisites for the lssua11ce of Prelimi11ary lnju11ctio11 whether Mandatory or Prohibitory

(1) The applicant must have a dear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a
right in esse;

(2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right;

REMEDIAL LAW
Pace 24of29

# J0)11AR
(3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant;
and
(4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury.

In satisfying these requisites, the applicant for the writ need not substantiate his
or her claim with complete and conclusive evidence since only prima fade evidence or a
sampling is required "to give the court an idea of the justificcttion for the preliminary
injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits." (Bicol Medical Center vs. Bator,
842 SCRA 143, G.R. No. 214073 October 4, 2017)

Notice and Hearing

Writs of preliminary injunction are granted only upon prior notice to the party sought
to be enjoined and upon their due hearing. Bica/ Medical Center vs. Bator, 842 SCRA 143,
G.R. No. 214073 October 4, 2017)

Temporary Restraining Order vs. Preliminary Injunction

Preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to
perform to refrain from performing a particular act or acts. As an extraordinary remedy,
injunction is calculated to preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is generally
availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be heard.
A preliminary injunction persists until it is dissolved or until the tennination of the
action without the court issuing a final injunction. The basic purpose of restraining
order, on the other hand, is to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the
application for preliminary injunction. Under the former A.§5, Rule 58 of the Rules of
Court, as amended by A.§5, Batas Pambansa Big. 224, a judge (or justice) may issue a
temporary restraining order with a limited life of twenty days from date of issue. li
before the expiration of the 20-day period the application for preliminary injunction is
denied, the temporary order would thereby be deemed automatically vacated. If no
action is taken by the judge on the application for preliminary injunction within the said
20 days, the temporary restraining order would automatically expire on the 20th day by
the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary. In the
instant case, no such preliminary injunction was issued; hence, the TRO earlier issued
automatically expired under the aforesaid provision of the Rules of Court. (Bica/ Medical
Center vs. Bator, 842 SCRA 143, G.R. No. 214073 October 4, 2017)

REMEDIAL LAW
Pace 2Sof29

# JOJ1BAR
Main action for inj11nction vs. Preliminary Injunction
The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary
remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident
of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for
injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or
mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment
embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with,
the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve
the status quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any
stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is
dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final
injunction. (Evy Co11structio11 a11d Developme11t Corporatio11 vs. Valia11t Roll Forming Sales
Corporation, 842 SCRA 464, G.R. No. 207938 October 11, 2017)

Application for lnju11ctive relief, Requisites and Procedural requirements

ln every application for provis ional injunctive relief, the applicant must establish
the actual and existing right sought to be protected. The applicant must also establish
the urgency of a writ's issuance to prevent grave and irreparable injury. Failure to do so
will warrant the court's denial of the application. Moreover, the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be denied in the same summary
hearing as the application for the issuance of the temporary restraining order if the
applicant fails to establish requisites for the entitlement of the writ. Evy Co11structio11 a11d
Development Corporation vs. Valiant Roll For111i11g Sales Corporation, 842 SCRA 464, G.R. No.
207938 October 11, 2017)

Temporary Restrai11i11g Order

A temporary restraining order (fRO) may be issued by a trial court in only two
(2) instances; first, when great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant even
before the application for writ of preliminary injunction can be hea.rd; and second, if the
matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and
irreparable injury.

A temporary restraining order (TRO) cannot be extended indefinitely to take the

place of a writ of preliminary injunction, since a TRO is intended only to have a limited
lifespan and is deemed automatically vacated upon the expiration of seventy-two (72)
hours or twenty (20) days, as the case may be. (First Sarmiento Property Holdi11gs, Jue. vs.
Philippine Bank of Co111m11nicatio11s, 866 SCRA 438, G.R. No. 202836 June 19, 2018)
While Rule 58, Section 4(d) requires that the trial court conduct a summary
hearing in every application for temporary restraining order regardless of a grant or
denial, Rule 58, Section 5 requires a hearing only if an application for preliminary
injunction is granted. (Evy Constr11ctio11 and Development Corporation vs. Valiant Roll
Forming Sales Corporation, 842 SCRA 464, G.R. No. 207938 October 11, 2017)

Page 26of29

REMEDIAL LAW # J0118AR

Receivership

A bank which has been ordered dosed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Bangko
Sentral) is placed under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation. As a consequence of the receivership, the dosed bank may sue and be
sued only through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. Any
action filed by the closed bank without its receiver may be dismissed. (Banco Filipino
Savings and Mortgage Bank vs.Bangko Se11tral ng Pilipi11as, 864 SCRA 32, G.R. No. 200678
June 4, 2018)

l11ju11ctio11 agai11st Decisio11s of the Ombudsma11

Since decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal,
it follows that they may not be stayed by the issuance of an injunctive writ.

For an injunction to issue, the right of the person seeking its issuance must be dear
and unmistakable. However, no such right of petitioner exists to stay the execution of
the penalty of dismissal. There is no vested interest io an office. or an absolute right to
hold office

Ultimately, the pendency of a motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Office

of the Ombudsman does not stay the immediate execution of the penalty of dismissal
imposed upon a public office. Lee vs. Sales, 870 SCRA 516, G.R. No. 205294 July 4, 2018)

MISCELLANEOUS

Continuous Trial

Ma11datory Trial System

Supreme Court (SC) Administrative Circular No. 3-90 requires aU trial courts to
adopt the mandatory continuous trial system pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 4
and Circular No. 1-89. (Chavez. vs. Marcos, 868 SCRA 251, G.R. No. 185484 /tttte 27, 2018)

EXTRA ORDINARY WRITS

WRIT OF AMPARO

The remedy of the Writ of Amparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to

safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty and security as enshrined in the 1987
Constitution. (De Lima vs. Gatdu/a, 691 SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013)

The Rules 011 Summary Procedure 11ot applicable to Amparo cases

A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence,
the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.

REMEDIAL LAW
Page 27of 29

# 10J18AR
 After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the Writ of Amparo or
immediately dismiss the case. Dismissal is proper if the petition and the supporting
affidavits do not show that the petitioner's right to life, liberty or security is under
threat or the acts complained of are not unlawful. On the other hand, the issuance of the
writ itself sets in motion presumptive judicial protection for the petitioner.

After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be satisfied. In
Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioner's life, liberty and security cease
to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the judgment. (De Lima vs. Gatdu/a, 691
SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013)

A Return cannot be substituted by a Memorandum

The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to
a hearing. Hence, it should be done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on
the other hand, is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading
usually required before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the
other since these submissions have different functions in facilitating the suit. More
importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo. (De Lima vs. Gatdu/a, 691 SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013)

Privilege of Writ of Amparo vs. Writ of Amparo

The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual
order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire
procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. After
examining the petition and its attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence
presented in the summa:ry hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from
the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat
to the petitioner's life, liberty or security. A judgment which simply grants "the
privilege of the writ" cannot be executed. It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to
intervene and grant judicial succor to the petitioner. Petitions filed to avail of the
privilege of the Writ of Amparo arise out of very real and concrete circumstances.
Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or ritualistic as "granting the
privilege of the Writ of Amparo." (De Lima vs. Gatd11/a, 691 SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528
February 19, 2013)

Notes: Although the writ of amparo specifically covers "enforced disappearances," this
concept is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction; As the law now stands,
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes
penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these
killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal
Code and special laws. (Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598 (2009/) De Lima vs. Gatdula,
691 SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013)

Pace 28of29

REMEDIAL LAW # l0111AR

 _n .. n
REMEDIAL LAW #lOHIAII: