b list of cases

LIST OF CASESCIVIL PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION.............................................................2RULE 1.........................................................................4RULE 2.........................................................................5RULE 3.........................................................................5RULE 4.........................................................................7RULE 6.........................................................................7RULE 7.........................................................................7RULE 8.........................................................................8RULE 9.........................................................................8RULE 10.......................................................................8RULE 12.......................................................................9RULE 13.......................................................................9RULE 14.......................................................................9RULE 15.....................................................................10RULE 16.....................................................................10RULE 17.....................................................................11RULE 18.....................................................................11RULE 19.....................................................................11RULE 21.....................................................................12RULE 22.....................................................................12RULE 23.....................................................................12RULE 26.....................................................................12RULE 29.....................................................................12RULE 30.....................................................................12RULE 34.....................................................................13RULE 35.....................................................................13RULE 36.....................................................................13RULE 37.....................................................................13RULE 38.....................................................................14RULE 39.....................................................................14RULE 41.....................................................................17RULE 45.....................................................................17RULE 47.....................................................................17RULE 51.....................................................................17SUMMARY PROCEDURE........................................18RULE 57.....................................................................18RULE 58.....................................................................19RULE 59.....................................................................20RULE 60.....................................................................20

1 | P a g e J P E A Y 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r

JURISDICTION Incapable of pecuniary estimation1. Ortigas v. Herrera 120 S 89

An action for specific performance is incapable of pecuniary estimation.2. Copioso v. Copioso 391 S 325

Where issue of ownership and possession of land is joined with the issues of annulment of sale and reconveyance which are incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction is with the RTC.

3. Russell v. Vestil 304 S 738Action to annul a document is incapable of

pecuniary estimation.4. RCPI v. CA 386 S 67

A complaint for breach of contract of lease is incapable of pecuniary estimation.5. Raymundo v. CA 213 S 457

An action to compel the removal of unauthorized installation of glasses is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Nature of action of partition6. Roque v. IAC

There are 2 principal issues in an action for partition: (1) whether the plaintiff is a co-owner and (2) how the property is to be divided.

7. Vda de Daffon v. CAThere are 2 phases in an action for partition: (1) whether co-ownership exists and (2) a decision confirming the subdivision.

Real action8. Ouano v. PGTT 384 S 589

Jurisdiction is based on assessed value in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of real property with damages; Section 19(8) applies to other cases; Section 19(8) and 33(1) excludes damages in determining jurisdiction when they are merely incidental.

Jurisdiction in the award of damages9. Agustin v. Bacalan 135 S 340, Rule 6

The appellate court may only award a counterclaim within the jurisdiction of the court of origin

10. Maceda v. CA 176 S 440, Rule 6The counterclaim must be within the

jurisdiction of the court.11. Vital-Gozon v. CA, G.R. No. 101428, August 5,

1992The CA has jurisdiction, in a special civil action of mandamus, to take cognizance of the matter of damages sought to be recovered from the defendant.

What constitutes demand12. Soliven v. Fastforms, G.R. No. 139031,

October 18, 2004.Damages are excluded in determining jurisdiction when they are merely incidental to the action

13. Iniego v. Purganan 485 S 394 Actions for damages based on quasi-delict are actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation. The claim for all kinds of damages, whether arising from the same or

different causes of action, is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts.

14. Mendoza v. Soriano 524 S 260Same with Iniego

15. Sante v. Claraval 613 S 333 The totality rule applies to a complaint for damages based on oral defamation where there are no actual damages.

Jurisdiction by estoppel16. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy

A party is barred by laches from raising the question of jurisdiction 15 years after the judgment was rendered.

17. Calimlim v. RamirezThe general rule is that lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The ruling in Tijam is the exception, thus, it was not applied.

18. Soliven v. Fastforms, supra No. 12Jurisdiction cannot be assailed for the first in a motion for reconsideration on the ground of estoppel.

19. Metromedia v. Pastorin The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not.

20. Figueroa v. PeopleApplying the general rule, the accused is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before the appellate court.

NLRC21. Pepsi v. Gal-lang 201 S 695

The labor arbiter has no jurisdiction over a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution.

22. Pepsi v. Martinez 112 S 579 The labor arbiter has jurisdiction over money claims arising out of employer-employee relationship.

23. Primero v. IAC 156 S 435The labor arbiter has jurisdiction over damages the employee may suffer because of an illegal dismissal.

24. Abejaron v. CA 208 S 899 Same with Gal-lang

Land registration cases25. Association of Baptists v. First Baptist 152 S

393 under specpro discussed in passing26. Averia v. Caguioa 146 S 459: under specpro

discussed in passing

HLURB27. Pilar Dev’t v. Villar, 505 SCRA 617

Regular courts have jurisdiction over unlawful detainer case filed by subdivision owner.

28. Cadimas v. Carrion 567 SCRA 101 Regular courts have jurisdiction over a

complaint filed by an ordinary seller of property.

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY29. Morata v. Go 125 S 444

Conciliation required in cases cognizable by MTC and RTC.30. Vda De Borromeo v. Pogoy 126 S 217

Katarung pambarangay applies only to


individuals.31. Gegare v. CA 177 S 471

Where there are several respondents and the government is only one of them, confrontation should still be undertaken.

