REMREV2 Case Doctrines and Digests

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Provisional Remedies 5 8. Novecio v Li, 754 SCRA 111 12
R-57: Preliminary Attachment 5 9. Liberty Broadcasting Network v Atlocom, 760 SCRA 625
12
1. Lim v Lazaro, 700 SCRA (2013) 5
10. Republic v Cortez, 769 SCRA 267 13
2. Ligon v RTC of Makati Br. 56 717 SCRA (2014) 5
R - 59: Receivership 14
3. Torres v Satsatin, 605 SCRA 5
1. Larrobis JR v Phil Veterans Bank, 440 SCRA 14
4. Mangila v CA, 387 SCRA 6
2. Chavez v CA, 610 SCRA 14
5. Chuidian v Sandiganbayan, 349 SCRA 6
3. Tantano v Espina - Caboverde, 702 SCRA 508 15
6. Luzon Dev. Bank v Krishman, 755 SCRA (2015) 7
4. Koruga v Arcenas, 509 SCRA 15
7. Northern Luzon Island Co. v Garcia, 753 SCRA 603 7
R - 60: Replevin 16
8. Excellent Quality Apparel v Visayan Surety, 761 SCRA 464
7 1. Orosa v CA, 329 SCRA 16
9. Watercraft Venture Corp v Wolfe, 770 SCRA 179 7 2. Smart Communications v Astorga, 542 SCRA 16
10. Phil Airconditioning Center v RCJ Lines, 775 SCRA 265 8 3. Hao v Andres, 555 SCRA 16
11. Alejandro Ng Wee v Tankiansee, 545 SCRA 9 4. Navarros v Escobedo, 606 SCRA 17
R - 58: Preliminary Injuction 9 5. Agner v BPI Family Savings Bank, 697 SCRA (2013) 17
1. Idolor v CA, 351 SCRA 9 R - 61: Support 17
2. Gustilo v Real, 353 SCRA 10 1. De Asis v CA, 303 SCRA 17
3. Lagrosas v Bristo-Myers, 565 SCRA 10 2. People v Manahan, 315 SCRA 17
4. Jenosa v Delarlarte, 630 SCRA 10 3. Lim v Lim, 604 SCRA 18
5. Solid Builders Inc v China Bank, 695 SCRA (2013) 11 4. Gotardo v Buling, 678 SCRA 18
6. Plaza v Lustiva, 718 SCRA (2014) 11 5. Lim - Lua v Lua, 697 SCRA 19
7. Office of the Ombudsman v De Chavez, 700 SCRA 11 6. Republic v Yahon, 726 SCRA 438 19
Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

We cannot guarantee 100% accuracy. Page 1 of 60
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

7. Salas v Matusalem, 705 SCRA 560 19 Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy v COMELEC, 705
SCRA 340 (2013) 26
8. Del Socorro v Van Wilsem, 744 SCRA 516 20
R-65: Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus 27
Special Civil Actions 20
S-1: Certiorari 27
R - 62: Interpleader 20
1. Ampil v Ombudsman, 703 SCRA 1 (2013) 27
1. Wack - Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc v Won, 70 SCRA
165, (1976) 20 2. A.L. Ang Netwrok, Inc. v Mondejar, 714 SCRA 514 (2014)
28
2. Eternal Gardens v IAC, 165 SCRA 438 (1988) 21
3. Maglalang v PAGCOR, 712 SCRA 472 (2013) 28
3. Pasricha v Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA 273, (2008)
21 4. People v Castaeda, 712 SCRA 800 (2013) 29
4. Bank of Commerce v Planters Development Bank, 681 5. UP Board of Regents v Ligot-Teylan, 227 SCRA 342
SCRA 521, (2012) 21 (1993) 30
R - 63: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies 22 6. Tuazon v RD of Caloocan, 157 SCRA 613 (1988) 30
1. Almeda v Bathala Marketing Ind., 542 SCRA 470 (2008) 7. Province of Leyte v Energy Development Corp, 760 SCRA
22 149 (2015) 30
2. Republic v Orbecido, 472 SCRA 114 (2005) 23 8. Cawad v Abad, 764 SCRA 1 (2015) 31
3. Malana v Tappa, 600 SCRA 189 (2009) 23 S-2: Prohibition 31
4. Chavez v Judicial Bar Council, 676 SCRA 579 (2012) 24 1. Vivas v Monetary Board of BSP, 703 SCRA 290 (2013) 31
5. Sabitsana v Muertegui, 703 SCRA 145 (2013) 24 2. Corales v Republic, 703 SCRA 623 (2013) 32
6. Republic v Roque, 706 SCRA 273 (2013) in relation to 3. Tan v CA, 524 SCRA 306 (2007) 32
Southern Hemisphere Case, 630 SCRA 146 (2010) 24 S-3: Mandamus 33
7. Department of Finance v De la Cruz JR, 768 SCRA 73 1. Hipos SR v Bay, 581 SCRA 674 (2009) 33
(2015) 26
2. Sanchez v Lastimosa, 534 SCRA 84 (2007) 33
R-64: Review of Judgements and Final Orders of the
COMELEC and COA 26 3. Social Justice Society v Atienza, 517 SCRA 657 (2007) 34

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

4. Funa v Manila Economic and Cultural Office, 715 SCRA 2. Marquez v Alindog, 714 SCRA 460 (2014) 46
247 (2014) 34 3. LZK Holdings v Planters Development Bank, 714 SCRA
5. Cudia v Superintendent of PMA, 751 SCRA 469 (2015) 35 294 (2014) 47
6. Villanueva v JBC, 755 SCRA 182 (2015) 35 4. Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v Equitable PCI Bank,
693 SCRA 439 (2013) 48
R-66: Quo Warranto 36
5. Allied Bank v Mateo 588 SCRA 538 (2009) 48
1. Mendoza v Allas, 302 SCRA 623 (1999) 36
6. Robles v Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75 (2014) 49
2. Calleja v Panday, 483 SCRA 680 (2006) 37
7. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v CPR Promotions and
3. Lokin JR v COMELEC, 621 SCRA 385 (2010) 38
Marketing Inc, 760 SCRA 59 (2015) 49
4. Aratea v COMELEC, 683 SCRA 105 (2012) 39
R-69: Partition 50
5. De Castro v Carlos, 696 SCRA 400 (2013) 39
1. Vda. de Figuracin v Figuracion - Gerilla, 690 SCRA 495
6. Velasco v Belmonte, 780 SCRA 81 (2016) 39 (2013) 50
R -67: Expropriation 40 2. Balus v Balus, 610 SCRA 178 (2010) 50
1. City of Manila v Serrano, 359 SCRA 231 , 20 JUNE 2001 3. Feliciano v Canosa, 629 SCRA 550 (2010) 50
40
4. Mangahas v Brobio, 634 SCRA 351 (2010) 51
2. NAPOCOR v CA, GR No. 106804, 12 August 2004 41
R-70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer 51
3. Republic v Andaya, 524 SCRA 671, 15 JUNE 2007 43
1. Suarez v Emboy JR, 718 SCRA 677 (2014) 51
4. Asias Emerging Dragon v DOTC, 552 SCRA 59 (2008) 43
2. Alconera v Pallanan, 714 SCRA 204 (2014) 51
5. Abad v Fil-homes Realty, 636 SCRA 247 (2010) 44
3. Teodoro v Espino, 715 SCRA 435 (2014) 52
6. NPC v YCLA Sugar Development Corporation, GR No.
4. Ferrer v Rabaca, 632 SCRA 204 (2010) 52
193936, 11 December 2013 45
5. CGR Corp., v Treyes, 522 SCRA 765 (2007) 53
R-68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage 46
6. Abad v Fil-homes Realty, 636 SCRA 247 (2010) 54
1. Ramirez v Manila Banking Corp., GR No. 198800, 11
December 2013 46 7. Zacarias v Anacay, 736 SCRA 508 (2014) 54

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

8. Manalang v Bacani, 745 SCRA 27 (2015) 55
9. Supapo v De Jesus, 765 SCRA 211 (2015), GR. No.
198356 56
10. De la Cruz v Hermano, 754 SCRA 231 (2015) 56
11. Erorita v Dumlao, 781 SCRA 551 (2016) 57
R-71: Contempt 57
1. Yasay v Recto, 313 SCRA 739 (1999) 57
2. Sison v Caoibes JR 429 SCRA 258 (2004) 58
3. Espaol v Formoso, 525 SCRA 216 (2007) 58
4. Marantan v Diokno, 716 SCRA 164 (2014) 59
5. Tormis v Paredes, 749 SCRA 505 (2015) 60
6. Pulumbarit SR v CA, 772 SCRA 244 (2015) 60
7. Balindong v CA, 773 SCRA 27 (2015) 60

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
Provisional
or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until
the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or
vacated in some manner provided by law. Thus, a prior
Remedies registration of an attachment lien creates a preference, such that

when an attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a
purchaser thereof subsequent to the attachment takes the
R-57: Preliminary Attachment property subject to the said attachment. As provided under PD
1529, said registration operates as a form of constructive notice
to all persons.
1. Lim v Lazaro, 700 SCRA (2013)
While the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length
of time within which an attachment lien shall continue to 3. Torres v Satsatin, 605 SCRA
subsist after the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence At the time the writ was implemented, the trial court has
dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or the not acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent
sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until the since no summons was yet served upon them. The proper
judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated officer should have previously or simultaneously with the
in the same manner provided by law. implementation of the writ of attachment, served a copy of the
A writ of attachment is not extinguished by the summons upon the respondents in order for the trial court to
execution of a compromise agreement between the parties. have acquired jurisdiction upon them and for the writ to have
binding effect. Consequently, even if the writ of attachment was
validly issued, it was improperly or irregularly enforced and,
2. Ligon v RTC of Makati Br. 56 717 therefore, cannot bind and affect the respondents.
SCRA (2014) There are two ways of discharging the attachment. First,
Attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is to file a counter-bond in accordance with Section 12 of Rule 57.
against the particular property, enforceable against the whole Second[,] [t]o quash the attachment on the ground that it was
world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a specific irregularly or improvidently issued, as provided for in Section
lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently 13 of the same rule. Whether the attachment was discharged by
destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy either of the two ways indicated in the law, the attachment
itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property debtor cannot be deemed to have waived any defect in the
attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to issuance of the attachment writ by simply availing himself of
pay the owners debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid, one way of discharging the attachment writ, instead of the

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

other. The filing of a counter-bond is merely a speedier way of
discharging the attachment writ instead of the other way.
5. Chuidian v Sandiganbayan, 349
SCRA
4. Mangila v CA, 387 SCRA Grounds to discharge a writ of attachment: First. To file
a counterbond in accordance with Rule 57, Section 12 or
The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment
Second. To quash the attachment on the ground that it was
involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting
irregularly or improvidently issued, as provided for in Section
the application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant
13 of the same Rule.
to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is
It would appear that petitioner chose the latter because
implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
the grounds he raised assail the propriety of the issuance of the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained.
writ of attachment. By his own admission, however, he
However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the
repeatedly acknowledged that his justifications to warrant the
court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for
lifting of the attachment are facts or events that came to light or
without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority
took place after the writ of attachment had already been
to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing
implemented.
from the Court will not bind the defendant.
Supervening events which may or may not justify the
The alias summons belatedly served on petitioner
discharge of the writ are not within the purview of this
cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the
particular rule.
enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a
In the instant case, there is no showing that the issuance
coercive process on petitioner without first obtaining
of the writ of attachment was attended by impropriety or
jurisdiction over her person. The preliminary writ of attachment
irregularity. Apart from seeking a reconsideration of the
must be served after or simultaneous with the service of
resolution granting the application for the writ, petitioner no
summons on the defendant whether by personal service,
longer questioned the writ itself. For four (4) long years he kept
substituted service or by publication as warranted by the
silent and did not exercise any of the remedies available to a
circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of summons
defendant whose property or asset has been attached. It is rather
does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her
too late in the day for petitioner to question the propriety of the
person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a
issuance of the writ.
belated service.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
6. Luzon Dev. Bank v Krishman, 8. Excellent Quality Apparel v

755 SCRA (2015) Visayan Surety, 761 SCRA 464
Once the writ of attachment has been issued, the only Under Section 20, Rule 57, in relation to Section 4
remedy of the petitioners in lifting the same is through a cash therein, the surety bond shall answer for all the costs which
deposit or the filing of the counter-bond. Thus, the Court holds may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he
that petitioners argument that it has the option to deposit real may sustain by reason of the attachment. In other words, the
property instead of depositing cash or filing a counter-bond to damages sought to be enforced against the surety bond are
discharge the attachment or stay the implementation thereof is unliquidated. Necessarily, a notice and hearing before the
unmeritorious. finality of judgment must be undertaken to properly determine
The proximate relation of the word "deposit" and the amount of damages that was suffered by the defendant due
"amount" is unmistakable in Section 5 of Rule 57. Plainly, in to the improper attachment. These damages to be imposed
construing said words, it can be safely concluded that Section 5 against the attaching party and his sureties are different from
requires the deposit of money as the word "amount" commonly the principal case, and must be included in the judgment.
refers to or is regularly associated with a sum of money. On the other hand, under Section 17, Rule 57, in
Petitioners should not give a special or technical interpretation relation to Section 12 therein, the cash deposit or the counter-
to a word which is otherwise construed in its ordinary sense by bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that the
the law and broaden the signification of the term "deposit" to attaching party may recover in the action. Stated differently, the
include that of real properties. damages sought to be charged against the surety bond are
liquidated. The final judgment had already determined the
amount to be awarded to the winning litigant on the main
7. Northern Luzon Island Co. v action. Thus, there is nothing left to do but to execute the
Garcia, 753 SCRA 603 judgment against the losing party, or in case of insufficiency,
The consequence is that where the main action is against its sureties.
appealed, the attachment which may have been issued as an
incident of that action, is also considered appealed and so also 9. Watercraft Venture Corp v
removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo. The
attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate action Wolfe, 770 SCRA 179
independent of the principal action because the attachment was The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must
only an incident of such action. sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud
because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor's
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with his
obligation. The particulars of such circumstances necessarily
10. Phil Airconditioning Center v
include the time, persons, places and specific acts of fraud RCJ Lines, 775 SCRA 265
committed. An affidavit which does not contain concrete and There are various modes of discharging an attachment
specific grounds is inadequate to sustain the issuance of such under Rule 57, viz.: (1) by depositing cash or posting a counter-
writ. In fact, mere general averments render the writ defective bond under Section 12; (2) by proving that the attachment bond
and the court that ordered its issuance acted with grave abuse of was improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that the
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. bond is insufficient under Section 13; (3) by showing that the
The defendant is not allowed to file a motion to dissolve attachment is excessive under Section 13; and (4) by claiming
the attachment under Section 13 of Rule 57 by offering to show that the property is exempt from execution under Section 2.
the falsity of the factual averments in the plaintiff's application The discharge under Section 12 takes effect upon
and affidavits on which the writ was based and consequently posting of a counter-bond or depositing cash, and after hearing
that the writ based thereon had been improperly or irregularly to determine the sufficiency of the cash deposit or counter-
issued the reason being that the hearing on such a motion for bond. On the other hand, the discharge under Section 13 takes
dissolution of the writ would be tantamount to a trial of the effect only upon showing that the plaintiffs attachment bond
merits of the action. In other words, the merits of the action was improperly or irregularly issued, or that the bond is
would be ventilated at a mere hearing of a motion, instead of at insufficient. The discharge of the attachment under Section 13
the regular trial. must be made only after hearing.
Be that as it may, the foregoing rule is not applicable in The dissolution of the preliminary attachment upon
this case because when Wolfe filed a motion to dissolve the writ security given [Section 12], or a showing of its irregular or
of preliminary attachment, he did not offer to show the falsity improper issuance [Section 13], does not of course operate to
of the factual averments in Watercraft's application and discharge the sureties on plaintiffs own attachment bond. The
affidavit on which the writ was based. Instead, he sought the reason is simple. That bond is executed to the adverse party,. . .
discharge of the writ on the ground that Watercraft failed to conditioned that the ... (applicant) will pay all the costs which
particularly allege any circumstance amounting to fraud. No may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he
trial on the merits of the action at a mere hearing of such may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall
motion will be had since only the sufficiency of the factual finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto."
averments in the application and affidavit of merit will be Hence, until that determination is made, as to the applicant's
examined in order to find out whether or not Wolfe was guilty entitlement to the attachment, his bond must stand and cannot
of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon be withdrawn.
which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof.
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
11. Alejandro Ng Wee v Tankiansee, R - 58: Preliminary Injuction

