Cerafina Alarcon- Jocson and Rodolfo Tuising vs CA

Facts

1. Petitioners(Jocson) filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against

Private respondents Marcelo steel and MCFC
2. RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners
3. Private respondents appealed with the CA, but CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC
4. Private respondents did not appeal the Ca decision and the decision has
become final and executory
5. via motion of the petitioner the RTC issued a writ of execution
6. properties of the respondents were levied (Marcelo steel) and execution sale
was scheduled
7. Midas corp. filed a 3rd party claim, alleging that some of the levied properties
were previously mortgaged to it
8. petitioner posted an indemnity bond so that the properties would not be
released to Midas Corp
9. the execution sale proceeded and the properties was awarded to Tuising, who
was the highest bidder
10.petitioners filed with the RTC a "very urgent ex-parte motion for issuance of a
Break-Open order" and petition for contempt while respondent Marcelo steel
filed a "very urgent motion" to annul the execution sale on the ground that its
obligation was merely joint with MCFC
11.RTC declared the execution sale null and void and denied the motion of the
petitioner
12.petitioner moved for reconsideration claiming that the obligation was
solidary, Tuising filed a motion for intervention with leave of court and motion
for reconsideration and entry of appearance. while Marcelo steel moved for
the satisfaction of the Judgement
13.RTC ruled in favor of Marcelo steel and denied the motions of the petitioner
and Tuising
14.petitioner and Tuising filed a petition for cetriorari with the CA, which was
denied, they filed a motion for Reconsideration, also denied. Hence this
petition

issue: whether or not the CA erred in denying the motion of the petitioners?
Held: No.

the petition filed by the petitioners were not signed by Jocson's counsel or
Jocson himself. under Rule 7 sec 3, every pleading must be signed by the
party or counsel representing them, otherwise the pleading produces no legal
effect, the counsel of Tuising has no authority to sign the petition on behalf of
Jocson Rule 45 section 1 provides that a petition for review on certiorari must
be verified.
a pleading that is required to be verified, that lacks proper verification shall
be treated as an unsigned pleading

only Tuising signed the verification and certification against forum shopping,
lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction. unless there is a need to relax the rules
under special circumstances and compelling reasons

Canete vs Genuino ice Company Inc

facts
1. petitioners filed a complaint for cancelation of title and to nullify the
original certificate of title (OCT) from which the titles sought to be
cancelled originated.

2. that under the complaint, the titles are spurious and are issued under
mysterious circumstances, because its holders were never in actual,
adverse and physical Possession of the property
3. respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that:
complaint stated no cause of action
petitioners are not real parties in interest
failure to exhaust administrative remedies

4. RTC denied the motion to dismiss, respondent moved for

reconsideration but was denied

5. petitioners filed a second amended complaint which stated: the

plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest are among those who have
been in actual ,adverse and continuing possession of the parcels of land
(unregistered)

that the said property is a portion of a firar land which was distributed to
them pursuant to the Friar lands act

that the TCTs are fictitious because there was no record that the OCT was
issued, there were no proceedings that support the claim of the
respondent

that the TCTswere issued under mysterious circumstances, because the

respondents were never in the actual, adverse and physical possession of
the parcels of land, thus cannot aquire under the Friar Lands Act.

6. respondents moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on the

ground of
 its states no cause of action
prescription
res judicata

7. RTC denied the motion to dismiss, respondents moved for

reconsideration but was also denied

8. respondents filed for certiorari with the CA, the CA granted the
petition of the respondents, hence this petition

issue: W.O.N. the CA erred in ruling that the complaint states no

cause of action?

held: NO

ultimate facts- essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of

action, or such facts that are so essential that they cannot be
stricken out without leaving the statement of cause of action
inadequate

there was no explanation or enumeration of facts as would show

why said titles were claimed to be fictitious or spurious

this is contrary to rule that circumstances constituting fraud must

be stated with particularity. otherwise the allegation of fraud would
simply be an unfounded conclusion

in the absence of specific averments, the complaint is defective, for

it presents no basis upon which the court should act or for the
defendant to meet it with an intelligent answer

