I.

PROVISONAL REMEDIES (Rules 57 – 61)

Assigned Alternate
A. Preliminary Attachment (R-57) DIANALAN LABORDO
1) Grounds (S-1)
2) Requirements (S-3)
3) Manner of Attaching (S-5)
4) Discharge of Attachment (S-5,12,13)
5) Third Party Claim (S-14)
6) Claim for Damages (S-20)
7) Grounds (S-1)
8) Requirements (S-3)
9) Manner of Attaching (S-5)
10) Discharge of Attachment (S-5,12,13)
11) Third Party Claim (S-14)
12) Claim for Damages (S-20)
Cases:
1. Lim Jr. Vs. Lazaro TACCAD TAMAYO
2. Ligon Vs. RTC of Makati TAMAYO CASTRO
3. Mangila Vs. CA CASTRO DIANALAN
4. Chuidian Vs. Sandiganbayan DIANALAN LABORDO
5. Alejandro Ng Wee Vs. Tankiansee LABORDO MACABANGON
6. Torres Vs. Satsatin MACABANGON PAGARA
7. Luzon Dev. Bank Vs. Krishman PAGARA SANCHEZ
8. Northern Luzon Island Co. Vs. Garcia SANCHEZ SERRANO
9. Excellent Quality Apparel Vs. Visayan Surety SERRANO SILVESTRE
10. Watercraft Venture Corp. Vs. Wolfe SILVESTRE AUNG
11. Phil. Airconditioning Center Vs. RCJ Lines AUNG CARITOS

B. Preliminary Injunction (R-58) DAMOCLES MALALUAN-CRUZ

1) Definition, Classes (S-1)
2) Grounds (S-3); TRO
3) Requirements (S-4)
 4) Damages (S-8)
Cases:
1. Idolor vs. CA CARITOS DAMOCLES
2. Gustilo vs. Real DAMOCLES MALALUAN-CRUZ
3. Lagrosas vs. Bristo-Myers MALALUAN-CRUZ MEDRANO
4. Jenosa vs. Delariarte MEDRANO MENDOZA
5. Solid Builders inc. vs. China Bank MENDOZA MIRANO
6. Plaza vs. Lustiva MIRANO MONCUPA
7. Ombudsman vs. De Chavez,VAV Sison vs. Ombudsman MONCUPA PAGSUIGUIRAN
8. Novecio vs.Lim PAGSUIGIRAN RAMOS
9. Liberty Broadcasting Network vs. Atlocom RAMOS SAPIT
10. Republic vs. Cortez SAPIT SI

C. Receivership MACABANGON PAGARA

1) When writ many issues (S-1)
2) Requirement (S-2)
3) Power of Receiver (S-6)
4) Termination and Compensation (S-8)
Cases:
a. Larrobis, Jr. vs. Phil Veterans Bank SI TABINAS
b. Chavez vs. CA TABINAS TACCAD
c. Koruga vs. Arcenas TACCAD TAMAYO
d. Tantano vs. Espina-Caboverde TAMAYO CASTRO

D. Replevin (R-60) SANCHEZ SERRANO

1) When writ may issue (S-1)
2) Requirements (S-2)
 3) Third Party Claims (S-7)
4) Judgment and Damages (S-9,10)
Cases:
1. Oraso vs. CA CASTRO DIANALAN
2. Smart Communications vs. Astorga DIANALAN LABORDO
3. Hao vs. Andres LABORDO MACABANGON
4. Navarro vs. Escobido MACABANGON PAGARA
5. Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank PAGARA SANCHEZ

E. Support (R-61) SILVESTRE AUNG

1) Application for Support Pendente Lite (S-1)
2) Comment, Hearing, Order (S-2,3,4)
3) Enforcement of Order (S-5
4) Restitution (S-7)
Cases:
1. De Asis vs. CA SANCHEZ SERRANO
2. People vs. Manahan SERRANO SILVESTRE
3. Lim vs. Lim SILVESTRE AUNG
4. Gotardo vs. Buling AUNG CARITOS
5. Republic vs. Yahon CARITOS DAMOCLES
6. Del Soccoro vs. Van Wilsem DAMOCLES MALALUAN-CRUZ
7. Lim-Lua vs. Lua MALALUAN-CRUZ MEDRANO
8. Salas vs. Matusalem MEDRANO MENDOZA

II. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (Rules 62 - 71)

A. Interpleader (R-62)
 1) What is an action Interpleader (S-1)
2) Requisites (S-1)
3) Procedure (S-2 to 7)
Cases:
1. Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Won
2. Eternal Gardens vs. IAC
3. Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty
4. Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Dev. Bank

B. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

1) Nature; Kinds (S-1)
2) Parties (S-2)
3) Conversation into ordinary action (S-6)
Cases:
1. Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Ind.
2. Republic vs. Orbecido
3. Malana vs. Tappa
4. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council
5. Sabitsana vs. Muertegui
6. Republic vs. Roque
In relation to Southern Hemisphere case
########
7. Dept of Finance vs. De la Cruz, Jr.

C. Review of Judgments and Final Orders of the COMELEC and COA (R-64)
-The distinctive nature and procedure of this special civil action
Case: Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. COMELEC
########

D. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (R-65)

1) Certiorari (S-1)
a. Grounds
b. Requirements
 c. Procedure; Parties and Effects
Cases:
1. Ampil vs. Ombudsman
2. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar
3. Maglalang vs. PAGCOR
4. People vs. Castaneda
5. UP Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Teylan
6. Tuazon vs. RD of Caloocan
7. Prov. Of Leyte vs. Energy Dev. Corp.

2) Prohibition (S-2) PAGARA

a. Grounds
b. Requirements
c. Procedure; Parties and Effects
Cases:
1. Vivas vs. Monetary Board of BSP
2. Corales vs. Republic
3. Tan vs. CA

3) Mandamus (S-3) MENDOZA

a. Grounds
b. Requisites
c. Procedure; Parties and Effects
d. Damages
Cases:
 1. Hipos, Sr. vs. Bay
2. Sanchez vs. Lastimosa
3. Social Justice Society vs. Atienza
4. Funa vs. Manila Economic and Cultural Office,
########
5. Cudia vs. Superintendent of PMA, February 24, 2015
6. Villanueva vs. JBC

E. Quo Warranto (R-66) SERRANO

1. Parties (S-1 to 6)
2. Period (S-8)
3. Limitation (S-11)
4. Judgment for Cost (S-12)
Cases:
2. Mendoza vs. Allas
3. Calleja vs. Panday
4. Lokin, Jr vs. COMELEC
5. Aratea vs. COMELEC
6. De Castro vs. Carlos
7. Velasco vs. Belmonte

F. Expropriation (R-67) MALALUAN-CRUZ

1. The right of Eminent Domain
-Constitutional provision: “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation”
-RA 7160: The Local Govt. Code, sec. 19
2. Who may expropriate
######## Two stages in Exproriation
1. Determination of public Use
2. Just Compensation

Cases:
1. City of Manila vs. Serrano CASTRO DIANALAN
2. National Power Corp. vs. CA DIANALAN LABORDO
3. Republic vs. Andaya LABORDO MACABANGON
 4. Asia`s Emerging Dragon vs. DOTC MACABANGON PAGARA
5. Abad vs. Fil-Homes Realty PAGARA SANCHEZ
6. NPC vs. YCLA Sugar Dev. Corp. SANCHEZ SERRANO
7. Limkaichong vs. LBP. SERRANO SILVESTRE

G. Forclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (R-68) AUNG

1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Judgment (S-2)
3. Sale of Forclosed property (S-3)
-Equity of Redemption
4. Deficiency Judgment (S-6)