545 SCRA
For a writ of attachment to issue under this rule, the 1. Idolor v CA, 351 SCRA
applicant must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting
the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred substantive rights and interests. Before an injunction can be
from the debtor's mere non-payment of the debt or failure to issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: 1)
comply with his obligation. The applicant must then be able to there must be aright in esse or the existence of a right to be
demonstrate that the debtor has intended to defraud the creditor. protected; 2) the act against which the injunction is to be
The affidavit, being the foundation of the writ, must directed is a violation of such right. Hence the existence of a
contain such particulars as to how the fraud imputed to right violated, is a prerequisite to the granting of an injunction.
respondent was committed for the court to decide whether or Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights.
not to issue the writ. In the application for the writ under the Failure to establish either the existence of a clear and positive
said ground, compelling is the need to give a hint about what right which should be judicially protected through the writ of
constituted the fraud and how it was perpetrated because injunction or that the defendant has committed or has attempted
established is the rule that fraud is never presumed. to commit any act which has endangered or tends to endanger
The merits of the main action are not triable in a motion the existence of said right, is a sufficient ground for denying the
to discharge an attachment otherwise an applicant for the injunction. The controlling reason for the existence of the
dissolution could force a trial of the merits of the case on his judicial power to issue the writ is that the court may thereby
motion. However, the principle finds no application here prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some
because petitioner has not yet fulfilled the requirements set by of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated
the Rules of Court for the issuance of the writ against the and advisedly adjudicated. It is to be resorted to only when
properties of respondent. The evil sought to be prevented by the there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences
said ruling will not arise, because the propriety or impropriety which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation.
of the issuance of the writ in this case can be determined by It is always a ground for denying injunction that the
simply reading the complaint and the affidavit in support of the party seeking it has insufficient title or interest to sustain it, and
application. no claim to the ultimate relief sought - in other words, that she
shows no equity. The possibility of irreparable damage without
proof of actual existing right is not aground for an injunction.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
2. Gustilo v Real, 353 SCRA 3. Lagrosas v Bristo-Myers, 565

Administrative Circular No. 20-95 provides that
whenever an application for a TRO is filed, the court may act
SCRA
The injunction bond is intended as a security for
on the application only after all parties have been notified and
damages in case it is finally decided that the injunction ought
heard in a summary hearing. In other words, a summary
not to have been granted. Its principal purpose is to protect the
hearing may not be dispensed with.
enjoined party against loss or damage by reason of the
Before an injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential
injunction, and the bond is usually conditioned accordingly.
that the following requisites be present: (1) there must be a
The appellate court ruled that Lagrosas had no right to
right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and
the monetary awards granted by the labor arbiter and the
(2) the act against which injunction to be directed is a
NLRC, and that the implementation of the writ of execution
violation of such right. The onus probandi is on movant to
and notices of garnishment was properly enjoined. This in
show that there exists a right to be protected, which is directly
effect amounted to a finding that Lagrosas did not sustain any
threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Further, there must
damage by reason of the injunction. To reiterate, the injunction
be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and
bond is intended to protect Lagrosas against loss or damage by
substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity
reason of the injunction only. Contrary to Lagrosas claim, it is
for the writ to prevent a serious damage.
not a security for the judgment award by the labor arbiter.
In this case, complainant had been duly proclaimed as
the winning candidate for punong barangay. He had taken his
oath of office. Unless his election was annulled, he was entitled 4. Jenosa v Delarlarte, 630 SCRA
to all the rights of said office. We do not see how the Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who
complainant's exercise of such rights would cause an must apply for it must come with equity or with clean
irreparable injury or violate the right of the losing candidate so hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are (1)
as to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order "to he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into
maintain the status quo." We see no reason to disagree with the equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently
finding of the OCA that the evident purpose of the second TRO stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he
was to prevent complainant from participating in the election of who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a
the Liga ng mga Barangay. litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground
that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or
fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Here, petitioners, having reneged on their agreement Neither has there been a showing of irreparable injury.
without any justifiable reason, come to court with unclean An injury is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and
hands. This Court may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be
been inequitable, unfair and dishonest as to the controversy in had therefor in a court of law, or where there is no standard by
issue. Since petitioners have come to court with inequitable and which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy,
unfair conduct, we deny them relief. that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation. The
provisional remedy of preliminary injunction may only be
resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious
5. Solid Builders Inc v China Bank, consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of
695 SCRA (2013) compensation.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary Where there is a valid cause to foreclose on the
event which must be granted only in the face of actual and mortgages, it cannot be correctly claimed that the irreparable
existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking damage sought to be prevented by the application for
cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to preliminary injunction is the loss of the mortgaged properties to
determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant of an auction sale. Foreclosure of mortgaged property is not an
injunction are present in the case before it. In this connection, a irreparable damage that will merit for the debtor-mortgagor the
writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status extraordinary provisional remedy of preliminary injunction.
quo ante, upon the applicants showing of two important
requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected 6. Plaza v Lustiva, 718 SCRA
exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are
violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation (2014)
sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injury. The petitioners failed to show clear and unmistakable
As no clear right that warrants the extraordinary rights to be protected by the writ; the present action has been
protection of an injunctive writ has been shown by SBI and rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the main
MFII to exist in their favor, the first requirement for the grant of action.
a preliminary injunction has not been satisfied. In the absence
of any requisite, and where facts are shown to be wanting in
bringing the matter within the conditions for its issuance, the
7. Oce of the Ombudsman v De
ancillary writ of injunction must be struck down for having Chavez, 700 SCRA
been rendered in grave abuse of discretion. Section 13 (8), Article XI of the Constitution authorizes
the Office of the Ombudsman to promulgate its own rules of
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

procedure. In this connection, Sections 18 and 27 of the A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based
Ombudsman Act of 1989 also provide that the Office of the solely on initial or incomplete evidence. Such evidence need
Ombudsman has the power to "promulgate its rules of only be a sampling intended merely to give the court an
procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its evidence of justification for a preliminary injunction pending
powers, functions and duties" and to amend or modify its rules the decision on the merits of the case, and is not conclusive of
as the interest of justice may require. For the CA to issue a the principal action which has yet to be decided.
preliminary injunction that will stay the penalty imposed by the In a prayer for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff is not
Ombudsman in an administrative case would be to encroach on required to submit conclusive and complete evidence. He is
the rule-making powers of the Office of the Ombudsman under only required to show that he has an ostensible right to the final
the Constitution and RA 6770 as the injunctive writ will render relief prayed for in his complaint.
nugatory the provisions of Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of The court in granting or dismissing an application for a
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. writ of preliminary injunction based on the pleadings of the
The CA's issuance of a preliminary mandatory parties and their respective evidence must state in its order the
injunction, staying the penalty of dismissal imposed by the findings and conclusions based on the evidence and the law.
Ombudsman in this administrative case, is thus an This is to enable the appellate court to determine whether the
encroachment on the rule-making powers of the Ombudsman trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to
under Section 13 (8), Article XI of the Constitution, and excess or lack of jurisdiction in resolving, one way or the other,
Sections 18 and 27 of R.A. No. 6770, which grants the Office the plea for injunctive relief.
of the Ombudsman the authority to promulgate its own rules of
procedure. The issuance of an injunctive writ renders nugatory
the provisions of Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure
9. Liberty Broadcasting Network v
of the Office of the Ombudsman. Atlocom, 760 SCRA 625
A right to be protected by injunction, means a right
8. Novecio v Li, 754 SCRA 111 clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a
matter of law. An injunction is not a remedy to protect or
A preliminary injunction is proper when the plaintiff
enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to
appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought and has
protect a right not in esse, and which may never arise, or to
substantial interest in the right sought to be defended. As this
restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action.
Court has previously ruled, "while the existence of the right
From the evidence on record, no clear, actual and
need not be conclusively established, it must be clear.
existing right to the subject frequencies or to the extension of
PA had been shown by Atlocom. Accordingly, no grave abuse
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

of discretion was committed by the RTC in denying Atlocom's or decide controverted facts. Since it is a mere preventive
application for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the remedy, it only seeks to prevent threatened wrong, further
implementation of MC 06-08-2005 insofar as the use of the re- injury and irreparable harm or injustice until the rights of the
allocated frequencies claimed by Atlocom. The CA thus parties are settled. "It is usually granted when it is made to
seriously erred in reversing the RTC and holding that Atlocom appear that there is a substantial controversy between the
was entitled to injunctive relief due to alleged violation of its parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the
right by the NTC. immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable
A writ of preliminary injunction being an extraordinary injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full
event, one deemed as a strong arm of equity or a transcendent hearing can be had on the merits of the case." A preliminary
remedy, it must be granted only in the face of actual and injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding
existing substantial rights. In the absence of the same, and prior to judgment or final order.
where facts are shown to be wanting in bringing the matter For its issuance, the applicant is required to show, at
within the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must be least tentatively, that he has a right which is not vitiated by any
struck down for having been rendered in grave abuse of substantial challenge or contradiction. Simply stated, the
discretion. applicant needs only to show that he has the ostensible right to
CA gravely abused its discretion when it issued a writ of the final relief prayed for in his complaint.
preliminary injunction against the implementation of MC On the other hand, the main action for injunction seeks
06-08-2005 in the absence of a clear legal right on the part of a judgment that embodies a final injunction. A final injunction
Atlocom, and subsequently denying LBNI's offer to file counter is one which perpetually restrains the party or person enjoined
bond despite compliance with the requisites provided in Section from the commission or continuance of an act, or in case of
6 of Rule 58. However, with our ruling that the writ of mandatory injunctive writ, one which confirms the preliminary
preliminary injunction was improperly issued, hence, null and mandatory injuction. It is issued when the court, after trial on
void, the matter of allowing LBNI to post a counter-bond has the merits, is convinced that the applicant is entitled to have the
been rendered moot. act or acts complained of permanently enjoined. Otherwise
stated, it is only after the court has come up with a definite
pronouncement respecting an applicants right and of the act
10. Republic v Cortez, 769 SCRA violative of such right, based on its appreciation of the evidence
267 presented, that a final injunction is issued. To be a basis for a
"The main action for injunction is distinct from the final and permanant injunction, the right and the act violative
provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction."A thereof must be established by the applicant with absolute
preliminary injunction does not determine the merits of a case certainty.
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Rev. Cortez failed to conclusively establish his claimed failure to collect the assets of such bank and to safeguard its
right over the subject portion of Palaui Island as would entitle assets.
him to the issuance of a final injunction. The period within which respondent bank was placed
under receivership and liquidation proceedings does not
R - 59: Receivership constitute a fortuitous event which interrupted the prescriptive
period in bringing actions.
1. Larrobis JR v Phil Veterans

2. Chavez v CA, 610 SCRA
Bank, 440 SCRA Receivership is not an action. It is but an auxiliary
When a bank is declared insolvent and placed under remedy, a mere incident of the suit to help achieve its purpose.
receivership, the Central Bank, through the Monetary Board, Consequently, it cannot be said that the grant of receivership in
determines whether to proceed with the liquidation or one case will amount to res judicata on the merits of the other
reorganization of the financially distressed bank. A receiver, cases. The grant or denial of this provisional remedy will still
who concurrently represents the bank, then takes control and depend on the need for it in the particular action.
possession of its assets for the benefit of the banks creditors. A A petition for receivership under Section 1(b), Rule 59
liquidator meanwhile assumes the role of the receiver upon the of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the property or
determination by the Monetary Board that the bank can no fund subject of the action is in danger of being lost, removed,
longer resume business. His task is to dispose of all the assets or materially injured, necessitating its protection or
of the bank and effect partial payments of the banks preservation. Its object is the prevention of imminent danger to
obligations in accordance with legal priority. In both the property. If the action does not require such protection or
receivership and liquidation proceedings, the bank retains its preservation, the remedy is not receivership.
juridical personality notwithstanding the closure of its business Here Fidelas main gripe is that Evelina and Aida
and may even be sued as its corporate existence is assumed by deprived her of her share of the lands produce. She does not
the receiver or liquidator. The receiver or liquidator meanwhile claim that the land or its productive capacity would disappear
acts not only for the benefit of the bank, but for its creditors as or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. Nor does Fidela
well. claim that the land has been materially injured, necessitating its
Settled is the principle that a bank is bound by the acts, protection and preservation. Because receivership is a harsh
or failure to act of its receiver. However, the bank may go after remedy that can be granted only in extreme situations, Fidela
the receiver who is liable to it for any culpable or negligent must prove a clear right to its issuance. But she has not. Indeed,

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

in none of the other cases she filed against Evelina and Aida
has that remedy been granted her.
4. Koruga v Arcenas, 509 SCRA
Consequently, it is not the Interim Rules of Procedure
on Intra-Corporate Controversies, or Rule 59 of the Rules of
3. Tantano v Espina - Caboverde, Civil Procedure on Receivership, that would apply to this case.
Instead, Sections 29 and 30 of the New Central Bank Act
702 SCRA 508 should be followed, viz.: The designation of a conservator
Dominaldas alleged need for income to defray her
under Section 29 of this Act or the appointment of a receiver
medical expenses and support is not a valid justification for the
under this section shall be vested exclusively with the Monetary
appointment of a receiver. The approval of an application for
Board. Furthermore, the designation of a conservator is not a
receivership merely on this ground is not only unwarranted but
precondition to the designation of a receiver. It is the Monetary
also an arbitrary exercise of discretion because financial need
Board that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings for
and like reasons are not found in Sec. 1 of Rule 59 which
receivership of banks.
prescribes specific grounds or reasons for granting receivership.
Crystal clear in Section 30 is the provision that says the
The RTCs insistence that the approval of the receivership is
"appointment of a receiver under this section shall be vested
justified under Sec. 1(d) of Rule 59, which seems to be a catch-
exclusively with the Monetary Board." The term "exclusively"
all provision, is far from convincing. To be clear, even in cases
connotes that only the Monetary Board can resolve the issue of
falling under such provision, it is essential that there is a clear
whether a bank is to be placed under receivership and, upon an
showing that there is imminent danger that the properties
affirmative finding, it also has authority to appoint a receiver.
sought to be placed under receivership will be lost, wasted or
This is further affirmed by the fact that the law allows the
injured.
Monetary Board to take action "summarily and without need
Sec. 2 of Rule 59 is very clear in that before issuing the
for prior hearing.
order appointing a receiver the court shall require the applicant
And, as a clincher, the law explicitly provides that
to file a bond executed to the party against whom the
"actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section or
application is presented. The use of the word "shall" denotes its
under Section 29 of this Act shall be final and executory, and
mandatory nature; thus, the consent of the other party, or as in
may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on a
this case, the consent of petitioners, is of no moment. Hence,
petition for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in
the filing of an applicants bond is required at all times. On the
excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as
other hand, the requirement of a receivers bond rests upon the
to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
discretion of the court. Sec. 2 of Rule 59 clearly states that the
court may, in its discretion, at any time after the appointment,
require an additional bond as further security for such damages.
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

From the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that personal property. The question of whether or not a party has
the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit that seeks the right of possession over the property involved and if so,
to place Banco Filipino under receivership. whether or not the adverse party has wrongfully taken and
detained said property as to require its return to plaintiff, is
R - 60: Replevin outside the pale of competence of a labor tribunal and beyond
the field of specialization of Labor Arbiters.
1. Orosa v CA, 329 SCRA

We also agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial 3. Hao v Andres, 555 SCRA
court erred when it ordered private respondent to return the The rules provide that property seized under a writ of
subject car or its equivalent considering that petitioner had not replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff. In
yet fully paid the purchase price. Verily, to sustain the trial accordance with the said rules, Andres should have waited no
court's decision would amount to unjust enrichment. The Court less than five days in order to give the complainant an
of Appeals was correct when it instead ordered private opportunity to object to the sufficiency of the bond or of the
respondent to return, not the car itself, but only the amount surety or sureties thereon, or require the return of the seized
equivalent to the fourteen installments actually paid with motor vehicles by filing a counter-bond. This, he failed to do.
interest. The rule is clear that the property seized should not be
immediately delivered to the plaintiff, and the sheriff must
retain custody of the seized property for at least five days.
2. Smart Communications v Hence, the act of Andres in delivering the seized vehicles
Astorga, 542 SCRA immediately after seizure to Silver for whatever purpose,
SMARTs demand for payment of the market value of without observing the five-day requirement finds no legal
the car or, in the alternative, the surrender of the car, is not a justification.
labor, but a civil, dispute. It involves the relationship of debtor It must be stressed that from the moment an order of
and creditor rather than employee-employer relations. As such, delivery in replevin is executed by taking possession of the
the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. property specified therein, such property is in custodia legis. As
Replevin is a possessory action, the gist of which is the legal custodian, it is Andres duty to safekeep the seized motor
right of possession in the plaintiff. The primary relief sought vehicles. Hence, when he passed his duty to safeguard the
therein is the return of the property in specie wrongfully motor vehicles to Silver, he committed a clear neglect of duty.
detained by another person. It is an ordinary statutory
proceeding to adjudicate rights to the title or possession of
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

either suicide or the conversion of the recipient to a public
4. Navarros v Escobedo, 606 burden. This is contrary to public policy.
SCRA It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or
Prior demand is not required before an action for a writ paternity must first be shown between the claimant and the
of replevin is filed. For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the parent. However, paternity and filiation or the lack of the same
applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond. is a relationship that must be judicially established and it is for
the court to declare its existence or absence. It cannot be left to
the will or agreement of the parties.
5. Agner v BPI Family Savings
Bank, 697 SCRA (2013) 2. People v Manahan, 315 SCRA
The vehicle subject matter of this case was never On the matter of acknowledgment and support of the
recovered and delivered to respondent despite the issuance of a child, a correction of the view of the court a quo is in order.
writ of replevin. As there was no seizure that transpired, it Article 345 of The Revised Penal Code provides that persons
cannot be said that petitioners were deprived of the use and guilty of rape shall also be sentenced to "acknowledge the
enjoyment of the mortgaged vehicle or that respondent pursued, offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so,"
commenced or concluded its actual foreclosure. The trial court, and "in every case to support the offspring." In the case before
therefore, rightfully granted the alternative prayer for sum of us, compulsory acknowledgment of the child Melanie Tibigar is
money, which is equivalent to the remedy of "exacting not proper there being a legal impediment in doing so as it
fulfillment of the obligation." Certainly, there is no double appears that the accused is a married man. As pronounced by
recovery or unjust enrichment30 to speak of. this Court in People v. Guerrero, the rule is that if the rapist is a
married man, he cannot be compelled to recognize the offspring
R - 61: Support of the crime, should there be any, as his child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate." Consequently, that portion of the
1. De Asis v CA, 303 SCRA judgment under review is accordingly deleted. In any case, we
sustain that part ordering the accused to support the child as it
The right to receive support can neither be renounced
is in accordance with law.
nor transmitted to a third person. Furthermore, future support
cannot be the subject of a compromise.
To allow renunciation or transmission or compensation
of the family right of a person to support is virtually to allow

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

The persons entitled to receive support are petitioners
grandchildren and daughter-in-law. Granting petitioners the
3. Lim v Lim, 604 SCRA option in Article 204 will secure to the grandchildren a well-
Petitioners Liable to Provide Support but only to their provided future; however, it will also force Cheryl to return to
Grandchildren. the house which, for her, is the scene of her husbands
Grandchildren cannot demand support directly from infidelity. While not rising to the level of a legal obstacle, as
their grandparents if they have parents (ascendants of nearest indeed, Cheryls charge against Edward for concubinage did
degree) who are capable of supporting them. not prosper for insufficient evidence, her steadfast insistence on
This inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently its occurrence amounts to a moral impediment bringing the case
provide for their children shifts a portion of their obligation to within the ambit of the exception clause of Article 204,
the ascendants in the nearest degree, both in the paternal precluding its application.
(petitioners) and maternal lines, following the ordering in
Article 199. To hold otherwise, and thus subscribe to 4. Gotardo v Buling, 678 SCRA
petitioners theory, is to sanction the anomalous scenario of
"[F]iliation proceedings are usually filed not just to
tolerating extreme material deprivation of children because of
adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right associated
parental inability to give adequate support even if ascendants
with paternity, such as citizenship, support (as in this case) or
one degree removed are more than able to fill the void.
inheritance. [In paternity cases, the burden of proof] is on the
However, petitioners partial concurrent obligation
person who alleges that the putative father is the biological
extends only to their descendants as this word is commonly
father of the child.
understood to refer to relatives, by blood of lower degree. As
A parent is obliged to support his child, whether
petitioners grandchildren by blood, only respondents Lester
legitimate or illegitimate. Support consists of everything
Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III belong to this
indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
category. Indeed, Cheryls right to receive support from the Lim
attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the
family extends only to her husband Edward, arising from their
financial capacity of the family. Thus, the amount of support is
marital bond.
variable and, for this reason, no final judgment on the amount
Petitioners wish to avail of the option in Article 204 of
of support is made as the amount shall be in proportion to the
the Civil Code, as amended, and pray that they be allowed to
resources or means of the giver and the necessities of the
fulfill their obligation by maintaining respondents at
recipient. It may be reduced or increased proportionately
petitioners Makati residence. The option is unavailable to
according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the
petitioners.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to purchases through credit card of items other than groceries and
support. dry goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, as these bear
no relation to the judgment awarding support pendente lite.
Judgment for support does not become final. The right
5. Lim - Lua v Lua, 697 SCRA to support is of such nature that its allowance is essentially
Subject to the sound discretion of the court, either
provisional; for during the entire period that a needy party is
parent or both may be ordered to give an amount necessary for
entitled to support, his or her alimony may be modified or
the support, maintenance, and education of the child. It shall be
altered, in accordance with his increased or decreased needs,
in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the
and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as
necessities of the recipient.
subject to final determination.
In determining the amount of provisional support, the
court may likewise consider the following factors: (1) the
financial resources of the custodial and non-custodial parent 6. Republic v Yahon, 726 SCRA
and those of the child; (2) the physical and emotional health of
the child and his or her special needs and aptitudes; (3) the
438
Section 8(g) of R.A. No. 9262 used the general term
standard of living the child has been accustomed to; (4) the
"employer," which includes in its coverage the military
non-monetary contributions that the parents will make toward
institution, S/Sgt. Yahons employer. Where the law does not
the care and well-being of the child.
distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Thus, Section 8(g)
The Family Court may direct the deduction of the
applies to all employers, whether private or government.
provisional support from the salary of the parent.
It bears stressing that Section 8(g) providing for spousal
Since the amount of monthly support pendente lite as
and child support, is a support enforcement legislation. Section
fixed by the CA was not appealed by either party, there is no
8(g) of R.A. No. 9262, being a later enactment, should be
controversy as to its sufficiency and reasonableness. The
construed as laying down an exception to the general rule
dispute concerns the deductions made by respondent in settling
above-stated that retirement benefits are exempt from
the support in arrears.
execution.
The monthly support pendente lite granted by the trial
court was intended primarily for food, household expenses such
as salaries of drivers and house helpers, and also petitioners 7. Salas v Matusalem, 705 SCRA
scoliosis therapy sessions. Hence, the value of two expensive
cars bought by respondent for his children plus their
560
The action for support having been filed in the trial
maintenance cost, travel expenses of petitioner and Angelli,
court when petitioner was still alive, it is not barred under
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Article 175 (2)42 of the Family Code. We have also held that respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article
the death of the putative father is not a bar to the action 109 of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be
commenced during his lifetime by one claiming to be his obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and
illegitimate child. render support to private respondent. The latter should not
continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal
property.
8. Del Socorro v Van Wilsem, 744
SCRA 516
It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is
not obliged to support petitioners son under Article195 of the
Special Civil Actions
Family Code as a consequence of the Divorce Covenant
obtained in Holland. This does not, however, mean that R - 62: Interpleader
respondent is not obliged to support petitioners son altogether.
It is incumbent upon respondent to plead and prove that 1. Wack - Wack Golf & Country
the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the
parents the obligation to support their child (either before, Club, Inc v Won, 70 SCRA 165,
during or after the issuance of a divorce decree). (1976)
In view of respondents failure to prove the national law A stakeholder6 should use reasonable diligence to hale
of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual the contending claimants to court.7 He need not await actual
presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign institution of independent suits against him before filing a bill
law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts of interpleader.8 He should file an action of interpleader within
will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to
domestic or internal law. Thus, since the law of the Netherlands be sued by either of the contending claimants.9 Otherwise, he
as regards the obligation to support has not been properly maybe barred by laches10 or undue delay.11 But where he acts
pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the with reasonable diligence in view of the environmental
same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of circumstances, the remedy is not barred.
parents to support their children and penalizing the non- It has been held that a stakeholders action of
compliance therewith. interpleader is too late when filed after judgment has been
Respondent is no longer liable to support his former rendered against him in favor of one of the contending
wife. To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our claimants,13 especially where he had notice of the conflicting
laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

claims prior to the rendition of the judgment and neglected the
opportunity to implead the adverse claimants in the suit where
3. Pasricha v Don Luis Dizon
judgment was entered. This must be so, because once judgment Realty, 548 SCRA 273, (2008)
is obtained against him by one claimant he becomes liable to Section 1, Rule 62 of the Rules of Court provides:
the latter. Section 1. When interpleader proper.Whenever conflicting
claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made
2. Eternal Gardens v IAC, 165 against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject
matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed
SCRA 438 (1988) by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting
The essence of interpleader, aside from the disavowal of claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several
interest of the property in litigation by petitioner, is the deposit claims among themselves. Otherwise stated, an action for
of the property or funds in controversy, with the court. It is a interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom
rule founded on justice and equity: that the plaintiff may not payment of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on
continue to benefit from the property or funds in litigation the property (or on the right to collect). The remedy is afforded
during the pendency of the suit at the expense of whoever will not to protect a person against double liability but to protect
ultimately be decided as entitled thereto. The case at bar was him against double vexation in respect of one liability.
elevated to the Court of Appeals on certiorari with prohibitory
and mandatory injunction. Said appellate court found that more
than twenty million pesos are involved; so that on interest alone
4. Bank of Commerce v Planters
for savings or time deposit would be considerable, now Development Bank, 681 SCRA
accruing in favor of the Eternal Gardens. Finding that such is
violative of the very essence of the complaint for interpleader
521, (2012)
When the court orders that the claimants litigate among
as it clearly runs against the interests of justice in this case, the
themselves, in reality a new action arises,134 where the claims
Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for finding that the lower
of the interpleaders themselves are brought to the fore, the
court committed a grave abuse of discretion which requires
stakeholder as plaintiff is relegated merely to the role of
correction by the requirement that a deposit of said amounts
initiating the suit. In short, the remedy of interpleader, when
should be made to a bank approved by the Court.
proper, merely provides an avenue for the conflicting claims on
the same subject matter to be threshed out in an action.
The remedy of interpleader, as a special civil action, is
primarily governed by the specific provisions in Rule 62 of the