Spouses Ferrer vs. Ericta

facts

1. defendant/respondents Pflieder owns a pick up-truck/car,

that their son, without license, drove and caused physical
damage to the plaintiff/petitioner, who was then a passenger
thereof
2. petitioner filed for damages against the respondent
3. respondent filed an answer, and alleged therein that the
plaintiff was not a passenger, but a mere JOY RIDER, hence
he has no obligation to the plaintiff
4. at pre-trial, only the plaintiff and their counsel were present,
hence the defendants were declared in default. the plaintiffs
were allowed to present evidence ex-parte
5. petitioners moved that they be granted an extension of 10
days to present evidence, which was granted
6. respondents filed a motion to set aside the order on the
ground that their failure to appear was due to accident and
excusable neglect
7. the motion to set aside was opposed by the petitioners on
the ground that their pleading was not under oath
8. RTC denied the motion and ruled in the case in favor of the
petitioner
9. respondents moved for reconsideration on the ground of
the complaint states no cause of action
prescription

in an amended motion for reconsideration, the

respondents alleged that their defense of prescription
has not been waived and maybe raised at any stage of
the proceeding
10.petitioner argued that
prescription has been waived and the defense that the
complaint states no cause of action can be raised any
time before trial and prior decision
that the respondents lost their legal standing when
declared in default
11.RTC without setting aside the order of default, reversed its
decision in favor of the respondents, hence this petition

issue: W.O.N the defense of prescription has been waived by

failure to allege it in the answer

Held: NO

failure to specifically plead prescription in the answer does

not constitute a waiver of the defense of prescription

the plaintiff's own allegation in the complaint or evidence

that they presented, showed that the action had prescribed
and removes the case from the rule.

Spouses Meliton Vs CA

held:

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM, TEST OF "COMPULSORINESS".

Considering Section 4 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a
counterclaim is compulsory if (a) it arises out of, or is
necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence
which is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; (b)
it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third
parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and (c)
the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It has been
postulated that while a number of criteria have been
advanced for the determination of whether the counterclaim
is compulsory or permissive, the "one compelling test of
compulsoriness" is the logical relationship between the claim
alleged in the complaint and that in the counterclaim, that is,
where conducting separate trials of the respective claims of
the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and
time, as where they involve many of the same factual and/or
legal issues

Deguia vs Ciriaco

facts:

1. plaintiffs filed with the RTC a complaint for partition

against the defendants.

2. plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the real properties

were inherited by both parties from their predecessors in
interest and that the respondent refused to subdivide the
properties

3. after the respondents filed their answers an amended

complaint was admitted by the RTC in which one of the
plaintiffs was impleaded as a defendant (unwilling co-
plaintiff)

4. the case was set for pre trial, but both parties failed to
attend in the pre trial conference

5. plaintiffs upon motion, moved to declare the defendants in

default, in which the RTC granted. the plaintiffs were allowed
to present evidence ex-parte

6.defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on the

ground that they received the notice for pre-trial on the
afternoon of the date of pre-trial

this was opposed by the plaintiffs, who presented the postal

delivery receipt that the notice was received by the
defendant's counsel the day before the pre-trial conference
7. RTC denied the motion for reconsideration

8. defendants appealed with the CA, which reversed the RTC

decision, on the ground that the rules at the time, requires
separate service of notice upon the parties and their counsel,
hence this petition

issue:W.O.N . the RTC erred in declaring the defendants in

default?

held: YES

Rule 20 sec. 1 provides that in any action, after the last

pleading has been filed, the court, shall direct the parties and
their attorneys to appear before it for a conference to
consider (pre-trial conference)

before being considered in default, parties and their counsel

must be shown to have been served with notice of the Pre-
trial conference

if served only to the counsel, the notice must EXPRESSEDLY

direct him/her to notify/inform the client of the time , place
and date of the pre- trial conference

absence of such notice renders the proceeding void

notice was sent to the counsel but did not contain any
"imposition or directive" to inform the clients of the pre trial
conference, thus amounting to lack of notice.

Alpine Lending Investors Inc. vs Corpuz

facts:

1. a certain Zenaida was the respondent's former neighbor

2. Zenaida, pretending to use the respondent's car (tamaraw

fx) to be used in securing a garage franchise, took the
original papers of the vehicle

3. using said papers and representing as the owner of the

vehicle, Zenaida brought the vehicle to Richmond auto
center, where it was repaired, Zenaida then disappeared with
the vehicle thereafter
4. respondent upon gaining knowledge of the above
mentioned facts, reported the incident to LTO muntinlupa,
where she was informed that the vehicle was mortgaged to
the petitioner

5. respondent informed the petitioner of the incident , the

latter promised to comply upon the condition that Zenaida
will be charged criminally

6. respondent filed the case for falsification and estafa with

the MTC and informed the petitioner of the developments,
but the latter still refused to return the vehicle.

7. respondent filed a replevin (complaint) with the RTC,

petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it is
not a judicial person, and thus cannot be sued

8. RTC denied the motion to dismiss, petitioner moved for

reconsideration but was denied

9. RTC directed the respondent to amend her complaint, but

the amendment was submitted 2 days late, however the RTC
still admitted the amendment

10. petitioner moved to expunge the respondent's amended

complaint, this was denied by the RTC

11. petitioner mover for reconsideration, but was denied,

hence this petition.

issue : W.O.N the RTC erred in admitting the amended

complaint of the respondent?

Held: