UST PW Remedial Law PDF

UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF REMEDIAL LAW or would work

injustice; or
The Rules of Court shall not apply to: (NICOLE) 3. If to do so would
1. Naturalization Proceedings; involve intricate
2. Insolvency Proceedings; problems of due
3. Cadastral Proceedings; process or impair the
4. Other cases as may be provided by law; independence of the
5. Land Registration cases; and courts (Tan Jr. v. CA,
6. Election cases. G.R. No. 136368,
January 16, 2002)
Except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever Enacted by Congress The SC is expressly
practicable and convenient (Sec. 4, Rule 1). empowered to
promulgate procedural
SUBSTANTIVE LAW VIS-A-VIS REMEDIAL LAW rules.
Substantive Law Remedial Law RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

Part of the law which Prescribes the methods of
creates, defines or regulates enforcing those rights and Extent of the rule-making power of the SC
rights concerning life, liberty obligations created by
or property (Primicias v. substantive law (Ibid.). It has the power to promulgate rules concerning:
Ocampo, 81 Phil 650) or the (Pro-PAILa)
powers of agencies or 1. The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
instrumentalities for the 2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
administration of public
affairs, which when violated NOTE: The constitutional faculty of the Court to
gives rise to a cause of action promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessarily
(Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil 640). carries the power to overturn judicial precedents on
Creates vested rights Does not create vested points of remedial law through the amendment of the
rights Rules of Court (Pinga v. The Heirs Of German Santiago,
Generally prospective in GR: May be applied G.R. No. 170354, June 30, 2006).
application retroactively
3. The admission to the practice of law;
4. The integrated bar; and
Procedural laws may be
5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged [Art. VIII, Sec.
given retroactive effect to
5(5), 1987 Constitution]
actions pending and
undetermined at the time
PRINCIPLE OF JUIDICIAL HIERARCHY (2017 Bar)
of their passage, there
being no vested rights in
The principle provides that lower courts shall initially decide
the rules of procedure.
a case before it is considered by a higher court. A higher court
Amendments to
will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
procedural rules are
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts (Santiago v.
procedural or remedial in
Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993).
character as they do not
create new or remove
NOTE: The rationale is two-fold:
vested rights, but only
operate in furtherance of
the remedy or 1. It would be an imposition upon the limited time of the
Supreme Court; and
confirmation of rights
2. It would inevitably result in a delay, intended or
already existing. (Fil-
otherwise, in adjudication of cases, which in some
Estate Properties, Inc. v.
instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower
Homena-Valencia, G.R. No.
court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure,
173942, June 25, 2008)
or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts (Heirs of Hinog v.
XPNs:
Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005).
1. The statute itself
The SC is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to
expressly or by
satisfactorily perform the duty assigned to it.
necessary implication
provides that pending
Principle of judicial hierarchy is NOT absolute
actions are excepted
from its operation; to
In several cases, the court has allowed direct invocation of the
apply it to pending
SC’s original jurisdiction on the following grounds:
proceedings would
impair vested rights;
1. When there are special and important reasons clearly
2. Under appropriate
circumstances, courts stated in the petition;
2. When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of
may deny the
public policy;
retroactive
3. When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
application of
4. When the challenged orders were patent nullities; or
procedural laws in the
5. When analogous, exceptional and compelling
event that to do so
circumstances called for and justified the immediate and
would not be feasible
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 1 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

F ACU LTY OF CI VIL L AW ACAD E M ICS CO M M ITT EE 2019
Remedial Law
direct handling of the case (Republic v. Caguioa, et al., G.R. jurisdiction, as the Parañaque RTC is bereft of authority to
No. 174385, February 20, 2013). nullify the levy and sale of the subject property that was
6. When there are genuine reasons of constitutionality that legitimately ordered by the Makati RTC, a coordinate and co-
must be addressed at the most immediate time. (The equal court. (Tan v. Cinco, et al., G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016,
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January Perlas-Bernabe, J)
21, 2015)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION
NOTE: The SC may disregard the principle of hierarchy of
courts if warranted by the nature and importance of the JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid
future litigations (Riano, 2011). Voluntary appearance
DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR Voluntary appearance is any appearance of the defendant in

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY court, provided he does not raise the question of lack of
jurisdiction of the court (Flores v. Zurbito, 37 Phil. 746;
GR: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments Carballo v. Encarnacion, 92 Phil. 974). It is equivalent to
or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having service of summons (Sec. 20, Rule 14).
the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction (Atty.
Cabili v. Judge Balindog, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225, September 6, An appearance in whatever form, without explicitly objecting
2011). to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a
submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person. It
XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third-party may be made by simply filing a formal motion, or plea or
claimant is involved - this is in consonance with the well- answer. If his motion is for any other purpose than to object
established principle that no man shall be affected by any to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby
proceeding to which he is a stranger. (Sps. Crisologo v. Omelio, submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court (Busuego v. CA,
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, citing Sec. 16, Rule 39, No. L-48955, June 30, 1987; La Naval Drug Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
and quoting Naguit v. CA, G.R. No. 137675, December 5, 2000) 103200, August 31, 1994).
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of XPN: Special Appearance
jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case
and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its When the defendant’s appearance is made precisely to object
judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, it cannot be
its execution and overall its incidents, and to control, in considered as appearance in court. (French Oil Mill Machinery,
furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers Inc v. CA, G.R. No. 126477, September 11, 1998)
acting in connection with this judgment (United Alloy vs UCPB,
G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015) Filing of pleadings seeking affirmative reliefs constitutes
voluntary appearance
Q: Respondents extended a loan to one Dante Tan in the
amount of P50,000,000.00. The loan was facilitated by GR: Seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary
PentaCapital Investment Corporation and was secured by appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person
Dante's shares in Best World Resources Corporation. to the jurisdiction of the court.
When Dante failed to pay the loan upon maturity and
despite demands, he proposed to settle the same by XPNs: In the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for
selling his shares in BWRC and assigning the proceeds to the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads
SLHI, the individual lenders, and PentaCapital. However, to a special appearance. These pleadings are:
when he was due to execute the corresponding deeds of
assignment, Dante disappeared, leaving his obligations 1. In civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of
unpaid. Hence, respondents filed an action for sum of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or
money against him before the Regional Trial Court. An not other grounds for dismissal are included;
auction sale was then conducted. Consequently, Dante 2. In criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the
sought the quashal of the writ by presenting an affidavit ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
executed by his wife, petitioner Teresita Tan attesting to accused; and
the conjugal nature of the subject property. RTC reversed 3. Motions to quash a warrant of arrest.
its initial disposition and instead, nullified the auction
sale, the certificate of sale, and the Final Deed of Sale in The first 2 are consequences of the fact that failure to file
favor of respondents. The CA granted the petition and them would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of
directed the RTC to allow respondents' Notice of Appeal. jurisdiction over the person. The 3rd is a consequence of the
Did the RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability in fact that it is the very legality of the court process forcing the
this case? submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue
A: YES. The various branches of the regional trial courts of a in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest (Miranda v. Tuliao,
G.R. No.158763, March 31, 2006).
province or city, having as they do the same or equal
authority and exercising as they do concurrent and
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot, and are not
permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less
with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would Jurisdiction Over the Jurisdiction Over the
obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the Subject Matter Person
administration of justice. The Court finds that the Parañaque GR: Determined by the Acquired by the filing of
RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability when it took allegations of the complaint the petition in case of the
cognizance of Teresita's nullification case despite the fact that (Riano, 2011). plaintiff or by arrest (Rule
the collection case from which it emanated falls within the 113), by valid service of
jurisdiction of the Makati RTC. Verily, the nullification case XPN: Where the real issues summons or voluntary
ought to have been dismissed at the outset for lack of are evident from the record submission to the court’s
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

F ACU LTY OF CI VIL L AW 2 ACAD E M ICS CO M M ITT EE 2019
of the case, jurisdiction over authority in case of the the PPC Board Reolution denied his appeal. Is elevation
the subject matter cannot be defendant (Ibid.). of the case to the CA correct?
made to depend on how the
parties word or phrase their A: NO. The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative
pleadings (Herrera, 2007), remedies is that the courts must allow the administrative
e.g. in ejectment cases in agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
which the defendant averred responsibilities within the specialized areas of their
the defense of the existence respective competence. It is presumed that an administrative
of tenancy relationship agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter, will
between the parties (Ibid.). decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error
committed in its forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity
Conferred by law which may It is sometimes made to and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases
be either the Constitution or depend, indirectly at least, proper for determination by administrative agencies. Hence,
a statute on the party’s volition premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to
the cause of action of the petitioner. PPC claims that De
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction Guzman failed to subscribe to the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies since he opted to file a premature
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is certiorari case before the CA instead of filing an appeal with
such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized the PPC Board, or of an appeal to the CSC, which are adequate
training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, remedies under the law. (Philippine Postal Corporation v.
relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding Court of Appeals and De Guzman, G.R. No. 173590, December 9,
before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter 2013, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
may well be within their proper jurisdiction.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it Administrative Remedies
should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an
administrative agency has determined some question or 1. When respondent official acted in utter disregard of due
some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding process;
before the court (Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction 2. When the questions involved are purely judicial or legal;
and Development, G.R. Nos. 197592 & 20262, November 27, 3. When the controverted act is patently illegal or was
2013, citing Fabia v. CA, 437 Phil. 389). performed without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction;
Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction 4. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency concerned;
It involves the inherent or implied powers of the court to 5. When its application may cause great and irreparable
determine issues incidental to the exercise of its primary damage;
jurisdiction. 6. When the respondent is a Department Secretary, whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied or
NOTE: Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may determine assumed approval of the latter unless actually
all questions relative to the matters brought before it, disapproved by him;
regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted, 7. When to require administrative remedies would be
determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers may unreasonable;
be heard, and grant an injunction, attachment or 8. When the insistence in its observance would result in the
garnishment. nullification of the claim being asserted;
9. When the subject matter is a private land in land case
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies proceedings;
10. When it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
It states that recourse through court action cannot prosper remedy;
until after all such administrative remedies have first been 11. Where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
exhausted. The non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion judicial intervention (Paat v. CA, G.R. No. 111107, January
of administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action 10, 1997);
(National Electrification Administration v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 12. Exhaustion of administrative remedies may also be
168203, March 9, 2010). considered waived if there is a failure to assert it for an
unreasonable length of time (Rep. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Q: De Guzman was formally charged and found guilty by Nos. 112708-09, March 29, 1996);
the PPC for dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to 13. A civil action for damages may, however, proceed
the best interest of service thereby causing his dismissal notwithstanding the pendency of an administrative
from service. However, this was not implemented until action (Escuerte v. CA, G.R. No. L-53485, February 6, 1991);
after 5 years. Because of this, De Guzman filed a motion 14. When the claim involved is small;
for reconsideration, claiming that the decision has been 15. When strong public interest is involved; and
dormant and that it may not be revived without filing 16. In quo warranto proceedings (Castro v. Gloria, G.R. No.
another charge. This was denied. De Guzman filed his 132174, August 20, 2001)
second motion for reconsideration, which was resolved
in his favor to have a formal hearing on the case. After OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
due hearing, he was likewise found guilty of the charges OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
and consequently dismissed from the service.
Undaunted, De Guzman filed his third motion for GR: The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject
reconsideration which was considered as an appeal to matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings and
the PPC Board of Directors. However, before the issuance even for the first time on appeal (Riano, 2011).
of the Resolution, De Guzman elevated his case to the CA
via a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus. In XPNs:
addition, De Guzman also appealed before the CSC when

Remedial Law
1. Estoppel by laches – SC barred a belated objection to It is acquired either by:
jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision
was rendered by the court against the party raising the 1. The seizure of the property under legal process;
issue of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief 2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in
from the court and after participating in all stages of the which the power of the court is recognized and made
proceedings (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April effective (Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291);
15, 1968); 3. The court by placing the property of thing under its
custody (custodia legis), e.g. attachment of property; or
NOTE: There is laches when a party is aware, even in the 4. The court through statutory authority conferring upon it
early stages of the proceedings, of a possible the power to deal with the property or thing within the
jurisdictional objection, and has every opportunity to court’s territorial jurisdiction, e.g. suits involving the
raise said objection, but failed to do so, even on appeal status of the parties or suits involving the property in the
(Lamsis v. Dong-e, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010). Philippines of non-resident defendants (Riano, 2011).
2. Public policy – One cannot question the jurisdiction TOTALITY RULE

which he invoked, not because the decision is valid and
conclusive as an adjudication, but because it cannot be Totality or Aggregate Rule
tolerated by reason of public policy (Filipinas Shell
Petroleum Corp. v. Dumlao, G.R. No. L-44888, February 7, Where there are several claims or causes of actions between
1992); and the same or different parties embodied in one complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims
3. A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to in all causes of action irrespective of whether the causes of
secure affirmative relief against his opponents cannot action arose out of the same or different transaction [Sec.
repudiate or question the same after failing to obtain 5(d), Rule 2].
such relief (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, G.R. Nos. L-48907&
49035, January 19, 1982). NOTE: Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also
to cases where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes
NOTE: Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, a motion attacking of action against a defendant join in a single complaint, as
a pleading like a motion to dismiss shall include all grounds well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action
then available and all objections not so included shall be against two or more defendants joined in a single complaint.
deemed waived (Sec. 8, Rule 115). However, the causes of action in favor of the two or more
plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise
Even in the absence of lack of jurisdiction raised in a motion out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there
to dismiss, a party may, when he files an answer, still raise the should be a common question of law or fact, as provided in
lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because such Sec. 6, Rule 3 (permissive joinder of parties).
defense is not barred under the omnibus motion rule.
The totality rule is not applicable if the claims are separate
Test to determine whether an action is capable of and distinct from each other and did not arise from the same
pecuniary estimation transaction. If there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason
that the claims against respondents are separate and distinct,
The criterion is the nature of the principal action or the then neither falls within the RTC’s jurisdiction (Flores v. Judge
remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of Mallare-Phillipps, G.R. No. L-66620, September 24, 1986).
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the MTCs or in the Claim for damages
RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim.
If the main action is for the recovery of sum of money and the
However, where the basic issue is something other than the damages being claimed are merely the consequences of the
right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is main cause of action, the same are not included in
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief determining the jurisdictional amount.
sought like specific performance suits and in actions for
support, or for annulment of a judgment or foreclosure of However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main
mortgage, such actions are incapable of pecuniary estimation, cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
and are cognizable exclusively by the RTCs (Barangay Piapi v. such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction
Talip, G.R. No. 138248, September 7, 2005). of the court (Albano, 2010).
JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES CIVIL PROCEDURE
The power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the ACTIONS
pleadings of the parties or by their agreement in a pre-trial
order or those tried by the implied consent of the parties (Sec. ACTIONS IN REM, IN PERSONAM AND QUASI IN REM
5, Rule 10).
Action In Action In Action Quasi
It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the Rem Personam In Rem
presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the Nature A proceeding A proceeding A proceeding to
pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respect as if to determine to enforce subject the
they had been raised in the pleadings (Ibid.). title, status or personal property of the
condition of rights and named
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR property obligations defendant or
THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION within its brought his interests
borders. against the therein to the
How jurisdiction over the res is acquired person obligation or
Examples: (Riano, 2014). lien burdening

the property Scope When it affects title to Recovery of personal
1. Probate Examples: or possession of real property, the
proceedi Examples: property, or an enforcement of a contract
ngs 1. Action for interest therein (Sec. or the recovery of
2. Cadastral specific 1. Action for 1, Rule 4) damages
proceedi performan partition;
ngs ce 2. Action for Venue A real action is ‘local’ – A personal action is
2. Action for accounting i.e., its venue depends ‘transitory’ – i.e., its venue
breach of 3. Attachment; upon the localtion of depends upon the
contract; or the property involved residence of the plaintiff
or Foreclosure in the litigation. or the defendant.
3. Action for of mortgage
a sum of Venue of action shall Venue of action is the
money or be commenced and place where the plaintiff
damages tried in the proper or any of the principal
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction court which has plaintiffs resides, or
Required over the over the over the person jurisdiction over the where the defendant or
jurisdiction person of the person of the of the area wherein the real any of the principal
defendant is defendant is defendant is property involved, or defendants resides, or in
not required. required not required as a portion thereof is the case of a non- resident
Jurisdiction long as situated (Sec. 1, Rule defendant where he may
over the res is jurisdiction 4) be found, at the election
acquired over the res is of the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule
either (1) by acquired (Biaco 4).
the seizure of v. Philippine
the property Countryside NOTE: Questions involving the propriety or impropriety of a
under legal Rural Bank, particular venue are resolved by initially determining the
process; or supra). nature of the action, i.e., if the action is personal or real
(2) as a result (Riano, 2014).
of the
institution of Right of action vs. Cause of action
legal
proceedings Cause of Action Right of Action
Definition It is the act or Right of a plaintiff to
NOTE: The distinction between actions in rem, in personam omission by which a bring an action and to
and quasi in rem is important in determining the following: party violates the prosecute that action
1. Whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the rights of another until final judgment
defendant is required; and (Sec. 2, Rule 2). (Marquez v. Varela, 92
2. The type of summons to be employed (Gomez v. CA, G.R. Phil. 373).
No. 127692, March 10, 2004) Requisites 1. The existence of a 1. There must be a
legal right of the good cause
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION plaintiff; (existence of a cause
2. A correlative duty of action);
These are actions based on provisions of the Civil Code, of the defendant 2. A compliance with
namely Articles 32, 33, 34 that arise from law and Article to respect one’s all the conditions
2176 that arises from quasi-delicts. They shall proceed right; and precedent to the
independently of the criminal action and shall require only a 3. An act or bringing of the
preponderance of evidence. omission of the action; and
defendant in 3. Right to bring and
In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages violation of the maintain the action
twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal plaintiff’s right must be in the
action (Sec. 3, Rule 111). person instituting it
Two separate civil liabilities that may arise from a single NOTE: The rule is “there is no right of action where there is
act or omission no cause of action” (Ibid.).
1. Civil liability ex –delicto; or Tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or
2. Independent civil liabilities such as those: common cause of action (EDE)
a. Not arising from an act or omission complained of as 1. Evidence – Whether the same evidence would support
felony (e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising and sustain both the first and second causes of action;
from law; the intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana); (Same Evidence Test);
or 2. Defenses – Whether the defenses in one case may be
b. Where the injured party is granted a right to file an used to substantiate the complaint in the other; and
action independent and distinct from the criminal 3. Existence – Whether the cause of action in the second
action (L.G. Foods Corporation v. Pagapong- case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint
Agraviador, G.R. No. 158995, September 26, 2006). (Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No.
167246, July 20, 2011).
PERSONAL ACTIONS AND REAL ACTIONS
NOTE: The test in determining the identity of causes of action
Real Action Personal Action is whether the same evidence would support and establish
both the present and former cause of action (Goodland

Remedial Law
Company, Inc. v. Asia United Bank, G.R. No. 191388, March 9, have against another in one pleading alone (Sec. 5, Rule 2).
2011).
Requisites of joinder of causes of action
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
1. The party shall comply with the rules on joinder of
Failure to state Lack of cause of parties (Sec. 6, Rule 3):
cause of action action a. Right to relief exists in favor of or against several
Definition Insufficiency of Where the evidence persons;
allegation in the does not sustain the b. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or
pleading cause of action series of transaction; and
As a ground Raised in a Raised in a demurrer c. There is common question of law of law or fact.
for dismissal motion to dismiss to evidence under 2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions
under Rule 16 Rule 33 after the governed by special rules;
before a plaintiff has rested 3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties
responsive his case but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the
pleading is filed joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the
(Ibid.). causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court
Determinatio Determined only Resolved only on the and venue lies therein; and
n from the basis of the evidence 4. Totality Test - Where claims in all causes of action are
allegations of the he presented in principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
pleading and not support of his claim claimed shall be the test for jurisdiction (Sec. 5, Rule 2)
from evidentiary (2002 Bar).
matters
When made Can be made at Made after questions NOTE: A joinder of causes of action is only permissive, not
the earliest stages of fact have been compulsory; hence, a party may desire to file a single suit for
of an action resolved on the basis each of his claims (Riano, 2014).
of stipulations,
admissions, or Misjoinder of causes of action
evidence presented
There is a misjoinder when two or more causes of action
Dismissal based on failure to state a cause of action does were joined in one complaint when they should not be so
not bar the subsequent re-filing of the complaint joined.
Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action This is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined
does not bar the subsequent re-filing of the complaint (Sec. 5, cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative
Rule 16). of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately by
filing a motion in relation thereto (Sec. 6, Rule 2). There is no
Effect of lack of cause of action on the jurisdiction of the sanction against non-joinder of separate causes of action.
court
Splitting of cause of action vs. Joinder of causes of action
Lack of cause of action does not affect the authority of a court
to hear and decide a given case, if the court has jurisdiction Splitting of Cause of Joinder of Causes of
over its subject matter, over the parties therein, and, in an Action Action
action in rem, over the res (Herrera, 2007). It is the practice of dividing Assertion of as many causes
one cause of action into of action as a party may
SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF different parts and making have against another in one
ACTION AND ITS EFFECTS each part the subject of a pleading alone (Sec. 5, Rule
separate complaint 2).
Splitting of cause of action (Bachrach v. Icaringal, 68
Phil. 287).
It is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the Prohibited. A party may not Encouraged. No sanction
same cause of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is the act of dividing a institute more than one suit against non-joinder of
single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or for a single cause of action separate causes of action
claims and bringing several actions thereon (Riano 2014, (Sec. 3, Rule 2). since a plaintiff needs only
citing Quadra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147593, July 31, a single cause of action to
2006). This practice, which applies not only to complaints but maintain an action.
also to counterclaims and cross-claims, is discouraged. It causes multiplicity of It minimizes multiplicity of
suits and double vexation suits and inconvenience on
Remedies against splitting cause of action on the part of the defendant the parties.
(Riano, 2014).
The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on either of The filing of one (litis No adverse effect on the
the following grounds: pendentia) or a judgment action.
upon the merits in any one
1. Litis pendentia (Section 1(e), Rule 16); or (res judicata) is available as
2. Res judicata, if the first action has already been a ground for the dismissal
terminated. (Section 1(f), Rule 16). of the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2).
JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Joinder of causes of action (2005 Bar) 1. Natural persons;

2. Juridical persons:
It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party may a. The State and its political subdivisions;

b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for 213 [1956]).
public interest or purpose, created by law; and
c. Corporations, partnerships and associations for Indispensable party
private interest or purpose to which the law grants a
juridical personality, separate and distinct from that Those without whom no final determination can be had of an
of each shareholder, partner or member (Art. 44, action (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
NCC);
3. Entities authorized by law: NOTE: The absence of an indispensable party renders all
a. Corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of
its existence and the members thereof can be sued authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as
and be held liable as general partners (Sec. 21, to those present (Riano, 2014).
Corporation Code);
b. A contract of partnership having a capital of three Tests to determine whether a party is an indispensable
thousand pesos or more but which fails to comply party
with the registration requirements is nevertheless
liable as a partnership to third persons (Art. 1772 in 1. Can relief be afforded to the plaintiff without the
relation to Art. 1768, NCC); presence of the other party?
c. Estate of a deceased person (Limjoco v. Intestate 2. Can the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing
Estate of Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, April 27, 1948); the rights of the other party? (Rep. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
d. A legitimate labor organization may sue and be sued No. 152154, July 15, 2003)
in its registered name (Art. 242[e], Labor Code of the
Philippines); Effect of failure to join an indispensable party (2015,
e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as to 2017 Bar)
its properties, the archbishop or diocese to which
they belong (Versoza v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-25264, The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the
November 22, 1926); and exercise of juridical power and when an indispensable party
f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend is not before the court, the action should be dismissed (Riano,
suits by or against it provided that the suits: 2014, citing Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. No. 159794, December 19,
a. Occur within three (3) years after its dissolution; 2006).
and
b. The suits are in connection with the settlement However, an outright dismissal is not the immediate remedy
and closure of its affairs (Sec. 112, Corporation authorized because, under the Rules, misjoinder/non-joinder
Code). of parties is NOT a ground for dismissal. It is when the order
of the court to implead an indispensable party goes
Action if the party impleaded is not authorized to be a unheeded may the case be dismissed. In such case, the
party court may dismiss the complaint due to the fault of the
plaintiff as when he does not comply with any order of the
A motion to dismiss may be filed based on either of the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17) ¸ such as an order to join indispensable
following grounds: parties (Riano, 2014, citing Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519,
March 31, 2009).
1. Plaintiff not authorized – the ground that “the plaintiff
has no legal capacity to sue” (Sec. 1[d], Rule 16). Q: Conrado Nobleza, Sr. owned a 313-square meter parcel
2. Defendant not authorized – the ground that the of land located in Iloilo City covered by (TCT) No. T-
“pleading asserting a claim states no cause of action” (Sec. 12255. Upon Conrado’s death some of his children sold
1[g], Rule 16). their respective interests over the subject land to a
certain Santiago for a consideration of 447,695.66, as
NOTE: A complaint cannot possibly state a cause of action embodied in a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement or
against one who cannot be a party to a civil action (Riano, Adjudication with Deed of Sale which was, however, not
2014). signed by the other heirs who did not sell their respective
shares. Because of this, he was not able to have TCT No. T-
Lack of legal capacity to sue vs. Lack of legal personality 12255 cancelled and the subject document registered.
to sue This prompted Santiago to file a Complaint for judicial
partition and for receivership. The RTC ordered the
Lack of Legal Lack of Legal partition of the subject land between Santiago and the
Capacity to Sue Personality to Sue heirs of Conrado who did not sign on the said Deed. On
It refers to plaintiff’s The plaintiff is not the real appeal, the CA set aside the ruling of the RTC and held
general disability to sue party in interest (Columbia that the heirs of Conrado who did not sign on the said
such as on account of Pictures, Inc. v. CA, supra.). Deed are indispensable parties to the judicial partition of
minority, insanity, the subject land and, thus, their non-inclusion as
incompetence, lack of defendants in Santiago’s complaint would necessarily
juridical personality or any result in its dismissal. Is the CA correct in dismissing
other general Santiago’s complaint for his failure to implead all the
disqualifications of a party heirs of Conrado?
(Columbia Pictures, Inc. v.
CA, G.R. No. 110318, August A: NO. Although the heirs of Conrado who are not impleaded
28, 1996). in the complaint are indispensable parties to the case, the
Ground for a motion to Ground for a motion to non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the
dismiss based on the dismiss for complaint dismissal of an action. With regard to actions for partition,
ground of lack of legal states no cause of action Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that all
capacity to sue (Ibid.). (Casimiro v. Roque, et al., 98 persons interested in the property shall be joined as
Phil. 880 [1956]; Gonzales, defendants. Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having an
et al. v. Alegarbes, 99 Phil. interest in the property are indispensable parties; as such, an