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Rules of Court and secondarily by the provisions applicable to (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention. In
ordinary civil actions.136 Indeed, Rule 62 does not expressly an interpleader suit, however, a claim is not required to be
authorize the filing of a complaint-in-interpleader as part of, contained in any of these pleadings but in the answer-(of the
although separate and independent from, the answer. Similarly, conflicting claimants)-in-interpleader. This claim is different
Section 5, Rule 6, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules from the counter-claim (or cross-claim, third party-complaint)
of Court137 does not include a complaint-in-interpleader as a which is separately allowed under Section 5, par. 2 of Rule 62.
claim,138 a form of defense,139 or as an objection that a
defendant may be allowed to put up in his answer or in a R - 63: Declaratory Relief and Similar
motion to dismiss. This does not mean, however, that the BSPs
Remedies
counter-complaint/cross-claim for interpleader runs counter
to general procedures.
Apart from a pleading,140 the rules141 allow a party to 1. Almeda v Bathala Marketing
seek an affirmative relief from the court through the procedural
device of a motion. While captioned Answer with counter-
Ind., 542 SCRA 470 (2008)
Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person
complaint/cross-claim for interpleader, the RTC understood
interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
this as in the nature of a motion,142 seeking relief which
executive order or resolution, to determine any question of
essentially consists in an order for the conflicting claimants to
construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive
litigate with each other so that payment is made to the rightful
order or regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights
or legitimate owner143 of the subject CB bills.
and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such
The rules define a civil action as one by which a
a petition is the question of construction or validity of
party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
provisions in an instrument or statute. Corollary is the general
or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Interpleader may be
rule that such an action must be justified, as no other adequate
considered as a stakeholders remedy to prevent a wrong, that
relief or remedy is available under the circumstances.
is, from making payment to one not entitled to it, thereby
Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an action
rendering itself vulnerable to lawsuit/s from those legally
for declaratory relief, as follows: 1) the subject matter of the
entitled to payment.
controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
Interpleader is a civil action made special by the
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
existence of particular rules to govern the uniqueness of its
2) the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are
application and operation. Under Section 2, Rule 6 of the Rules
doubtful and require judicial construction; 3) there must have
of Court, governing ordinary civil actions, a partys claim is
been no breach of the documents in question; 4) there must be
asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

an actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one duty to protect the institution of marriage while respondent, a
between persons whose interests are adverse; 5) the issue must private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to
be ripe for judicial determination; and 6) adequate relief is not remarry. Respondent, praying for relief, has legal interest in the
available through other means or other forms of action or controversy. The issue raised is also ripe for judicial
proceeding. determination inasmuch as when respondent remarries,
It is beyond cavil that the foregoing requisites are litigation ensues and puts into question the validity of his
present in the instant case, except that petitioners insist that second marriage.
respondent was already in breach of the contract when the
petition was filed. We do not agree.
A petition for declaratory relief may not be dismissed
3. Malana v Tappa, 600 SCRA 189
despite the filing of an action for rescission, ejectment and (2009)
damages where the trial court had not yet resolved the An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there
rescission/ejectment case during the pendency of the has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of
declaratory relief petition. rights arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an action for
declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the
2. Republic v Orbecido, 472 SCRA rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or
contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or
114 (2005) compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an
The petition for authority to remarry filed before the alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained only before the
trial court actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. breach or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to which it
The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy
there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy for ending controversies that have not reached the state where
must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) that another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need
the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the for a form of action that will set controversies at rest before
controversy; and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial they lead to a repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights,
determination.8 and a commission of wrongs.
This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Where the law or contract has already been contravened
Article 26 to a marriage between two Filipino citizens where prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts
one later acquired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other
and remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests of the parties words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an action for
are also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or title to real property or remove clouds therefrom may be
transgressed before the institution of the action. brought in the appropriate RTC.
Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had It must be remembered that the suit for quieting of title
already been deprived of the possession of their property, the was prompted by petitioners August 24, 1998 letter-opposition
proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion publiciana or to respondents application for registration. Thus, in order to
an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. prevent a cloud from being cast upon his application for a title,
respondent filed Civil Case No. B-1097 to obtain a declaration
of his rights. In this sense, the action is one for declaratory
4. Chavez v Judicial Bar Council, relief, which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
676 SCRA 579 (2012) pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules.
The Constitution as the subject matter, and the validity
and construction of Section 8 (1), Article VIII as the issue 6. Republic v Roque, 706 SCRA
raised, the petition should properly be considered as that which
would result in the adjudication of rights sans the execution 273 (2013) in relation to
process because the only relief to be granted is the very
declaration of the rights under the document sought to be
Southern Hemisphere Case, 630
construed. It being so, the original jurisdiction over the petition SCRA 146 (2010)
lies with the appropriate Regional Trial Court (RTC). It is clear that the Court, in Southern Hemisphere, did
Notwithstanding the fact that only questions of law are raised in not make any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of RA
the petition, an action for declaratory relief is not among those 9372. The certiorari petitions in those consolidated cases were
within the original jurisdiction of this Court as provided in dismissed based solely on procedural grounds, namely: (a) the
Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. remedy of certiorari was improper; (b) petitioners therein lack
locus standi; and (c) petitioners therein failed to present an
5. Sabitsana v Muertegui, 703 actual case or controversy. Therefore, there was no grave abuse
of discretion.
SCRA 145 (2013) The same conclusion cannot, however, be reached with
On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the regard to the RTCs ruling on the sufficiency of private
Rules that an action for quieting of title may be instituted in the respondents petition for declaratory relief.
RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the real property in Case law states that the following are the requisites
dispute. Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet for an action for declaratory relief: first, the subject matter
of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

other written instrument, statute, executive order or danger to sustain some direct injury as a result of the
regulation, or ordinance; second, the terms of said enforcement of the assailed provisions of RA 9372. Not far
documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require removed from the factual milieu in the Southern Hemisphere
judicial construction; third, there must have been no breach cases, private respondents only assert general interests as
of the documents in question; fourth, there must be an citizens, and taxpayers and infractions which the government
actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one could prospectively commit if the enforcement of the said law
between persons whose interests are adverse; fifth, the issue would remain untrammelled. As their petition would disclose,
must be ripe for judicial determination; and sixth, adequate private respondents fear of prosecution was solely based on
relief is not available through other means or other forms of remarks of certain government officials which were addressed
action or proceeding. to the general public.40 They, however, failed to show how these
Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court remarks tended towards any prosecutorial or governmental
observes that while the first, second, and third requirements action geared towards the implementation of RA 9372 against
appear to exist in this case, the fourth, fifth, and sixth them. In other words, there was no particular, real or imminent
requirements, however, remain wanting. threat to any of them. As held in Southern Hemisphere:
As to the fourth requisite, there is serious doubt that an Without any justiciable controversy, the
actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief,
exists in this case. over which the Court has no original jurisdiction.
Pertinently, a justiciable controversy refers to an Then again, declaratory actions characterized by
existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for double contingency, where both the activity the
judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely petitioners intend to undertake and the
anticipatory.38 Corollary thereto, by ripening seeds it is anticipated reaction to it of a public official are
meant, not that sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed with, merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review for
but that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it has lack of ripeness.
accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and The possibility of abuse in the
violence of a full blown battle that looms ahead. The concept implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take
describes a state of facts indicating imminent and inevitable the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal
litigation provided that the issue is not settled and stabilized by and merely imagined. Such possibility is not
tranquilizing declaration. peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of any power
A perusal of private respondents petition for granted by law may be abused. Allegations of abuse
declaratory relief would show that they have failed to must be anchored on real events before courts may
demonstrate how they are left to sustain or are in immediate step in to settle actual controversies involving rights
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

which are legally demandable and enforceable.41 R-64: Review of Judgements and Final
(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Orders of the COMELEC and COA
Thus, in the same light that the Court dismissed
the SC petitions in the Southern Hemisphere cases on the
basis of, among others, lack of actual justiciable Alliance for Nationalism and
controversy (or the ripening seeds of one), the RTC should
have dismissed private respondents petition for
Democracy v COMELEC, 705 SCRA
declaratory relief all the same. Thus, it follows that the 340 (2013)
fifth and sixth requisites are not met with in this case. The only question that may be raised in a petition for
certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is
7. Department of Finance v De la whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. For a
Cruz JR, 768 SCRA 73 (2015) petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing
Here, the declaratory relief was recognized to be under of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion.
the jurisdiction of the RTC because of Respondents raising the Grave abuse of discretion, under Rule 65, has a
issue of validity and effectivity of EO 140, by virtue of which, specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of
Respondents are being transferred to other positions. It did not power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the
dwell however to the appropriateness of the declaratory relief in whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that
this case. amounts to an evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty
Author submits that the dissenting opinion of Justice enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an
Leonen in this case is a better ruling in tackling the issue of the act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of
appropriateness of the declaratory relief in this case. discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.
[Dissenting opinion] A petition for declaratory relief
may prosper only if there is no breach or violation yet of the
assailed government regulation, and adequate relief is not
available through other means or other forms of action or
proceeding. The third and sixth requisites are absent. The
Complaint before the lower court did not simply ask for a
declaration of a hypothetical breach. Adequate relief through
the Civil Service Commission was also available.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
R-65: Certiorari, Prohibition, and (e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation;
Mandamus (f)When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the
S-1: Certiorari offense;
(h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than
1. Ampil v Ombudsman, 703 SCRA prosecution;
(i) Where the charges are manifestly false and
1 (2013) motivated by the lust for vengeance.23 (Emphasis supplied).
Plainly, the Ombudsman has full discretion, based on
the attendant facts and circumstances, to determine the The fourth circumstance is present in G.R. No. 192685.
existence of probable cause or the lack thereof.20 On this score, While we agree with the Ombudsmans disquisition that there is
we have consistently hewed to the policy of non-interference no probable cause to indict respondents for Falsification of
with the Ombudsmans exercise of its constitutionally Public Documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal
mandated powers.21 The Ombudsmans finding to proceed or Code, we are puzzled why the Ombudsman completely glossed
desist in the prosecution of a criminal case can only be assailed over Ampils charge that respondents committed prohibited acts
through certiorari proceedings before this Court on the ground listed in Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
that such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion Nowhere in the Resolution or in the Order denying
which contemplates an abuse so grave and so patent equivalent reconsideration thereof did the Ombudsman tackle and resolve
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.22 the issue of whether respondents violated the particular
However, on several occasions, we have interfered with provisions of Republic Act No. 3019.
the Ombudsmans discretion in determining probable cause:
(a)To afford protection to the constitutional rights of We are aware that the calibration of evidence to assess
the accused; whether a prima facie graft case exists against respondents is a
(b) When necessary for the orderly administration of question of fact. We have consistently held that the Supreme
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the
(c)When there is a prejudicial question which is sub extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact
judice; nor law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of
(d) When the acts of the officer are without or in jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. In this case, however,
excess of authority; certiorari will lie, given that the Ombudsman made no finding

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

at all on respondents possible liability for violation of Sections
3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
3. Maglalang v PAGCOR, 712
SCRA 472 (2013)
2. A.L. Ang Netwrok, Inc. v It bears stressing that the judicial recourse petitioner
availed of in this case before the CA is a special civil action for
Mondejar, 714 SCRA 514 (2014) certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack
Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an or excess of jurisdiction on the part of PAGCOR, not an appeal.
original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction Suffice it to state that an appeal and a special civil action such
and not of judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore as certiorari under Rule 65 are entirely distinct and separate
incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors from each other. One cannot file petition for certiorari under
tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either Rule 65 of the Rules where appeal is available, even if the
grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether ground availed of is grave abuse of discretion. A special civil
or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously, action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no
whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material appeal, or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
to the controversy. course of law. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a
Considering that small claims cases are exclusively case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that
within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, remedy, as the same should not be a substitute for the lost
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and remedy of appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, certiorari petitions assailing its mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
dispositions should be filed before their corresponding In sum, there being no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
Regional Trial Courts. This petitioner complied with when it adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in view of
instituted its petition for certiorari before the RTC which, as petitioner's allegation that PAGCOR has acted without or in
previously mentioned, has jurisdiction over the same. In fine, excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
the RTC erred in dismissing the said petition on the ground that amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the CA's outright
it was an improper remedy, and, as such, RTC Case No. dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the basis of non-
11-13833 must be reinstated and remanded thereto for its exhaustion of administrative remedies is bereft of any legal
proper disposition. standing and should therefore be set aside.
Finally, as a rule, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
is valid only when the question involved is an error of
jurisdiction, or when there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

court or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions. Hence, the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of
courts exercising certiorari jurisdiction should refrain from their case. While there are recognized exceptions to such strict
reviewing factual assessments of the respondent court or observance, there should be an effort on the part of the party
agency. Occasionally, however, they are constrained to wade invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious
into factual matters when the evidence on record does not explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.
support those factual findings; or when too much is concluded, No convincing justification for the belated filing of the
inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts appearing petition was advanced to warrant the relaxation of the Rules.
on record.Considering the circumstances and since this Court is Notably, the records show that the petition was filed only on
not a trier of facts, remand of this case to the CA for its August 12, 2013, or almost a month late from the due date
judicious resolution is in order. which fell on July 16, 2013. To excuse this grave procedural
lapse will not only be unfair to the other party, but it will also
sanction a seeming rudimentary attempt to circumvent standing
4. People v Castaeda, 712 SCRA rules of procedure. The late filing of the petition was borne out
800 (2013) of the petitioners failure to monitor incoming court processes
At the outset, it should be noted that the petition was that needed to be addressed by the office. Clearly, this is an
filed beyond the reglementary period for the filing under Rule admission of inefficiency
65. The petition itself stated that a copy of the 15 May 2013 Even if the Court decides to suspend the rules and
Resolution was received by the BOC 2 days after its permit this recourse, the end result would remain the same.
promulgation, or on 17 May 2013. RATS was only alerted by While a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be
the developments in the case on 24 July 2013, when Atty. assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Campos received the 15 July 2013 Resolution of the CTA Court, it must be shown that there was grave abuse of
ordering the entry of judgment in the case, considering that no discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a
appeal was taken by any of the parties. According to Atty. denial of due process. A perusal of the challenged resolutions of
Campos, it was only on that occasion when he discovered the the CTA does not disclose any indication of grave abuse of
15 May 2013 Resolution of the CTA. Thus, it was prayed that discretion on its part or denial of due process. The records are
the petition be given due course despite its late filing. replete with indicators that the petitioner actively participated
Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure during the trial and, in fact, presented its offer of evidence and
is explicit in stating that certiorari should be instituted within a opposed the demurrer.
period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is
inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

prohibition which may be directed against acts either judicial or
5. UP Board of Regents v Ligot- ministerial. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court deals with
Teylan, 227 SCRA 342 (1993) the writ of certiorari in relation to any tribunal, board or
The Court finds that the lower court gravely abused its officer exercising judicial functions, while Section 2 of the
discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction of May same Rule treats of the writ of prohibition in relation to
29, 1993. The issuance of the said writ was based on the lower proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person x x
court's finding that the implementation of the disciplinary exercising functions judicial or ministerial. But the petition
sanction of suspension on Nadal "would work injustice to the will be shown upon analysis to be in reality directed against an
petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his course, and unlawful exercise of judicial power.
consequently, in getting a decent and good paying job." Sadly,
such a ruling considers only the situation of Nadal without 7. Province of Leyte v Energy
taking into account the circumstances clearly of his own
making, which led him into such a predicament. More Development Corp, 760 SCRA
importantly, it has completely disregarded the overriding issue
of academic freedom which provides more than ample
149 (2015)
Thus, in petitions for certiorari filed before the CA, the
justification for the imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon
latter acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent
an erring student of an institution of higher learning.
upon: (a) the service of the order or resolution indicating the
From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that the lower
CAs initial action on the petition to the respondent; or (b) the
court should have restrained itself from assuming jurisdiction
voluntary submission of the respondent to the CAs jurisdiction.
over the petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus is never issued in
In the case at bar, records reveal that the CA served its
doubtful cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part
Resolution dated November 4, 2009 indicating its initial action
of the petitioner being required. It is of no avail against an
on the Province of Leytes certiorari petition before it, i.e.,
official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise
directing EDC to file a comment to the petition, among others.
of discretion or judgment.
In fact, the EDC complied with such directive by filing its
comment dated December 14, 2009 to such petition. Hence, the
6. Tuazon v RD of Caloocan, 157 CA had already acquired jurisdiction over both parties to the
instant case.
SCRA 613 (1988) Admittedly, the Rules require that the petition filed
The procedural issue is quite easily disposed of. It is
before the CA should include proof of service to the other party.
true that the extraordinary writ of certiorari may properly issue
Essentially, the purpose of this rule is to apprise such party of
to nullify only judicial or quasi-judicial acts, unlike the writ of
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