32. Agbayani v. Belen 145 SCRA 635Properties located in the same barangay but parties are from different cities.

33. Galuba v. Laureta 157 S 627There is no judicial recourse for failure to repudiate an amicable settlement.

Appearance in person34. Ledesma v. CA 211 S 753

Barangay conciliation requires personal confrontation.35. Ramos v. CA 174 S 690

Effect of failure to appear by the complainant36. San Miguel v. Pundogar 173 S 704

Effect of failure to appear by the defendant

When to raise nonreferral37. Royales v. IAC 127 S 471

Raising the defense of lack of conciliation on appeal constitutes waiver.

38. Fernandez v. Militante 161 S 695Raising of the issue of lack of conciliation after the filing of answer constitutes waiver.

39. Abalos v. CA 196 S 576Where the address in the complaint was changed without objection by the adverse party, the new address will be considered in determining the need for barangay conciliation.

Application to labor cases40. Montoya v. Escayo 171 S 443

Amicable settlements before the lupon do not apply in labor cases.

Definition of the term residence41. Bejer v. CA 169 SCRA 566

Residence means actual residence and membership in the barangay.

Execution42. Vidal v. Escueta December 10, 2003

The reckoning period of the 6 months within which execution of the amicable settlement is allowed before the punong barangay is the date when the obligation in the settlement is due and demandable.

RULE 11. Cabrera vs Tejano 8 S 542***

Civil action is instituted upon filing of the complaint and payment of docket fees.

Docket Fees2. Manchester vs CA 149 S 562

Where an action involves damages, docket fees shall be assessed considering such damages which must be stated in the body and prayer of the pleading.

3. Sun Insurance vs Asuncion Feb 13 1989Same with Manchester but the court became liberal because of the showed willingness of the plaintiff to pay the docket fees.

4. Ayala Corp vs. Madayag vs 181 S 689

The additional filing which shall constitute a lien on judgment refers to damages arising after the filing of the complaint.

5. Hodges vs CA 184 S 286Where lawyers as plaintiffs failed to pay the docket fees

6. Salientes vs CA 194 S 235In an action for recovery of possession of land with damages, jurisdiction is acquired over the action involving the real property where only the docket fees for the damages were not paid.

7. Maersk-Tabacalera vs. CA 187 S 646 ***Where the lack of jurisdiction because of nonpayment of filing fees was after the adverse decision of the CA, the payment of filing fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment.

8. Orig Development vs CA 202 S 753 ***The plaintiff must ascertain, in the estimation, the sums he wants and the sums required to determine the amount of docket fees.

9. Int’l Industrial Mgmt. vs CA 205 S 509 ***Docket fees must still be paid although the claim for damages is not the principal action.

Kinds of Actions10. Ching v. CA 181 S 9

Action for reconveyance and cancellation of title is an action in personam.

11. Paderanga v. Buisan 226 S 786, Rule 4Venue is determined by determining whether the action is personal or real.

RULE 2 Cause of action1. De Guzman vs CA 192 S 507

A case where the elements of a cause of action were satisfied

Splitting a single cause of action2. Bachrach vs Encarangal 68 P 287

The non-payment of a promissory note secured by REM is a single cause of action, thus, creditor may elect either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose.

3. Industrial vs Apostol 177 S 521Same with Bachrach

4. Bayang vs CA 148 S 91Claim for ownership of land and claim for income thereon arise from a single cause of action which cannot be split.

5. Strong vs Repide 22 P 19, Rule 9An action to recover possession of shares of stock should include claim for dividends.

Joinder of causes of action6. Flores vs Mallare-Phillips 144 S 377 ***7. Insurance vs Warner 21 S 762

RULE 3 Foreign Corporation1. Hang Lung Bank v. Saulog 201 S

A foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines has legal capacity to sue.

2. Converse Rubber v. Universal Rubber147 S 154


A foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines has a legal right to maintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants thereof from organizing a corporation therein bearing the same name as the foreign corporation.

3. Commissioner of Custom v. KMK 182 S 591Only foreign corporations can avail of the

isolated transaction rule.

Personality by estoppel4. Merrill vs CA 211 S 8245. Chiang Kai Shek vs CA 172 S 389

Sole proprietorship6. Juasing v. Mendoza vs 115 S 783

Parties in interest7. Ralla vs. Ralla199 S 498. Ibonilla vs Province 210 S 126

VSC Commercial vs CA 394 S 74

Representatives as parties9. Tuason vs Bolanos 95 P 106

Spouses as parties10. Lim vs Dee 102 P 1171

Minor or incompetent persons11. Reyes vs 46 P 658

12. Nunal vs CA 221 S 26 ***13. Robles vs CA 83 S 180 ***14. Cortez vs Avilla 101 S 20515. Servicewide Specialist vs CA 251 S 17 ***

Class Suit16. Mina vs Pacson 8 S 774 ***17. Borlasas vs Polistico 47 P 345 ***18. Dael vs Teves 136 S 196 ***19. Casenas vs Rosales 19 S 462 ***20. Barrameda vs. Barbara Phil 90 P 718, Rule 19

***21. Vda DelaCruz vs CA 88 S 697 ***22. Vda De Haberer vs CA 104 S 535 ***23. Lawas vs CA 146 S 172 ***24. Heir Regoso vs 211 S 348 ***

Death of a party25. Dizon vs CA 210 S 10726. Torijos vs CA 67 S 394 CRIMPRO27. People vs Sendaydiego 89 S 120 CRIMPRO

Transfer of interest28. Jocson vs CA 183 S 189

Indigent Party29. Acar vs Rosal 19 S 625

Notice to the Solicitor General30. Republic vs Polo 89 S 8331. Republic vs Partisala 118 S 317

RULE 4 Real Action1. Fortune Motors vs CA 178 S 6742. Torres vs Tuazon 12 S 743. Paderanga v. Buissan, supra Rule 1

The action is a real action because while it does explicitly pray for recovery of possession, such is the necessary consequence thereof.