Remedial Law
action for partition will not lie without the joinder of the said
parties. However, the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of Compulsory joinder of parties (2009 Bar)
the complaint because of Santiago’s failure to implead all the
indispensable parties in his complaint. The Court definitively The joinder of parties becomes compulsory when the one
explained that in instances of non-joinder of indispensable involved is an indispensable party (Riano, 2014).
parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to
dismiss the case. (Divinagracia v. Parilla, et al., G.R. No. The plaintiff is mandated to implead all the indispensable
196750, March 11, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) parties, considering that the absence of one such party
renders all subsequent action of the court null and void for
Necessary party want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
even as to those present. One who not is a party to a case is
Those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as not bound by any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be
parties: deprived of his right to due process (Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez,
G.R. No. 152195, January 31, 2005).
1. If complete relief is to be accorded to those already
parties; or Requisites of permissive joinder of parties (2002 Bar)
2. For a complete determination or settlement of the claim
subject of the action (Sec. 8, Rule 3). 1. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series
of transactions (connected with the same subject matter
NOTE: Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted of the suit); and
a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his 2. There is a question of law or fact common to all the
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted (Sec 9, Rule plaintiffs or defendants.
3).
NOTE: There is a question of law in a given case when the
Indispensable party vs. Necessary party doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when
Indispensable Parties Necessary Parties doubt arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged
Parties in interest without A necessary party is one facts (Manila Bay Club Corp. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 110015,
whom no final who is not indispensable January 11, 1995).
determination can be had but who ought to be joined
of an action shall be joined as a party if: Misjoinder vs. Non-joinder of Parties
either as plaintiffs or 1. Complete relief is to be
defendants (Sec.7, Rule 3). accorded as to those Misjoinder of Parties Non-Joinder of Parties
already parties; or He is made a party to an He is supposed to be joined
Must be joined under any 2. For a complete action although he should but is not impleaded in the
and all conditions because determination or not be impleaded (Riano, action (Riano, 2014).
the court cannot proceed settlement of the claim 2014).
without him (Riano, 2014). subject of the action If there is a claim against a Whenever in any pleading
(Sec. 8, Rule 3). party misjoined, the same in which a claim is asserted
may be severed and a necessary party is not
Necessary parties should proceeded with separately joined, the pleader shall set
be joined whenever (Sec. 11, Rule 3). forth his name, if known,
possible; however, the and shall state why he is
action can proceed even in omitted. Should the court
their absence because his find the reason
interest is separable from unmeritorious, it may order
that of indispensable party the inclusion of the omitted
(Ibid.). necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person
No valid judgment if they The case may be may be obtained (Sec. 9,
are not joined. determined in court but the Rule 3).
judgment therein will not Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground
afford a complete relief in for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or
favor of the prevailing added by the court on motion of any party or motu
party. proprio at any stage of the action and on such terms as are
just (Sec. 11, Rule 3)(2015, 2017 Bar).
Effect of non-joinder of a necessary party However, even if neither is a ground for dismissal of the
action, the failure to obey the order of the court to drop or
1. The court may order the inclusion of the omitted add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint
necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be based on the failure of the plaintiff to comply with a court
obtained; order (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Riano, 2014).
2. The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the CLASS SUITS
claim against such party;
3. The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent It is an action where one or some of the parties may sue for
the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment the benefit of all if the requisites for said action are complied
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights with (Riano, 2014).
of such necessary party (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
Requisites of class suit (2005 Bar)
COMPULSORY AND PERMISSIVE
JOINDER OF PARTIES

1. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or because the court acquired no jurisdiction over the person of
general interest to many persons; the legal representative. (Brioso v. Rili-Mariano,G.R. No.
2. Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable 132765, January 31, 2003).
to bring them all before the court;
3. Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous Non-compliance therewith results in the undeniable violation
or representative of the class and can fully protect the of the right to due process of those who, though not duly
interests of all concerned; and notified of the proceedings, are substantially affected by the
4. Representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all (Sec. decision rendered therein (Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No.
12, Rule 3; Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, G.R. No. L-31061, 121510, November 23, 1995).
August 17, 1976).
XPNs: (Where the non-compliance does NOT deprive the
A civil case instituted for the cancellation of existing timber court of jurisdiction)
license agreements in the country by petitioners in behalf of
themselves and others who are equally concerned about the 1. When the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared,
preservation of the country’s resources is indeed a class suit. participated in the case and presented evidence in
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general defense of deceased defendant (Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R.
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the No. 121510, November 23, 1995);or
Philippines (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, Juy 30, 1993). 2. In ejectment cases, where the counsel fails to inform the
court of the death of his client and thereby results to the
The following are instances where the requisite of common non-substitution of the deceased by his legal
interest is NOT present: representatives.
1. Suit brought by a non-stock corporation to recover NOTE: The decision of the court is binding upon the
property of its members (Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, successors-in-interest of the deceased. A judgment in an
supra.); ejectment case may be enforced not only against
2. Recovery of damages for personal reputation, i.e. in a libel defendants but also against the members of their family,
case in behalf of a specific individual (Newsweek, Inc. v. their relatives, or privies who derived their right of
IAC G.R. No. L-63559, May 30, 1986); or possession from the deceased defendant (Vda. De Salazar
3. In an action for recovery of real property individually v. CA, G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995 citing Florendo
held i.e. where each of the defendants has an interest only Jr. v. Coloma, G.R. No. L-60544, May 19, 1984).
in the particular portion of the land he is actually
occupying, and not in the portions individually occupied VENUE
by the other defendants (Ortigas & Company, Limited
Partnership v. Hon. Vivencio M. Ruiz et al.G.R. No.L-33952, Venue vs. Jurisdiction
March 9, 1987).
Venue Jurisdiction
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY LITIGANT The place, or geographical Power of the court to hear
area where an action is to be and decide a case
Effect of the death of a party upon a pending action (1999 filed and tried (Manila
Bar) Railroad Company v. Attorney
General, 20 Phil 523).
1. Purely personal action – the death of either of the Can only be objected to before Can be brought up at any
parties extinguishes the claim and the action is dismissed. the other party files a stage of the proceedings
2. Action that is not purely personal – claim is not responsive pleading (Answer)
extinguished and the party should be substituted by his
heirs, executor or administrator. In case of minor heirs, May be waived by: Cannot be waived
the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for them. 1. Failure to object through
3. Action for recovery of money arising from contract and a motion to dismiss or
the defendant dies before entry of final judgment – it through an affirmative
shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to defense; or
continue until entry of judgment. A favorable judgment 2. Stipulation of the parties.
obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in the manner May be stipulated by the Cannot be the subject of the
provided in the rules for prosecuting claims against the parties agreement of the parties
estate of a deceased person (Sec. 20, Rule 3).
Establishes a relation Establishes a relation
between the plaintiff and between the court and the
NOTE: A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be
defendant, or petitioner and subject matter.
enforced under Rule 86. Relative thereto, since the complaint
respondent.
action survives the death of defendant, the case shall not be
GR: Not a ground for a motu It is a ground for a motu
dismissed and the Court shall merely order the substitution of
proprio dismissal (Riano, proprio dismissal in case of
the deceased defendant (Atty. Sarsaba v.Vda. De Te, G.R. No.
2014) lack of jurisdiction over the
175910, July 30, 2009) (2014 Bar).
XPN: In cases subject to subject matter (Riano, 2014;
summary procedure (Ibid.) Sec. 1, Rule 9)
The substitute defendant need not be summoned. The order
of substitution shall be served upon the parties substituted
NOTE: In civil cases, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction (Hrs.
for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party
of Lopez v. de Castro, 324 SCRA 591).
(Riano, 2014). If there is notice of death, the court should
await the appointment of legal representative; otherwise,
Venue becomes jurisdictional only in a criminal case. Where
subsequent proceedings are void (1999 Bar).
the Information is not filed in the place where the offense was
committed, the information may be quashed for lack of
Effect of non-compliance with the rules on substitution
jurisdiction over the offense charged (Sec. 3, Rule 117).
GR: It renders the proceedings of the trial court infirm
VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS
Remedial Law
between petitioner and respondent is void insofar as it
Defendant does 1. Personal actions – the venue is limits the filing of cases with the RTC of Pasay City, even
not reside but is where the plaintiff or any of the when the subject matter jurisdiction over the case is with
found in the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the Metropolitan Trial Courts. However, with respect to
Philippines the non-resident defendant may be the filing of cases cognizable by the RTCs, the stipulation
found, at the election of the plaintiff validly limits the venue to the RTC of Pasay City. Since,
(Riano, 2014, citing Sec. 2, Rule 4, petitioner's complaint is one for collection of sum of
Rules of Court). money in an amount that is within the jurisdiction of the
2. Real actions – shall be commenced RTC, petitioner should have filed the case with the RTC of
and tried in the proper court which Pasay City. Is the RTC correct?
has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, A: YES. Under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, parties may,
or a portion thereof, is situated (Id. through a written instrument, restrict the filing of said actions
citing Sec. 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court). in a certain exclusive venue. The Court held that an exclusive
venue stipulation is valid and binding, provided that: (a) the
Defendant does The action may be commenced and stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in nature or in
not reside and is tried in the court of the place where the intent; (b) it is expressed in writing by the parties thereto;
not found in the plaintiff resides or where the property and (c) it is entered into before the filing of the suit. After a
Philippines or any portion thereof is situated or thorough study of the case, the Court is convinced that all
found (Sec. 3, Rule 4). these elements are present. In this case, the terms of the lease
contract clearly show the parties’ intention to limit the place
NOTE: Unless the Court declares where actions or cases arising from a violation of the terms
otherwise, it is submitted that a liberal and conditions of the contract of lease may be instituted. This
interpretation of Sec. 3, Rule 4 – giving is evident from the use of the phrase "exclusive of all others"
the plaintiff a choice of venue in actions and the specification of the locality of Pasay City as the place
affecting any property of a non-resident where such cases may be filed. Since the lease contract
defendant who is not found in the already provided that all actions or cases involving the breach
Philippines – would well serve the thereof should be filed with the RTC of Pasay City, and that
interest of a resident plaintiff rather petitioner’s complaint purporting the said breach fell within
than of the possible absconding non- the RTC's exclusive original jurisdiction, the latter should
resident defendant (Riano, 2014). have then followed the contractual stipulation and filed its
complaint before the RTC of Pasay City. (Ley Construction and
Development Corporation v. Marvin Medel Sedano, G.R. No.
WHEN THE RULES ON VENUE DO NOT APPLY 222711, August 23, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise RULES ON PLEADINGS

(e.g. an action for damages arising from libel); or
2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims
the filing of the action on the exclusive venue (Sec. 4, Rule and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
4). appropriate judgment (Sec.1, Rule 60) (2007 Bar).
EFFECTS ON STIPULATIONS ON VENUE KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Stipulations on venue (WEB) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM;

PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM
The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the
agreement is: Two Kinds of Counterclaims (2007 Bar)
1. In writing; Compulsory Counterclaim Permissive Counterclaim

2. Exclusive as to the venue; and One which arises out of or is It does not arise out of nor is
3. Made before the filing of the action (Sec. 4 (b), Rule 4) necessarily connected with it necessarily connected with
the transaction or the subject matter of the
When exclusive occurrence that is the opposing party’s claim.
subject matter of the There is an absence of a
Venue is exclusive when the stipulation clearly indicates, opposing party’s claim logical connection with the
through qualifying and restrictive words that the parties (Sec.7, Rule 6) (1999, 2004 subject matter of the
deliberately exclude causes of actions from the operation of Bar). complaint.
the ordinary permissive rules on venue and that they It does not require for its It may require for its
intended contractually to designate a specific venue to the adjudication the presence of adjudication the presence of
exclusion of any other court also competent and accessible to third parties of whom the third parties over whom the
the parties under the ordinary rules on venue of actions court cannot acquire court cannot acquire
(Philippine Banking Corp. v. Tensuan, G.R. No. 106920, jurisdiction (Sec. 4, Rule 6). jurisdiction.
December 10, 1993). Barred if not set up in the Not barred even if not set up
action (Sec. 2, Rule 9). in the action.
Q: Petitioner filed a complaint for Collection of Sum of Need not be answered; No Must be answered;
Money and Damages against Respondent, before RTC default (Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. Otherwise, default
Valenzuela. Respondent pointed out that the venue was No. L-26768, October 30, (Sarmiento v. Juan, G.R. No. L-
improperly laid since the lease contract provides that all 1970). 56605, January 28, 1983).
actions or cases filed in connection with such contract Not an initiatory pleading. Initiatory pleading.
shall be filed with the RTC of Pasay City, exclusive of all Need not be accompanied by Must be accompanied by a
others. The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground a certification against forum certification against forum
of improper venue, it held that the lease contract shopping and certificate to shopping and whenever

file action by the Lupong required by law, also a Tests to determine whether the third-party complaint is
Tagapamayapa. certificate to file action by in respect of plaintiff’s claim
the Lupong Tagapamayapa
(Santo Tomas University v. 1. Whether it arises out of the same transaction on which
Surla, G.R. No. 129718, the plaintiff’s claim is based, or, although arising out of
August 17, 1998). another or different transaction, is connected with the
The court has jurisdiction Must be within the plaintiff’s claim;
to entertain both as to the jurisdiction of the court 2. Whether the third-party defendant would be liable to the
amount and nature (Sec. 7, where the case is pending plaintiff or to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s
Rule 6). and cognizable by regular claim against the original defendant; and
courts of justice otherwise, 3. Whether the third-party defendant may assert any
defendant will have to file it defenses which the third-party plaintiff has or may have
in separate proceeding to the plaintiff’s claim (Capayas v. CFI of Albay, G.R. No. L-
which requires payment of 475, August 31, 1946).
docket fee
NOTE: In an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount (Sec. AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
7, Rule 6).
Verification is not necessary in pleadings, except when
Test to determine whether the counterclaim is otherwise specifically required by law or rule (Ibid.).
compulsory (IREL)
Effects of lack of verification (2016 Bar)
1. Issues - Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim
and the counterclaim largely the same? 1. A pleading required to be verified but lacks the proper
2. Res judicata - Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading (Sec.
on the defendant’s calims, absent the compulsory 4 as amended by A.M. 00-2-10, May 1, 2000). Hence, it
counterclaim rule? produces no legal effect (Sec. 3, Rule 7).
3. Evidence - Will substantially the same evidence support 2. It does not necessarily render the pleading defective. It is
or refute the plaintiff’s claim, as well as the defendant’s only a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. The
counterclaim? requirement is a condition affecting only the form of the
4. Logical relation - Is there any logical relation between pleading (Benguet Corp. v. Cordillera Caraballo Mission,
the claim and the counterclaim? Inc., G.R. No. 155343, September 2, 2005) and non-
compliance therewith does not necessarily render it
A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the fatally defective (Sarmiento v. Zaranta, G.R. No. 167471,
counterclaim is compulsory (GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. February 5, 2007).
158090, October 4, 2010). 3. The absence of verification may be corrected by requiring
an oath. The rule is in keeping with the principle that
CROSS-CLAIM rules of procedure are established to secure substantial
justice and that technical requirements may be dispensed
A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party with in meritorious cases (Pampanga Sugar Development
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 112650, May 29, 1997).
matter of either the original action, or a counterclaim therein.
It may include a claim that the party against whom it is Forum shopping (2006 Bar)
asserted is liable, or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all
or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross- It is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has
claimant (Sec. 8, Rule 6). been rendered in one forum, seeking and possibly getting a
favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or
Requisites of cross-claim (1999 Bar) the special civil action of certiorari.
1. A claim by one party against a co-party;
2. It must arise out of the subject matter of the complaint or Nature of the certification against forum shopping
of the counterclaim; and
3. The cross-claimant is prejudiced by the claim against him It is a mandatory requirement in filing a complaint and other
by the opposing party (Sec. 8, Rule 6). initiatory pleadings asserting a claim or relief (Sec. 5, Rule 7).
THIRD (FOURTH, ETC) PARTY COMPLAINT NOTE: This rule also applies to special civil actions since a
special civil action is governed by the rules for ordinary civil
Third-party complaint vs. Rules on bringing in new actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for special
parties civil action (Riano, 2014, citing Wacnang v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
178024, October 17, 2008).
Third-party complaint Rules on bringing in new
parties The certification against forum shopping is only required in a
It is proper when none of If one or more of the complaint or other initiatory pleading (Sec. 5, Rule 7; Arquiza
the third-party defendants defendants in a v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160479, June 8, 2005). A petition
therein is a party to the counterclaim or cross- for the issuance of the writ of execution is not an initiatory
main action (Riano, 2011). claim is already a party to pleading; it does not require a certification against forum
the action, then the other shopping (2014 Bar).
necessary parties may be
brought in under the rules Execution of certification against forum shopping (2000
on bringing in new parties Bar)
(2004Bar).
It must be signed by the principal parties. If, for any reason,

Remedial Law
the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing or defense may be founded. It is a mere written and signed
on his behalf must have been duly authorized. With respect to acknowledgment that money was received. There are no
a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may terms and conditions found therein from which a right or
be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized obligation may be established (Ogawa v. Menigishi, G.R. No.
lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to 193089, July 9, 2012).
be disclosed in such document
Pleading an actionable document
Non-compliance with the rule on certification against
forum shopping (2000, 2006 Bar) Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document:
It is not curable by mere amendment and shall be a cause for
the dismissal of action (Ibid.). 1. The substance of such instrument or document shall be
set forth in the pleading; and
Submission of a false certification 2. The original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the
pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a
It shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal set forth in the pleading (Sec. 7, Rule 8).
actions (Sec. 5, Rule 7).
Q: Petitioner Roseña filed a complaint for sum of money
Non-compliance with the undertakings before the RTC against respondent Elizabeth alleging that
the latter borrowed from her the money but because she
It has the same effect as the submission of false certification. was unable to pay, respondent offered to sell her building
Hence, such failure shall constitute indirect contempt of court and its improvements in Sorsogon City to petitioner for a
without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and consideration of P1.5M with the agreement that her
criminal sanctions (Sec. 5, Rule 7). outstanding loans with petitioner be deducted from the
purchase price and the balance payable in installments.
Consequence of forum shopping Respondent specifically denied her indebtedness to
petitioner and claimed that it was the latter who owed
1. If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, her 1M yen or P500k, as evidenced by a disputed receipt.
the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on Whether the disputed receipt sufficiently established
the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. respondent's counterclaim that petitioner owed her
1,000,000.00 Yen?
2. If the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if
there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with A: NO. A receipt is a written and signed acknowledgment that
prejudice (Chua v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. money or good was delivered or received. The receipt upon
182311, August 19, 2009). It shall be a ground for the which respondent relies to support her counterclaim,
summary dismissal of the action, and shall constitute direct sufficiently satisfies this definition. However, while
contempt, as well as cause for administrative sanctions on the indubitably containing the signatures of both parties, a plain
party of the counsel (Sec. 5, Rule 7). reading of the contents negates any inference as to the nature
of the transaction for which the 1M Yen was received and
Belated filing of certification against forum shopping
who between the parties is the obligor and the obligee. What
is apparent is a mere written and signed acknowledgment
GR: The lack of certification against forum shopping is that money was received. There are no terms and conditions
generally not curable by the submission thereof after the found therein from which a right or obligation may be
filing of the petition. established. Hence, it cannot be considered an actionable
document upon which an action or defense may be founded.
XPN: In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court has Consequently, there was no need to deny its genuineness and
allowed the belated filing of the certification. due execution under oath in accordance with Section 8, Rule 8
of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Hence, absent any other
evidence to prove the transaction for which the receipt was
Substantial compliance with the filing of certification issued, the Court cannot consider receipt as evidence of a
against forum shopping (2016 Bar) purported loan between petitioner and respondent which the
former categorically denied. It is settled that the burden of
The certification against forum shopping must be signed by proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right. (Ogawa v.
all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who Menigishi. G.R. No. 193089. July 9, 2012. Perlas-Bernabe, J)
did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case.
However, under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as SPECIFIC DENIALS
when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest
and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the Effect of Failure to make Specific Denials
signature of only one of them in the certification against
forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule (Jacinto GR: Material averments not specifically denied are deemed
v. Gumaru, G.R. No. 191906, June 2, 2014). admitted.
PLEADING AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT NOTE: If the allegations are deemed admitted, there is no
more triable issue between the parties and if the admissions
Actionable document appear in the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may file a
motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 (Riano,
It is a written instrument or document which is the basis of 2014).
an action or a defense (e.g. a promissory note in an action for
collection of a sum of money). XPN: Allegations as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
when not specifically denied, are not deemed admitted.
A receipt is not an actionable document upon which an action