the pendency of an action in the CA. Thus, if such party had this Court has consistently reiterated that petitions for certiorari
already been notified of the same and had even participated in and prohibition may be invoked only against tribunals,
the proceedings, such purpose would have already been served. corporations, boards, officers, or persons exercising judicial,
Considering that in this case, the CA had already issued a quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, and not against their
Resolution dated November 4, 2009 directing EDC to file a exercise of legislative or quasi-legislative functions.
comment which the latter had complied with, it cannot be
denied that EDC was already aware of the certiorari S-2: Prohibition
proceedings before the CA and that jurisdiction had been
acquired over its person. The CA, therefore, should have
brushed aside the Province of Leytes procedural mishap and 1. Vivas v Monetary Board of BSP,
resolved the case on the merits in the interest of substantial 703 SCRA 290 (2013)
justice. Granting that a petition for prohibition is allowed, it is
already an ineffective remedy under the circumstances
8. Cawad v Abad, 764 SCRA 1 obtaining. Prohibition or a writ of prohibition is that process
by which a superior court prevents inferior courts, tribunals,
(2015) officers, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction
Certiorari as a special civil action is available only if: with which they have not been vested by law, and confines
(1) it is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising them to the exercise of those powers legally conferred. Its
judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or office is to restrain subordinate courts, tribunals or persons
officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave from exercising jurisdiction over matters not within its
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; cognizance or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it
and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate has cognizance.
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Indeed, prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking that
On the other hand, prohibition is available only if: (1) a judgment be rendered which would direct the defendant to
it is directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or desist from continuing with the commission of an act perceived
person exercising functions, judicial, quasi-judicial, or to be illegal. As a rule, the proper function of a writ of
ministerial; (2) the tribunal, corporation, board or person acted prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) accomplished.
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Based on the foregoing,
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Strict observance of the policy of judicial hierarchy
demands that where the issuance of the extraordinary writs is
3. Tan v CA, 524 SCRA 306 (2007)
Basic is the rule that the writ of prohibition is an
also within the competence of the CA or the RTC, the special
extraordinary remedy to prevent the unlawful and oppressive
action for the obtainment of such writ must be presented to
exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly
either court. As a rule, the Court will not entertain direct resort
administration of justice. It is available only when there is no
to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
appropriate lower courts; or where exceptional and compelling
ordinary course of law, and when the proceedings are done
circumstances, such as cases of national interest and with
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary
discretion. The petitioner must allege in his petition and
remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling
establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not
for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. The judicial policy
speedy or adequate. A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it
must be observed to prevent an imposition on the precious time
will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of
and attention of the Court.
that judgment and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court.
Further, the writ will not lie to correct errors of judgment but
2. Corales v Republic, 703 SCRA only errors of jurisdiction. As long as the tribunal acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its
623 (2013) discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of
Prohibition, being a preventive remedy to seek a
judgment which are correctible by a timely appeal. In
judgment ordering the defendant to desist from continuing with
determining whether a tribunal acted in grave abuse of
the commission of an act perceived to be illegal, may only be
discretion, mere abuse of discretion is not enough. There must
resorted to when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy,
be grave abuse of discretion as where the tribunal exercised its
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this
power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, by reason of passion
case, petitioners insist that it is no longer necessary to exhaust
or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as would
administrative remedies considering that there is no appeal or
amount to an evasion, or virtual refusal to perform the duty
any other plain, speedy and appropriate remedial measure to
enjoined, or to act in contemplation of law.
assail the imposition under the AOM aside from an action for
prohibition.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
S-3: Mandamus be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such
Motion. In the case at bar, Judge Bay did not refuse to act on
the Motion to Withdraw Informations; he had already acted on
1. Hipos SR v Bay, 581 SCRA 674 it by denying the same. Accordingly, mandamus is not available
(2009) anymore. If petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of such Order denying
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, immediately or the Motion to Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of
at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done, petitioners should have been to file a Petition for Certiorari
when the respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of an against the assailed Order of Judge Bay.
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station; or when the respondent excludes 2. Sanchez v Lastimosa, 534 SCRA
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which the latter is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy 84 (2007)
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. As an We have repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions that
extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to the remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the
compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to
discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the require anyone to fulfill a discretionary one. The issuance of the
exercise of discretion by a public officer where the law imposes writ is simply a command to exercise a power already
upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any possessed and to perform a duty already imposed. In Manila
manner in which he is required to act, because it is his International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee
judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. Homeowners Association, Inc., 471 SCRA 358 (2005), we
There is indeed an exception to the rule that matters emphasized, through the erudite and eloquent ponencia of
involving judgment and discretion are beyond the reach of a Justice Dante O. Tinga, that the writ can be issued only when
writ of mandamus, for such writ may be issued to compel the applicants legal right to the performance of a particular act
action in those matters, when refused. However, mandamus is sought to be compelled is clear and complete, one which is
never available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law.
in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action
already taken in the exercise of either. In other words, while a
judge refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw Informations
can be compelled by mandamus to act on the same, he cannot

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Again, We cite David, which summarizes jurisprudence on this
3. Social Justice Society v Atienza, point: By way of summary, the following rules may be culled
517 SCRA 657 (2007) from the cases decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters,
Under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to
petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, sue, provided that the following requirements are met: (1) the
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the cases involve constitutional issues; (2) for taxpayers, there must
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax
duty resulting from an office, trust or station. Mandamus is an measure is unconstitutional; (3) for voters, there must be a
extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the performance, showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in
when refused, of a ministerial duty that is already imposed on question; (4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing
the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which
remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioner should must be settled early; and (5) for legislators, there must be a
have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their
performance of the act and it must be the clear and imperative prerogatives as legislators. We rule that the instant petition
duty of respondent to do the act required to be done. raises issues of transcendental importance, involved as they are
We have ruled in previous cases that when a mandamus with the performance of a constitutional duty, allegedly
proceeding concerns a public right and its object is to compel a neglected, by the COA. Hence, We hold that the petitioner, as a
public duty, the people who are interested in the execution of concerned citizen, has the requisite legal standing to file the
the laws are regarded as the real parties in interest and they instant mandamus petition.
need not show any specific interest. Besides, as residents of The last preliminary issue is concerned with the
Manila, petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of petitions nonobservance of the principle of hierarchy of courts.
the citys ordinances. Respondent never questioned the right of The COA assails the filing of the instant mandamus petition
petitioners to institute this proceeding. directly with this Court, when such petition could have very
well been presented, at the first instance, before the Court of
Appeals or any Regional Trial Court. The COA claims that the
4. Funa v Manila Economic and petitioner was not able to provide compelling reasons to justify
Cultural Oce, 715 SCRA 247 a direct resort to the Supreme Court. In view of the
transcendental importance of the issues raised in the mandamus
(2014) petition, as earlier mentioned, this Court waives this last
The rules regarding legal standing in bringing public procedural issue in favor of a resolution on the merits.
suits, or locus standi, are already well-defined in our case law.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
5. Cudia v Superintendent of PMA, 6. Villanueva v JBC, 755 SCRA 182

751 SCRA 469 (2015) (2015)
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil In this case, it is clear that the JBC does not fall within
Procedure, a petition for mandamus may be filed when any the scope of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully quasi-judicial functions. In the process of selecting and
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically screening applicants, the JBC neither acted in any judicial or
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself any performance
may also be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. However, since the
or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and formulation of guidelines and criteria, including the policy that
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. the petitioner now assails, is necessary and incidental to the
For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must exercise of the JBCs constitutional mandate, a determination
be a ministerial act or duty. An act is ministerial if the act must be made on whether the JBC has acted with grave abuse
should be performed [under] a given state of facts, in a of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal issuing and enforcing the said policy.
authority, without regard to or the exercise of [the tribunal or The remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by the
corporations] own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety petitioner in assailing JBCs policy. The petitioner insisted that
of the act done. The tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or mandamus is proper because his right was violated when he
person must have no choice but to perform the act specifically was not included in the list of candidates for the RTC courts he
enjoined by law. This is opposed to a discretionary act whereby applied for. He said that his noninclusion in the list of
the officer has the choice to decide how or when to perform the candidates for these stations has caused him direct injury. It is
duty. essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that the
Certainly, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. applicant should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded
It cannot be availed against an official or government agency and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform
whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. For the act required. The petitioner bears the burden to show that
a writ to issue, petitioners should have a clear legal right to the there is such a clear legal right to the performance of the act,
thing demanded, and there should be an imperative duty on the and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of the
part of respondents to perform the act sought to be mandated. respondent to perform the act. The remedy of mandamus, as an
extraordinary writ, lies only to compel an officer to perform a
ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. Clearly, the use of
discretion and the performance of a ministerial act are mutually
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

exclusive. The writ of mandamus does not issue to control or over the JBC and in the exercise of its expanded judicial power,
review the exercise of discretion or to compel a course of the Court assumes jurisdiction over the present petition. But in
conduct, which, it quickly seems to us, was what the petitioner any event, even if the Court will set aside procedural
would have the JBC do in his favor. The function of the JBC to infirmities, the instant petition should still be dismissed.
select and recommend nominees for vacant judicial positions is
discretionary, not ministerial. More so, the petitioner cannot R-66: Quo Warranto
claim any legal right to be included in the list of nominees for
judicial vacancies. Possession of the constitutional and
statutory qualifications for appointment to the judiciary may 1. Mendoza v Allas, 302 SCRA 623
not be used to legally demand that ones name be included in (1999)
the list of candidates for a judicial vacancy. Ones inclusion in The instant petition arose from a special civil action for
the list of the candidates depends on the discretion of the JBC. quo warranto under Rule 66 of the Revised Rules of Court. Quo
An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a warranto is a demand made by the State upon some individual
person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other or corporation to show by what right they exercise some
written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, franchise or privilege appertaining to the state which, according
an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief to the Constitution and laws of the land, they cannot legally
sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and exercise except by virtue of a grant or authority from the state.
determination of the validity of the written instrument and the In other words, a petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to
judicial declaration of the parties rights or duties thereunder. determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a
[T]he purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to
statute, deed, contract, etc., for their guidance in its enjoy the privilege. The action may be commenced for the
enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising from Government by the Solicitor General or the fiscal against
its alleged breach. individuals who usurp a public office, against a public officer
The instant petition must necessarily fail because this whose acts constitute a ground for the forfeiture of his office,
Court does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for and against an association which acts as a corporation without
declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved. being legally incorporated. The action may also be instituted by
The special civil action of declaratory relief falls under the an individual in his own name who claims to be entitled to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate RTC pursuant to public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or
Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. exercised by another.
No. 7691. Therefore, by virtue of the Courts supervisory duty
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Where the action is filed by a private person, he must
prove that he is entitled to the controverted position, otherwise
2. Calleja v Panday, 483 SCRA 680
respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the (2006)
office. If the court finds for the respondent, the judgment It should be noted that allegations in a complaint for
should simply state that the respondent is entitled to the office. quo warranto that certain persons usurped the offices, powers
x x x If it is found that the respondent or defendant is usurping and functions of duly elected members of the board, trustees
or intruding into the office, or unlawfully holding the same, the and/or officers make out a case for an intra-corporate
court may order: 1. The ouster and exclusion of the defendant controversy. Prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8799, the
from office; 2. The recovery of costs by plaintiff or relator; 3. Court, adopting Justice Jose Y. Ferias view, declared in
The determination of the respective rights in and to the office, Unilongo v. Court of Appeals that Section 1, Rule 66 of the
position, right, privilege or franchise of all the parties to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to actions of quo
action as justice requires. warranto against persons who usurp a public office, position or
Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer in regard franchise; public officers who forfeit their office; and
to a public right binds his successor in office. This rule, associations which act as corporations without being legally
however, is not applicable in quo warranto cases. A judgment incorporated, while [a]ctions of quo warranto against
in quo warranto does not bind the respondents successor in corporations, or against persons who usurp an office in a
office, even though such successor may trace his title to the corporation, fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and
same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of quo Exchange Commission and are governed by its rules. (P.D. No.
warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but 902-A as amended). However, R.A. No. 8799 was passed and
always against the personto determine whether he is Section 5.2 thereof provides as follows: 5.2. The Commissions
constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in, or jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of
exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim. In Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the
the case at bar, the petition for quo warranto was filed by Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial
petitioner solely against respondent Allas. What was threshed Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its
out before the trial court was the qualification and right of authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that
petitioner to the contested position as against respondent Ray shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. x x x Therefore,
Allas, not against Godofredo Olores. The Court of Appeals did actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp an office in
not err in denying execution of the trial courts decision. a corporation, which were formerly cognizable by the
Securities and Exchange Commission under PD 902-A, have
been transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. But, this
does not change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