4. Lizares vs Caluag 4 S 7465. Hernandez vs. DBP 71 S 290

Personal Action6. Raymond vs CA, 166 S 507. Esuerte vs CA 193 S 541

Meaning of the word principal8. Marcos-Araneta v. CA 563 S 41, Rule 10 ***

Agreement of parties on venue9. Polytrade vs Blanco Oct 31 196910. Capati vs Ocampo 113 S 79411. Unimasters vs CA 267 S 759

On the exclusivity of venue in contracts of adhesion12. Hoechst Phil vs Torres 83 S 29713. Sweet Line vs Teves 83 S 36114. Philippine Telecom v. Tecson 428 S 378 ***15. Dacoycoy vs IAC 195 S 641

RULE 6 Counterclaim1. Agustin v. Bacalan, supra Jurisdiction2. Maceda v. CA, supra Jurisdiction1. Calo vs Ajax 22 S 997

A compulsory counterclaim not within the jurisdiction of the court may be filed separately.

2. Navarro v. Bello 102 P 10193. Gojo vs Goyala 35 S 5574. Ballecer vs Bernardo 18 S 291

RULE 7 Certification against forum shopping1. Santo Tomas University Hospital vs Surla 294

S 3522. Loquias vs Ombudsman 338 S 623. Medserv Inc. April 5, 2010*** Certification by

corporation4. Espiritu v. Petron Nov. 24, 2009*** Where one

is ok5. San Miguel Corp. v. Aballa 461 S 392 ***

Where one is ok

RULE 8 Alternative causes of action or defenses1. Gatchalian vs Pavilin 6 S 5092. Heirs of Marquez vs Valencia 99 P 740

Language in the pleading3. Tumang v. Bautista ***

Actionable document4. Bough vs. Cantiveros 40 P 209 ***5. Hibberd vs Rhode 32 P 476 ***6. Imperial Textile vs CA 183 S 5847. Toribio vs Bidin 134 S 162 Actional document

of defendant8. Central Surety vs Hodges L-28633 On waiver9. Jabalde vs PNB 7 S 791 On waiver


10. Investment vs Comptronics 192 S 725 ***

Specific denial11. Capitol Motors v. Yabut L-28140, Rule 34

3rd mode of specific denial does not apply where the fact as to which want of knowledge is asserted is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue.

12. Galofa vs Nee Bon Sing 22 S 48 ***

RULE 9 Defenses not pleaded1. Strong v. Repide, supra Rule 22. Ferrer vs Ericta 84 S 7053. Garcia vs Mathis 100 S 2514. Chua Lamko vs Dioso 97 P 821

Default5. Cavili vs Florendo 136 S 208 ***6. Pascua vs Florendo 136 S 208 ***7. Phil British vs Delos Angeles 63 S 51 ***8. Malangyaon vs Sunga 208 S 436 ***9. Filinvest vs CA 182 S 664 ***10. Sablas v. Sablas, July 03, 2007 ***

RULE 10 1. Remington vs CA 382 S 499 ***2. Ng vs Sps. Soco 382 S 243 ***3. Marcos-Araneta v. CA, supra Rule 4 ***4. Quirona v. Alejo*** October 2001 unlawful

detainer and forcible entry

Formal Amendment5. Super Clean vs CA 258 S 165 ***

Amendment as a matter of right6. Gotico vs Leyte 136 S 2187. Rosario vs Carandang 96 P 8458. Contech vs CA 211 S 692

Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence9. Rogers vs Dick 7 S 1033

Effect of Amendment10. Magaspi vs Ramolete 115 S 193

Delay11. Lerma vs Reyes 103 P 102712. Gulang vs Nadayag 214 S 355

Formal Amendment13. Cuyugan vs Dizon L-208 ***

RULE 12 1. Agcanas vs. Mercado 2. Santos v. Liwa ***

RULE 13 1. Solars Entertainment ***2. Benguet vs NLRC 209 S 543. Alimpoos vs CA L-27331

4. Magno vs CA 152 S 5555. Adamson vs Adamson 179 S 278 ***6. Viacruz v. Estenzo 5 S 560***7. Sapida v. Arandonilla 48 S 19 ***8. Aramburo vs CA 101 S 146 ***9. Patricio vs Leviste 172 S 774 ***10. Santos v. CA 295 S 150***

RULE 14 Service of summons with the amended complaint1. De Dios v. CA 212 S 519

By whom served2. Bello v. Ubo 117 S 91

Substituted service3. Ang Ping v. CA 310 S 1564. BPI v. Evangelista ***5. Keister v. Navarro 77 S 2096. Arevalo v. Quilatan 116 S 7007. Venturanza v. CA 156 S 3058. Sandoval v. HRET *** doctrine reiterated in

this case9. Paluwagan v. King 172 S 6010. Busuego v. CA 151 S 376

Service upon incompetents11. Immaculata v. Navarro 146 S 5

Service upon domestic private juridical entity12. Far Corp. v. Francisco 146 S 19713. Mapa v. CA ***14. Golden Country v. Sanvar 214 S 29515. EB Vllarosa v. Benito 312 S 65

Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown16. Citizens’ Surety v. Melencio-Herrera 38 S 36917. Magdalena v. Nieto 125 S 758

Extraterritorial service18. Dial Corp. v. Soriano 161 S 73719. Banco de Brasil v. CA 333 S 54520. Cariaga v. Malaya 143 S 44121. Valmonte v. CA 252 S 9222. Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros ***

Residents temporarily out of the the Philippines23. Montalban v. Maximo 22 S 1070 ***24. HSBC v. Catalan 440 S 499 ***25. Minucher v. CA 214 S 242 ***

Voluntary appearance26. Busuego v. CA, supra No. 10

RULE 15 1. Moya v. Barton 76 P 831

Notice and hearing of motion for extension are not necessary.

