Syllabus 2nd Sem 06 07 With Reviewer

8/3/2019 Syllabus 2nd Sem 06 07 With Reviewer

1/25

CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER2nd Semester, AY 2006-2007

Based on the Syllabus of Prof. Victoria A. Avena

Part I. Introductory concepts

Part II. Judicial Power

Includes:1. Settle actual controversies (1987 Consti

Article VIII, sec. 1)2. Judicial Review: GAD lack/excess of juris

(1987 Consti Article VIII, sec. 1)a. Statutory Basis: NCC Art 7

3. Declaratory Relief (ROC Rule 63.1)4. Judge contests relating to Election, Returns,

Qualifications of Pres/VP + rules (1987 ConstiArticle VII, sec. 4)

5. Martial Law (1987 Consti Article VIII, sec. 18)6. Judicial Legislation (NCC)

a. Part of Legal System. (Article 8, CivilCode)

b. Mandatory Judgment. (Article 9, CivilCode)

Legal Basis:o Nature, scope

a. 1987 Constitutiono re actual controversies, judicial

review Article VIII, sec. 1

(Where) The judicial power shall be vested ino one Supreme Court and

o in such lower courts as may be established by

law.

(Scope) Judicial power includes the duty of the courtsof justice1. To settle actual controversies involving rightswhich are legally demandable and enforceable, and2. To determine whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack orexcess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the Government. (Article VIII,Section 1, 1987 Constitution)

Class Notes:o courts of justice are referred to in Art VIII Sec 1

of the 1987 Constio Courts vs Legislature:

o Court part of the judiciary (budget,

supervision)o Legislature congress, house, loc govt

(e.g. municipal councilors, municipalboard sangguniang bayan)

b. re dec. relief 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure, Rule 63, sec. 1 (as am. by SCResol. of 2-17-98)

(Elements)1. Any person

a. interested under a deed, willcontract or other written instrument

(DCWI)b. or whose rights are affected by a

statute, executive order orregulation, ordinance, or anyother governmental regulationmay, (SEoROGr)

2. before breach or violation thereof, (B4 B/V)3. bring an action in the appropriate Regiona

Trial Court

(Purposes)1. to determine any question of

construction or validity arising,2. and for a declaration of his rights or

duties, thereunder.3. An action for the reformation of an

instrument,4. to quite title to real property or remove

cloud therefrom,5. or to consolidate ownership under Article

1607 of the Civil Code, may be broughtunder this Rule. (Rule 63, Sec. 1)

c. re presl./vice-presl. elections Art.VII.4

(Who: SC en banc: C-ERQ P/VP + rules) The

Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the solejudge (What)

o of all contests relating to the election

returns, and qualifications of thePresident or Vice-President, (ERQ-P/VP)

o and may promulgate its rules for the

purpose. (Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 71987 Constitution)

d. re martial law/suspension of writ ofhabeas corpus Art.VII.18

(Who) The Supreme Court may review,(Where) in an appropriate proceeding filed by

any citizen,(What)

o the sufficiency of the factual basis of the

proclamation of martial law

o or the suspension of the privilege of the

writ of habeas corpuso or the extension thereof,


2/25

(When)and must promulgate its decision thereonwithin thirty days from its filing. (Article VII,Section 18, Paragraph 3, 1987 Constitution)

e. statutory base of judl. review CivilCode, Art. 7

(When) When the courts declare a law to beinconsistent with the Constitution,(What)

o the former shall be void and the latter shall

govern.o Administrative or executive acts, orders and

regulations shall be valid only when they

are not contrary to the laws orthe Constitution. (Article 7,Paragraph 2-3, Civil Code)

judl. legislation Civil Code, Arts 8 &9

(Part of Legal System) Judicial decisions applying orinterpreting the laws or the Constitution shall formpart of the legal system of the Philippines. (Article8, Civil Code)

(Mandatory Judgment) No judge or court shall declineto render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurityor insufficnency of the law. (Article 9, Civil Code)

Constitutional protectionso constitutional status Art. VIII, secs. 2,

5 R 56.3

(Who) The Congress shall have(What) the power to define, prescribe, and apportion(DPA) the jurisdiction of the various courts(Limitation)

o but may not deprive the Supreme

Court of its jurisdiction over casesenumerated in Section 5 hereof.

o No law shall be passed reorganizing the

Judiciary when it undermines thesecurity of tenure of its Members.(Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution)

(Summary of Mandatory SC Jurisdiction:1. Orig: APmC + CPMQH2. Appeal/Cert by RRRMA

a. Constitutionality/Validity(TALPdPOIOR)

b. Legality: TIAT-Pc. Jurisdiction of lower courts

d. Crim cases w/ RP or highere. ONLY error/Q of law

3. Temp assignment of judges to lower courts4. Change of venue e.g. Ppl v Sola5. Promulgate rules consti rights, PPP in

courts, AI, L6. appointment of judiciary officials)

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affectingambassadors, other public ministers and consulsand over petitions for certiorari, prohibitionmandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm onappeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Courtmay provide, final judgments and orders of lowecourts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality orvalidity of any treaty, international or executiveagreement, law, presidential decree, proclamationorder, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in

question.(b) All cases involving the legality of any

tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penaltyimposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of anylower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penaltyimposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error oquestion of law is involved.(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts toother stations as public interest may require. Suchtemporary assignment shall not exceed six monthswithout the consent of the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial toavoid a miscarriage of justice.(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection andenforcement of constitutional rights, pleadingpractice, and procedure in all courts, the admissionto the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legaassistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shalprovide a simplified and inexpensive procedure fothe speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform forall courts of the same grade, and shall not diminishincrease, or modify substantive rights. Rules oprocedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodiesshall remain effective unless disapproved by theSupreme Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of theJudiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.(Article VIII, Section 5, 1987 Constitution)

Section 3.Mode of appeal. An appeal to theSupreme Court may be taken(GR) only by a petition for review on certiorari,

Lorybeth Baldrias, E2009

(with inputs from Mark Parcia and the Pampolina CivPro Reviwer)

2


3/25

(X) except in criminal cases where the penaltyimposed is death, reclusion perpetua or lifeimprisonment. (ROC Rule 56.3)

o re statutory increase of appellate juris.

Art. VI.30

(Limitation in increasing SCs appellate jurisdiction:SC advice & concurrence) No law shall be passedincreasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt as provided in this Constitution without itsadvice and concurrence. (Article VII, Section 30,1987 Constitution)

PART III. Prescribed Jurisdiction i.e., oversubject matter, by law

What is Jurisdiction?o The power of the courts to hear and

entertain action or proceedingso and to render a judgment therein that

binds the parties to the action orproceedings.

o the authority to decide cases submitted

before a court of law.

How is jurisdiction created?o Jurisdiction is conferred by law.

o Lower Courts: BP 129 or Judiciary

Reorganization Act of 1980, effectiveAugust 14, 1981).

o Supreme Court:1987 Constitution. (ArticleVIII, Section 5).

o Jurisdiction may not be stipulated /

agreed on by parties.

What is judicial power? Is jurisdiction part of judicialpower?

Judicial power is the power to hear and settledisputes. Although the definition of judicial power isnot clearly spelled out in the law, Prof. Avena is of thebelief that the concept of judicial power wasdeveloped throughout the history of American andEnglish laws, to which our legal system owes a lotthrough colonization by the US. In the US, jurisdiction

was defined by experience, in that there must be abody or entity with the power to decide a case.

Jurisdiction is part of judicial power.

How about quasi-judicial bodies?

Quasi-judicial bodies perform duties anddecide cases similar to courts. They decide the rightsand obligations of the persons and settle disputessubmitted before them.

Sindico v Diaz(G.R. No. 147444, October 1, 2004)[J of quasi-judl. agency]

Facts: Pet Accion Reivindicatoria with preliminaryMandatory Injunction with the RTC; thecomplaint does not allege tenuriarelationship

Def Motion to Dismiss- RTC has no jurisdiction over the

subject matter- involves agricultural land which is

covered by CARP, hence DARAB hasuesclusive original jurisdiction

Pet Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss

- not an agrarian dispute; no tenancyor leasehold relationship

Issue: whether RTC or DARAB has jurisdiction

Held: Jurisdiction over the subject matter isdetermined by the allegations of the complaint. Itis not affected by the pleas set-up by the defendantin his answer or in a motion to dismiss; otherwise

jurisdiction would be dependent on his whims.Since allegations in the complaint show that

the dispute involves an action for recovery opossession of land (accion reinvindicatoria) and doesnot involve an agrarian dispute, RTC has

jurisdiction over it. There was no denial by therespondents that the controversy did not involve atenancy or leasehold agreement, which is subject tothe jurisdiction of the DARAB falling undeagricultural disputes.

KINDS of JURISDICTION

1. as to COVERAGE

GeneralJurisdiction

Special orLimited

Jurisdiction

DelegatedJurisdiction

Power toadjudicate allcontroversiesexcept thoseexpresslywithheld fromthe plenary

Those whichhave nopower todecide theirown

jurisdiction

a. Cadastral& landregistrationb. Special orInterlocutoryJurisdiction -Where no RTC



3


4/25

powers of thecourt.

judges arepresent:o Habeas

corpus / bailo Interlocut

ory orders inrespectiveterritorial

jurisdictions

2. as to COGNIZANCE of a CASE

Original Appellate

Power of the court to take judicial cognizance of acase instituted for judicialaction for the first timeunder conditions providedby law

Authority of a court higherin rank to reexamine thefinal order or judgment ofa lower court which triedthe case now elevated forreview.

3. as to CONCURRENCE with OTHER COURTS

Exclusive Concurrent

Power to adjudicate acase or proceeding tothe exclusion of allother courts at thatstage

Power conferred upondifferent courts, whetherof the same or differentranks, to takecognizance at the samestage of the same casein the same or different

judicial territories.

4. as to TERRITORY (Scope) Geographical areawithin which its powers can be exercised (importantin criminal cases; in civil cases: pertains to venueonly)

Territorial

a. National SC, CAb. Regional - RTCc. Territorial inferior courts

5. as to SCOPE

Jurisdiction over thePerson

Jurisdiction over theSubject Matter

Jurisdiction acquired bythe person becoming aparty to the action orproceeding before thecourt either throughvoluntary appearanceor upon service ofsummons or other

Jurisdiction whichpertains to the classes orkinds of actions orproceedings which thecourt is authorized toentertain and adjudicate.

judicial process

Other Classifications of Philippine Courts

1. as to RANK:

Superior Courts Inferior Courts

Courts which have thepower of review orsupervision overanother and lowercourt.

Those which, in relationto another court, arelower in rank and subjectto review andsupervision by the latter.

2. as to their CREATION;

Constitutional Courts Statutory Courts

Those which owe theircreation and existenceto the Constitutionand, therefore cannotbe legislated out ofexistence or deprivedby law of the

jurisdiction andpowers unqualifiedlyvested in them by theconstitution.

Those created, organizedand with jurisdictionexclusively determined bylaw.

3. Record prior to RA 6031 (1969): GR inferiorcourts were not of record X criminal case w/ 6mos-6yrs imposable penalty. Now, all courts are orecord.

Courts of Record Courts Not of Record

o Proceedings are

enrolledo Bound to keep

written record ofall trials & proceedingshandled by them

Not required to keep writterecord of all trials proceedings held therein

definition/distinguished from exercise

Definition: What is jurisdiction?Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear

or entertain an action or proceedings and to render ajudgment thereon which will bind the parties to suchaction or proceeding.



4


5/25

Distinguished from exercise of jurisdiction

There is a distinction between thecompetence of the court to entertain an action(jurisdiction) and the power to render a judgment onthe merits (exercise of jurisdiction). Where there is

jurisdiction, the decision of all questions arising in thecase is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (But error in

jurisdiction is the same as error in the exercise ofjurisdiction)

distinguished from venue Manila Railroad v Atty.-General(20 Phil 523)

Held: Jurisdiction is assured, whatever the place ofits exercise. Jurisdiction is the thing; the place of itsexercise is its incident.

Venue simply grants to the defendant certainrights and privileges as against the plaintiff relative tothe place of trial.

NOTES: simply put, CFI had jurisdiction over thesubject matter, i.e., expropriation. Venue has nothingto do with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Distinguished from venue

Venue determines the question which ofseveral courts in the Philippines having jurisdiction ofa case shall take cognizance of it.

JURISDICTION VENUE

Nature Authority to

hear anddetermine acase

Place where the

case is to be heardor tried

Law of which itisconcerned

Matter of substantivelaw

Matter of procedural law

Relationshipestablished

Establishes arelationbetween thecourt and thesubject matter

Establishes arelation betweenplaintiff anddefendant, orpetitioner andrespondent

Creation Fixed by lawand cannot beconferred bythe parties

May be conferredby the act oragreement of theparties.

o GENERALRULES =

a. jurisdiction cannot be waived; judgment withoutjurisdiction w/o jurisdiction void (Legal Basis:Rule 9.1, Abbain v Chua)

o EXCEPTION = Estoppel by laches (SEAFDEC

v NLRC)b. cannot be the subject of compromise (CC 2035)c. GR: once attached cannot be ousted; X:

subsequent statute provideso retroactivity of law expanding jurisdiction

of courts (RA 7691 Sec 7) transfer ofcases from MTC to RTC upon agreementof parties

Rule 9, Section 1.(GR) Defenses and objections not pleaded eithein a motion to dismiss or in the answer aredeemed waived.(X: no juris over SM; LP; RJ; presc) However,when it appears from the pleadings or theevidence on record that the(1) court has no jurisdiction over the subject matterthat there is(2) another action pending between the same partiesfor the same cause (litis pendiencia), or that the(3) action is barred by a prior judgment or by(4) statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss theclaim.

Abbain v. Chua (22 SCRA 748)

Complaint alleges the existence of landlord-tenant relationship.

Judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court isvoid, because it has no jurisdiction over casesinvolving a landlord-tenant relationship. Jurisdictionis with the Court of Agrarian Relations. Since the

judgment of the lower court is void, it can battacked directly or collaterally even after the timefor appeal or review has elapsed.

Such a judgment is held to be a dead limbon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off orwholly disregarded as the circumstances mayrequire.

-- jurisdiction by estoppel = exception

SEAFDEC v. NLRC(206 SCRA 283)

A case of illegal dismissal was broughagainst SEAFDEC, an international organization, withthe NLRC. One of the basic immunities of an



5


6/25

international organization is immunity from localjurisdiction.

The invocation of estoppel is not meritoriousin this case because estoppel does not apply to confer

jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over the causeof action.

NOTE: why no estoppel? (1)Doctrine of Immunityfrom Suit (immunity derived from treaty)(2)Immunity was not waived;In their Answer pa lang, invoked lack of

jurisdiction! In Soliven, acts implied waiver (pinagodang court)

Soliven v. Fastforms Phils. (G.R. No. 139031,October 18, 2004)

Fastforms actively participated in allstages of the proceedings and invoked its authorityby asking the court for affirmative relief. (Citing the

case of PNOC Shipping v. CA)

o The rationale behind the exception of jurisdiction

by estoppel is to prohibit parties from acceptingjudgments of court only if favorable to them.

cannot be the subject of compromise Civil Code,Art. 2035Jurisdiction cannot be the subject ofCompromiseArticle 2035, Civil Code

No compromise upon the following questionshall be valid:

XXX XXX XXX(5) The jurisdiction of courts.

retroactivity R.A. 7691, sec. 7

Retroactivity of Law Expanding Jurisdiction ofCourts

The provisions of this Act shall apply to allcivil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trialstage. However, by agreement of all the parties,civil cases cognizable by the MTC by the provisions ofthis Act may be transferred from the RTC to thelatter. The executive judge of the appropriate RTCshall define the administrative procedure oftransferring the cases affected by the redefinition of

jurisdiction of the MeTC, MTC, MCTC. (Sec.7, R.A.7691 -> amending B.P.129)

once attached, not ousted by subsequent statuteunless so provided

Southern Food v. Salas (206 SCRA 333)

Southern Foods v. Salas

GEN. RULE: Once the court already obtainedand is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its

jurisdiction is not affected by new legislation placingjurisdiction over the controversy to another tribunal.

EXCEPTION: Unless the statute itselconferring new jurisdiction expressly provides foretroactive effect.

Class Notes:o Error in the exercise of jurisdiction =

error of jurisdiction

o Error of jurisdiction Void judgment

(not voidable :judgment voidable whenin laches)

PART IV.Acquired jurisdiction

Class Notes:o Types of Acquired Jurisdiction:

1. Persono Of the plaintiff

o Of the defendant

2. Subject Matter3. Issues4. Res

A. Over the person

of the plaintiff Manila Railroad v. Atty.-General (supra; see above)

Of the Plaintiff

Jurisdiction over the person (of the plaintiff)is conferred by consent and made to dependindirectly at least, on the partys own volition(Manila Railroad v. Atty-General)

of the defendant

How is jurisdiction acquired over the person?a. when there is voluntary appearance (whendefendant was not originally impleaded in thecomplaint)b. through the coercive power of legal process(summons)c. voluntary submission (when defendant is originallyimpleaded; cures defect in service of summons)



6


7/25

1) by service of summons Rule 14,secs. 1, 2, & 3

By Service of Summons. (Rule 14)- Clerk to issue summons (Sec.1)- Form: directed to defendant, signed by clerkunder seal

Contents:(a) name of court and parties(b) direction that defendant answerwithin the time fixed by the Rules(c) notice that unless defendantanswers, plaintiff will take judgmentby default (Sec.2)