Procedure does not apply to quo warranto cases against persons the Court held that the trial court, having no jurisdiction over
who usurp an office in a private corporation. the subject matter of the complaint, should dismiss the same so
As explained in the Unilongo case, Section 1(a) of Rule the issues therein could be expeditiously heard and resolved by
66 of the present Rules no longer contains the phrase or an the tribunal which was clothed with jurisdiction.
office in a corporation created by authority of law which was
found in the old Rules. Clearly, the present Rule 66 only applies
to actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp a public
3. Lokin JR v COMELEC, 621
office, position or franchise; public officers who forfeit their SCRA 385 (2010)
office; and associations which act as corporations without being An election protest proposes to oust the winning
legally incorporated despite the passage of R.A. No. 8799. It is, candidate from office. It is strictly a contest between the
therefore, The Interim Rules of Procedure Governing defeated and the winning candidates, based on the grounds of
IntraCorporate Controversies Under R.A. No. 8799 (hereinafter electoral frauds and irregularities, to determine who between
the Interim Rules) which applies to the petition for quo them has actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast
warranto filed by respondents before the trial court since what and is entitled to hold the office. It can only be filed by a
is being questioned is the authority of herein petitioners to candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has
assume the office and act as the board of directors and officers been voted for in the preceding elections. A special civil action
of St. John Hospital, Incorporated. for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the State,
The RTC-Br. 58 in San Jose, Camarines Sur is bereft of or of ineligibility of the winning candidate. The objective of the
jurisdiction over respondents petition for quo warranto. Based action is to unseat the ineligible person from the office, but not
on the allegations in the petition, the case was clearly one to install the petitioner in his place. Any voter may initiate the
involving an intra-corporate dispute. The trial court should have action, which is, strictly speaking, not a contest where the
been aware that under R.A. No. 8799 and the aforementioned parties strive for supremacy because the petitioner will not be
administrative issuances of this Court, RTC-Br. 58 was never seated even if the respondent may be unseated.
designated as a Special Commercial Court; hence, it was never The controversy involving Lokin is neither an election
vested with jurisdiction over cases previously cognizable by the protest nor an action for quo warranto, for it concerns a very
SEC. Such being the case, RTC-Br. 58 did not have the peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be seated as the
requisite authority or power to order the transfer of the case to second nominee of CIBAC. Although an election protest may
another branch of the Regional Trial Court. The only action that properly be available to one party-list organization seeking to
RTC-Br. 58 could take on the matter was to dismiss the petition unseat another party-list organization to determine which
for lack of jurisdiction. In HLC Construction and Development between the defeated and the winning party-list organizations
Corp. v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association, actually obtained the majority of the legal votes, Lokins case is
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

not one in which a nominee of a particular party-list elections, while a quo warranto is filed after and may still be
organization thereby wants to unseat another nominee of the filed even if a CoC cancellation case was not filed before
same party-list organization. Neither does an action for quo elections.
warranto lie, considering that the case does not involve the
ineligibility and disloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales to the Republic of
the Philippines, or some other cause of disqualification for her.
5. De Castro v Carlos, 696 SCRA
Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for 400 (2013)
certiorari against the COMELEC to seek the review of the A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to
September 14, 2007 resolution of the COMELEC in accordance determine the right of a person to use or exercise a franchise or
with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, an office and to oust the holder from the enjoyment, thereof, if
notwithstanding the oath and assumption of office by Cruz- the claim is not well-founded, or if his right to enjoy the
Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now implemented by privilege has been forfeited. Where the action is filed by a
Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides private person, in his own name, he must prove that he is
for the review of the judgments, final orders or resolutions of entitled to the controverted position, otherwise, respondent has
the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. As Rule 64 a right to the undisturbed possession of the office.
states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari in
accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the Supreme Court
within a limited period of 30 days. Undoubtedly, the Court has
6. Velasco v Belmonte, 780 SCRA
original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokins petitions for 81 (2016)
certiorari and for mandamus against the COMELEC. A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to
determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a
4. Aratea v COMELEC, 683 SCRA franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if
his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to
105 (2012) enjoy the privilege. Where the action is filed by a private
In a quo warranto petition, the grounds to oust an person, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted
elected official from his office are ineligibility and disloyalty to position; otherwise, respondent has a right to the undisturbed
the Republic of the Philippines. This is provided under Section possession of the office. In this case, given the present factual
253 of the OEC and governed by the Rules of Court as to milieu, i.e., (i) the final and executory resolutions of this Court
procedures. While quo warranto and cancellation share the in G.R. No. 207264; (ii) the final and executory resolutions of
same ineligibility grounds, they differ as to the time these the COMELEC in SPA No. 13-053 (DC) cancelling Reyess
grounds are cited. A cancellation case is brought before the Certificate of Candidacy; and (iii) the final and executory
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

resolution of the COMELEC in SPC No. 13-010 declaring null Expropriation proceedings consists of two stages: first,
and void the proclamation of Reyes and proclaiming Velasco as condemnation of the property after it is determined that its
the winning candidate for the position of Representative for the acquisition will be for a public purpose or public use and,
Lone District of the Province of Marinduque it cannot be second, the determination of just compensation to be paid for
claimed that the present petition is one for the determination of the taking of private property to be made by the court with the
the right of Velasco to the claimed office. To be sure, what is assistance of not more than three commissioners.
prayed for herein is merely the enforcement of clear legal
duties and not to try disputed title. That the respondents make it Facts: The City of Manila has filed a complaint for
appear so will not convert this petition to one for quo warranto. expropriation on certain plots of land in the First District of
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, Tondo before the RTC on the premise of using such properties
provides that any person may file a verified petition for to give lands to the landless, pursuant to the Land Use
mandamus when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or Development Program of the City of Manila.
person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the Respondents and alleged landowners of the properties filed for
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, expropriation alleged among others that their land should not be
or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and covered by the expropriation proceedings because their plot of
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, land, 1-C if distributed among the co-owners would result to
and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the plots of lands that are inhabitable; that their plot of land is
ordinary course of law. A petition for mandamus will prosper exempt by expropriation under RA 7279; and that the trial
if it is shown that the subject thereof is a ministerial act or duty, court should have not ordered the writ of possession and
and not purely discretionary on the part of the board, officer or petitioners entry into the property.
person, and that the petitioner has a well-defined, clear and
certain right to warrant the grant thereof. Issue: WON the issuance of the writ of possession and
petitioners entry into the property after filing the proper
R -67: Expropriation complaint and deposits made is not proper when there are still
questions on the validity of the complaints.
1. City of Manila v Serrano, 359 Held: Yes. A writ of execution may be issued by a court upon
SCRA 231 , 20 JUNE 2001 the filing by the government of a complaint for expropriation
Doctrine/s: Upon compliance with the requirements for sufficient in form and substance and upon deposit made by the
expropriation, issuance of writ of possession becomes government of the amount equivalent to the assessed value of
ministerial. the property subject to expropriation. Upon compliance with
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

these requirements, the issuance of the writ of possession Ordinarily, the dismissal of the expropriation case
becomes ministerial. In this case, these requirements were restores possession of the expropriated land to the landowner.
satisfied and, therefore, it became the ministerial duty of the However, when possession of the land cannot be turned over to
trial court to issue the writ of possession. the landowner because it is neither convenient nor feasible
anymore to do so, the only remedy available to the aggrieved
As to the question of compliance of the other section of landowner is to demand payment of just compensation.
RA 7279 it is held that Whether petitioner has complied with
these provisions requires the presentation of evidence, although Facts: Antonio Pobre has a 141,300 square meter land in Albay
in its amended complaint petitioner did allege that it had which he turned into a resort-subdivision and were given the
complied with the requirements. The determination of this necessary permits and titles to said land. A 68,969 square meter
question must await the hearing on the complaint for plot of land remained with Pobre when the NPC decided to
expropriation, particularly the hearing for the condemnation of lease 11 plot of lands with Pobre for a geothermal power plant.
the properties sought to be expropriated. Expropriation Later, 2 expropriation proceedings were commenced by
proceedings consists of two stages: first, condemnation of the the NPC against the plots of lands of Pobre. The first, in 1977,
property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a Pobre did not opposed but asked that NPC to stop or limit the
public purpose or public use and, second, the determination of waste being dumped on the property outside the leased or
just compensation to be paid for the taking of private property expropriated lands. This request was to no avail. The 2nd
to be made by the court with the assistance of not more than expropriation in 1 September 1979, and the NPC was given the
three commissioners. writ of possession after complying with the proper deposits.
This was later on opposed by Pobre and prayed for damages for
the permanent damages done to his land, on 10 December
2. NAPOCOR v CA, GR No. 106804, 1984.
12 August 2004 On 2 January 1985, the NPC filed for the dismissal of
Doctine/s: The Court pointed out that a government agency its 2nd expropriation complaint against the land of Pobre and
could not initiate expropriation proceedings, seize a persons was granted but the trial for the damages prayed for by Pobre
property, and then just decide not to proceed with the still continued. This is then opposed by NPC on the ground that
expropriation. It cannot avail of the automatic dismissal right should have been dismissed together with their expropriation
given to plaintiffs in ordinary civil actions because complaint.
expropriation as a manifestation of the States power of
Eminent Domain are still subject to limitations. Issue: WON the complaint for damages filed for by an
aggrieved land owner against the initiator of the expropriation
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

proceedings be also automatically dismissed when the dismissal of the action should not foreclose the defendants right
expropriation proceedings were withdrawn by the complainant. to have his damages ascertained either in the same case or in a
separate action.
WON the aggrieved landowner may be still given just
compensation when the land being expropriated has been Yes. Ordinarily, the dismissal of the expropriation case
restored to him. restores possession of the expropriated land to the landowner.
However, when possession of the land cannot be turned over to
Held: No. In expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the the landowner because it is neither convenient nor feasible
plaintiffs matter of right to dismiss the complaint precisely anymore to do so, the only remedy available to the aggrieved
because the landowner may have already suffered damages at landowner is to demand payment of just compensation.
the start of the taking. The plaintiffs right in expropriation cases In this case, we agree with the trial and appellate courts that it
to dismiss the complaint has always been subject to court is no longer possible and practical to restore possession of the
approval and to certain conditions. The exceptional right that Property to Pobre. The Property is no longer habitable as a
Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Court conferred on the resort-subdivision. The Property is worthless to Pobre and is
plaintiff must be understood to have applied only to other civil now useful only to NPC. Pobre has completely lost the Property
actions. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure abrogated this as if NPC had physically taken over the entire 68,969 square-
exceptional right. meter Property.
The power of eminent domain is subject to limitations. A We have held that the usual procedure in the
landowner cannot be deprived of his right over his land until determination of just compensation is waived when the
expropriation proceedings are instituted in court. The court government itself initially violates procedural requirements.
must then see to it that the taking is for public use, there is NPCs taking of Pobres property without filing the appropriate
payment of just compensation and there is due process of law. expropriation proceedings and paying him just compensation is
If the propriety of the taking of private property through a transgression of procedural due process.
eminent domain is subject to judicial scrutiny, the dismissal of From the beginning, NPC should have initiated
the complaint must also pass judicial inquiry because private expropriation proceedings for Pobres entire 68,969 square-
rights may have suffered in the meantime. The dismissal, meter Property. NPC did not. Instead, NPC embarked on a
withdrawal or abandonment of the expropriation case cannot be piecemeal expropriation of the Property. Even as the second
made arbitrarily. If it appears to the court that the expropriation expropriation case was still pending, NPC was well aware of
is not for some public use, then it becomes the duty of the court the damage that it had unleashed on the entire Property. NPC,
to dismiss the action. However, when the defendant claims that however, remained impervious to Pobres repeated demands for
his land suffered damage because of the expropriation, the NPC to abate the damage that it had wrought on his Property.
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

NPC moved for the dismissal of the complaint for the second and that the writ will not issue in cases where the right is
expropriation on the ground that it had found an alternative site doubtful.
and there was stiff opposition from Pobre. NPC abandoned the The rights or privileges of an original proponent of an
second expropriation case five years after it had already unsolicited proposal for an infrastructure project are never
deprived the Property virtually of all its value. NPC has meant to be absolute; An unsolicited proposal is subject to
demonstrated its utter disregard for Pobres property rights. evaluation, after which, the government agency or local
Thus, it would now be futile to compel NPC to institute government unit (LGU) concerned may accept or reject the
expropriation proceedings to determine the just compensation proposal outright.
for Pobres 68,969 square-meter Property. Pobre must be spared Asias Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) does not
any further delay in his pursuit to receive just compensation possess any legal personality to interfere with or restrain the
from NPC. activities of the Government as regards Ninoy Aquino
International Airport International Passenger Terminal III
(NAIA IPT III).
3. Republic v Andaya, 524 SCRA It must be emphasized that under Sections 2 and 3, Rule
671, 15 JUNE 2007 65 of the revised Rules of Civil Procedure, petitions for
Taking, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, prohibition and mandamus, such as in the instant case, can only
occurs not only when the government actually deprives or be resorted to when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its remedy for the party in the ordinary course of law.
ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or As the revised Rules now stand, a petition for certiorari
material impairment of the value of his property. may be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order
or resolution sought to be assailed. Reasonable time for filing a
Andaya is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must petition for mandamus should likewise be for the same period.
be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the The filing by the AEDC of its petition for mandamus 20 months
land. after its supposed right to the project arose is evidently beyond
reasonable time and negates any claim that the said petition for
the extraordinary writ was the most expeditious and speedy
4. Asias Emerging Dragon v remedy available to AEDC.
DOTC, 552 SCRA 59 (2008) The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of
Only specific legal rights are enforceable by mandamus, the State to condemn private property for public use upon
that the right sought to be enforced must be certain and clear, payment of just compensation. Thus, for expropriation to be
valid, the following requirements must be met: (1) the taking
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

must be for public use and (2) just compensation must be paid
to the owner of the private property.
5. Abad v Fil-homes Realty, 636
To be valid, the taking must be for public use. The SCRA 247 (2010)
meaning of the term public use has evolved over time in In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the
response to changing public needs and exigencies. Public use State expropriates private property for public use upon payment
which was traditionally understood as strictly limited to actual of just compensation. A socialized housing project falls within
use by the public has already been abandoned. Public use the ambit of public use as it is in furtherance of the
has now been held to be synonymous with public interest, constitutional provisions on social justice.
public benefit, public welfare and public convenience. It When the Government seeks to acquire, through
includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or purchase or expropriation proceedings, lands belonging to any
advantage. Whatever may be beneficially employed for the estate or chaplaincy (cappellania), any action for ejectment
general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. against the tenants occupying said lands shall be automatically
The State, through expropriation proceedings, may take suspended, for such time as may be required by the
private property even if, admittedly, it will transfer this property expropriation proceedings or the necessary negotiations for the
again to another private party as long as there is a public purchase of the lands, in which latter case, the period of
purpose to the taking. In 2005, the United States Supreme suspension shall not exceed one year. To avail himself of the
Court held in Kelo v. New London that promotion of economic benefits of the suspension, the tenants shall pay to the
development qualifies as a public use even if private parties are landowner the current rents as they become due or deposit the
benefited. same with the court where the action for ejectment has been
As we stated in Agan (which we likewise recognized in instituted.
Gingoyon), compensation must conform not only with law but The exercise of expropriation by a local government
equity as well. This means that the expropriation court is not unit is covered by Section 19 of the Local Government Code
confined to strictly following the formula spelled out in the law (LGC).A local government unit may, through its chief
and instead is given latitude in its determination of the executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the
compensation due to PIATCO. After all, the determination of power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare
just compensation is a judicial function. for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of
just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the
power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid
and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and
such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

government unit may immediately take possession of the In the present case, the mere issuance of a writ of
property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and possession in the expropriation proceedings did not transfer
upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen ownership of the lots in favor of the City. Such issuance was
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on only the first stage in expropriation. There is even no evidence
the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: that judicial deposit had been made in favor of respondents
Provided, finally, That the amount to be paid for the prior to the Citys possession of the lots, contrary to Section 19
expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, of the LGC.
based on the fair market value of the property.
Expropriation of lands consists of two stages: The first
is concerned with the determination of the authority of the
6. NPC v YCLA Sugar
plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the Development Corporation, GR
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in
the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action,
No. 193936, 11 December 2013
In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is
of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right
defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use
from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the
or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just
takers gain, but the owners loss. The word "just" is used to
compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to
complaint x x x.
convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for
The second phase of the eminent domain action is
the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and
concerned with the determination by the court of the just
ample. The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is
compensation for the property sought to be taken. This is done
considered to be a sum equivalent to the market value of the
by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3)
property, broadly defined as the price fixed by the seller in open
commissioners x x x. It is only upon the completion of these
market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and
two stages that expropriation is said to have been completed.
competition; or the fair value of the property; as between one
The process is not complete until payment of just
who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time of
compensation. Accordingly, the issuance of the writ of
the actual taking by the government.
possession in this case does not write finis to the expropriation
It is settled that the amount of just compensation is to be
proceedings. To effectuate the transfer of ownership, it is
ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides
necessary for the NPC to pay the property owners the final just
with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
compensation.
Where the institution of the action precedes entry into the