2. Tan v. Dimayuga 5 S 712

3. Yap v. CA 115 S 1044. Azajar v. CA 145 S 3338


5. Corpus v. Corpus 148 S 216. BPI v. Far East Molasses Corp. 198 SCRA 6897. Filipinas v. Magsino 157 S 469

RULE 16 1. La Naval Drug v. CA 236 S 78 ***

Lis Pendens2. Arceo v. Oliveros 134 S 3093. Ramos v. Peralta 203 S 4124. Victronics v. RTC 217 S 17 ***5. Ramos vs Ebarle 182 S 245 ***6. Suntay vs Aguiluz 209 S 500 ***7. Pascua vs Florendo 136 S 208 ***Res judicata8. Lee Bun Ting vs Aligaen 76 S 416 ***9. Enriquez vs Boyles 226 S 666 ***10. NHA vs Almeda 525 S 383 ***

No cause of action11. Lim vs delos Santos 8 S 798 ***12. Tan v. CA 295 S 247 ***13. Tan v. Director of Forestry October 27, 1983

***

Effect of dismissal14. Cruz vs Caraos 521 S 510, Rule 17 ***

RULE 17 Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff1. Go vs Cruz 172 S 247 ***

Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff2. BA Finance vs Rufino Co 224 S 163 ***3. Olympia vs CA 180 S 353 ***

Failure to present evidence in chief4. Jalover vs Ytoriaga 80 S 200 ***5. Cruz vs Caraos supra, Rule 16 the court did

not discuss the dismissal based on rule 17

Failure to prosecute action for an unreasonable length of time6. Republic Planters Bank vs Molina 166 S 39 ***

Failure to comply with any order of the court7. Mina vs Pacson, supra Rule 38. Barrameda vs. Barbara , supra Rule 39. Guanzon vs Mapa 7 S 457 ***

RULE 18 1. Founting Ed v. CA *** di ko mahanap

Counsel as representative must have a special power of attorney.

RULE 19 1. Orosa v. Migrino 218 S 311

The seller can not intervene because it had already parted with the property.

2. Ordonez v. Gustilo 192 S 469 Exception: The final dismissal of the main action carries with it the intervention.

3. Metrobank v. RTC 189 S 820 ***

General Rule: The dismissal of the main action does not carry with it the intervention suit.

RULE 21 1. People v. Montejo 21 S 722

The rule that a witness is not bound to heed a subpoena if he resides certain kilometers from his residence to the place of trial applies solely to civil cases.

2. Liebenow v. Phil. Vegetable Oil Co. 39 P 60Quashing a subpoena duces tecum on the ground of irrelevancy of documents

RULE 22 1. Luz v. National Amnesty Commission G.R. No.

159708, September 24, 2004A motion for extension of time to file a pleading is counted from the expiration of the period regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

RULE 23 1. De Lopez vs Macereno 95 P 753 ***

The trial court’s refusal to grant the deposition on the ground that it will deprive the court to examine the demeanor of the witness is not proper because the taking of a deposition does not follow the person becomes a witness, the party is still fishing for evidence.

2. Veran vs CA 157 S 438 ***There must be proof of notice of service that a deposition will be taken.

3. Republic vs Elepano Oct 15 1991 ***Jurisdiction over the defendant is not necessary to take deposition.

4. Republic v. Sandiganbayan 204 S 212 ***Mahaba to

RULE 26 1. Uy Chiao vs Dela Rama Steamship 6 S 69 ***

When a motion to dismiss was filed instead of an answer, there could still be a request for admission.

2. Bayview Hotel vs Ker & Co L-28237 ***An admission is in the nature of an evidence and its effect may be availed of by any party.

RULE 29 1. Jaravata vs Karolus June 21 2007 ***

Before one may be declared in default, it is necessary that there is an order to compel an answer and a refusal thereto.

RULE 30 1. Yu v. Mapayo 144 S 160

When the defendant admits the allegations in the complaint and pleads affirmative defenses, there will be a reversal of the order of trial.


RULE 34 1. Capitol Motors v. Yabut, supra Rule 8

Where there is no specific denial, the court may render judgment upon the pleadings.

2. Apelario v. Chavez 3 S 226Where the defendant pleaded an excuse instead of a defense, judgment on the pleadings is proper.

3. Falcasantos v. How Suy Ching 91 P 456When the plaintiff files a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the material allegations in the defendant’s answer are deemed admitted.

RULE 35 1. PNB v. Philippine Leather Co. 105 S 400

There is no genuine issue when the defendant admits the debt except as to the amount.

2. Urmaneta v. Manzano 4 S 610In an action where plaintiff claims ownership over a land, there is no genuine issue where the defendant does not claim to be the owner and admitted that he is a tenant.

3. Vergara v. Suelto 156 S 753There is no genuine issue where the issues are sham, characterized by bad faith.

4. Galicia v. Polo 179 S 371A summary judgment filed by the defendant

RULE 36 1. Consolidated v. CA 189 S 433

A decision may no longer be promulgated after the ponente has vacated his office.