Q: Respondent filed a complaint against petitioners 1. The court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the
seeking that the latter be held jointly and severally liable person of the defending party;
for the payment of their loan obligation. In their Answer, 2. The defending party must have failed to file his answer
petitioners merely stated that they "specifically deny" the within the time allowed therefor;
allegations under the complaint particularly the 3. The claiming party must file a motion to declare the
execution of the loan agreement, the promissory note defending party in default;
(PN), and the Comprehensive Surety Agreement (CSA) for 4. The claiming party must prove that he defending party
being self-serving and pure conclusions intended to suit has failed to answer within the period provided by the
respondent's purposes. During trial, respondent Rules of Court;
presented its Account Officer handling petitioners' loan 5. The defending party must be notified of the motion to
accounts, as its witness. He attested to the existence of declare him in default; and
the loan obligation and identified a Statement of 6. There must be a hearing set on the motion to declare the
Account which shows the amount due. However, he defending party in default
admitted that he had no knowledge of how the PN was
prepared, executed, and signed, nor did he witness its NOTE: The court has no authority to motu proprio declare the
signing. On the other hand, a petitioners’ witness testified defendant in default. A motion to declare the defending party
that the petitioner was already able to pay its loan, albeit must be filed by the claiming party before a declaration of
partially. However, she admitted that she does not know default is made by the court. The rule is clear, as Sec. 3 of Rule
how much payments were made, nor does she have a 9 provides “upon motion of the claiming party” (Riano, 2014).
rough estimate thereof, as these were allegedly paid for
in dollars. EFFECT OF AN ORDER OF DEFAULT
A. Are the PN and the CSA deemed admitted for failure to 1. The party declared in default loses his standing in court
deny their genuiness and due execution under oath in and prevents him from taking part in the trial [Sec. 3(a),
accordance with Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court Rule 9];
and as such, affect their admissibality as evidence? 2. While the defendant can no longer take part in the trial,
he is nevertheless entitled to notices of subsequent
B. Can the testimony of the petitioner’s witness that the proceedings [Sec. 3(a), Rule 9];
petitioner was already able to pay partially its obligation
be appreciated? NOTE: It is submitted that he may participate in the trial,
not as a party but as a witness.
A:
3. A declaration of default is not an admission of the truth or
A. YES. A reading of the Answer shows that petitioners failed the validity of the plaintiff’s claims (Monarch Insurance v.
to specifically deny the execution of the Credit Agreement, CA, G.R. No. 92735, June 8, 2000) (1999 Bar).
PN, and CSA. The mere statement that they "specifically deny"
the pertinent allegations of the Complaint "for being self- RELIEF FROM AN ORDER OF DEFAULT
serving and pure conclusions intended to suit plaintiffs (2001, 2002 Bar)
purposes" does not constitute an effective specific denial as
contemplated by law. To deny the genuineness and due Remedies from an order of default
execution of an actionable document, the defendant must After notice of Motion under oath to set aside the order of
declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that order and default on the grounds of FAME and he has
it is otherwise false or fabricated. It is further required that before meritorious defense (affidavit of merit).
the defendant "sets forth what he claims to be the facts". In judgment
the case at bar, all of such requirements are absent from the If denied – he may move for
Answer. reconsideration;
Grounds: FAME
B. NO. The one who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it rather than the other party, to prove non-payment.
He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of If denied - Petition for certiorari under Rule
proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of 65
proof never parts. Moreover, it must be noted that when the
creditor is in possession of the document of credit, proof of After 1. New Trial (Rule 37)
non-payment is not needed for it is actually presumed. In the judgment 2. Appeal (Rule 40 or 41)
case at bar, while petitioners insisted that they had paid, before
albeit partially, their loan obligation to respondent, the fact of judgment
such payment was never established by petitioners. becomes final
Respondent's possession of the Credit Agreement, PN, and and executory
CSA, especially with their genuineness and due execution (Period of
already having been admitted, cements its claim that the appeal)
obligation of petitioners has not been extinguished. (Go Tong
After 1. Petition for Relief from judgment (Rule
Electrical Supply Co., Inc. et. al. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.,
judgment has 38).
G.R. No. 187487, June 29, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
become final 2. Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47)
and executory
DEFAULT Defendant He may avail of the special civil action of
has been certiorari under Rule 65.
WHEN A DECLARATION OF DEFAULT IS PROPER wrongly or
(1999, 2000 Bar) improvidently
declared in
Requisites before a defending party may be declared in default
default

Remedial Law
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS, FINAL Answer to an original Within 15 days after
ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS complaint service of summons,
unless a different period is
PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES fixed by the court (Sec. 1,
Rule 11).
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate Defendant is a foreign Within 15 days after
initiatory pleading but the payment of the prescribed docket private juridical entity service of summons [Sec.
fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject and has a resident agent 6, in relation to Sec. 5(a),
matter or nature of the action. (Rizal et al., v. Nared, G.R. No. Rule 2, A.M. NO. 00-8-10-SC
151898, March 14, 2012) 2000-11-21].
Defendant is a foreign Within 15 days after
The payment of the docket and other legal fees within the private juridical entity service of summons to said
prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. and has no resident agent or officer [Sec. 6, in
(Gonzales v. Pe, G.R. No. 167398, August 9, 2011) agent but has an relation to Sec. 5(b), Rule 2,
agent/officer in the A.M. NO. 00-8-10-SC 2000-
Rules regarding payment of docket fees Philippines 11-21].
Defendant is a foreign Within 30 days after
1. In Manchester Development Corporation v. CA (G.R. No. private juridical entity receipt of summons by the
75919, May 7, 1987), a court acquires jurisdiction only and has no resident home office of the foreign
upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. agent nor agent/officer. private entity (Sec. 2, Rule
2. A defect in the original pleading resulting in the 11).
underpayment of the docket fee cannot be cured by (Summons to be served
amendment, such as the reduction of the claim. This is to SEC which will then
because, for all legal purposes, since there is no original send a copy by
complaint over which the court has acquired jurisdiction registered mail within
(Manchester Development Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 10 days to the home
75919, May 7, 1987). office of the foreign
3. While the payment of prescribed docket fee is a private corporation)
jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the Service of summons by Within the time specified
time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal publication in the order which shall
of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable not be less than 60 days
prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the after notice (Sec. 15, Rule
party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the 14).
rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient Non-resident defendant Not less than 60 days after
filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there to whom extraterritorial notice (Sec. 15, Rule 14).
was no intention to defraud the government, the service of summons is
Manchester rule does not apply (Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog made
v. Melico, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005 citing Sun Answer to amended Within 15 days from
Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion). complaint (Matter of service of amended
4. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third right) complaint (Sec. 3, Rule 11).
party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be Answer to amended Within 10 days counted
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed complaint (Not a matter from notice of the court
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of of right) order admitting the same
said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case (Sec. 3, Rule 11).
beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary Counterclaim or cross- Within 10 days from
period. claim service (Sec. 4, Rule 11).
5. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by
Third (fourth, etc.) party Like an original defendant
the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the
complaint – 15, 30, 60 days, as the
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment case may be (Sec. 5, Rule
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if
11).
specified the same has been left for determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a Supplemental complaint Within 10 days from
lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the notice of order admitting
Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce the same unless a different
said lien and assess and collect the additional fee (Sun period is fixed by the court
Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, G.R. Nos. (Sec. 7, Rule 11).
79937-38, 13 February 1989).
6. Cooperatives can no longer invoke Republic Act No. 6938, NOTE: Upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the
the Philippine Cooperative Act of 2008 (amended by court may extend the time to plead provided in these Rules.
Republic Act No. 9520), as basis for exemption from the The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other
payment of legal fees by virtue of the court’s fiscal pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules (Sec.11,
independence (A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, March 13, 2012). Rule 11).
7. If the plaintiff fails to comply with the jurisdictional
requirement of payment of the docket fees, the defendant AMENDMENT
should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction otherwise the
latter may be estopped (National Steel Corporation v. CA, AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
G.R. No. 123215, February 2, 1999).
Amendment is considered as a matter of right:
PERIODS OF FILING OF PLEADINGS
1. Once, at any time before a responsive pleading is served;
or
Periods for Filing an Answer 2. In the case of a reply, at any time within 10 days after it
is served (Sec. 2, Rule 10).

Amended Pleading Supplemental Pleading
NOTE: It is settled that a motion to dismiss is not the Refers to the facts existing Refers to facts occurring
responsive pleading contemplated by the Rule. A plaintiff may at the time of filing of after the filing of the
file an amended complaint even after the original complaint original pleading original pleading
was ordered dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal Supersedes the original Merely supplements the
is not yet final (Riano, 2014, citing Bautista v. Maya-Maya original pleading
Cottages, Inc., G.R. No. 148411, November 29, 2005). May be amended without Always with leave of court
leave of court before a
AMENDMENTS BY LEAVE OF COURT responsive pleading is filed.
It has retroactive It sets forth transactions,
Substantial amendments application. occurrences or events
which have happened since
Substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of the date of the pleading
court upon a motion filed in court, after notice to the adverse sought to be supplemented.
party, and after being given an opportunity to be heard (Sec.
3, Rule 10). Amendment must be There is no such
appropriately marked. requirement in
Amendments by leave of court (2003 Bar) supplemental pleadings
(Herrera, 2007).
1. If the amendment is substantial (Sec. 3, Rule 10); or
2. A responsive pleading had already been served (Siasoco EFFECT OF AMENDED PLEADING
v. CA, G.R. No. 132753, February 15, 1999)
Effect of amended pleading on the admissions in the
When refusal of leave of court to amend is allowed original pleading
1. The motion is made to delay the action; or They cease to be judicial admissions. Thus, they are to be
2. The cause of action or defense is substantially altered considered as extrajudicial admissions and may be proved by
(Guiang v. Nadayag, G.R. No. 82630, September 30, 1992). the party relying thereon by formal offer in evidence of such
original pleading (Ching v. CA, G.R. No. 110844, April 27, 2000).
FORMAL AMENDMENTS
A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly SUMMONS

clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected
by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on It is the writ by which the defendant is notified of the action
motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the brought against him (Gomez v. CA, G.R. No. 127692, March 10,
adverse party (Sec. 4, Rule 10). 2004). An important part of that notice is a direction to the
defendant that he must answer the complaint within the
AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO OR period fixed by the Rules, and that unless he so answers,
AUTHORIZE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be granted the
relief applied for (Riano, 2014).
Instances when an amendment may be made to conform
to or authorize presentation of evidence Alias summons
1. When evidence is not objected to- When issues not raised This refers to summons issued by the clerk, on demand of the
by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied plaintiff, when:
consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects 1. Summons is returned without being served on any or all
as if they had been raised in the pleadings; of the defendants; or
2. Summons has been lost (Sec. 5, Rule 14)
NOTE: Failure to amend does not affect the result of the
trial of said issue. VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE
2. When evidence is objected to - Amendment may also be Effect of voluntary appearance

made to authorize presentation of evidence if evidence is
objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within GR: The defendant’s voluntary appearance shall be equivalent
the issues made by the pleadings, if the presentation of to service of summons and the consequent submission of
the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court (Sec. 20, Rule 14).
will be subserved thereby (Sec. 5, Rule 10) (2004 Bar).
NOTE: As a rule, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS the person of the respondent without the latter being served
with summons. However, even if there is no valid service of
A supplemental pleading is one which sets forth transactions, summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the
occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of person of the defendant by virtue of the latter's voluntary
the pleading sought to be supplemented (Sec. 6, Rule 10). appearance. Voluntary appearance cures the defect in the
service of summons (Sy v. Fairland Knitcraft Co., Inc, G.R. No.
NOTE: The cause of action stated in the supplemental 182915, December 12, 2011).
complaint must be the same as that stated in the original
complaint. Otherwise, the court should not admit the XPN: The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds
supplemental complaint (Asset Privatization Trust v. CA, G.R. (affirmative defenses, not affirmative relief) aside from/in
No. 121171, December 29, 1998). addition to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
Amended pleading vs. Supplemental pleading
PERSONAL SERVICE

Remedial Law
3. On any of its officers or agents within the Philippines
Personal service of summons is proper only if the suit is one (Sec. 12, Rule 14).
strictly in personam.
Summons on foreign private juridical entity not
The service of summons must be made by service in person registered in the Philippines
on the defendant. This is effected by handing a copy of the
summons to the defendant in person, or if he refuses to If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the
receive it, by tendering the copy of the summons to him (Sec. Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave
6, Rule 14). of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the
following means:
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
1. By personal service coursed through the appropriate
Requirements of substituted service of summons court in the foreign country with the assistance of the
Department of Foreign Affairs;
1. The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff 2. By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation
must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or in the country where the defendant may be found and by
there is impossibility of prompt service; serving a copy of the summons and the court order by-
2. The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the registered mail at the last known address of the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted defendant;
personal service; 3. By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that
3. If the substituted service will be effected at defendant’s could generate proof of service; or
house or residence, it should be left with a person of 4. By such other means as the court may in its discretion
“suitable age and discretion then residing therein” and direct (A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC dated March 15, 2011).
must have the “relation of confidence” to the defendant;
and Summons on entities without juridical personality
4. If the substituted service will be done at defendant’s
office or regular place of business, then it should be When persons associated in an entity without juridical
served on a competent person in charge of the place personality are sued under the name by which they are
(Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006). generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon
all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon
Impossibility of prompt service (2013, 2016, 2017 Bar) the person in charge of the office or place of business
maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind
In an action strictly in personam like a complaint for sum of individually any person whose connection with the entity has,
money, personal service on the defendant is the preferred upon due notice, been severed before the action was brought
mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to (Sec. 8, Rule 14).
the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons,
cannot be served with summons within a reasonable period, CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE (BY PUBLICATION)
then substituted service can be resorted to (Manotoc v. CA,
G.R. No.130974, August 16, 2006). GR: Summons by publication is available only in actions in
rem or quasi in rem. It is not available as a means of acquiring
Otherwise stated, it is only when the defendant cannot be jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an action in
served personally within a reasonable time that a substituted personam.
service may be made. Impossibility of prompt service should
be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant XPN: Summons by publication is available in an action in
personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement personam in the following situations:
should be made in the proof of service (Galura v. Math-
AgroCorporation, G.R. No. 167230, August 14, 2009). 1. The identity of the defendant is unknown;
2. The whereabouts of the defendants are unknown;
Summons on private juridical entity (1999, 2006 Bar) 3. The defendant a resident of the Philippines but is
temporarily out of the country; or
Service may be made on the: (PIGS-MT) 4. In case the defendant does not reside and cannot be
found in the Philippines, the remedy of the plaintiff in
1. President; order to acquire jurisdiction to try the case is to convert
2. In-house counsel; the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem by
3. General manager; attaching the property of the defendant (Philippine
4. Corporate secretary; Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro, G.R. No.
5. Managing partner; or 175587, September 21, 2007).
6. Treasurer (Sec. 11, Rule 14)
NOTE: Those enumerated from 1 to 3 applies to any action,
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive. Thus, service of which necessarily includes personal action (Riano, 2014).
summons upon other persons is not valid.
Summons by publication may be made only with leave of
Summons on foreign private juridical entity registered in court.
the Philippines
Service of summons by mail
Provided it has transacted business in the Philippines, in
which case, service may be made on its: (RAGA) Service of summons may be effected through publication in a
newspaper of general circulation together with a registered
1. Resident agent designated in accordance with law for mailing of a copy of the summons and the order of the court
that purpose; to the last known address of the defendant (Riano, 2014). It
2. If there be no such agent, on the government official can be done as a complementary to service of summons by
designated by law to that effect; or publication but it does not mean that service by registered

mail alone would suffice. XPNs:
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE, WHEN ALLOWED 1. Ex parte motions;