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

property, the amount of just compensation is to be ascertained paragraph N of the real estate mortgage will not invalidate the
as of the time of the filing of the complaint. extrajudicial foreclosure sale. We rule that when respondent
The Court has consistently ruled that just compensation failed to send the notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale to
cannot be arrived at arbitrarily; several factors must be Ramirez, it committed a contractual breach of said paragraph N
considered such as, but not limited to, acquisition cost, current sufficient to render the extrajudicial foreclosure sale on
market value of like properties, tax value of the condemned September 8, 1994 null and void. Thus, we reverse the assailed
property, its size, shape, and location. But before these factors CA Decision and Resolution.
can be considered and given weight, the same must be
supported by documentary evidence.16 The amount of just
compensation could only be attained by using reliable and
2. Marquez v Alindog, 714 SCRA
actual data as bases for fixing the value of the condemned 460 (2014)
property. A commissioners report of land prices which is not It is an established rule that the purchaser in an
based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the possession of the
should be disregarded by the court. property and can demand that he be placed in possession of the
same either during (with bond) or after the expiration (without
R-68 Foreclosure of Real Estate bond) of the redemption period therefor. To this end, the Court,
in China Banking Corp. v. Sps. Lozada (China Banking Corp.),
Mortgage
557 SCRA 177 (2008), citing several cases on the matter,
explained that a writ of possession duly applied for by said
1. Ramirez v Manila Banking purchaser should issue as a matter of course, and thus, merely
constitutes a ministerial duty on the part of the court.
Corp., GR No. 198800, 11 In the case of Spouses Espiridion v. Court of Appeals,
December 2013 490 SCRA 273 (2006), the Court expounded on the ministerial
We have consistently held that unless the parties nature of the foregoing issuance as follows: The issuance of a
stipulate, personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a
foreclosure proceedings is not necessary because Section 3 of ministerial act. After the consolidation of title in the buyers
Act No. 3135 only requires the posting of the notice of sale in name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the
three public places and the publication of that notice in a writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a
newspaper of general circulation. purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is merely a
The CA erred in ruling that absence of notice of ministerial function. The trial court has no discretion on this
extrajudicial foreclosure sale to Ramirez as required by
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

matter. Hence, any talk of discretion in connection with such
issuance is misplaced.
3. LZK Holdings v Planters
The ministerial issuance of a writ of possession in favor Development Bank, 714 SCRA
of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, however,
admits of an exception. Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of
294 (2014)
LZK Holdings can no longer question Planter Banks
Court (Rules) pertinently provides that the possession of the
right to a writ of possession over the subject property because
mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in an
the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation
extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding
of such particular issue. Moreover, the authority relied upon by
the property by adverse title or right. In the recent case of Rural
LZK Holdings defeats rather than support its position. The
Bank of Sta. Barbara (Iloilo), Inc. v. Centeno, 693 SCRA 110
ruling in PNB echoes the very same rationale of the judgment
(2013), citing the case of China Banking Corp., the Court
in G.R. No. 167998 that is the purchaser in foreclosure sale
illumined that the phrase a third party who is actually holding
may take possession of the property even before the expiration
the property adversely to the judgment obligor contemplates a
of the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion for such
situation in which a third party holds the property by adverse
purpose and upon posting of the necessary bond.
title or right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary.
No hearing is required prior to the issuance of a writ of
The co-owner, agricultural tenant, and usufructuary possess the
possession. This is clear from the following disquisitions in
property in their own right, and they are not merely the
Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils., 616 SCRA 353
successor or transferee of the right of possession of another co-
(2010), which reiterates the settled rules on writs of possession,
owner or the owner of the property. Notably, the property
to wit: The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is
should not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by
ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding
the third party adversely to the judgment obligor. In other
brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by
words, as mentioned in Villanueva v. Cherdan Lending
the court to any person adverse of interest. It is a proceeding
Investors Corporation, 633 SCRA 173 (2010), the third
wherein relief is granted without giving the person against
person must therefore claim a right superior to that of the
whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard. By its
original mortgagor.
very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of
possession is a non-litigious proceeding. It is a judicial
proceeding for the enforcement of ones right of possession as
purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an ordinary suit filed in
court, by which one party sues another for the enforcement of a

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

wrong or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a subject property is meritorious. In Ponce de Leon v.
wrong. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, 146 SCRA 862 (1970),
this Court had occasion to rule that Section 78 of the General
Banking Act had the effect of amending Section 6 of Act No.
4. Goldenway Merchandising 3135 insofar as the redemption price is concerned when the
Corp. v Equitable PCI Bank, 693 mortgagee is a bank, as in this case, or a banking or credit
institution. The apparent conflict between the provisions of Act
SCRA 439 (2013) No. 3135 and the General Banking Act was, therefore, resolved
The law governing cases of extrajudicial foreclosure of in favor of the latter, being a special and subsequent legislation.
mortgage is Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. This pronouncement was reiterated in the case of Sy v. Court of
The one-year period of redemption is counted from the Appeals, 172 SCRA 125 (1989), where we held that the amount
date of the registration of the certificate of sale. In this case, the at which the foreclosed property is redeemable is the amount
parties provided in their real estate mortgage contract that upon due under the mortgage deed, or the outstanding obligation of
petitioners default and the latters entire loan obligation the mortgagor plus interest and expenses in accordance with
becoming due, respondent may immediately foreclose the Section 78 of the General Banking Act. It was, therefore,
mortgage judicially in accordance with the Rules of Court, or manifest error on the part of the Court of Appeals to apply in
extrajudicially in accordance with Act No. 3135, as amended. the case at bar the provisions of Section 30, Rule 39 of the
The right of redemption being statutory, it must be Rules of Court in fixing the redemption price of the subject
exercised in the manner prescribed by the statute, and within foreclosed property.
the prescribed time limit, to make it effective. In BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Veloso, 436 SCRA
1 (2004), the Court had occasion to state the requirements for
5. Allied Bank v Mateo 588 SCRA the redemption of the foreclosed property. The Court held: The
general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a
538 (2009) person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. The
Considering that petitioner is a banking institution, the statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and
determination of the redemption price for the foreclosed simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise
property should be governed by Section 78 of the General of the right to repurchase. In several cases decided by the Court
Banking Act. Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of where the right to repurchase was held to have been properly
Appeals, 359 SCRA 480 (2001), is instructive: x x x exercised, there was an unequivocal tender of payment for the
Petitioners contention that Section 78 of the General Banking full amount of the repurchase price. Otherwise, the offer to
Act governs the determination of the redemption price of the redeem is ineffectual. Bona fide redemption necessarily implies
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

a reasonable and valid tender of the entire repurchase price,
otherwise the rule on the redemption period fixed by law can
7. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.
easily be circumvented. v CPR Promotions and
It is not difficult to understand why the redemption
price should either be fully offered in legal tender or else
Marketing Inc, 760 SCRA 59
validly consigned in court. Only by such means can the auction (2015)
winner be assured that the offer to redeem is being made in We have already ruled in several cases that in
good faith. Thus, the Court finds that respondents action for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, where the proceeds of the
legal redemption was not filed in good faith. It was not filed for sale are insufficient to pay the debt, the mortgagee has the right
the purpose of determining the correct redemption price, but to to recover the deficiency from the debtor. In ascertaining the
stretch the redemption period indefinitely. deficit amount, Sec. 4, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court is
elucidating, to wit: Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale.
6. Robles v Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75 The amount realized from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged
property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be paid
(2014) to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when there shall
The registration of the sale is required only in be any balance or residue, after paying off the mortgage debt
extrajudicial foreclosure sale because the date of the due, the same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the order
registration is the reckoning point for the exercise of the right of their priority, to be ascertained by the court, or if there be no
of redemption. In contrast, the registration of the sale is such encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue after
superfluous in judicial foreclosure because only the equity of payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly authorized
redemption is granted to the mortgagor, except in mortgages agent, or to the person entitled to it. (emphasis added) Verily,
with banking institutions. The equity of redemption is the right there can only be a deficit when the proceeds of the sale is not
of the defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage and sufficient to cover (1) the costs of foreclosure proceedings; and
retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt (2) the amount due to the creditor, inclusive of interests and
within the 90-day period after the judgment becomes final, or penalties, if any, at the time of foreclosure.
even after the foreclosure sale but prior to the confirmation of
the sale.

REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea
R-69: Partition partition is to put an end to co-ownership, an objective which

negates petitioners claims in the present case.
1. Vda. de Figuracin v Figuracion

3. Feliciano v Canosa, 629 SCRA
- Gerilla, 690 SCRA 495 (2013)
The first stage in an action for partition is the settlement 550 (2010)
of the issue of ownership. Such an action will not lie if the We affirm the ruling of the CA. As the records show, the
claimant has no rightful interest in the subject property. In fact, heirs of Doroteo and Esteban did not participate in the
the parties filing the action are required by the Rules of Court extrajudicial partition executed by Salina with the other
to set forth in their complaint the nature and the extent of their compulsory heirs, Leona, Maria and Pedro. Undeniably, the
title to the property. It would be premature to effect a partition said deed was fraudulently obtained as it deprived the known
until and unless the question of ownership is first definitely heirs of Doroteo and Esteban of their shares in the estate. A
resolved. deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some
of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same,
is fraudulent and vicious. Hence, an action to set it aside on the
2. Balus v Balus, 610 SCRA 178 ground of fraud could be instituted. Such action for the
(2010) annulment of the said partition, however, must be brought
Petitioners contention that he and his siblings intended within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud.
to continue their supposed co-ownership of the subject property The applicable prescriptive period to institute the action
contradicts the provisions of the subject Extrajudicial to annul the deed of extrajudicial settlement was four (4) years
Settlement where they clearly manifested their intention of counted from the discovery of fraud as held in the case of
having the subject property divided or partitioned by assigning Gerona v. De Guzman, 11 SCRA 153 (1964). However, the
to each of the petitioner and respondents a specific 1/3 portion records show that petitioners complaint was filed only on
of the same. Partition calls for the segregation and conveyance October 18, 1993, or almost sixteen (16) years after Jacinto
of a determinate portion of the property owned in common. It Feliciano was issued Free Patent No. (IV-4) 012293 on
seeks a severance of the individual interests of each co-owner, November 28, 1977, and almost fourteen (14) years from the
vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific property and time Pedro Canoza was issued OCT No. P-364 on November
giving each one a right to enjoy his estate without supervision 28, 1979. As petitioners are deemed to have obtained
or interference from the other. In other words, the purpose of constructive notice of the fraud upon the registration of the Free
Patent, they clearly failed to institute the present civil action
within the allowable period. The same result obtains even if
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

their complaint is treated as one (1) essentially for defendant of the termination of the latters right of possession;
reconveyance as more than ten (10) years have passed since (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
petitioners cause of action accrued. The CA committed no property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof;
error in dismissing their complaint. and (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to
vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment.
4. Mangahas v Brobio, 634 SCRA This Court stresses that to give the court jurisdiction to
351 (2010) effect the ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the land, it
The foregoing discussion renders the final issue is necessary that the complaint must sufficiently show such a
insignificant. Be that as it may, we would like to state that the statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class
remedy suggested by the CA is not the proper one under the of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, without resort
circumstances. An action for partition implies that the property to parol testimony, as these proceedings are summary in nature.
is still owned in common. Considering that the heirs had In short, the jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the
already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and waived complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive
their shares in favor of respondent, the properties are no longer of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state
under a state of co-ownership; there is nothing more to be how entry was effected or how and when dispossession started,
partitioned, as ownership had already been merged in one the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or accion
person. reivindicatoria.
R-70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful 2. Alconera v Pallanan, 714 SCRA

Detainer 204 (2014)
It must be borne in mind that the case at bar traces its
1. Suarez v Emboy JR, 718 SCRA roots to an unlawful detainer case wherein the MTCC ruled
against Rafols, complainants client. In ejectment cases, the
677 (2014) rulings of the courts are immediately executory and can only be
In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following key stayed via compliance with Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of
jurisdictional facts must be alleged and sufficiently established: Court, to wit: Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment;
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by how to stay same.If judgment is rendered against the
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion,
such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the
Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to appeal.
pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of
the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency
of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of
3. Teodoro v Espino, 715 SCRA
rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as 435 (2014)
determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the The ground rules in forcible entry cases: (1) One
absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial employs force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to
Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the deprive another of physical possession of real property. (2)
premises for the preceding month or period at the rate Plaintiff (Teodoro Teodoro) must allege and prove prior
determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the physical possession of the property in litigation until deprived
tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas thereof by the defendant (herein respondents). This requirement
bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the implies that the possession of the disputed land by the latter
other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which was unlawful from the beginning. (3) The sole question for
the action is appealed. resolution hinges on the physical or material possession
Clearly then under said Sec. 19, Rule 70, a judgment on (possession de facto) of the property. Neither a claim of
a forcible entry and detainer action is made immediately juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of
executory to avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor. The ownership by the defendant can, at the outset, preclude the
defendant in such a case may have such judgment stayed only court from taking cognizance of the case. (4) Ejectment cases
by (a) perfecting an appeal; (b) filing a supersedeas bond; and proceed independently of any claim of ownership, and the
(c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or reasonable plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and
compensation for the use and occupancy of the property during undue deprivation thereof.
the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the defendant to
comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright
execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect
4. Ferrer v Rabaca, 632 SCRA 204
being ministerial and imperative. Hence, if the defendant- (2010)
appellant has perfected the appeal but failed to file a Indeed, respondent Judge should have granted the
supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of the judgment plaintiffs motion for immediate execution considering that the
would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a defendant did not file the sufficient supersedeas bond despite
supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if having appealed. Granting the plaintiffs motion for immediate
the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas execution became his ministerial duty upon the defendants
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