Cases:
1. Ramirez vs. Manila Banking Corp. SILVESTRE CARITOS
2. Marquez vs. Alindog CARITOS DAMOCLES
3. Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff DAMOCLES MALALUAN-CRUZ
4. LZK Holdings vs. Planters Dev. Bank MALALUAN-CRUZ MEDRANO
5. Goldenway Merchandising Corp. vs. Equitable PCI Bank MEDRANO MENDOZA
6. Solid Builders vs. CBC MENDOZZA MIRANO
7. Robles vs. Yapcinco MIRANO MONCUPA
8. MBTC vs. CPR Promotions and Marketing, inc. MONCUPA AUNG

H. Partition (R-69) RAMOS

1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Order (S-2)
3. Stages of Partition:
4. Rule of Commissioners (S-3 to 7)
5. The Judgment (S-11)
Cases:
1. Balus vs. Balus AUNG PAGSUGUIRON
2. Feliciano vs. Canosa PAGSUGUIRON SAPIT
3. Mangahas vs. Brobio SAPIT SI
4. Vda. De Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla SI TABINAS
 I. Forcible Entry and Unlwaful Detainer (R-70) CASTRO
1. Parties (S-1)
2. Procedure: Summary (S-3 to 15)
3. Judgment (S-17)
4. Immediate Execution (S-19 vs S-21)
-Preliminary injunction (S-20)
5. Appeals

Cases:
I. Suarez vs. Emboy, Jr. TABINAS AUNG
II. Alconera vs. Pallanan AUNG TACCAD
III. Teodoro vs. Espino TACCAD TAMAYO
IV. Ferrer vs. Rabaca TAMAYO DIANALAN
V. CGR Corp. vs. Treyes DIANALAN LABORDO
VI. Zacarias vs. Anacay LABORDO MACABANGON
VII. Manalang vs .Bacani MACABANGON PAGARA
VIII. Supapo vs. De Jesus PAGARA SANCHE
IX. De la Cruz vs. Hermano SANCHEZ SERRANO
X. Erorita vs. Dumlao SERRANO SILVESTRE

J. Contempt (R-71) LABORDO

1. Kinds: Direct (S-1); Indirect (S-3)
2. Procedure (S-4 to 9)
3. Judgment and Review (S-11)

Cases:
1. Yasay vs. Recto SILVESTRE AUNG
 2. Sison vs. Caoibes, Jr. AUNG CARITOS
3. Espanol vs. Formoso CARITOS DAMOCLES
4. Marantan vs. Diokno DAMOCLES MALALUAN-CRUZ
5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez MALALUAN-CRUZ MEDRANO
6. Tormis vs. Paredes MEDRANO MENDOZA
7. Pulumbarit vs. CA MENDOZA MIRANO
8. Balindog vs. CA MIRANO

III. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rules 72 to 109)

A. Settlement of Estate PAGSUGUIRAN RAMOS

1. Venue of Jurisdiction (R-73)
2. Kinds of Settlement
a. Extrajudicial
1) By Agreement
2) By Self-adjucation
b. Judicial
1) Summary (R-74)
2) By Petition (R-75 to 90)
a. Intestate
b. Testate
3) By Partition (R-69)
3. The administrative or Executor
a. Special vs Regular (R-80)
b. Bonds (R-81)
c. Powers and Duties (R-84)
d. Accountability (R-85)
4.Claims against the Estate (R-86)
5.Actions by and against Executor and Administrator (R-87)
6. Distribution and Partition
Cases:
1. San Luis vs. San Luis CASTRO DIANALAN
2. Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belon MONCUPA PAGARA
 3. Agtarap vs. Agtarap PAGSUGUIRAN RAMOS
4. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay RAMOS SAPIT
5. Lee vs. RTCof Q.C. SAPIT SI
6. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs. Edmond Ruiz SI TABINAS
7. Unionbank vs. Santibanez TABINAS TACCAD
8. Heirs of Maglasang vs. MBC TACCAD TAMAYO
9. Pilapil vs. Heirs of M. Briones TAMAYO DIANALAN
10. Sabidong vs. Solas DIANALAN LABORDO
11. Aranas vs. Mercado LABORDO MACABANGON
12. Silverio Sr. vs. Silverio Jr. MACABANGON PAGARA
13. Butiong vs. Plazo PAGARA SANCHEZ