2. Urgent motions;
Requisites of extra-territorial service of summons (2009 3. Motions agreed upon by the parties to be heard on
Bar) shorter notice or jointly submitted by the parties;
4. Motions for summary judgment which must be served at
1. The defendant is nonresident; least 10 days before its hearing (Riano, 2014); or
2. He is not found in the Philippines; and 5. Non-litigated motions
3. The action against him is either in rem or quasi in rem.
LITIGATED AND EX PARTE MOTIONS
NOTE: There is no extraterritorial service of summons in an
action in personam. Hence, extraterritorial service upon a Litigated motion
nonresident in an action for injunction which is in personam
is not proper It is a motion which affects the substantial rights of the
parties and is one made with notice to the adverse party to
Instances when extra-territorial service of summons is give an opportunity to oppose before a ruling on the motion is
allowed: made by the court. A hearing is required (Sec. 4, Rule 15)
1. The action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; Examples:

2. The action relates to, or the subject of which is the 1. Motion to dismiss;
property within the Philippines on which the defendant 2. Motion for judgment on the pleadings; and
has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; 3. Motion for summary judgment
3. The action in which the relief demanded consists, wholly
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest Non-compliance with service of motion and notice of
therein (2016 Bar); and hearing
4. When the property of the defendant has been attached in
the Philippines. The motion will be considered as a mere scrap of paper which
the court has no right to receive and the trial court has no
Manner of service of summons in cases of extra- authority to act upon. Service of a copy of a motion containing
territorial service a notice of the time and the place of hearing of that motion is
a mandatory requirement, and the failure of movants to
1. With leave of court served outside the Philippines by comply with these requirements renders the motions fatally
personal service; defective (Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Cheng, G.R. Nos.
2. With leave of court served by publication in a newspaper 170232-170301, December 5, 2006).
of general circulation, in which case a copy of the
summons and order of court must also be sent by PRO-FORMA MOTIONS
registered mail to the last known address of defendant
(2008 Bar); or It is that which does not comply with the rules on motion and
3. Any other manner the court may deem sufficient (Sec. 15, is considered as one filed merely to delay the proceedings
Rule 14). (Marikina Development Corp., v. Flojo, G.R. No. 110801,
December 8, 1995).
MOTIONS
Such motion, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance, and
It is an application for relief other than by a pleading (Sec. 1, does not stop the running of the period for filing the requisite
Rule 15) (2007 Bar). pleading (Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002).
Kinds of motions OMNIBUS MOTION RULE
1. Motion ex parte – One which does not require that the GR: All available grounds for objection in attacking a
parties be heard and which the court may act upon pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding should be invoked
without prejudicing the rights of the other party (2002 at one time; otherwise, they shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8,
Bar); Rule 15) (2010 Bar).
2. Litigated motion – One which requires parties to be heard
before a ruling on the motion is made by a court (e.g. XPNs:
motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment) 1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(Riano, 2014); 2. Litis pendentia;
3. Pro forma motion – One which does not satisfy the 3. Res judicata; and
requirements of the rules and one which will be treated 4. Prescription (Sec. 1, Rule 9)
as a motion intended to delay the proceedings (Marikina
Development Corporation v. Flojo, G.R. No. 110801, BILL OF PARTICULARS
December 8, 1995).
Motion granted
NOTICE OF HEARING
AND HEARING OF MOTIONS If the motion is granted, either in whole or in part, it must be
effected within 10 days from notice of the order, unless a
Three-Day Notice Rule different period is fixed by the court (Sec. 3, Rule 12)
GR: Service of the copy of motions should be made in such a Non-compliance with the order of a bill of particulars
manner as shall ensure its receipt at least three (3) days
before the hearing (Sec. 4, Rule 15). 1. If the order is not obeyed or in case of insufficient
compliance therewith, the court:

Remedial Law
a. May order the striking out of the pleading or the makes it to the interest of the State that there should be
portion thereof to which the order is directed; or an end to litigation – republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the
b. Make such order as it may deem just (Sec. 4, Rule 12) hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the
2. If plaintiff is disobedient, his compliant will be stricken same cause – neme debet bis vexari et eadem causa (Fels,
off and dismissed (Sec. 3, Rule 17); Inc. v. Prov. of Batangas, G.R. No. 168557, February 19,
3. If defendant is disobedient, his answer will be stricken off 2007).
and his counterclaim dismissed, and he will be declared
in default upon motion of the plaintiff (Sec. 4, Rule 17; Sec. 7. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
3, Rule 9) (2003, 2008 Bar). action;
8. That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's
MOTION TO DISMISS pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise
extinguished;
Motion to dismiss 9. That the claim on which the action is founded is
unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of
GR: A motion must be filed by a party thereto. frauds; and
10. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not
XPNs: been complied with (Sec. 1, Rule 16).
1. Those cases where the court may dismiss a case motu NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
proprio (i.e. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
litis pendentia; res judicata; and prescription) (Sec. 1, Rule Q: A complaint, in the nature of an intra-corporate
9); dispute, was filed by Gonzales et al, against GJH Land, Inc.,
2. Failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time et al. alleging that the subscriptions for the S.J. Land,
(Sec. 3, Rule 17); and Inc.'s shares were already paid by them in full in the
3. Rule on Summary Procedure (Sec. 4, 1991 Revised Rule on books of S.J. Land, Inc., but were nonetheless offered for
Summary Procedure) sale on July 29, 2011 to the corporation's stockholders.
The case was raffled to Branch 276, which is not a Special
GROUNDS Commercial Court. For this reason, GJH Land, Inc., et al.
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the
Grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 subject matter. Should the motion to dismiss be granted?
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the A: YES. The motion to dismiss should be granted because the
defending party; commercial case was wrongly raffled to a regular branch, i.e.
2. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter Branch 276, instead of being assigned to the sole Special
of the claim; Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is
3. That venue is improperly laid; Branch 256. Manuel Luis C. Gonzales and Francis Martin
4. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; D.Gonzales filed a commercial case, i.e., an intra-corporate
dispute, with the Office of the Clerk of Court in the RTC of
NOTE: The issue of the plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to Muntinlupa City, which is the official station of the designated
sue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal where Special Commercial Court, in accordance with A.M. No. 03-03-
the defendant dealt with the former as a party in the 03-SC. It is, therefore, from the time of such filing that the RTC
proceeding. of Muntinlupa City acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter or the nature of the action. (Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc.,
5. That there is another action pending between the same et al., G.R. NO. 202664, November 10, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
parties for the same cause (2007 Bar);
When to file Motion to Dismiss
NOTE: Requisites of Litis Pendentia: (PRR)
GR: It should be filed within the time for but before filing the
a. Identity of the parties or at least such parties answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim (Sec. 1,
representing the same interest in both actions; Rule 16).
b. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed
for, being founded on the same facts; and XPNs: Even after an answer has been filed, the defendant can
c. Identity with respect to the two preceding still file a motion to dismiss, with leave of court, on the
particulars, such that any judgment that may following grounds:
be rendered in the pending case would amount
to res judicata in the other case (Lim v. 1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
Vianzon, G.R. No. 137187, August 3, 2006). 2. Litis pendentia;
3. Res judicata;
6. That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or 4. Prescription of action; or
by the statute of limitations; 5. Where evidence that would constitute a ground for
dismissal is discovered during the trial.
NOTE: Requisites of res judicata:
DISTINGUISHED FROM DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE UNDER
a. The former judgment must be final; RULE 33
b. The court which rendered it has jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; Rule 16 Rule 33
c. Judgment must be on the merits; and (Motion to Dismiss) (Demurrer to Evidence)
d. There must be identity of parties, subject Grounded on preliminary Based on insufficiency of
matter and causes of action. objections evidence
May be filed by any May be filed only by the
Res judicata as a ground for dismissal is based on two defending party against defendant against the
grounds, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which whom a claim is asserted complaint of the plaintiff

in the action 3. If the plaintiff fails to comply with the Rules or any order
of the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17) (2008 Bar)
Should be filed within the May be filed only after the
time for but prior to the plaintiff has completed the NOTE: The plaintiff’s failure to appear at the trial after he has
filing of the answer of the presentation of his presented his evidence and rested his case does not warrant
defending party to the evidence (Riano, 2014). the dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute.
pleading asserting the It is merely a waiver of his right to cross-examine and to
claim object to the admissibility of evidence.
If denied, defendant If denied, defendant may
answers, or else he may be present evidence PRE-TRIAL
declared in default
Denial is not appealable Nature of a Pre-trial
If granted, plaintiff may (interlocutory) (Riano,
appeal or if subsequent 2014). It is mandatory (Sec. 2, Rule 18).
case is not barred, he may
re-file the case If granted, but on appeal It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves
the order of dismissal is a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation, and
reversed, the defendant expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation (The
loses his right to present Philippine American Life & General Insurance Co. v. Enario, G.R.
evidence (Riano, 2014). No. 182075, September 15, 2010).
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS NOTE: A motion to set the case for pre-trial is an ex parte
motion. This means that the motion need not be the subject of
DISMISSAL UPON NOTICE BY THE PLAINTIFF a hearing (Riano, 2014)
A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a Failure to appear during pre-trial
notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or
of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being 1. Plaintiff’s failure to appear- shall be a cause for the
filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. dismissal of the action, with prejudice, unless otherwise
Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without ordered by the court.
prejudice, except that a notice operates as adjudication upon
the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in NOTE: The plaintiff’s remedies from the order of
a competent court an action based on or including the same dismissal include:
claim (Sec. 1, Rule 17). a. Appeal; or
b. Re-filing of the complaint, if the order of dismissal is
GR: A dismissal without prejudice i.e. the complaint can be re- without prejudice [Sec. 1 (g), Rule 41]
filed
2. Defendant’s non-attendance- shall be a cause to allow the
XPNs: plaintiff to present evidence ex parte, and the court to
1. The notice of dismissal by the plaintiff provides that the render judgment on the basis thereof (Sec. 5, Rule 18).
dismissal is with prejudice; or
2. The plaintiff has once dismissed in a competent court an NOTE: The defendant may move for the reconsideration
action based on or including the same claim (Two- of the order and if the denial is tainted with grave abuse
Dismissal Rule) (Sec. 1, Rule 17). of discretion, he may file a petition for certiorari.
3. Even where the notice of dismissal does not provide that
it is with prejudice but it is premised on the fact of When non-appearance of a party in a pre-trial conference
payment by the defendant of the claim involved (Serrano excused
v. Cabrera, G.R. No. L-5189, September 21, 1953)
1. If a valid cause is shown therefore; or
NOTE: The dismissal as a matter of right ceases when an 2. If a representative shall appear in his behalf fully
answer or a motion for summary judgment is served on the authorized in writing to:
plaintiff and not when the answer or motion is filed with the
court. Thus, if a notice of dismissal is filed by the plaintiff even a. Enter into an amicable settlement;
after an answer has been filed in court but before the b. Submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution;
responsive pleading has been served on the plaintiff, the and
notice of dismissal is still a matter of right. c. Enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documents (Sec. 4, Rule 18)
TWO-DISMISSAL RULE
One Day Examination of Witness Rule (2009, 2016 Bar)
It applies when the plaintiff has:
In the pre-trial, the court shall ask the parties to agree on the
1. Twice dismissed the actions; specific dates for continuous trial, adhere to the case flow
2. Based on or including the same claim; and chart determined by the court and use the time frame for
3. In a court of competent jurisdiction (Riano, 2014) each stage setting the trial dates.
DISMISSAL DUE TO THE FAULT OF PLAINTIFF Adherence to the One Day Examination of Witness Rule shall
be required where the witness shall be fully examined in 1
1. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on day only, subject to the court’s discretion during the trial on
the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the whether or not to extend the examination for justifiable
complaint reasons.
2. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute his action for an
unreasonable length of time (nolle prosequi) Most Important Witness Rule (2016 Bar)