failure to file the sufficient supersedeas bond. Section 19, Rule stay the execution. Secondly, he could not also credibly justify
70, of the Rules of Court clearly imposes such duty, viz.: his omission to act according to the provision by claiming good
Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay faith or honest belief, or by asserting lack of malice or bad
same.If judgment is rendered against the defendant, faith. A rule as clear and explicit as Section 19 could not be
execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an misread or misapplied, but should be implemented without
appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay evasion or hesitation. To us, good faith, or honest belief, or lack
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by of malice, or lack of bad faith justifies a non-compliance only
the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the when there is an as-yet unsettled doubt on the meaning or
plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down applicability of a rule or legal provision. It was not so herein.
to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, And, thirdly, given that his court, being vested with original
during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the exclusive jurisdiction over cases similar to Civil Case No.
appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time 176394-CV, had been assigned many such cases, he was not a
under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of trial judge bereft of the pertinent prior experience to act on the
the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he issue of immediate execution, a fact that further exposed the
shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value abject inanity of his excuses.
of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding
month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the
lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding
5. CGR Corp., v Treyes, 522 SCRA
month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by 765 (2007)
the Municipal Trial Court, with the other papers, to the clerk of The 2006 case of Dumo v. Espinas, 480 SCRA 56
the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed. x x x (2006), reiterates the long-established rule that the only form of
Respondent Judges excuse, that he had lost jurisdiction damages that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry is
over the case by virtue of the defendants appeal, was the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use
unacceptable in light of the clear and explicit text of the and occupation of the property: Lastly, we agree with the CA
aforequoted rule. To begin with, the perfection of the appeal by and the RTC that there is no basis for the MTC to award actual,
the defendant did not forbid the favorable action on the moral, and exemplary damages in view of the settled rule that
plaintiffs motion for immediate execution. The execution of the in ejectment cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the
decision could not be stayed by the mere taking of the appeal. fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and
Only the filing of the sufficient supersedeas bond and the occupation of the property. Considering that the only issue
deposit with the appellate court of the amount of rent due from raised in ejectment is that of rightful possession, damages
time to time, coupled with the perfection of the appeal, could which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss purchase of the lands, in which latter case, the period of
of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages suspension shall not exceed one year. To avail himself of the
which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to benefits of the suspension, the tenants shall pay to the
his loss of material possession. x x x (Emphasis and italics landowner the current rents as they become due or deposit the
supplied; citations omitted) Other damages must thus be same with the court where the action for ejectment has been
claimed in an ordinary action. instituted.
Surely, one of the elements of litis pendentiathat the It has been held that a person who occupies the land of
identity between the pending actions, with respect to the another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any
parties, rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, is such that any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied
judgment rendered on one action will, regardless of which is promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against
considerationis not present, hence, it may not be invoked to them.
dismiss petitioners complaint for damages. Res judicata may
not apply because the court in a forcible entry case has no
jurisdiction over claims for damages other than the use and
7. Zacarias v Anacay, 736 SCRA
occupation of the premises and attorneys fees. 508 (2014)
Petitioners filing of an independent action for damages In Cabrera v. Gataruela, 586 SCRA 129 (2009), the
other than those sustained as a result of their dispossession or Court held that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of
those caused by the loss of their use and occupation of their action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1)
properties could not thus be considered as splitting of a cause initially, possession of property by the defendant was by
of action. contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually,
such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
6. Abad v Fil-homes Realty, 636 defendant of the termination of the latters right of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
SCRA 247 (2010) property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof;
When the Government seeks to acquire, through and (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to
purchase or expropriation proceedings, lands belonging to any vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
estate or chaplaincy (cappellania), any action for ejectment ejectment.
against the tenants occupying said lands shall be automatically In Valdez v. Court of Appeals, 489 SCRA 369 (2006),
suspended, for such time as may be required by the the Court ruled that where the complaint did not satisfy the
expropriation proceedings or the necessary negotiations for the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for unlawful
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

detainer, the Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules
case. Thus: To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful
essential that the plaintiffs supposed acts of tolerance must detainer and forcible entry. In unlawful detainer, the defendant
have been present right from the start of the possession unlawfully withholds the possession of the premises upon the
which is later sought to be recovered. Otherwise, if the expiration or termination of his right to hold such possession
possession was unlawful from the start, an action for under any contract, express or implied. The defendants
unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy. possession was lawful at the beginning, becoming unlawful
only because of the expiration or termination of his right of
possession. In forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is
8. Manalang v Bacani, 745 SCRA illegal from the very beginning, and the issue centers on which
27 (2015) between the plaintiff and the defendant had the prior possession
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to de facto.
the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the The MTC dismissed the action because it did not have
same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was correct. It is
had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the
Regional Trial Court. (7a) Hence, the RTC violated the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the
foregoing rule by ordering the conduct of the relocation and action. To be clear, unlawful detainer is an action filed by a
verification survey in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and by lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the
hearing the testimony of the surveyor, for its doing so was possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after
tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. The violation was the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by
accented by the fact that the RTC ultimately decided the appeal virtue of any contract, express or implied. To vest in the MTC
based on the survey and the surveyors testimony instead of the the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment from the land of the
record of the proceedings had in the court of origin. respondents as the occupants in unlawful detainer, therefore,
The case should be dismissed without prejudice to the the complaint should embody such a statement of facts clearly
filing of a non-summary action like accion reivindicatoria. In showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.
our view, the CA correctly held that a boundary dispute must be
resolved in the context of accion reivindicatoria, not an
ejectment case. The boundary dispute is not about possession,
but encroachment, that is, whether the property claimed by the
defendant formed part of the plaintiffs property. A boundary
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

by the defendant has been unlawful from the beginning, as the
9. Supapo v De Jesus, 765 SCRA possession was obtained by unlawful means. Further, the
211 (2015), GR. No. 198356 complainant must allege and prove prior physical possession of
Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to the property in litigation until he or she was deprived thereof by
determine the better right of possession of realty independent of the defendant. The one-year period within which to bring an
title. It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of
one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the actual entry into the land, except when entry was made through
unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. stealth; if so, the one-year period would be counted from the
This Court has held that the objective of the plaintiffs in time the plaintiff learned about it.
accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. It is settled that where forcible entry occurred
However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the clandestinely, the one-year prescriptive period should be
courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the counted from the time the person who was deprived of
parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication is possession demanded that the deforciant desist from
not a final determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for dispossession when the former learned about it. The owners or
the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the possessors of the land cannot be expected to enforce their right
issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of to its possession against the illegal occupant and sue the latter
possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being before learning of the clandestine intrusion. And to deprive
provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties lawful possessors of the benefit of the summary action under
involving title to the property. The adjudication, in short, is not Rule 70 of the Revised Rules, simply because the stealthy
conclusive on the issue of ownership. intruder managed to conceal the trespass for more than a year,
would be to reward clandestine usurpations even if they are
unlawful.
10. De la Cruz v Hermano, 754 Ownership certainly carries the right of possession, but
SCRA 231 (2015) the possession contemplated is not exactly the same as that
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, requires that in which is in issue in a forcible entry case. Possession in a
actions for forcible entry, it must be alleged that the forcible entry suit refers only to possession de facto, or actual
complainant was deprived of the possession of any land or or material possession, and not one flowing out of ownership.
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and These are different legal concepts under which the law provides
that the action was filed anytime within one year from the time different remedies for recovery of possession. Thus, in a
the unlawful deprivation of possession took place. This forcible entry case, a party who can prove prior possession can
requirement implies that in those cases, possession of the land recover the possession even against the owner. Whatever may
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

be the character of the possession, the present occupant of the R-71: Contempt
property has the security to remain on that property if the
occupant has the advantage of precedence in time and until a
person with a better right lawfully causes eviction.
1. Yasay v Recto, 313 SCRA 739
(1999)
11. Erorita v Dumlao, 781 SCRA 551 We agree with respondents that the charge of contempt
partakes of the nature of a criminal offense. The exoneration of
(2016) the contemner from the charge amounts to an acquittal from
To make a case for unlawful detainer, the complaint which an appeal would not lie.
must allege that: (a) initially, the defendant lawfully possessed A distinction is made between a civil and criminal
the property, either by contract or by plaintiffs tolerance; (b) contempt. Civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered
the plaintiff notified the defendant that his right of possession is by a court to be done for the benefit of a party. A criminal
terminated; (c) the defendant remained in possession and contempt is any conduct directed against the authority or
deprived plaintiff of its enjoyment; and (d) the plaintiff filed a dignity of the court. x x x Civil contempt proceedings are
complaint within one year from the last demand on defendant generally held to be remedial and civil in their nature; that is,
to vacate the property. A complaint for accion publiciana or they are proceedings for the enforcement of some duty, and
recovery of possession of real property will not be considered essentially a remedy for coercing a person to do the thing
as an action for unlawful detainer if any of these special required. In general, civil contempt proceedings should be
jurisdictional facts is omitted. instituted by an aggrieved party, or his successor, or someone
Although the complaint bears the caption recovery of who has a pecuniary interest in the right to be protected. If the
possession, its allegations contain the jurisdictional facts for contempt is initiated by the court or tribunal exercising the
an unlawful detainer case. Under RA 7691, an action for power to punish a given contempt, it is criminal in nature, and
unlawful detainer is within the MTCs exclusive jurisdiction the proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the
regardless of the propertys assessed value. principles and rules applicable to criminal cases. The State is
the real prosecutor. The real character of the proceedings in
contempt cases is to be determined by the relief sought or by
the dominant purpose. The proceedings are to be regarded as
criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment, and civil
when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial.
While the SEC is vested with the power to punish for
contempt, the salutary rule is that the power to punish for
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive The act of a judge in citing a person in contempt of
principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of court in a manner which smacks of retaliation, as in the case at
punishment. The courts and other tribunals vested with the bar, is appalling and violative of Rule 2.01 of the Code of
power of contempt must exercise the power to punish for Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge should so
contempt for purposes that are impersonal, because that power behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity
is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for and impartiality of the judiciary. The very delicate function of
the functions that they exercise. administering justice demands that a judge should conduct
himself at all times in a manner which would reasonably merit
the respect and confidence of the people, for he is the visible
2. Sison v Caoibes JR 429 SCRA representation of the law. The irresponsible or improper
258 (2004) conduct of judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary; as
At first blush, it would seem that the respondent judge such, a judge must avoid all impropriety and the appearance
was justified in holding the complainant for contempt, due to thereof.
the latters refusal to comply with the judges Order of We do not agree, however, that the respondent judge
September 15, 1999. However, it is not lost upon this Court that should be merely reprimanded for his actuations. The Court has
the complainant was not a party to any of the cases pending not been blind to the improper use by judges of the erstwhile
before the RTC, Branch 253. What triggered the contempt inherent power of contempt which, in fine, amounts to grave
charge was, in fact, the traffic violation incident involving the abuse of authority. The penalty imposed by the Court in such
respondent judges son. Furthermore, the record shows that cases ranges from a fine of P2,500; one months salary;
when the complainant filed his reply to the charge as required suspension from the service without pay for a period of three
by the respondent judge, the same was refused by some staff months; and even the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the
member in the latters sala. service.
We agree with the Investigating Justice when he opined
that the respondent judge should have refrained from ordering 3. Espaol v Formoso, 525 SCRA
the arrest and detention of the complainant, since the incident
involved his own son, and the matter was very personal to him. 216 (2007)
The fact that the respondent judge insisted that the complainant Contempt of court has been defined as some act or
personally file his comment in court gives rise to doubts as to conduct which tends to interfere with the business of the court,
the motive behind it; as the Investigating Justice puts it, the by a refusal to obey some lawful order of the court, or some act
requirement of personal filing was deliberately inserted so that of disrespect to the dignity of the court which in some ways
the respondent could confront and harass the complainant. tends to interfere with or hamper the orderly proceedings of the
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

court and thus lessens the general efficiency of the same one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the
simply put, it is despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of Rules of Court.
the court. The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt
The offense of contempt traces its origin to that time in are criminal in nature. This form of contempt is conduct that is
England when all courts in the realm were but divisions of the directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge
Curia Regia, the supreme court of the monarch, and to acting judicially. It is an act obstructing the administration of
scandalize a court was an affront to the sovereign, a concept justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or
which was adopted by the Americans and brought to our shores disrespect. Intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt,
with modifications. and no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the
Direct contempt is a contumacious act done facie curiae evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.
and may be punished summarily without hearingone may be For a comment to be considered as contempt of court it
summarily adjudged in direct contempt at the very moment or must really appear that such does impede, interfere with and
at the very instance of the commission of the act of contumely. embarrass the administration of justice. What is, thus, sought to
Indirect or constructive contempt is one perpetrated be protected is the all-important duty of the court to administer
outside of the sitting of the court; The use of falsified and justice in the decision of a pending case. The specific rationale
forged documents is a contumacious act but constitutes indirect for the sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of
contempt not direct contempt. fact and law should be immune from every extraneous
A contempt proceeding is not a civil action, but a influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced
separate proceeding of a criminal nature in which the court in court; and that the determination of such facts should be
exercises limited jurisdictionthus, the modes of procedure uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
and the rules of evidence in contempt proceedings are The power of contempt is inherent in all courts in order
assimilated as far as practicable to those adapted to criminal to allow them to conduct their business unhampered by
prosecutions. publications and comments which tend to impair the
impartiality of their decisions or otherwise obstruct the
administration of justice.
4. Marantan v Diokno, 716 SCRA The clear and present danger rule means that the evil
164 (2014) consequence of the comment must be extremely serious and
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures the degree of imminence extremely high before an utterance
pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid can be punished. There must exist a clear and present danger
prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the that the utterance will harm the administration of justice.
administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render Freedom of speech should not be impaired through the exercise
REMREV2 Cases
Atty. Dela Pea

of the power of contempt of court unless there is no doubt that
the utterances in question make a serious and imminent threat
7. Balindong v CA, 773 SCRA 27
to the administration of justice. It must constitute an imminent, (2015)
not merely a likely, threat. Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice
The power to punish for contempt, being drastic and or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the
extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to
necessary in the interest of justice. interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses
during litigation.
5. Tormis v Paredes, 749 SCRA 505 Verily, the power of the courts to punish for contempt is
to be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and judiciously. Self-
(2015) restraint in wielding contempt powers should be the rule unless
The subjudice rule restricts comments and disclosures the act complained of is clearly contumacious. An act, to be
pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid contumacious, must manifest willfulness, bad faith, or
prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the deliberate intent to cause injustice.
administration of justice
6. Pulumbarit SR v CA, 772 SCRA

244 (2015)
In In the Matter of Contempt Proceedings Against
Ventura O. Ducat and Teng Mariano and Cruz Law Offices,
269 SCRA 615 (1997), we resolved to grant a petition to cite
respondents Ducat, et al. in contempt for delaying the
satisfaction of a final judgment against them by refiling
motions and attempting to reopen finally settled issues through
the expediency of hiring a new counsel.


REMREV2 Case Doctrines and Digests

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REMREV2 Case Doctrines and Digests

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REMREV2 Cases

Atty. Dela Pea

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Remedies registration of an attachment lien creates a preference, such that

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

6. Luzon Dev. Bank v Krishman, 8. Excellent Quality Apparel v

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

11. Alejandro Ng Wee v Tankiansee, R - 58: Preliminary Injuction

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

2. Gustilo v Real, 353 SCRA 3. Lagrosas v Bristo-Myers, 565

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

1. Larrobis JR v Phil Veterans

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

1. Orosa v CA, 329 SCRA

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

Disclaimer: Do not solely rely on this.

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

5. Cudia v Superintendent of PMA, 6. Villanueva v JBC, 755 SCRA 182

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor

and Gelario AY 2017 - 2018 Professor