B. Escheats (R-91) CARITOS DAMOCLES

1. Definition
2. Historical Background and legal basis
3. Actions for Revisions (S-5)
Cases:
1. Alvarico vs. Sola SANCHEZ SERRANO
2. Maltos vs. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo SERRANO SILVESTRE
C. Guardians and Guardianship (R-92 to 97) as amended by MEDRANO MENDOZA
A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003

1. Venue vs. Juridiction (S-92)

2. Appointment, Kinds, Qualifications (S-93)
3. Requirement (S-94)
4. Power and Duties (S-96)
5. Termination (S-97) MA
Cases:
i. Gayena vs. Ledesma Gustilo, Jan. 13, 2003 SILVESTRE AUNG
ii. Caniza vs. CA, Feb . 24, 1997 AUNG CARITOS
iii. Neri vs. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy CARITOS DAMOCLES
iv. Oropesa vs. Oropesa DAMOCLES MALALUAN-CRUZ
v. Abad vs. Biazon MALALUAN-CRUZ MEDRANO
D. Trustees (R-98) MIRANO MONCUPA
1. Parties
2. Kinds/ Classes
Cases:
i. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. vs. Alcantara MEDRANO MENDOZA
ii. Land Bank of the Phil. Vs. Perez MENDOZA MIRANO

E. Adoption and Custody of Minors (R-99 to 100) SAPIT SI

1. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA 8552)
2. Inter Country
.M. No.Adoption
02-6-02-SC
actdated
of 1995
July(RA
31,8043)
2002. Effective
3. Rule of Adoption (A
Aug . 22, 2002)
a. Who may Adopt (S-4)
b. Who may be adopted (S-5)
c. Venue and Jurisdiction (S-20)
Cases:
1. Cang vs. CA MIRANO MONCUPA
2. Vda de Jacob vs CA MONCUPA PAGSUGUIRON
3. Republic of the Phil. vs Hon. Jose R. Hernandez PAGSUGUIRON RAMOS
4. Republic vs. CA RAMOS SAPIT
5. Reyes vs. Mauricio SAPIT SI
6. In the Matter of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia SI TABINAS
7. Petition for Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim TABINAS TACCAD
8. Nery vs. Sampana TACCAD TAMAYO
9. Castro vs. Gregorio TAMAYO CASTRO
10. Bartolome vs. SSS CASTRO DIANALAN

F. Habeas Corpuz (R-102) SI TABINAS

1. Definition and Nature or Scope (S-1)
2. Requisites for Application (S-3)
3. Disallowance or Discharge of Writ (S-4)
4. Preliminary Citation vs Writ (S-6)
5. The return: When evidence, when plea (S-10, 12, 13)
Cases:
1. Ilusorio vs. Bildner DIANALAN LABORDO
2. Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan LABORDO MACABANGON
3. Lacson vs. Perez MACABANGON PAGARA
4. Sangca vs. City Prosecutor of Cebu PAGARA SANCHEZ
5. Mangila vs. Pangilinan SANCHEZ SERRANO
6. Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera, July 28,2014 SERRANP SILVESTRE
7. Datukan Malang salibo vs. The Warden SILVESTRE AUNG

G. (Rule 103 vs. Rule 108) TACCAD TAMAYO

1. Venue vs. Jurisdiction
2. Contents of Petition/ Grounds
3. Hearing
4. Judgment
5. R.A. 9048 and its Implementing Rules
Cases:
1. Eleosida vs. Civil Registrar of Q.C. – May 9, 2002 AUNG CARITOS
2. Republic vs Kho CARITOS DAMOCLES
3. Petiton for Change on Name of Julian Lim DAMOCLES MALALUAN-CRUZ
Carulosan Wang
4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. MALALUAN-CRUZ MEDRANO
5. Republic vs. Silverio MEDRANO MENDOZA
6. Republic vs. Cagandahan MENDOZA MIRANO
7. Republic vs. Uy (Aug 12, 2013) MIRANO MONCUPA
8. Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay , June 26, 2013 MONCUPA PAGSUGUIRON
9. People vs. Merlinda Olaybar, February 10, 2014 PAGSUGUIRON RAMOS
10. Onde vs. CR of Las Pinas, Sept.2014 RAMOS SAPIT