Remedial Law
It is specifically required to It is not specifically
Where no settlement has been effected, the court shall follow be submitted in a civil case required in a criminal case.
the Most Important Witness Rule, where the court shall (Sec. 6, Rule 18).
determine the most important witnesses and limit the
number of such witnesses and require the parties and/or INTERVENTION
counsels to submit to the branch clerk of court the names,
addresses and contact numbers of the witnesses to be It is a legal proceeding by which a third person, who is not
summoned by subpoena. Note, however, that the court may originally impleaded in the action, is permitted by the court to
also refer the case to a trial by commissioner under Rule 32 become a party by intervening in a pending action after
(A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, July 13, 2004). meeting the conditions and requirement set by the Rules of
Court (First Philippine Holdings Corp. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES; No. 88345, February 1, 1996).
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR
In claiming the right to intervene, the intervenor must comply
Appearance of parties at pre-trial with the requirements laid down by Rule 19 of the Rules of
Court (Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, G.R. No. 175573,
Both the parties and their counsel must appear (Sec. 4, Rule September 11, 2008).
18). Should the lawyer undertake to appear not only as an
attorney but in substitution of his client’s person, it is REQUISITES FOR INTERVENTION
imperative for him to have “special authority” to make such
substantive agreements as only the client otherwise has 1. There must be a motion for intervention filed before
capacity to make (Feria & Noche, 2013). rendition of judgment by the trial court (Sec. 1, Rule 19);
Under the new rules, the “special authority” of the lawyer or NOTE: A motion is necessary because leave of court is
representative should be in writing because the courts can required before a person may be allowed to intervene
neither second-guess the specific powers given, nor can the (Sec. 1, Rule 19).
courts assume that all the powers specified in Section 4 of
Rule 18 are granted by a party to his representative (Republic 2. The movant must show in his motion that he:
v. CA, 429 SCRA 669).
a. Has an immediate legal interest in the matter in
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRE-TRIAL IN A CIVIL CASE AND controversy, not merely contingent;
PRE-TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE b. Has legal interest in the success of either of the
parties in the action;
Pre-trial in civil case Pre-trial in criminal case c. Has legal interest against both parties; or
It is set when the plaintiff It is ordered by the court d. Is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
moves ex parte to set the and no motion to set the distribution or other disposition of the property in
case for pre-trial (Sec. 1, case for pre-trial is the custody of the court or of an officer thereof (Sec.
Rule 18). required from either the 1, Rule 19) (2000 Bar);
prosecution or the defense
(Sec. 1, Rule 118). 3. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of original parties; and
The motion to set the case The pre-trial is ordered by 4. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a
for pre-trial is made after the court after arraignment separate proceeding (Mabayo Farms, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
the last pleading has been and within 30 days from 140058, August 1, 2002).
served and filed (Ibid.). the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the TIME TO INTERVENE
person of the accused
(Ibid.). Period to intervene
It considers the possibility It does not include the The motion to intervene may be filed any time before
of an amicable settlement possibility of amicable rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the
as an important objective settlement of criminal pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and
(Sec 2(a), Rule 18). liability as one of its served on the original parties (Sec. 2, Rule 19).
purposes (Ibid.).
Requires the proceeding All agreements or SUBPOENA
during the preliminary admissions made or
conference to be recorded entered during the pre- It is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend
in the “minutes of trial conference shall be and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any
preliminary conference” to reduced in writing and investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or
be signed by both parties signed by both the accused for taking of his deposition (Sec. 1, Rule 21).
and/or counsel. The rule and counsel, otherwise,
allows either the party or they cannot be used SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
his counsel to sign the against the accused (Sec. 2,
minutes (A.M. No. 03-1-09- Rule 118). A process directed to a person requiring him to bring with
SC). him any books, documents, or other things under his control
(Sec. 1, Rule 21).
Sanctions for non- The sanctions in a criminal
appearance in a pre-trial case are imposed upon the SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM
are imposed upon the counsel for the accused or
plaintiff and the defendant the prosecutor (Sec. 3, Rule It is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend
in a civil case (Sec. 4, Rule 118). and to testify at the hearing or trial of an action or at any
18). investigation conducted by competent authority or for the

taking of his deposition (Sec. 1, Rule 21). documents or which an action is pending may order
things any party to produce and permit the
COMPELLING ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES; CONTEMPT (Rule 27) inspection and copying of any
designated documents or order any
Effect of failure to comply with subpoena party to permit entry upon
designated land or other property in
GR: The court or judge which issued the subpoena may issue his possession or control for the
a warrant for the arrest of the witness and make him pay the purpose of inspecting or
cost of such warrant and seizure, if the court should photographing the property or any
determine that his disobedience was willful and without just designated relevant object or
cause. The refusal to obey a subpoena without adequate operation thereon. (2002, 2009
cause shall be deemed contempt of the court issuing it (Secs. 8 Bar)
and 9, Rule 21). Physical and In an action in which the mental or
mental physical condition of a party is in
XPNs: examination of controversy, the court in which the
persons. action is pending may in its
1. Viatory right – where the witness resides more than 100 (Rule 28) discretion order him to submit to a
kms. from his residence to the place where he is to testify physical or mental examination by a
by the ordinary course of travel, generally, by overland physician. (2005 Bar)
transportation; or
2. When the permission of the court in which the detention DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION; DEPOSITIONS BEFORE
prisoner’s case is pending was not obtained (Sec. 10, Rule ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL
21) (2009 Bar).
Effect of substitution of parties
MODES OF DISCOVERY
It does not affect the right to use depositions previously
Discovery taken; and when an action has been dismissed and another
action involving the same subject is afterward brought
It is a device employed by a party to obtain information about between the same parties or their representatives or
relevant matters on the case from the adverse party in successors-in-interest, all depositions lawfully taken and duly
preparation for the trial (Riano, 2014). filed in the former action may be used in the latter as if
originally taken therefor (Sec. 5, Rule 23).
MODES OF DISCOVERY (2000 Bar)
Deposition By leave of court after jurisdiction Effect of using the deposition of a person
Pending Action has been obtained over any
(Rule 23) defendant or over property which is GR: Taking of the deposition of a person does not make that
the subject of the action, or without person a witness of the party using his deposition (Riano,
such leave after an answer has been 2014)
served, the testimony of any person,
whether a party or not, may be taken, XPN: The introduction of the deposition, or any part thereof,
at the instance of any party, by makes the deponent the witness of the party introducing the
deposition upon oral examination or deposition (Sec. 8, Rule 23).
written interrogatories. (2010 Bar)
Depositions A person who desires to perpetuate XPN to the XPN: Introduction of deposition does not make
before action or his own testimony or that of another the deponent his witness:
pending appeal person regarding any matter that
(Rule 24) may be cognizable in any court of the 1. If the deposition is used for impeaching or contradicting
Philippines, may file a verified the deponent (Sec. 8, Rule 23); or
petition in the court of the place of 2. If the adverse party uses the deposition of the other party
the residence of any expected [Sec. 4(b), Rule 23]
adverse party.
Written Under the same conditions specified Persons before whom deposition may be taken
interrogatories in Sec. 1, Rule 23, any party desiring
to adverse to elicit material and relevant facts 1. If within the Philippines
parties from any adverse party shall file and a. Judge;
(Rule 25) serve upon the latter written b. Notary public (Sec. 10, Rule 23); or
interrogatories to be answered by c. Any person authorized to administer oaths, as
the party served or, if the party stipulated by the parties in writing (Sec. 14, Rule 23).
served is a public or private 2. If outside the Philippines
corporation or a partnership or a. On notice, before a secretary of embassy or legation,
association, by any officer thereof consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent
competent to testify in its behalf. of the Philippines (Sec. 11, Rule 23); or
Admission by At any time after issues have been b. Before such person or officer as may be appointed by
adverse party joined, a party may file and serve commission or letters rogatory; or
(Rule 26) upon any other party a written c. Any person authorized to administer oaths, as
request for the admission by the stipulated by the parties in writing (Sec. 14, Rule 23).
latter of the genuineness of any
material and relevant document or of Issuance of Letters Rogatory or Commission
the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact. They shall be issued only when necessary or convenient, on
Production or Upon motion of any party showing application and notice, and on such terms and with such
inspection of good cause therefor, the court in direction as are just and appropriate (Sec. 12, Rule 23).

Remedial Law
businessman from Laos, Cambodia, traveled from his
Commission vs. Letters Rogatory home country back to the Philippines in order to attend
the hearing, however several trial dates were postponed
Commission Letters Rogatory due to his unavailability. The private prosecutor filed for
Instrument issued by a court An instrument sent in the a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping, alleging
of justice or other competent name and by the authority of that he was being treated for lung infection at the
tribunal, directed to a a judge or court of another, Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia and that,
magistrate by his official requesting the latter to cause upon doctor's advice, he could not make the long travel to
designation or to an to be examined, upon the Philippines by reason of ill health. Does deposition-
individual by name, interrogatories filed in a case taking in civil case can apply suppletory to the taking of
authorizing him to take pending before the former, a depositions in criminal cases?
depositions of the witness witness who is within the
named therein jurisdiction of the judge or A: NO. Although the rules of civil procedure have suppletory
court to whom such letters application to criminal cases, it is likewise true that criminal
are addressed (Dasmarinas proceedings are primarily governed by the Revised Rules of
Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, et al, Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 adequately
G.R. No.108229, August 24, and squarely covers the situation in the instant case, we find
1993). no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise.
Directed to officials of the Requests to foreign tribunals The purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more
issuing jurisdiction particularly of a prosecution witness who would foreseeably
be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be
Taken in accordance with the The methods of procedure made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the
rules laid down by the court are under the control of case is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section
issuing the commission foreign tribunal (Dulay v. 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Dulay, G.R. No. 158857, Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness
November 11, 2005). must take place at no other place than the court where the
case is pending, the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders
NOTE: Letters rogatory (letters request) may be applied for granting the motion to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping
and issued only after a commission has been returned before the Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia as
unexecuted (Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, et al, G.R. No. nowhere in the said rule permits the taking of deposition
108229, August 24, 1993). outside the Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not.
(Go v. People, G.R. No. 185527. July 18, 2012, Perlas-Bernabe,
USES; SCOPE OF EXAMINATION J)
Persons for whom deposition may be used against Depositions upon written interrogatories under Sec. 25,
Rule 23 vs. Interrogatories to parties under Rule 25
Any part or all of the deposition, so far as admissible under
the rules of evidence, may be used against: Depositions Upon Interrogatories
Written to Parties (Rule
1. Any party who was present or represented at the taking Interrogatories to 25)
of the deposition; or Parties (Sec. 25,
2. One who had due notice of the deposition (Sec. 4, Rule 23) Rule 23)
Deponent Party or ordinary Party only
Uses of depositions witness
Procedure With intervention of No intervention.
1. Contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the the officer Written
deponent as a witness; authorized by the interrogatories
2. Any purpose by the adverse party where the deponent is Court to take are directed to
a party; or deposition the party himself
3. Any purpose by any party if the court finds that:
(DR. USE) Not served upon the Served directly
a. The witness is dead; adverse party upon the adverse
b. The witness resides more than 100 kms. from the directly. They are party (Sec. 1, Rule
place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines. instead delivered to 25).
Unless it appears that his absence was procured by the officer before
the party offering the deposition; whom the
c. The witness is unable to testify because of age, deposition is to be
sickness, infirmity or imprisonment; taken (Sec. 26, Rule
d. The party offering the deposition has been unable to 23).
procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena;
or Scope Direct, cross, Only one set of
e. Upon application and notice, that such exceptional redirect, re-cross interrogatories
circumstances exist as to make it desirable in the Interrogato- No fixed time 15 days to
interest of justice (Sec. 4, Rule 23). ries answer unless
extended or
Q: Petitioners Harry, Tonny, Jerry and Jane were charged reduced by the
of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the RPC. The court
petitioners allegedly defrauded Highdone Company Ltd. Binding Effect Binding to anyone Binding only to
represented by Li Luen Ping by means of false and who is present the parties.
fraudulent representations. The prosecution's during the
complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old deposition.