- Served by sheriff, deputy, court officer, orfor justifiable reasons by any suitable person(Sec.3)

personal service sec. 6Personal Service or Service in person on

defendant.Whenever practicable, the summons shall be

served by

handing a copy thereof to thedefendant in person,

or, if he refuses to receive and signfor it, by tendering it to him. (Sec. 6,Rule 14)

substituted service sec. 7Substituted Service.If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannotbe served within a reasonable time asprovided in the preceding section, servicemay be effected(a) by leaving copies of the summons at thedefendant's residence with some person of

suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or

(b) by leaving the copies at defendant'soffice or regular place of business withsome

competent person in charge thereof. (Sec.7, Rule 14)

service by publication sec.14

Service upon defendant whose identity orwhereabouts are unknown.(When applicable)In any action where the defendant isdesignated as an unknown owner, or the like,

or whenever his whereabouts are unknownand cannot be ascertained by diligentinquiry,

(Service by publication; How) service may,by leave of court, be effected upon him bypublication

in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may

order. (16a)

Extraterritorial Service and Service byPublication.(Elements)1. When the defendant does not reside

and is not found in the Philippines,2. and the action

a. affects the personal status of the

plaintiffor relates to,

b. or the subject of which is, propertywithin the Philippines, in whichthe defendant has or claims a lienor interest, actual or contingent,

c. or in which the relief demanded

consists, wholly or in part, inexcluding the defendant from anyinterest therein,

d. or the property of the defendant has

been attached within thePhilippines, service may,

(Methods)(a) by leave of court, be effected out of

the Philippines by personal service asunder section 6 or(b) by publication in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in such places andfor such time as the court may order, inwhich case a copy of the summons andorder of the court shall be sent byregistered mail to the last known addressof the defendant,(c) or in any other manner the court maydeem sufficient.

(Period)Any order granting such leave shall specify a

reasonable time, which shall not be lessthan sixty (60) days after notice, withinwhich the defendant must answer. (Sec. 15Rule 14)

extra-territorial service sec. 15



7


8/25

Extraterritorial Service and Service byPublication.(Elements)3. When the defendant does not reside and

is not found in the Philippines,4. and the action

a. affects the personal status of the

plaintiffor relates to,b. or the subject of which is, property

within the Philippines, in which thedefendant has or claims a lien orinterest, actual or contingent,

c. or in which the relief demanded


d. or the property of the defendant has

been attached within the Philippines,service may,

(Methods)(a) by leave of court, be effected out of thePhilippines by personal service as undersection 6 or(b) by publication in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in such places and forsuch time as the court may order, in whichcase a copy of the summons and order ofthe court shall be sent by registered mailto the last known address of the defendant,(c) or in any other manner the court maydeem sufficient.

(Period)

Any order granting such leave shall specify areasonable time, which shall not be lessthan sixty (60) days after notice, withinwhich the defendant must answer. (Sec. 15,Rule 14)

2) by voluntary appearance Rule14, sec. 20

Voluntary appearance.(GR) The defendant's voluntary appearancein the action shall be equivalent to serviceof summons.(X) The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of

other grounds aside from lack of jurisdictionover the person of the defendant shall not bedeemed a voluntary appearance. (Rule 14,Sec 20)

Boticano v. Chu(148 SCRA 541)

Chu voluntarily submitted to the courtsjurisdiction by (1) submitting pleadings to the courand (2) by appearing in person in court thru hiscounsel.

The defects of the summons were cured bythe voluntary appearance of the defendant.

3) by voluntary submission

Rodriguez v. Alikpala (57 SCRA 455)The Tolentino spouses, parents of Mrs

Rebollado, voluntarily submitted to the courts jurisdiction by assuming or participating in thedefense as co-movants with the Mr. and MrsRebollado, in the motion for judgment on acompromise.

Class Notes:

o Voluntary Submission v Voluntary Appearance

Voluntary Submission

(Rodriguez v Alikpala)

Voluntary Appearance

(Boticano v Chu)

Defendant not aparty to the case (notimpleaded as party inthe pleading)

Jurisprudential (notin the rules)

In this case, done by:entering into acompromiseagreement

Not really literalappearance (can bevia pleadings /motions verbal orwritten participation)

B. Over the res Rule 14, sec. 15 (supra)Extraterritorial Service and Service byPublication.(Elements)1. When the defendant does not reside

and is not found in the Philippines,2. and the action

e. affects the personal status of theplaintiff or relates to,

f. or the subject of which is, property

within the Philippines, in whichthe defendant has or claims a lienor interest, actual or contingent,

g. or in which the relief demanded


h. or the property of the defendant has

been attached within thePhilippines, service may,

(Methods)



8


9/25

(a) by leave of court, be effected out of thePhilippines by personal service as undersection 6 or(b) by publication in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in such places and forsuch time as the court may order, in whichcase a copy of the summons and order of

the court shall be sent by registered mailto the last known address of the defendant,(c) or in any other manner the court maydeem sufficient.

(Period)Any order granting such leave shall specify areasonable time, which shall not be lessthan sixty (60) days after notice, withinwhich the defendant must answer. (Sec. 15,Rule 14)

Banco-Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil. 921)

In the foreclosure of real estate mortgage, thecourt acquires jurisdiction over the property since it isfound in the Philippines, but does not acquire

jurisdiction over the person since mortgagor is anonresident. After signing the real estate mortgage,Palanca, owner of the foreclosed real estate, livedthereafter in China and had died there without payinghis debt.

Conditions for the Foreclosure ofProperty of Nonresident Mortgagors:1. jurisdiction of the court is derived from the powerwhich the court possesses over the property.2. jurisdiction over the person is not acquired and isnot essential.3. that the relief granted by the court must be limitedto such as can be enforced upon the property itself.

De Midgely v. Ferandos. (64 SCRA 23)

Jurisdiction over de Midgely, a resident ofSpain, was acquired by her voluntary appearance incourt. If the motion is for any other purpose than toobject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person,he thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court.

In this case, extra-territorial service ofsummons was made through the Philippine embassyin Spain, The court held that service through theembassy can be encompassed under extraterritorialservice by reasonably sufficient means.

An action is one in rem where the directobject is to reach and dispose of property owned bythem. (i.e. testamentary proceeding which is anaction in rem par excellance)

Class Notes:o Q: Why post a notice or publicize in Rule 14.15

when it may be useless since theres no

guaranty that the defendant could read thenotice? A: A property owner will see to it thathe knows goings-on re: his property byappointing someone who will admonish him ofsuch proceedings

o Rule 14.15 contemplates the following

proceedings:o In Rem(in rem par excellance) binding

on the whole world (constructiveparties); e.g. De Midgely: probateproceeding (subjects may pertain to realproperty or chosen in action Rule14.15 par 3)

o Quasi in rem suit against a person

w.r.t. a certain reso How is jurisdiction acquired over property?

a. when there is actual seizure of the

property by the court.b. when there is recognition of the power of

the court over the property.

C. Over the issues

Class Notes:o Q: Why post a notice or publicize in Rule 14.15

when it may be useless since theres no

guaranty that the defendant could read thenotice? A: A property owner will see to it thathe knows goings-on re: his property byappointing someone who will admonish him ofsuch proceedings

o Rule 14.15 contemplates the following

proceedings:o In Rem(in rem par excellance) binding

on the whole world (constructiveparties); e.g. De Midgely: probateproceeding (subjects may pertain to realproperty or chosen in action Rule

14.15 par 3)o Quasi in rem suit against a person

w.r.t. a certain reso How is jurisdiction acquired over property?

a. when there is actual seizure of theproperty by the court.

b. when there is recognition of the power ofthe court over the property.



9


10/25

Pre-trial Order.The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be

recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the courtshall issue an order which shall recite in detail thematters taken up in the conference, the action takenthereon, the amendments allowed to the pleadings,and the agreements or admissions made by the

parties as to any of the matters considered. Shouldthe action proceed to trial, the order shall explicitlydefine and limit the issues to be tried. Thecontents of the order shall control thesubsequent course of the action, unless modifiedbefore trial to prevent manifest injustice. (Sec. 7,Rule 18)

Amendment to conform to or authorize presentationof evidence.

When issues not raised by the pleadingsare tried with the express or implied consent ofthe parties, they shall be treated in all respects

as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Suchamendment of the pleadings as may be necessary tocause them to conform to the evidence and to raisethese issues may be made upon motion of any partyat any time, even after judgment; but failure toamend does not affect the result of the trial of theseissues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on theground that it is not within the issues made by thepleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to beamended and shall do so with liberality if thepresentation of the merits of the action and the endsof substantial justice will be subserved thereby. Thecourt may grant a continuance to enable theamendment to be made. (Sec. 5, Rule 10)

Gonzaga v. CA (G.R. No. 142037, October 18, 2004)

A party is entitled to such relief consistentwith and limited to that sought by the pleadings orincidental thereto.

Gonzaga spouses did not include in theirprayer that a refund be granted to them of P90,000as against the third party defendants, Gregoriospouses.

Class Notes:o How will you know the issues of the case?

1. Via the pre-trial order (Rule 18.7)

explicitly defines & limits issues & controlssubsequent course of the action

2. Trial Technique (Rule 10.5) -Express/implied consent to try issues notraised in the pleading

o If the court has no jurisdiction over the issues in

a case, judgment is void (Gonzaga v. CA):

o Jurisdiction over the subject matter v over the

res

Subject Matter Res = Thing

LRA Registration Case

e.g.BancoEspanol

1. collection of theloan

2. foreclosure3. collect then

foreclosure

1. property2. jurisdiction

over theperson is notnecessary;service ofsummons,notices onlynecessary fordue process

PART V. Specific Jurisdiction of CourtsA. Supreme Court

1987 ConstitutionArt. VIII, sec. 1, 2, 5 (supra Part II)

(Where) The judicial power shall be vested ino one Supreme Court and

o in such lower courts as may be established

by law.

(Scope) Judicial power includes the duty of thecourts of justice1. To settle actual controversies involving rightswhich are legally demandable and enforceable, and

2. To determine whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack orexcess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch oinstrumentality of the Government. (Article VIIISection 1, 1987 Constitution)

(Who) The Congress shall have(What) the power to define, prescribe, and apportion(DPA) the jurisdiction of the various courts(Limitation)

o but may not deprive the Supreme

Court of its jurisdiction over casesenumerated in Section 5 hereof.

o No law shall be passed reorganizing

the Judiciary when it undermines thesecurity of tenure of its Members(Article VIII, Section 2, 1987Constitution)

(Summary of Mandatory SC Jurisdiction:7. Orig: APmC + CPMQH



10


11/25

8. Appeal/Cert by RRRMAa. Constitutionality/Validity

(TALPdPOIOR)b. Legality: TIAT-Pc. Jurisdiction of lower courtsd. Crim cases w/ RP or highere. ONLY error/Q of law

9. Temp assignment of judges to lower courts10. Change of venue e.g. Ppl v Sola11. Promulgate rules consti rights, PPP in

courts, AI, L12. appointment of judiciary officials)

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affectingambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, andover petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,quo warranto, and habeas corpus.(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm onappeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Courtmay provide, final judgments and orders of lower

courts in:(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or

validity of any treaty, international or executiveagreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is inquestion.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed inrelation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of anylower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penaltyimposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or

question of law is involved.(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to otherstations as public interest may require. Suchtemporary assignment shall not exceed six monthswithout the consent of the judge concerned.(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoida miscarriage of justice.(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection andenforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission tothe practice of law, the integrated bar, and legalassistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shallprovide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for thespeedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all

courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules ofprocedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodiesshall remain effective unless disapproved by theSupreme Court.(6) Appoint all officials and employees of theJudiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.(Article VIII, Section 5, 1987 Constitution)

Art. IX, A, sec. 7

Constitutional CommissionsEach Commission shall decide by a majority

vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought

before it within sixty days from the date of itssubmission for decision or resolution. A case omatter is deemed submitted for decision oresolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief,or memorandum required by the rules of theCommission or by the Commission itself. Unlessotherwise provided by this Constitution or bylaw, any decision, order, or ruling of eachCommission may be brought to the Supreme

Court on certiorari by the aggrieved partywithin thirty days from receipt of a copythereof. (Sec. 7, Article IX A, 1987 Constitution)

R. A. 7902; Rule 43

RULE 43. Appeals From the Court of TaxAppeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to theCourt of Appeals

Section 1.Scope. This Rule shall apply to appealsfrom judgments or final orders of the Court of TaxAppeals and from awards, judgments, final orders orresolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicialagency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.Among these agencies are the Civil Service

Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of thePresident, Land Registration Authority, SocialSecurity Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board,Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and TechnologyTransfer, National Electrification Administration,Energy Regulatory Board, NationalTelecommunications Commission, Department ofAgrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657,Government Service Insurance System, EmployeesCompensation Commission, Agricultural InventionBoard, Insurance Commission, Philippine AtomicEnergy Commission, Board of Investments,Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and

voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (n)

Section 2.Cases not covered. This Rule shall notapply to judgments or final orders issued under theLabor Code of the Philippines. (n)



11


12/25

RA 7902 amended Sec 9 of BP 129, which furthervested appellate jurisdiction in the CA over

judgments, final orders, awards or resolutions of theCivil Service Commission and the CBAA.

question of law

Urbano v. Chavez(183 SCRA 347) question of lawThis involves the participation of the Solicitor

General in two cases involving governmentofficials.

The issues presented by both the cases arepurely questions of law. Whether or not theconclusions of the trial court are in consonancewith law and jurisprudence is a question of law.

Ortigas v. CA (106 SCRA 121)(exclusive jurisdiction of the SC in a case

involving purely legal questions)The Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction

over the case presented because the appellatejurisdiction over cases involving purely legalquestions is exclusively vested with the SupremeCourt. Questions of jurisdiction are purely legalquestions.

Class notes:

o Issue in this case was not limited to possession, it

also included an issue on ownership thatdepended on a contract (interpretation of a lease

contract). It was thus, incapable of pecuniaryestimateion.

Josefa v. Zhandong Trading Corp. (G.R. No.150903, December 8, 2003)

GENERAL RULE: In a petition for review oncertiorari to the Supreme Court, only questions oflaw may be raised.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. conclusion is grounded on speculations,surmises or conjectures2. the inference is manifestly mistaken,absurd or impossible3. there is grave abuse of discretion4. the judgment is based on amisapprehension of facts5. the findings of fact are conflicting6. there is no citation of specific evidence onwhich the factual findings are based

7. the finding of absence of facts iscontradicted by the presence of evidence onrecord.8. the findings of the Court of Appeals arecontrary to those of the trial court.9. the Court of Appeals manifestlyoverlooked certain relevant and undisputed

facts that, if properly considered, wouldjustify a different conclusion.10. the findings of the Court of Appeals arebeyond the issues of the case.11. such findings are contrary to theadmissions of the parties. (case of Josefa v.Zhandong)

Class notes:o Summary of 1-11: where there was a grave

contradiction between conclusion & evidence inthe CA vs conclusions & evidence in the lowercourts

o Difference between question of fact & question of

law

Question of Fact Question of Law

When there are noevidentiary matters(all the court needs todo is look at the law)

Evidence necessary toprove it

Example: Negligence 1. intoxication at thetime

2. defendants vehiclebadly maintained

3. driving on thewrong side of theroad

change of venue People v. Sola (103 SCRA 393)(illustration of change in venue to preventmiscarriage of justice (only SC can do this))

This was a petition for a change of venuefiled in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isgranted the constitutional power to order a changeof venue to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In thiscase, the witnesses to the criminal case againstPablo Sola were not at liberty to reveal what theyknow.

Class notes:

o Legal Basis of change in venue: Art VIII Sec 5 of the 1987 Consti

Art VIII Sec 2 of the 1987 Consti Congress has the power todefine, prescribe & apportion thejurisdiction of all courts

B.P. 129, sec. 9



12


13/25

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129

(Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)

SECTION 9. Jurisdiction.The Intermediate Appellate Court shall

exercise:(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of

mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, andquo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions forannulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final

judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awardsof Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,instrumentalities, boards or commissions, includingthe Securities and Exchange Commission, theSocial Security Commission, the EdmployeesCompensation Commision, and the Civil ServiceCommission, except those falling within theappellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in

accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code ofthe Phils. under P.D. No.442, as amended, theprovisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of thethird paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourthparagraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Court of Appeals shall have the power totry cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence andperform any and all acts necessary to resolve factualissues raised in cases falling within its original andappellate jurisdiction, including the power to grantand conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trialsand hearings must be continuous and must becompleted within three (3) months, unlessextended by the Chief Justice.

[These provisions shall not apply to decisionsand interlocutory orders issued under the Labor Codeof the Philippines and by the Central Board ofAssessment Appeals.]*

*text in bold and [ ] are amendments inserted andremoved by RA7902

P.D. 1606, sec. 7REVISING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1486CREATING A SPECIAL COURT TO BE KNOWN AS"SANDIGANBAYAN" AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES(PD 1606)

SECTION 7. Form, finality and enforcement ofdecisions.

Decisions and final orders of theSandiganbayan shall contain complete findings offacts on all issues properly raised before it.A petition for reconsideration of any final order ordecision may be filed within (15) days from

promulgation or notice of the final order orjudgment, and such petition for reconsideration shallbe decided within thirty (30) days from submissionthereon.

Decisions and final orders shall besubject to review on certiorari by the SupremeCourt in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court. The Supreme Court shall decide any caseon appeal promptly and without the necessity ofplacing it upon the regular calendar. Whenever, inany case decided, the death penalty shall have beenimposed, the records shall be forwarded to theSupreme Court, whether the accused shall haveappealed or not, for review and judgment, as lawand justice shall dictate.

Final judgments and orders of theSandiganbayan shall be executed and enforcedin the manner provided by law.

Class Notes:o Appeal v Certiorari

Appeal Certiorari rule 65 Continuation of theoriginal actionError of fact / law / both

(review by certiorari rule 45)

Not a continuation (newaction)Review because theres

GAD

B. Court of AppealsB.P. 129, sec. 9 (as am. By R.A. 7902)

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129

(Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)

SECTION 9. Jurisdiction.

The Intermediate Appellate Court shallexercise:(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs ofmandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction overactions for annulment of judgments of Regional TrialCourts; and(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over allfinal judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, orawards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicialagencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions,including the Securities and Exchange Commission,

the Social Security Commission, the EdmployeesCompensation Commision, and the Civil ServiceCommission, except those falling within the appellate

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance withthe Constitution, the Labor Code of the Phils. underP.D. No.442, as amended, the provisions of this Act,and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and



13


14/25

subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Court of Appeals shall have the power:a. to try cases and conduct hearings,b. to receive evidence andc. to perform any and all acts necessary to resolvefactual issues raised in cases falling within its original

and appellate jurisdiction, including the power togrant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.Trials and hearings must be continuous and must becompleted within three (3) months, unless extendedby the Chief Justice.

Class Notes:o Meaning of WON in aid of CAs appellate

jurisdiction after the CA takescognizance of a case, the interlocutoryorders are already in aid of the CAsappellate jurisdiction, depending on theaction filed

Rule 43 in aid of appellate

jurisdiction Rule 47/65 not in aid of original

jurisdiction (original actions)o Examples of writs in aid of CAs appellate

jurisdiction:

Writ of mandamus not as anauxiliary writ

Subpoena auxiliary writ ofprocess

Pendente lite in an appeal forlegal sepn

TRO/injunction not permanentbut preliminary in Rule 58

Rule 43

o RULE 43. Appeals From the Court of Tax

Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies tothe Court of Appeals

Section 1.Scope. This Rule shall apply toappeals from judgments or final orders of theCourt of Tax Appeals and from awards,

judgments, final orders or resolutions of orauthorized by any quasi-judicial agency in theexercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Amongthese agencies are the Civil Service

Commission, Central Board of AssessmentAppeals, Securities and ExchangeCommission, Office of the President, LandRegistration Authority, Social SecurityCommission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureauof Patents, Trademarks and TechnologyTransfer, National ElectrificationAdministration, Energy Regulatory Board,

National Telecommunications Commission,Department of Agrarian Reform underRepublic Act No. 6657, Government ServiceInsurance System, Employees CompensationCommission, Agricultural Invention Board,Insurance Commission, Philippine AtomicEnergy Commission, Board of Investments,

Construction Industry ArbitrationCommission, and voluntary arbitratorsauthorized by law. (n)

Section 2.Cases not covered. This Ruleshall not apply to judgments or final ordersissued under the Labor Code of thePhilippines. (n)

P.D. 442, as am. By R.A. 6715

St. Martins Funeral Home v. NLRC(G.R.No. 130866, Sept 16, 1998)

Under Rule 65 (petitions for certiorari),appeals from the decisions of the NLRC must firstbe brought to the CA before SC hears it.

SC Resol. A.M. No. 99-2-01 (dismissal for non-compliance w/ St. Martins

case)

[A.M. NO. 99-2-01-SC. February 9, 1999.]IN RE: DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONSIN NLRC CASES: National Labor RelationsCommission, Dismissal of Special Civil Action

In light of the decision in St. Martin FuneralHomes v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, 16 September1998), all special civil actions arising out of anydecision or final resolution or order of theNational Labor Relations Commission filed withthe Court after 01 June 1999 shall no longer bereferred to the Court of Appeals, but shallforthwith be DISMISSED.

Let this resolution be published in twonewspapers of general circulation in thePhilippines and copies thereof furnished theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines and theNational Labor Relations Commission.



14


15/25

SC Resolution A.M. No. 00-2-03 (amendingRule 65, Sec.4)

[A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC. September 1, 2000.]FURTHER AMENDING SECTION 4, RULE 65 OFTHE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURERESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBYRESOLVED, to further amend Section 4, Rule 65, ofthe 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by theResolution of July 21, 1998, so as to read as follows:SECTION 4. When and where petition filed.

The petition shall be filed not later than sixty(60) days from notice of the judgment, order orresolution. In case a motion for reconsideration ornew trial is timely filed, whether such motion isrequired or not, the sixty (60) day period shall becounted from notice of the denial of said motion.

The petition shall be filed in the SupremeCourt, or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of alower court or of a corporation, board, officer or

person, in the Regional Trial Court exercisingjurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by theSupreme Court. It may also be filed in the Courtof Appeals whether or not the same is in aid ofits appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayanif it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involvesthe acts or omissions of a quasi judicial agency,unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, thepetition shall be filed in and cognizable only by theCourt of Appeals.

No extension of time to file the petition shallbe granted except for compelling reason and in nocase exceeding fifteen (15) days. (4a)

This resolution shall take effect on September 1,

2000, following its publication in two (2)newspapers of general circulation.

C. Regional Trial Courts

B.P. 129 (as am. By R.A. 7691)-- in ordinary civil actions sec. 19; R.A.7691, secs. 1, 5

summary: IRAPMCJP

1. Incapable of pecuniary estimation2. TPI: Real property (X: FE/UD) -

(P20/50T)3. Admiralty & maritime (P100/200T-

200/400-300/400)4. Probate (P100/200T-200/400-300/400)

5. Marriage/marital relations

6. Catch-all

7. Juvenile & Domestic Relations + CAR

8. Pecuniarily estimable (P100/200T-200/400-300/400)

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691

(AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THEMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS,AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA,BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "JUDICIARYREORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980")SECTION 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg.129, otherwise known as the "JudiciaryReorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended toread as follows:"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.

Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction."(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of thelitigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;"(2) In all civil actions which involve the title toor possession of, real property, or any interestherein, where the assessed value of theproperty involved exceeds Twenty thousandpesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in MetroManila, where such value exceeds Fifty

thousand pesos (P50,000.00)except actions fo

forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands obuildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferredupon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TriaCourts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;"(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceedsOne hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or,in Metro Manila, where such demand or claimexceeds Two hundred thousand pesos

(P200,000.00);"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate andintestate, where the gross value of the estateexceeds One hundred thousand pesos(P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in MetroManila, where such gross value exceeds TwoHundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);"(5) In all actions involving the contract omarriage and marital relations;"(6) In all cases not within the exclusive

jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or bodexercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, personor body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;"(7) In all civil actions and special proceedingsfalling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of aJuvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the

Bold text represents the changes from the prior law.

Emphasis is my own.



15


16/25

Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law;and"(8) In all other cases in which the demand,exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or thevalue of the property in controversy exceeds Onehundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in

such other cases in Metro Manila, where thedemand exclusive of the abovementioned itemsexceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos(P200,000.00)."

New Jurisdictional Amounts based on RA 7691:Based on Section 5, RA 7691 which became effectivein April 1994, the jurisdictional amounts are thefollowing:

Period Outside of

MetroManila

In Metro Manila

Uponenactment ofRA 7691

P100,000.00

P 200,000.00

April 99 April04 (five yearsafter effectivityof RA 7691)

P200,000.00

P 400,000.00

April 04 topresent

P300,000.00

P 400,000.00

But these adjusted jurisdictional amounts shall onlyapply to the following instances delineating the

jurisdictional amounts for the RTC and MTC.1. admiralty and maritime actions.2. probate proceedings3. in all other cases not involving real property.

The jurisdictional amount with respect to all civilactions which involve title to, or possession of realproperty and any interest therein still remains thesame (P50,000 for civil actions in Metro Manila andP20,000 outside of Metro Manila.)

-- in special civil actions and the specialproceeding of habeas corpus sec.21

SECTION 21. Original jurisdiction in other casesRegional Trial Courts shall exercise original

jurisdiction:(1) In the issuance of writs ofcertiorari,prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,habeas corpus and injunction which may

be enforced in any part of their respectiveregions; and(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and

other public ministers and consuls.

-- exclusive appellate jurisdiction sec. 22

SECTION 22. Appellate jurisdiction.

Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellatejurisdiction over all cases decided byMetropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TrialCourts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts intheir respective territorial jurisdictions.

Such cases shall be decided on the basis ofthe entire record of the proceedings had in the courtof origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as maybe submitted by the parties or required by theRegional Trial Courts.

The decision of the Regional Trial Courts insuch cases shall be appealable by petition for reviewto the Intermediate Appellate Court which may giveit due course only when the petition shows primafacie that the lower court has committed an error offact or law that will warrant a reversal ormodification of the decision or judgment sought tobe reviewed.

-- special jurisdiction sec. 23; Rule 1, sec. 4;Rule 143

SECTION 23. Special jurisdiction to try specialcases.