2. People v. CFI Quezon 227 S 457 Contrary to Consolidated Case, a decision penned by a judge whose temporary detail to a vacant branch where the case was tried has expired may be promulgated because he is still an incumbent judge of the same court, albeit assigned to a different branch.

3. World Machine v. IAC 192 S 459Judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata, generally not appealable, and cannot be modified except with the consent of the parties or when there is vitiated consent.

4. Suarez v. CA 193 S 187A decision rendered without expressing the facts and the law on which it is based is void and thus, will not constitute res judicata to another action.

5. Grinen v. Consolacion 5 S 722A decision does not have to include all the evidence adduced but only those necessary to support the controverted matters.

6. Fabular v. CA 119 S 329A decision which has become final could no longer be modified.

7. Pajarito v. Seneris 87 S 275The subsidiary liability of the employer may be enforced in the same criminal case where the award was made.

RULE 37 Newly discovered evidence1. Tumang v. CA 172 S 328

On the requisites of newly discovered evidence

2. Balamide v. CA 90 S di ko to mahanap ***Due diligence is that standard of a good father of a family

Pro forma motion3. Marikina Valley v. 251 S 87 ***

Proforma does not mean repeating, repleading…

Effect of new trial4. David v. Fernandez 62896

When a new trial is granted, the previous judgment, including consequential effects, shall become void.

RULE 38

Fraud as ground1. Asian Surety v. Island Steel 118 S 233

Fraud must be extrinsic to be a ground for relief from judgment.

2. Demetriou v. CA 238 S 158Use of false affidavit of loss constitutes intrinsic fraud; annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

3. Anuran v. Aquino 38 P 29 read this but can’t understand it!!!

Affidavit of merit4. Ang Lam v. Rosillosa 86 P 447 *** not

necessary where based on lack of jurisdictionAnnulment of judgment for lack of jurisdiction may be filed even after the periods provided for the filing of petition for relief from judgment.

Nature of petition for relief5. Francisco v. Puno 108 S 427

Motion for new trial and petition for relief are exclusive of each other.

6. Fajardo v. Bayona L-8314A petition for certiorari and mandamus bars a petition for relief from judgment.

In what court petition for relief may be availed7. Mesina v. Meer 383 S 627

A petition for relief is not available as a remedy against the judgment of the CA.

8. Gordulan v. Gordulan 3 S 205***There is no recital of facts constituting FAME, thus, it was dismissed.

9. Suzara v. Caluag***A petition for relief filed before judgment became final and there was no affidavit of merit

RULE 39 Section 1 Pajarito v. Seneris, supra Rule 36

The subsidiary liability of the employer may be enforced in the same criminal case where the award was made.


1. Luna v. IAC 137 S 7Execution of a final and executory judgment may be stayed when there had been a change in the situation of the parties which makes such execution inequitable; child who threatened to kill herself if she will be returned to her parents.

2. Tanada v. CA 139 S 419Ratification of execution of final judgment

Section 23. Associated Bank v. Gonong 152 S 4704. Ong v. CA 403 S 385. Valencia vs CA 184 S 5616. Engineering Construction v. NAPOCOR 163 S 97. Borja v. CA 196 S 8478. Director of Lands vs Reyes 68 S 177

No execution pending appeal in land registration cases

9. Dy v. CA 195 S 585Notice before execution of judgment

Section 410. Roque v. Del Gado 95 P 723

Application of “unless otherwise ordered by the trial court”; the judgment of the trial court dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction, but pending appeal, it ordered the suspension of the dissolution.

Section 511. Aranda vs CA 186 S 456

Section 612. David vs Ejercito 71 S 484 ***13. Napocor vs CA 213 S 133 ***14. Sta Ana vs Menla 1 S 2994 ***

Revival of judgment does not apply in land registration proceedings

15. Canonizado vs Benitez 127 S 610 ***Judgment for support can be enforced by

mere motion notwithstanding the lapse of 5 years16. Phil Airline vs CA 181 S 557 ***

Encashment of a sheriff of a check for his own use

Section 917. Salazar vs Villaflor 81 S 229 ***

Attachment of much more18. Barola vs Abogatal 114 S 582 ***

Nonexecution by sheriff19. Aquino v. Aficial ***

Sheriff can not enter into a compromise with the judgment debtor (He acceded to the judgment debtor’s request to pay at a later date)

Section 1020. Casanova vs Lacsamana 90 S 68 ***

After the lapse of period allowed may demolition be made

21. Arcadio vs Yllagan 143 S 168 ***No need to secure special order to break open

Section 1232. Mai Phil vs NLRC 151 S 196Filing of a separate action to enforce judgment not necessary

Section 1322. Gomez vs Gealone 203 S 474 ***

When the right to exemption from execution may be invoked23. Gaa vs CA 140 S 304 ***On salaries24. Pentagon vs Gimenez 192 S 492 ***On tools and implements

Section 1625. Arabay Inc vs Salvador 82 S 138 ***Filing by the 3rd party claimant of a separate action33. Bayer vs Agana 63 S 355Right of 3rd party claimant may not be taken up in the case where such claims are presented, but in a separate and independent action instituted by the claimant

Section 2234. Filipinas Mills vs Dayrit 192 S 15826. Abrogar vs IAC 157 S 57***Invalid postponement of an auction sale