A. Writ of Amparo MONCUPA PAGSUGUIRON

H.Prerogative
Cases:
writs
 1. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario SAPIT SI
2. Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Asso. SI TABINAS
3. Castillo vs. Cruz TABINAS TACCAD
4. Razon vs. Tagitis TACCAD TAMAYO
5. Roxas vs. GMA TAMAYO CASTRO
6. Burgos vs Esperon CASTRO DIANALAN

B. Writ of Habeas Data TABINAS TACCAD

Cases:
1. Caram vs. Segui, August 5, 2014 DIANALAN LABORDO
2. Vivares et Al. vs. St. Therese College, Sept. 29, 2014 LABORDO MACABANGON
3. Meralco vs. Lim MACABANGON PAGARA
4. Lee vs. Ilagan PAGARA SANCHEZ

C. Writ of Kalikasan TAMAYO CASTRO

Cases:
1. Dolot vs. Paje (Continuing Mandamus) SANCHEZ SERRANO
2. Paje vs. Casino (Writ of Kalikasan) SERRANO SILVESTRE
3. Arigo vs. Swift SILVESTRE AUNG
4. Resident Marine Mammals vs.Angelo Reyes et Al. AUNG CARITOS
5. West Tower Condominium vs. Phil. Ind. Corp. CARITOS DAMOCLES

(Rules 128 – 134)

IV. EVIDENCE

A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
1. Definition/ Meaning and Scope of E.
2. Kinds and Classifications of E.
3. Axioms of admissibility
 a. Relevency
b. Competency
c. Authenticity
d. Offer
4. Kinds of Admissibility
a. Conditional
b. Multiple
c. Curative

Cases:
1. Ong Chia vs. Republic
2. Zulueta vs. CA
3. People vs. Yatar
4. Tating vs. Marcella
5. People vs. Salafranca
6. SCC Chemicals Corp. vs. CA

B. WHAT NEED NOT BE APPROVED

1. Judicial Notice
a. Mandatory and discretionary
b. When to take judicial notice
2. Judicial Admissions
a. When is there judicial admissions

Cases:
1. LBP vs. Banal
2. People vs. Kulais
3. Laureano vs. CA
4. Maquiling vs. COMELEC
5. People vs. Baharan
6. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
7. Ligtas vs. People
C. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

1. Object/ Real Evidence

Cases:
1. People vs. Mallilin
2. People vs. Pagaduan
3. Salas vs. Matusalem
4. People vs. Posing
5. People vs Gani

2. Documentary Evidence

a. The Best Evidence Rule

Cases:
1. Citibank Mastercard vs. Teodoro
2. Loon vs. Power Master, Inc.
3. Dimaguila vs. Monteiro

b. Parole Evidence
 Cases:
1. Ortanez vs. CA
2. Lapu-Lapu Foundation vs. CA
3. Leovarez vs. Valdez

c. Electronic Evidence
-A. M. 01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence
-R. A. 8792, E-Commerce Law
Cases:
1. Heirs of Sabanpan vs. Comorposa
2. Torres vs. PAGCOR
3. Ang vs. Republic
4. People vs. Enojas
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera, June 4, 2014

3. Testimonial Evidence

b. Qualifications: “one who can perceive and perceiving can make known his perception”
i. Ability to observe/ Perceive
ii. Ability to Recall/ Remember
iii. Ability to relate/ Communicate

c. Disqualifications:
Case: Marcos vs. Heirs of Andres Navarro

i. Mental incapacity or immaturity

Case: People vs. Golimlim

 ii. Marital Disqualification

Cases:
1. Alvarez vs. Ramirez
2. People vs. Castaneda

iii. Death or Insanity (Dead Man`s Statute)