The Supreme Court may designate certain branchesof the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusivelycriminal cases, juvenile and domestic relationscases, agrarian cases, urban land reform caseswhich do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-

judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such otherspecial cases as the Supreme Court may determinein the interest of a speedy and efficientadministration of justice.

Rule 1, Sec.4 (NICEL)

These Rules shall not apply to election casesland registration, cadastral, naturalization andinsolvency proceedings, and other cases not hereinprovided for, except by analogy or in a suppletorycharacter and whenever practicable and convenient.

Rule 143 Applicability of the Rules



16


17/25

These Rules shall not apply to landregistration, cadastral, and election cases,naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and othercases not herein provided for, except by analogy or ina suppletory character and whenever practicable andconvenient.

-- SC Admin. Circular 09-94 (June 14,1994); R.A. 7691

SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.09-94SUBJECT: Guidelines in the Implementation ofRepublic Act No. 7691, Entitled "An Act Expanding theJurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, MunicipalTrial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Actof 1980"

TO: The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, RegionalTrial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TrialCourts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, All Members ofthe Government Prosecution Service and All Membersof the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

2. The exclusion of the term "damages ofwhatever kind" in determining the jurisdictionalamount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) ofB.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, appliesto cases where the damages are merelyincidental to or a consequence of the main causeof action. However, in cases where the claim fordamages is the main cause of action, or one of the

causes of action, the amount of such claim shall beconsidered in determining the jurisdiction of thecourt.

Class Notes:R.A. 7691 for computation of docket feesbased on award in cases of BP 129 Sec 19

3,4,8 the jurisdictional amounts apply

-- SC Cir. No. 11-99 (transfer to RTC fromMTC of cases w/in jurisdiction of

family courts under R.A. 8369 (FamilyCourts Act of 1997)

Transfer to RTC from MTC of cases within thejurisdiction of Family Courts under RA 8369(Family Courts Act of 1997)

-- CB v CA (208 SCRA 652) [readspecially pp. 654-656; 661-665; 673, last

par. 677, par. after quote; 679-683]

CB v. CA

This was the case of the P102 docket fee.

Even if the amount of damages is not in the

prayer, the docket fees shall be assessed if theamount prayed for is in the body of thecomplaint.

Place amount of damages in theprayer & in the body of the complaint.

Ascue v. CA (G.R. No. 84330, May 8,1991)

Ascue v. CA

Where the thing sought to be deposited orconsigned is a sum of money, the amount of thedebt due is determinable and capable ofpecuniary estimation.

Negre v. Cabahug Shipping (16 SCRA655)

Negre v. Cabahug Shipping

All admiralty and maritime cases fall under thejurisdiction of the CFI, irrespective of the amountor value of the goods involved. (Judiciary Act,Sec. 44)

C/f BP 129 Sec.19 (3), as amended by RA 7691

The present law places a peso limit underwhich the RTC can exercise jurisdiction overadmiralty and maritime cases.

Baito v. Sarmiento (109 Phil. 148)

An action for support falls under the jurisdictionof the CFI for being incapable of pecuniaryestimation. The following are factors thatdetermine support: amount to be given, relationof the parties, right to support created by thatrelation, needs of the claimant and financial

resources of the person from whom support issought.

R.47

RULE 47



17


18/25

Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders andResolutions

Section 1.Coverage. This Rule shall govern theannulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments orfinal orders and resolutions in civil actions of RegionalTrial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of newtrial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriateremedies are no longer available through no fault ofthe petitioner. (n)

Section 2.Grounds for annulment. The annulmentmay be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraudand lack of jurisdiction.

Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it wasavailed of, or could have been availed of, in a motionfor new trial or petition for relief. (n)

Section 3.Period for filing action. If based on

extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4)years from its discovery; and if based on lack of

jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.(n)

Section 4.Filing and contents of petition. Theaction shall be commenced by filing a verified petitionalleging therein with particularity the facts and thelaw relied upon for annulment, as well as thosesupporting the petitioner's good and substantial causeof action or defense, as the case may be.

The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible

copies, together with sufficient copies correspondingto the number of respondents. A certified true copy ofthe judgment or final order or resolution shall beattached to the original copy of the petition intendedfor the court and indicated as such by the petitioner.

The petitioner shall also submit together with thepetition affidavits of witnesses or documentssupporting the cause of action or defense and a sworncertification that he has not theretofore commencedany other action involving the same issues in theSupreme Court, the Court of Appeals or differentdivisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency ifthere is such other action or proceeding, he must

state the status of the same, and if he shouldthereafter learn that a similar action or proceedinghas been filed or is pending before the SupremeCourt, the Court of Appeals, or different divisionsthereof, or any other tribunal or agency, heundertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courtsand other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5)days therefrom. (n)

Section 5.Action by the court. Should the courtfind no substantial merit in the petition, the samemay be dismissed outright with specific reasons forsuch dismissal.

Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, thesame shall be given due course and summons shallbe served on the respondent. (n)

Section 6.Procedure. The procedure in ordinarycivil cases shall be observed. Should trial benecessary, the reception of the evidence may bereferred to a member of the court or a judge of aRegional Trial Court. (n)

Section 7.Effect of judgment. A judgment ofannulment shall set aside the questioned judgmentor final order or resolution and render the same nulland void, without prejudice to the original actionbeing refiled in the proper court. However, where the

judgment or final order or resolution is set aside onthe ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may onmotion order the trial court to try the case as if atimely motion for new trial had been granted therein(n)

Section 8.Suspension prescriptive period. Theprescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaidoriginal action shall be deemed suspended from thefiling of such original action until the finality of the

judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptiveperiod shall not be suspended where the extrinsic-fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the originalaction. (n)

Section 9.Relief available. The judgment ofannulment may include the award of damages,attorney's fees and other relief.

If the questioned judgment or final order orresolution had already been executed the court mayissue such orders of restitution or other relief as

justice and equity may warrant under thecircumstances. (n)

Section 10.Annulment of judgments or final ordersof Municipal Trial Courts. An action to annul a

judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Courtshall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having

jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as anordinary civil action and sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9of this Rule shall be applicable thereto. (n)



18


19/25

D. Metropolitan, Municipal, Municipal CircuitTrial Courts

Rule 5, Sec. 2

The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used inthese Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

B.P. 129, secs. 28, 29, 30, 31, as am.

SECTION 28. Other Metropolitan Trial Courts.The Supreme Court shall constitute

Metropolitan Trial Courts in such other metropolitanareas as may be established by law whose territorial

jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the cities andmunicipalities comprising the metropolitan area.

Every Metropolitan Trial Judge shall beappointed to a metropolitan area which shall be his

permanent station and his appointment shall statebranch of the court and the seat thereof to which heshall be originally assigned. A Metropolitan Trial Judgemay be assigned by the Supreme Court to any branchwithin said metropolitan area as the interest of justicemay require, and such assignment shall not bedeemed an assignment to another station within themeaning of this section.

SECTION 29. Municipal Trial Courts in cities.In every city which does not form part of a

metropolitan area, there shall be a Municipal TrialCourt with one branch, except as hereunder provided:(list of branches omitted)

SECTION 31. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.There shall be a Municipal Circuit Trial Court

in each area defined as a municipal circuit, comprisingone or more cities and/or one or more municipalities.The municipalities comprising municipal circuits asorganized under Administrative Order No. 33, issuedon June 13, 1978 by the Supreme Court pursuant toPresidential Decree No. 537, are hereby constitutedas municipal circuits for purposes of theestablishment of the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,and the appointments thereto of Municipal CircuitTrial Judges: Provided, however, That the SupremeCourt may, as the interests of justice may require,

further reorganize the said courts taking into accountworkload, geographical location, and such otherfactors as will contribute to a rational allocationthereof, pursuant to the provisions of PresidentialDecree No. 537 which shall be applicable insofar asthey are not inconsistent with this Act.

Every Municipal Circuit Trial Judge shall beappointed to a municipal circuit which shall be hisofficial station.

The Supreme Court shall determine the city ormunicipality where the Municipal Circuit Trial Courtshall hold sessions.

By R.A. 7691; A.O. 33; P.D. 537

- exclusive original jurisdiction- in civil and estate settlementproceedings/over provisionalremedies- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (1); R.A. 7691,

secs. 3 & 5- SC Admin. Circular 09-94

(June 4, 1994)- in forcible entry and unlawful

detainer cases

- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (2); R.A.7691, sec. 3Lim v. CA (G.R. No. 93451,

March 18, 1991)- in civil actions involving title to

or possession of real property- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (3) as

am.; R.A. 7691, sec. 3Russel v. Vestil (304 SCRA

738)- delegated jurisdiction B.P.

129, sec. 34; R.A. 7691, sec. 4; SCCircular 38-97

- special jurisdiction B.P. 129,

sec. 35

E. Special Rules

Manufacturers Distributors v. Yu Siu Liong (11SCRA 680)Cruz v. Tan (87 Phil. 627)Lapitan v. Scandia (24 SCRA 477)Good Development v. Tutaan (73 SCRA 189)

Part VI. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

A. Scope and Construction Rule 1, secs.2,3,4,6B. Uniform procedure Rule 5, sec. 1C. ActionsKinds Rule 1, sec. 3Nature



19


20/25

real/personal/mixedHernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena

(81 SCRA 75)in personam/ in rem/ quasi in rem

De Midgely v. Fernandos (64 SCRA23; supra, Part IV, B)

Rule 1, sec. 5 commencementCB v. CA (supra, Part V, C. [emphasis

on pp.682-683]Go v. Tong (G.R. No. 151942,

November 27, 2003)Heirs of Hinog v. Hon. Melicor (G.R.

No. 140954, Apr. 12, 2005)Rule 2 cause of action

sec. 1 basissec. 2 definition

Felipe v. Leuterio (91 Phil.482)

Santiago v. Bautista ( 32SCRA 188)

Sagrada Orden de Precadoresdel Santisimo Rosario de

Filipinas v. NationalCoconut Corporation (92Phil.

503)Ma-ao Sugar Central

v. Barrios (79 Phil. 666)Danfoss v. Continental

Cement (G.R. No. 143788, Sep. 9,2005)

sec. 3 one suit for a singlecause of action

sec. 4 effect of splitting

Rule 16, sec. 1 (e), (f)sec. 5 joinder of causes of

actionRule 3, sec. 6Rule 3.13Rule 8.2B.P. 129.33.1

sec. 6 misjoinderUnion Glass v. SEC

(G.R. No. L-64013, Nov. 28, 1983)

D. Parties Rule 3

requisites

sec. 1 who may be parties; Rule 3.15Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115

SCRA 783)sec. 2 parties in interest; Rule 16.1.g

Carillo v. Dabon (G.R. No. 121165,Sep. 26, 2006)

Joya v. PCGG (225 SCRA 568)Oposa v. Factoran (224 SCRA 792)

kindssec. 3 representativessec. 4 spouses

E.O. 209 (Family Code) Arts. 145,

111sec. 5 minor or incompetentsec. 15 defendants w/o juridical personality

R.A. 6809; Family Code Art. 5;Rule 14.8; Rule 36.6

sec. 14 unknown name or identitysec. 10 unwilling co-plaintiffsec. 21 indigent partysec. 7 compulsory joinder of indispensable

partiesArcelona v. CA (G.R. No. 102900,

Oct. 2, 1997)Cerezo v. Tuazon (G.R. No. 141538,

March 23, 2004)

sec. 8 necessary partysec. 6 permissive joinder

Flores v. Mallare-Phillips (144 SCRA377)

sec. 9 non-joinder to be pleadedsec. 13 alternative defendantssec. 12 class suit

Newsweek v. IAC (142 SCRA 171)Manila Intl. Airport Authority v.

Rivera Village (G.R. No.143870, Sep. 30, 2005)

sec. 22 wen Solicitor General required tobe party

effectssec. 11 misjoinder and non-joindersec. 18 incompetency/ incapacitysec. 16 deathsec. 20 re contractual money claim

Del Castillo v. Jaymalin (112 SCRA629)

Gojo v. Goyala (35 SCRA 557)sec. 19 transfer of interestsec. 17 death/ separation of public officer-

party

E. Venue Rule 4People v. Sola (supra, Part V, A)

Time, Inc. v. Reyes (39 SCRA 303)Pilipino Telephone v. Tecson (G.R. No.156966, May 7, 2004)

F. Pleadings

1. In generalRule 6 kinds of pleadings



20


21/25

sec. 1 pleadings defined

sec. 2 pleadings allowedRule 8 manner of making allegations inpleadings

sec. 1 form in general

sec. 7 actionable documentSantiago v. De Los Santos (61

SCRA 146)Rule 8.1

2. The claim

Rule 6sec. 2 where asserted

Rule 8.2sec. 3 complaintsec. 6 counterclaimsec. 8 cross-claimsec. 9 counter-counterclaim and

counter-cross-claimsec. 10, par. 2 reply

Rule 11 when to file responsive pleadingssec. 9 counterclaim/ cross-claim

after answerNamarco v. Federacion (49

SCRA 238)Rule 6, sec. 12 bringing in new parties; Rule1.5Rule 10, sec. 6 amended and supplementalpleadings

Young v Sy (G.R. No. 157745,Sep. 26, 2006)Rule 6, sec. 11 third-party complaint, etc.

Republic v. Central Surety (26SCRA 741)

Asian Construction v CA (G.R.No. 160242, May 17, 2005)Rule 16, sec. 6, par. 2 counterclaim whereclaim dismissed thru

DefendantRule 17, sec. 2 dismissal of actions

Compulsory counterclaim/ cross-claim

Rule 6, sec. 7 compulsorycounterclaim

Calo v. Ajax (22 SCRA996)

Gojo v. Goyala (35SCRA 557)

Rule 11, sec. 8 existing compulsorycounterclaim/ cross-claim

Rule 9, sec. 2 barred if not set up

Chavez v.Sandiganbayan (193 SCRA 282)

Cojuangco v. Villegas(184 SCRA 374)

Carpena v. Manalo(12 SCRA 1060)

Cabaero v. Cantos

(G.R. No. 102942, Apr. 18, 1997)Chan v. CA (G.R. No.

109020) Mar. 3, 1994)3. The answer

Rule 6sec. 2 pleadings allowed

sec. 4 answersec. 13 answer to third-party

complaint, etc.sec. 5 defenses

Gojo v. Goyala (supra)Rule 16, sec. 6 grounds for

dismissal as affirmativedefenses

Rule 8sec. 10 specific denialsec. 11 allegations deemed

admittedTec Bi v. Chartered

Bank of India (41 Phil. 596)Phil. Advertising v.

Revilla (52 SCRA 246)Liam Law v. Olympic

Sawmill (129 SCRA 439)CB Circular 905

sec. 7 based on documentsec. 8 how to contest

documentPBC v. CA (G.R. No.

133710, Jan 13, 2004)sec. 2 alternative defenses;

Rule 3.12Rule 9, sec. 1 defense/ objection

waivedKaton v. Palanca

(G.R. No. 151149, Sep. 7, 2004)

4. The reply

Rule 6 secs. 2 and 10

5. Common Provisionsa) re parts of pleading Rule 7Rule 7.4; SC Circular No. 48-2000

Fil-Estate Golf v. CA (G.R. No.120958, Dec. 16, 1996)



21


22/25

DBP v. CA (G.R. No. 147217, Oct. 7,2004)

Wee v. Galvez (G.R. No. 147394, Aug.11, 2004)

Baguioro v. Barrios (G.R. No. L-277,Aug. 30, 1946) relief entitled to based onfacts, not based on what is stated determines

nature of action. & other relief prayed forvalid;

China Bank v. Mondragon (G.R.164798, Nov. 17, 2005) subseq ratif of authof person who signed cert of NFS valid

Cruz-Agana v. Hon. Santiago Lagman(G.R. No. 139018, Apr. 11,

2005) -b) re manner of making allegations Rule 8, secs. 1 to 11

Perpetual Savings v. Fajardo (223SCRA 720)Wee v. Galvez (supra)

c) re effect of failure to plead Rule 9;

Rule 30.9Cerezo v. Tuazon (supra)Sps. Delos Santos v. RTC (G.R.No.153696, Sep. 11, 2006)Martinez v. Republic (G.R. No.160895, Oct. 30, 2006)

d) striking out pleadings Rule 8, sec.12

6. Amended/ supplemental pleadings Rule 10; Rule 1.5

Dauden-Hernaez v. de los Angeles (27SCRA 1276)Phil. Export v. Phil. Infrastructures

(G.R. No. 120384, Jan 13,2004)

Surigao Mining v. Harris (69Phil. 113)

7. When to file responsive pleadings Rule 11

8. Filing/Service of Pleadings, Judgmentsand Other Papers Rule 13

Rule 13.3 icow Rule 51.9SC Resolution of February 17, 1998Bautista v. Maya-Maya (G.R. 148361,Nov. 29, 2005)GCP-Manny v. Principe (G.R. 141484,Nov. 11, 2005)

9. Computation of Time Rule 22Spouses Romero v. CA (G.R. No.142406, May 16, 2005)

A.M. No. 00-2-14-SCLuz v. National Amnesty Commission(G.R. No. 159708, Sep. 24,

2004)10. Bill of Particulars Rule 12

G. Summons Rule 14

- contents, when issued, by whom issued secs. 2, 1, 3, 5

- modes of service1. voluntary appearance sec.20; Rule 16.1.a

2. voluntary submission Rodriguez v. Alikpala (supra)3. service in person sec. 6Toyota Cubao v. CA (G.R. No.126321, Oct. 23, 1997)4. substituted service sec. 7Andy Quelnan v. VHF Phil. (G.R. No.138500, Sep. 16, 2005)5. extra-territorial service sec