Redemption35. Cenas vs Santos 204 S 53 On purchaser-creditor36. Gorospe vs Santos 69 S 19137. Anticamara vs Ong 82 S 387

Section 3327. Roxas v. Buan 167 S 43 ***Successor in interest not holding the property adversely because he only acquired the right to redeem28. Malonzo vs Soriano 173 S 667 ***Lessees not possessing the property adversely29. Mariano vs CA 174 S 59***Husband of the judgment debtor not a stranger to the case30. Cometa vs IAC 151 S 563 ***Writ of possession is complementary to a writ of execution

Section 3731. Alazas vs Salas 179 S 804 ***Examination of judgment obligor who has unissued shares of stock32. PCIB vs CA 193 S 452 ***Bank secrecy on garnishment33. NPC vs Gonong 177 S 365 ***Denial of debtor of judgment obligor

Section 4738. Lee Bun Ting vs Aligaen, supra Rule 16`On the law of the case

Section 4839. Hang Lung Bank v. Saulog, supra Rule 3

34. Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139125, April 12, 2005 ***

Docket fees not based on the amount of the award in the foreign judgment because such can no longer be litigated

RULE 41 Section 11. LPBS v. Amila, G.R. No. 147443, February 11,

2008An order denying a motion for issuance of a


TRO is an interlocutory order, thus, no appeal may be taken.

2. Banaga v. Majaducon, G.R. No. 149051, June 30, 2006Improper or irregular execution of a judgment is appealable.

Section 33. Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524, September

14, 2005Fresh period rule: A party who filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration has a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.

4. PNB v. CA 548 S 557 ***Effect of perfecting an appeal; notice of appeal cannot be withdrawn to revive the jurisdiction of the court

Of a particular matter40. Miranda vs CA, G.R. No. L-33007, June 18,

1976 *** Landmark

Appeals in the Family Court41. Republic v. CA 458 S 200 ***42. Republic v. Bermudez-Levino 449 S 51***

Multiple Appeals43. Briones v. Henson-Cruz G.R. No. 159130 ***

Appeals on expropriation cases44. Marinduque Mining v. CA 567 S 483 ***

Period to Appeal45. PCI Leasing and Finance v. Milan 617 S 258

***

Wrong Mode of Appeal46. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. World

Interactive G.R. No. 169332, February 11, 2008 ***

Appeals in naturalization47. In Re: Shewak A. Keswani v. Republic G.R. No.

153986, June 8, 2007 ***

RULE 42 1. Bernardo v. People G.R. No. 166980, April 4,

2007Petitioner filed a motion for 30-day extension to file petition for review; the CA may grant an additional period of 15 days only, another 15 days for most compelling reason.

Appeals against the decision of the RTC seating as an agrarian court48. LBP v. De Leon 399 S 376***49. LBP v. Rodriguez G.R. No. 148892, May 6,

2010***50. LBP v. CA G.R. No. 190660, April 11, 2011 ***

RULE 44Section 13 Contents of appellant’s brief1. Estate of Vda. De Villegas v. Gaboya, G.R. No.

143006July 14, 2006

Failure to comply with the requirements of Sec. 13 (a), (c) and (d) is a ground for dismissal under Section 1(f) of Rule 50

Section 15 Questions that may be raised on appeal2. Del Rosario v. Bonga, G.R. No. 136308,

January 23, 2001Raising issues for the first time on appeal; exceptions

RULE 45

Question of fact or law1. Southern Negros Dev’t Bank vs. CA 233 S 460The question of improper venue is a question of law.2. Caina vs. People 213 S 309The question of whether there is a preponderance of evidence is a question of fact.3. Victorias v. IAC ***The determination of whether the court has jurisdiction is a question of law. (Under the present law, no longer appealable because it is dismissal without prejudice)4. Kho v. Camacho 204 S 150The trial court cannot disallow an appeal on the ground that involves purely question of law.5. Lloren v. Chief Inspector 233 S xiiAppeal from decisions of RTCs on pure questions of law to the SC may only be made by petition for review not notice of appeal.6. RCAM vs CA G.R. No. 111328, July 5 1996

7. Sesbreno v. CA 240 S 606

8. Manila Bay Club vs. CA G.R. No. 110015, July 11 1995

Appeal from decisions of the Ombudsman9. Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742.

September 16, 1998Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

10. Cabrera v. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006The remedy from resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

11. Lanting v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, May 6, 2005Except in administrative cases, only the Supreme Court has the appellate authority in decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.

RULE 47 1. Fraginal v. Heirs of Parañal2. Padua v. CAJudgment rendered by a quasi-judicial body may not be annulled under Rule 47.3. People v. Bitanga Rule 47 does not apply to criminal cases.


4. Grandef v. UPRule 47 does not pertain to the nullification of the decision of the CA.5. Alaban v. CAFailure to take the remedies at law deprives a party to the remedy under Rule 476. Case next timeThere can be an annulment of judgment of the RTC acting a land registration court

RULE 51

1. Dadizon v. Bernadas 588 S 678 ***The reversal of judgment on appeal may only affect parties in the appeal case and will not inure to the benefit of those who did not appeal. Exception: Where the judgment is inseparable, the reversal of one is a reversal to all even if the others did not appeal.(e.g., surety appealed but not the principal, judgment in favor of the former will benefit the latter)2. Borlongan v. Buenaventura February 27, 2006

***Upon death, lawyer-client relationship ceases, thus appealed filed where the petitioner has died is a mere scrap of paper. Del Rosario v. Bonga, supra Rule 41

On Section 8 Consolidated Bank v. CA, supra Rule 36

On Section 9

SUMMARY PROCEDURE 1. Combate v. San Jose 135 S 693

Theft is not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure; trial is required before judgment

2. Heirs Olivas v. Florentino 161 S 393Noncompliance with the requirement of conducting a preliminary conference

3. Lasaca v. CA 215 S 17The defendant may not be declared in default where an answer was filed

4. Bayubay v. CA 224 S 557Failure to give the parties an opportunity to submit affidavits is a violation of the Rule on Summary Procedure

RULE 57 1. Sievert v. CA 168 S 692

The writ of preliminary attachment cannot bind the defendant without service of summons.

2. Davao Light v. CA 204 S 343The writ of preliminary attachment may be issued even before acquisition of jurisdiction.

3. Uy v. CA 215 S 859

4. Miranda v. CA, G.R. No. 80030, October 26, 1989Old rule: Fraud under 1(d) refers only to dolo causante.

5. Salas v. Adil 90 S 122

6. Carpio v. Macadaeg 9 S 52

7. Calderon v. IAC 155 S 531

8. Benitez v. IAC 154 S 141

9. D.P. Lub Oil v. Nicolas 191 S 423

10. Santos v. Aquino 205 S 127

11. Perla v. Ramolete 203 A 487

12. Olib v. Pastoral 188 S 692

Sec 1413. Uy vs CA 191 S 27514. Traders Royal Bank vs. IAC133 S 141

Sec 2015. Pioneer Insurance vs. Hontangas 78 S 44716. Consolidated Bank vs. IAC 153 S 23351. Santos vs Rustia 90 P 36052. Lee Lin vs C&S Agro 121 S 72517. Towers Assurance vs. Ororama 80 S 26253. Rivera vs Talavera 2 S 27254. Mobil Oil 225 S 48655. Morillo vs CA 56. Neypes vs CA 14152457. Sumaway vs Urban Bank 14253458. Habaluyas vs Sy 59. Lacsamana vs IAC60. Gocotano vs. Gocotano 13681461. Borlongan vs Buenaventura 16723462. Fabian vs Desierto 63. Keswani vs. Republic15398664. Bautista vs CA 14337565. Alaban vs CA 15602166. Villegas vs. Gaboya 14300667. Bernardo vs People 166980

RULE 58

BP 129 Section 21 (1)1. Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications

vs. Aligaen 33 SCRA 368 ( 1970) ***The acts relative to the establishment of a local telephone system by petitioners were being done within the territorial boundaries of the province or district of respondent Court, and so said Court had jurisdiction to restrain them by injunction. It does not matter that some of the respondents in the trial court, against whom the injunction order was issued, had their official residence outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.

2. Gonzales vs. Secretary of Public Works G.R. No. L-21988, September 30, 1966, 18 SCRA 296**

The only question raised was whether the Court of First Instance of Davao had jurisdiction to entertain a case the main purpose of which was to prevent the enforcement of a decision of the Secretary of Public Works who was in Manila this Court held that, inasmuch as the acts sought to


be restrained were to be performed within the territorial boundaries of the province of Davao, the Court of First Instance of Davao had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and to issue the necessary injunction order.

3. Limjap v. Animas G.R. No. L-53334. January 17, 1985 ***

RTC of Manila has jurisdiction because PPA holds office in Manila.

4. Dagupan Electric Corporation vs. Paño, 95 SCRA 693 (1980) ***

5. Decano v. Edu G.R. No. L-30070. August 29, 1980 ***

It is true that the order of dismissal was issued by respondent Edu, but it was to be implemented in Dagupan City

6. Olongapo v. NPC G.R. No. L-24912. April 9, 1987 ***

PD 18187. Garcia v. Burgos G.R. No. 124130. June 29,

1998 ***

RA 72278. Allied Domecq v. Villon G.R. No. 156264.

September 30, 2004 ***9. Bases Conversion and Development Authority

v. Uy G.R. No. 144062. November 2, 2006 ***The action is for a final injunction, thus, the RTC has jurisdiction. What is disallowed is the issuance of a TRO or a preliminary injunction.

RA 897510. DFA v. Falcon G.R. No. 176657. September 1,

2010 ***

RULE 59 1. Elarde v. Enriquez ***The trial court erred in appointing a receiver when title is in issue and there is no showing that the property or fund is in danger of being lost.

2. Central Surety v. Alto Assurance ***Receivership of property not a subject of the litigation may be allowed under Rule 39 Section 41

RULE 60

1. Machineries Engineering Supplies v. CA 96 Phil ***

If a personal property is embedded or attached to a real property its nature is converted to a real property such that it is no longer subject of replevin.

2. Bachrach Motors v. ***

3. Case v. Hugo ***Substantial compliance of furnishing plaintiff copy of the counterbond

4. Jago v. CA ***

Right to reject of the plaintiff

5. Stronghold Assurance v. CA ***On Section 20 of Rule 57

6. Sagupay v. CA ***7. Tilson v. CA**


Cases that were in the list but not discussed

Jurisdiction68. TIPAIT vs. HON. REYES, G.R. No. 70174.

February 9, 199369. Enerio vs Alampay 64 S 14270. Suarez vs CA 186 S 33971. Trade Unions vs Coscolluela 140 S 30272. Bulao vs CA 215 S 32173. Lozon vs NLRC 310 S 174. ARZAGA vs. COPIAS, G.R. No. 152404. March

28, 2003 (DARAB)75. Notre Dame vs Mallare 197 S 18776. Mangaliyag v H. Catubig-Pastoral – 474 S 15377. Parcon v. CA78. ALLGEMEINE vs. MBTC, G.R. No. 159296.

February 10, 200679. Dela Cruz vs CA 442 S 49280. Javellana vs Judge RTC 443 S 49781. Sandoval vs Caneba 190 S 7782. Osea vs. Ambrosio83. BPI vs. ALS, G.R. No. 151821. April 14, 200484. Roxas vs. CA 439 Phil 966 (2002)

Rule 285. Aurelio vs CA 196 S 674

Rule 486. Tacay vs Tagum old rule on jurisdiction of RTC

involving real property; docket fees

Rule 687. Far Eastern Marble vs CA 225 S 24588. Delos Santos vs. Provincial Sheriff 64 P 193

demurrer; authority to order amendment89. Cayetano vs Ceguerra 13 S 7390. Int’l Container vs CA 214 S 456

Rule 791. Chavez v. Sandiganbayan 193 S 28292. Bulacan vs Torcino 134 S 25293. Heirs Masangya v. Masangya 189 S 234

service of judgment in case of death of counsel

94. Estoesta vs CA 191 S 303 plaintiff filed a motion without the assistance of counsel

95. Cortez vs CA 83 S 91 service of notice to counsel who was not properly substituted

96. Jureidini vs CA 83 S 91 attorney’s fees97. BR Sebastian vs CA 206 S 28 failure of

counsel to file appellant’s brief98. Gutierrez vs Abila 111 S 658 defamatory

remarks in the answer not privileged com.99. People vs Aquino 18 S 555 alleged

defamatory remarks in the reply privileged100. Telan vs CA 202 S 535 right to appeal not

lost where lawyer is fake101. Arambulo vs CA 226 S 589102. Alinsug vs RTC 58 225 S 553103. Republic vs CA 201 S 1104. Docena vs Lapesura 355 S 658105. Ortiz vs CA 299 S 708106. Far Eastern vs CA 297 S 30107. Ortigas vs Velasco 234 S 455

Rule 8108. Sps. Donato vs CA 217 S 196

Rule 9109. Director Land vs CA 209 S 457

110. Metals Engineering vs CA 203 S 273111. BA Finance vs Co 224 S 163112. Mangelen vs CA 215 S 230

Rule 10113. NAPOCOR vs CA 113 S 556114. Legaspi vs Geronimo 76 S 174115. Aznar III vs Bernad 161 S 276

Rule 14116. Summit Trading vs Avendano 124 S 434117. ATM Trucking vs. Buencamino118. Pacific Micronesion Line vs Del Rosario 93

P 23119. Talsam Enterprises vs Buliuag Transit 310

S 156120. Santos vs CA 295 S 147121. Viewmaster Construction vs. Maniulit 326

S 821

Rule 16122. PNB vs Hipolito 13 S 20123. Borje vs CFI 88 S 576124. Continental vs CA 184 S 728

Rule 17125. Meliton vs CA 216 S 485

Rule 18126. Taroma vs Sayo 67 S 508127. Chan vs Abaya 90 S 61128. Golloop vs CA 212 S 498129. FilOil vs 160 S 133130. Jungco vs CA 179 S 213

Rule 23131. Dasmarinas Garments vs Reyes 225 S 622

Rule 25132. Dayo vs Comelec 92542

Rule 26133. Briboneria vs CA 101682134. PCSFC Financial Corp. vs CA 135. Estate Lim Ching vs Bacalan March 14

2007

Rule 29136. Co vs IAC

Rule 30137. Jalover vs Horriaga138. Cosiquien vs 188 S 619

Rule 36139. Mascona v. PB Negros 79 S 399 just read

daw140. Filinvest vs CA 226 S 257141. Pengson vs IAC 130 S 289142. Partosa vs CA 216 S 692

Rule 37143. Valdes v. Jugo 74 P 49144. Dapin vs Dionaldo 209 S 38145. Habaluyas vs 138 S 46146. Rebuldela vs IAC 155 S 520

Rule 38147. People v. Pareja 189 S 143148. Arcilla 138 S 560149. Leyte 152 S 496


150. Teburcio 161 S 583 151. Mateo 196 S 280

Rule 39Motion to Dismiss Preliminary hearing152. Abrahano vs Salas153. Tan vs CA Sept 22 1998Request for Admission154. Concrete vs 266 S 88155. Doque vs Ca July 2 2002156. Brinoneria vs Summary Judgment157. Asian vs PCIB April 25 2006158. Estate Lim Ching vs Bacalan March 14

2007Relief Judgement159. Guian vs CA 510 S 568Sec 6160. Luzon Surety vs Eya 151 S 652Sec 10161. Young vs. Momblan 205 S 33Sec 16162. Escorvila vs. CA 179 S 108163. Sy vs. Habacon-Garyblas 228 S 644164. Consolidated Bank vs. CA 193 S 158Sec 27165. RedemptionWrit of Possession166. Pascua vs Simeon 161 S 1Res Judicata167. Tiro vs CA 85 S 554168. Madrigal 5 S 943Admin Res Judicata169. Dulay vs Minister of Natural Resources 218

S 562170. NHA refer above171. Cayetano de Borja vs. CAR 78 S 485172. Pajarito vs Ineris 87 S 275173. Republic Surety vs IAC 152 S 309174. Vda de Medina vs IAC 207 S 269175. Filinvest vs IAC 207 S 269


b list of cases

Documents