Cases:
1. Razon vs. CA
2. Sunga-Chan vs. Chua
3. Bordalba vs. CA

iv. Privileged Communication

Cases:
1. Chan vs. Chan.
2. Lacurom vs. Jacoba
3. Samala vs. Valencia
4. Almonte vs. Vasquez
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera

Discuss Executive Privilege under the doctrines laid down in senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita and Neri vs. Senate Committees.

d. Testimonial Privilege
e. Admissions
-by third parties
-by conspirators
-by Privies
-by silence
Cases:
1. Constantino vs. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr.
2. People vs. Gandia
3. Doldol vs. People

f. Confessions
-judicial vs. extra-judicial
Cases:

1. Ladiana vs. People

2. People vs. Ulit
3. People vs. Sayaboc
4. Tanenggee vs. People

g. Conduct Character

Cases:
1. People vs. Santos
2. People vs. Nardo
3. RP vs. Heirs of Alejaga, Sr.

h. Hearsay Evidence Rule

Cases:

i. Patula vs. People

ii. Espeneli vs. People, June 9, 2014
iii. Dying Declaration: Pp vs. Montanez
iv. Declaration against Interest: Pp vs. Bernal
v. Declaration about pedigree: Tizon vs. CA
vi. Family Reputation: Jison vs. CA
vii. Common Reputation
viii. Res gestae: Pp vs. Lobrigas (Pp vs. Villarico; Pp vs. Palmones)
ix. Entries in the course of business: Phil. Airlines vs. Ramos
x. Entries in Official Records: Lao vs. Standard insurance (Sabili vs. COMELEC)
 xi. Commercial Lists: Meralco vs. Quisumbing
xii. Learned Treatises
xiii. Testimony for deposition at a former proceeding: PP vs. Ortiz-Miyako
xiv. Child Witness Rule: People vs. Ibanez
People vs. Esugon

i. Opinion Rule

i. Expert Witness: Pp vs. Abriol

Bautista vs. CA
Avelino vs. People
ii. Ordinary Witness: Pp vs. Duranan

j. Character Evidence
Case: People vs. Deopita

D. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

1. Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence
Case: FEBTC vs. Chante

2. Presumptions

a. Conclusive Presumptions
I. Ibaan Rural Bank vs. CA
II. Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an
III. University of Mindanao vs. PSP (Jan. 11,2016)

b. Disputable Presumptions
I. Rosaroso vs. Soria
II. Heirs of Trazona vs. Heirs of Canada
 III. Uy vs. Lacsmana
IV. Diaz vs. People

Metro Bank vs. CA

- suppression of testimony: People vs. Padrigone
-official duty: De Los Santos vs. COA
People vs. Candidio

-cohabitation: People vs. Edualino

-survivorship: absence; legitimacy

E. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

 Order of Presentation of Evidence. People vs. Fabre

 Leading and Misleading Questions. People vs. Perez
 Impeachment. People vs. Castellano
 Reference to Memorandum
a. Present Memory Revived, People vs. Plasencia
b. Past Recollection Recorded, Canque vs. CA
 Classes of Documents
a) Public Documents
Cases: 1. Iwasawa
b) Private
vs. Gangan
Documents
2. Asian Terminals vs. Philam Insurance

 Offer of Evidence. Aludos vs. Suerte; (Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Francia jr.)
 Tender of Excluded Evidence
Fortune Tabacco Corp. vs. Com of Int. Rev.
F. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

The Hierarchy of Evidence

i. Overwhelming Evidence

ii. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

1. People vs. Calisa
2. People vs. Patentes

iii. Clear and Convincing

1. Supreme Court vs. Delgado
2. Govt. of Hongkong Special adm. Region
vs. Olalia, Jr.
3. People vs. Fontanilla