15Guiguinto Credit v. Torres (G.R.170926, Sep.15, 2006)Bonnevie v. CA (125 SCRA 124)Dial Corp. v. Soriano (161 SCRA737)Montalban v. Maximo (22 SCRA1070)D. Midgley v. Ferandos (supra)Sahagun v. CA (G.R. No. 78328,June 3, 1991)R.A. 4883; P.D. 10796. by publication secs. 14,15, 16

- mode of service upon certaindefendants

1. upon domestic privatejuridical entity sec. 11Paluwagan ng Bayan v. King (172SCRA 62)2. upon foreign private juridicalentity sec. 12; see Rule 11.2, Rule

14.14 of 1964 Revised Rulesof Court

Facilities Management v. Dela Osa (89 SCRA 131)

3. upon resident temporarilyabroad sec. 16Montalban v. Maximo (supra)4. upon defendant whoseidentity/ whereabouts unknown sec. 14



22


23/25

Baltazar v. CA (168 SCRA 354)- leave of court sec. 17

5. upon others secs. 8, 9, 10, 13

- return/proof of service secs. 4,18, 19

H. Motions in general Rule 15

I. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 16

U.S. v Ruiz (136 SCRA 487); SEAFDEC v. NLRC(supra)Rule 9, sec. 1Rule 6, sec. 5 (b)Rule 7, sec. 5Rule 39, sec.47National Union Fire Ins. v. Stolt-Nielsen (184SCRA 682)Balo v. CA (G.R. No. 129704, Sep 30, 2005)Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. CA (G.R. 126212, Mar.

2, 2000)Swagman Hotel v. CA (G.R. 161135, Apr. 8,2005)Goodyear v. Sy (G.R. 154554, Nov. 9, 2005)

Morcal v. Lavia (G.R. 166753, Nov. 29, 2005)

Facts: Morcal filed a civil action at the RTC to annul 2DENR orders, which denied his Free PatentApplication. The TC upon motion of Spouses Lavina,dismissed Morcals action for failure to exhaustadministrative remedies. Motion for Recon in RTCdenied. CA affirmed. Morcal filed a petition forcertiorari in the SC.

Held: The dismissal of the action was proper for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, which is acondition precedent for filing of suits. Though notfully explained by the court, the dismissal was basedon Rule 16.1(j).

Pascual v. Pascual(G.R. No. 157830, Nov. 17,2005)

Facts: Brother, Dante, a non-resident immigrant wasrepresented by Sagario in a suit against his sister,Marilou, at the Isabela RTC for Annulment of TCT and

Deed of Absolute Sale and/or Reconveyance withDamages. Marilou filed an MTD due to non-compliance with the requirement in Loc Gov Code Sec412 re: conciliatory proceedings in the barangaycourt. RTC granted the MTD. Motion for Recon at theRTC denied, hence the present Petition for Review onCertiorari of the RTC decision.

Held: The action was reinstated; the action wasimproperly dismissed. Rule 16.1(j) was wronglyrelied on. Dante, the RPI, is a non-resident, thus theLGC is not applicable to him. The local lupon has no

jurisdiction over their dispute, hence prior referral toit for conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing incourt.

Philville v. Javier(G.R. No.147738, Dec. 13, 2005)

Facts: Javier sued Philville for damages in the RTCfor giving them 2 separate lots of 1000m2 instead of1 lot of 2000m2 as disturbance compensation forconversion of land into a housing subdivision.Philville filed an ANSWER, alleging affirmative &special defenses (the complaint failed to state aCOA; it did not allege resort to conciliationproceedings before the barangay; estoppel fromfiling the complaint). Philville moved to dismiss theoriginal complaint, alleging Javiers request for

revocation of the free patent with the LandManagement Bureau. RTC dismissed the MTD. CAaffirmed, hence petition for review on certiorari.

Held: Dismissal of the MTD was proper. An MTDcannot be filed after filing an answer. (Court used

jurisprudence as legal basis when it shouldve usedRule 16.1, instead. Rule 9.1 re: prescription alsoapplicable Period of filing MTD already prescribed.)

Diu v. CA (G.R. No.115213, Dec. 19, 1995)

This was the case where the Baranggay

Chairman did not constitute the Pangkat ngTagapamayapa to settle the issue, but instead wrotea letter submitting the issue for court intervention. Amotion to dismiss was failed saying that the courtdid not have jurisdiction because the process of theKatrungang Pambaranggay was not resorted to fully.

The ground for dismissing the action is notthe lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subjecmatter, but failure to comply with the conditionprecedent. But even then, from the facts of the casethere was no genuine resolve by the parties to settleamicably the issue. So it is best that they go directlyto the court. Besides, the participation of theBaranggay Chairman was substantia

compliance with the law.

Berba v. Pablo (G.R. No.160032, Nov. 11, 2005)

Facts: Berba filed a complaint for eviction &collection of rentals against Pablo in the Office of thePunong Barangay, after which both executed an



23


24/25

Agreement approved by the pangkat. Despiteagreement, Pablo still failed to pay arrears in leaserentals. Berba filed an FE/UD + damages suit, (butfailed to append a certification to File Action from theLupon) with the MTC against Pablo & the heirs ofCarlos (lessees din sila, but not included in theagreement before the Pangkat). Pablo filed an

answer averring that Berba had no COA for failure tosecure a Certificate to File Action from the Lupon.

Diu v CA Berba v Pablo

Held: Action wronglydismissed. Substantialcompliance ofconciliation/confrontationrequirement at theLupong TagapamayapaLevel

Held: Action with theMTC dismissed. Nosubstantial compliance ofconciliation requirementat the LT level.

Confrontation before theLupon (Punong Brgydifferent from Lupon)

Rule 417A of LGC:Agreement before Luponis in effect a final

judgment, in need ofenforcement byexecution 6 mos fromdate of settlement.

MTC case shouldve beenbarred by Res Judicata

Proper action in the RTCv Pablo: Action toexecute judgment (Rule39).

Alternatively, sue Pablobased on document (Rule8.7)

With regard to heirs ofCarlos, Back to square 1(need to conciliate /settle with them first)

Sustiguer v. Tamayo (176 SCRA 579)This was the case of an award of land by the

mayor to Aposaga, but was subsequently sold toTamayo. Aposaga and Sustiguer, who was the loser in

the award of land by the mayor, filed suit saying theyhave a preferential right to the land. But Aposagawithdrew from the suit later on. Tamayo now claimsthat Sustiguer was not the real party in interest.

Again the court was confused in delineatingthe terms lack of COA and failure to state COA. Themotion to dismiss the complaint was only filed after

Aposagas withdrawal, which was done in the middleof the trial. (lack of COA when Aposaga withdrew)

Heirs of Licaros v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No.157438, Oct. 18, 2004)

Facts:

Held:

Tancuntian v. Gempesaw(G.R. No.149097, Oct.18, 2004)

Katon v. Palanca (supra)

Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115 SCRA 178)

This was the case where the sole proprietorship filedsuit.

Juasing Hardware is not a legal person. Theground for dismissal should be lack of legapersonality, because it did not exist in the eyes othe law. It is not lack of capacity to sue, becausepersonality refers to the fitness to be the subject olegal relations.

Malion v. Alcantara (G.R. No.141528, Oct. 31, 2006)

Lee Bun Ting v. Aligain (76 SCRA 178)

This case involved a sale of land to an aliento which the vendor wanted the land returned. In a1956 decision, SC declared that vendor did not havea juridical remedy under the law, because he wasalso in pari delicto. When the subsequent ruling oPBC v. Li (Ruling: Exception to the pari delicto rule when the pari delicto rule would render injustice)came about, vendor again returned to the trial courtto have the land adjudicated back to him.

There was a bar by prior judgment of the SCPresent parties are still the same.

Compare Bar by prior judgment v. Conclusiveness o

judgment

Bar by PriorJudgment (Sec.47 (b), Rule 39)

Conclusiveness oJudgment (Sec. 47(c), Rule 39)

Kind of ResJudicata

Complete resjudicata

There is NO identityof issues, but there



24


25/25

(identity of parties, subjectmatter, andissues)

is identity of partiesand it involves thesame subjectmatter.

Scope of Matterswhich are

renderedconclusive

All mattersdirectlyadjudged or as

to any othermatter thatcould have beenraised in relationthereto

That which is onlybeen deemed tohave been

adjudged in aformer judgment orfinal order whichappears upon itsface to have beenadjudged, or whichwas actually ornecessarily includedtherein ornecessary thereto.

* Res judicata is merely a re-litigation of the sameissues with the same parties.

Villarino v. Avila (G.R. No.131191, Sep. 26, 2006)

Carillo v. Dabon (supra)

Regala v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No.105938, Sep. 20,1996)

J. Dismissal by claimant Rule

Syllabus 2nd Sem 06 07 With Reviewer

Documents

Transcript of Syllabus 2nd Sem 06 07 With Reviewer