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN Production or Inspection of Subpoena Duces Tecum

INTERROGATORIES Documents or Things
Essentially a mode of Means of compelling
GR: A party not served with written interrogatories may not discovery. production of evidence.
be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open
court, or to give a deposition pending appeal. Limited to the parties to the It may be directed to any
action. (Sec. 1, Rule 27) person whether a party or
XPN: When allowed by the court and there is good cause not.
shown and the same is necessary to prevent a failure of Issued only upon motion Issued upon an ex parte
justice (Sec. 6, Rule 25). with notice to the adverse application.
party.
IMPLIED ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY;
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ANSWER REQUEST FOR CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSAL TO COMPLY
ADMISSION WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
GR: Each of the matters of which an admission is requested Refusal to answer any question
shall be deemed admitted. upon oral examination
XPN: The request for admission must be served directly upon 1. Order to compel an answer;
the party; otherwise, the party to whom the request is 2. Contempt;
directed cannot be deemed to have admitted the genuineness 3. Require payment of reasonable fees incurred by the
of any relevant document described in and exhibited with the proponent;
request or relevant matters of fact set forth therein on 4. Designated facts shall be taken to be established for
account of failure to answer the request for admission the purposes of the action in accordance with the
(Briboneria v. CA, G.R. No. 101682, December 14, 1992). claim of the party obtaining the order.
5. Dismiss the action or the proceeding;
Period within which to answer request for admission 6. Render a Judgment by default against the disobedient
party;
Under the Rules, each of the matters of which an admission is 7. Refuse to allow the disobedient party to support or
requested shall be deemed admitted unless within a period oppose claims or defenses;
designated in the request which shall not be less than 15 days 8. Strike out all or any part of the pleading of the
after service thereof, or within such further time as the court disobedient party;
may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is 9. Stay further proceedings until order is obeyed; or
directed files and serves upon the party requesting the 10. Order the arrest of the refusing party.
admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the
matter of which an admission is requested or setting forth in Refusal to produce document or thing for inspection,
detail the reason why he cannot truthfully either admit or copying or photographing
deny those matters (Sec. 2, Rule 26).
1. Designated facts shall be taken to be established for
EFFECT OF ADMISSION the purposes of the action in accordance with the
claim of the party obtaining the order;
Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is 2. Refuse to allow the disobedient party to support or
for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not oppose claims or defenses;
constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor 3. Strike out all or any part of the pleading of the
may the same be used against him in any other proceeding disobedient party;
(Sec. 3, Rule 26). 4. Dismiss the action or the proceeding;
5. Render a Judgment by default against the disobedient
PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR party;
THINGS 6. Stay further proceedings until order is obeyed;
Limitations on the request for production or inspection party; or
of documents or things 8. Order the arrest of the refusing party.
1. Should not be privileged;
Refusal to submit to
Physical or Mental examination
NOTE: On the ground of public policy, the rules providing
for production and inspection of books and papers do not
1. Designated facts shall be taken to be established for
authorize the production or inspection of privileged
the purposes of the action in accordance with the
matter; that is books and papers which, because of their
claim of the party obtaining the order;
confidential and privileged character, could not be
2. Prohibit the disobedient party to introduce evidence
received in evidence (Riano, 2014).
of physical and mental conditions;
3. Strike out all or any part of the pleading of the
2. Should constitute or contain evidence material to any
disobedient party;
matter involved in the action and which are in his (the
4. Dismiss the action or the proceeding;
party ordered) possession, custody, or control (Sec. 1,
Rule 27); and
party;
3. In the petition, the papers and documents to be produced
6. Stay further proceedings until order is obeyed; or
must be sufficiently described.
party.
Production or inspection of documents or things under
Rule 27 vs. Subpoena duces tecum
Refusal to the request for
Remedial Law
admission by adverse party
Parties may then respectively adduce rebutting
1. Require payment of reasonable fees incurred by the evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons
and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to
proponent (Secs. 1-4); and
adduce evidence upon their original case.
2. Each of the matters of which an admission is
requested is deemed admitted (Sec. 5, Rule 26).
NOTE: The remedy of the party, in this case, is to file a

motion to be relieved of the consequences of the implied
admission. The amendment of the complaint per se cannot
set aside the legal effects of the request for admission since Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be
deemed submitted for decision, unless the court
its materiality has not been affected by the amendment.
directs the parties to argue or to submit their
respective memoranda or any further pleadings.
TRIAL
It is a judicial process of investigating and determining the Rule on consolidation of cases

legal controversies starting with the production of evidence
by the plaintiff and ending with his closing arguments. Should GR: Consolidation is discretionary upon the court to avoid
there be no amicable settlement or a compromise forged multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse,
between the parties, the case will be set for trial (Riano, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, and simplify the work
2011). of the trial court and save unnecessary costs and expenses.
ORDER OF TRIAL; REVERSAL OF ORDER XPN: Consolidation becomes a matter of duty when:
Procedure in Trial 1. Two or more cases are pending before the same judge; or
2. If cases are filed with the different branches of the same
Subject to the provisions of Sec. 2, Rule 31, and unless the RTC and one of such case has not been partially tried
court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall be (Raymundo v. Felipe, G.R. No. L-30887, December 24,
limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall 1971).
proceed as follows:
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
GROUNDS
Plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his
cause of action/complaint.
The only ground for demurrer to evidence is upon showing
that upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no
right to relief. (Sec. 1, Rule 33)
EFFECT OF DENIAL
Defendant shall then adduce evidence in support
of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third 1. The defendant shall have the right to present his
party complaint. evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 33). This means that the denial of
the demurrer to evidence does not deprive the defendant
the opportunity to adduce evidence in his behalf;
2. The court shall set the date for the reception of the
defendant’s evidence-in-chief. It should not proceed to
Third party defendant if any shall adduce evidence grant the relief demanded by the plaintiff (Northwest
of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, and Airlines, Inc. v.CA, G.R. No. 112573, February 9, 1995);
fourth-party complaint.
3. An order denying a demurrer to evidence is not
appealable because it is interlocutory;
NOTE: It can be subject to petition for certiorari in case of

grave abuse of discretion or an oppressive exercise of
Fourth party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce judicial authority (Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No.
evidence material facts pleaded by them.
140183 July 10, 2003).
EFFECT OF GRANT
1. The case shall be dismissed;

Parties against whom any counterclaim or cross- NOTE: The plaintiff may file an appeal and if that appeal
claim has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in
was granted (reversed the order of dismissal), the
support of their defense, in the order to be
prescribed by the court.
defendant loses his right to present evidence (Sec.1, Rule
33; Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246, February 16,
2007).
2. Upon appeal, the appellate court reversing the order

granting the demurrer should not remand the case to the
trial court. Instead, it should render judgment based on
the evidence submitted by the plaintiff (Radiowealth

Finance Corporation v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 138739, July 6, longer present his
2000). evidence and submits
the case for decision
Q: A Complaint for Partition and Annulment of based on the
Documents with Damages was filed by ABC against DEF prosecution’s evidence
for which the RTC raised in favor of the Petitioner ABC. (Sec. 23, Rule 119).
Subsequently, the respondent DEF filed and MR/MNT for If the If plaintiff appeals If the court finds the
the decision rendered. The RTC issued an order that: in plaintiff and judgment is prosecution’s evidence
the event that within a period of one (1) month from appeals reversed by the insufficient, it will grant
today, they have not yet settled the case, it is understood from the appellate court, it will the demurrer by
that the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial is order of decide the case on rendering judgment
submitted for resolution without any further hearing." dismissal the basis of the acquitting the accused.
Without resolving the motion, the RTC, noting the failure plaintiff’s evidence Judgment of acquittal is
of the parties to submit a project of partition, issued a with the consequence not appealable because
writ of execution. Subsequently, the RTC, discovered the that the defendant double jeopardy sets in.
pendency of the MR and/or MNT and set the same for already loses his right
hearing. The RTC granted respondents' MR and/or MNT to present evidence.
for the specific "purpose of receiving and offering for No res judicata in
admission the documents referred to by the dismissal due to
respondents." However, instead of presenting the demurrer.
documents adverted to, respondents demurred to
petitioners' evidence. Is it proper to file a demurrer to
evidence after a Decision had been rendered in the case? JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
A: NO. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised Judgment

in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain
whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the It is the final ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction
judgment. Being considered a motion to dismiss, thus, a regarding the rights or other matters submitted to it in an
demurrer to evidence must clearly be filed before the court action or proceeding (Macahilig v. Heirs of Garcia M. Magalit,
renders its judgment. In this case, respondents demurred to G.R. No. 141423, November 15, 2000).
petitioners' evidence after the RTC promulgated its Decision.
While respondents' motion for reconsideration and/or new It is the court’s official and final consideration and
trial was granted, it was for the sole purpose of receiving and determination of the respective rights and obligations of the
offering for admission the documents not presented at the parties (46 AM Jur 2d, Judgments SS1).
trial. As respondents never complied with the directive but
instead filed a demurrer to evidence, their motion should be Judgment may be understood in 2 senses:
deemed abandoned. (Gonzales v. Bugaay, G.R. No. 173008.
February 22, 2012. Perlas-Bernabe, J) 1. Judgment that disposes of a case in a manner that leaves
nothing more to be done by the court in respect thereto- In
Demurrer to evidence in a civil case vs. Demurrer to this sense, a final judgment is distinguished from an
evidence in a criminal case interlocutory order which does not finally terminate or
dispose of the case. It has also the effect of ending the
Civil Case Criminal Case litigation, and an aggrieved party may then appeal from
How filed After the plaintiff The court may dismiss the judgment; and
has completed the the action on the ground 2. Judgment that is no longer appealable and is already
presentation of his of insufficiency of capable of being executed because the period for appeal
evidence, the evidence (1) On its own has elapsed without a party having perfected an appeal, or
defendant may move initiative after giving the it has already been resolved by a highest possible tribunal-
for dismissal on the prosecution the In this sense, the judgment is commonly referred to as
ground that upon the opportunity to be heard one that is final and executory (Riano, 2014).
facts and the law the or (2) Upon demurrer to
plaintiff has shown evidence filed by the Interlocutory Order (2006 Bar)
no right to relief (Sec. accused with or without
1, Rule 33). leave of court (Sec. 23, It is an order which decides some point or matter between
Rule 119). the commencement and end of the suit but is not the final
decision on the whole controversy. It leaves something to be
Leave of Not required With or Without (Sec. 23,
court Rule 119) done by the court before the case is finally decided on the
merits.
If The plaintiff may The plaintiff cannot
Remedy to question an improvident interlocutory order
granted appeal from the make an appeal from the
order of dismissal of order of dismissal due to
File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 not under Rule 45.
the case (Sec. 1, Rule the constitutional
A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper mode of
33). prohibition against
double jeopardy redress to question only final judgments.
NOTE: One cannot appeal an interlocutory order.

If denied The defendant may The defendant may
proceed to adduce his adduce his evidence only
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
evidence if the demurrer is filed
with leave of court.
Grounds for judgment on the pleadings (1999 Bar)
If there was no leave of
1. The answer fails to tender an issue because of:
court, accused can no
Remedial Law
genuine or not, not to receive evidence on the issues set
a. General denial of the material allegations of the up in the pleadings. The matter may be resolved, and
complaint; usually is, on the basis of affidavits, depositions,
b. Insufficient denial of the material allegations of the admissions
complaint;
2. Except for the amount of damages, there must be no
2. The answer admits material allegations of the adverse genuine issue as to any material fact; and
party’s pleadings (Sec. 1, Rule 34).
NOTE: There is genuine issue when an issue of fact is
NOTE: In the absence of a motion for judgment on the presented which requires presentation of evidence as
pleadings, the court cannot motu proprio render such distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false
judgment (De Luna v. Abrigo, G.R. No. L-57455, January 18, claim
1990).
3. The party presenting the motion for summary judgment
Instances when judgment on the pleadings is NOT must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
applicable
RENDITION OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
1. Actions for declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment
of marriage or for legal separation; Rendition of Judgment (2004 Bar)
2. Unliquidated damages;
3. Insufficiency of fact – amendment is the remedy Rendition of judgment is the filing of the same with the clerk
of court. Even if the judgment has already been put in writing
NOTE: Judgment on the pleading is proper only when the and signed, it is still subject to amendment if it has not yet
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the been filed with the clerk of court; and before its filing, it does
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading (Sec. 1, not yet constitute the real judgment of the court (Ago v. CA,
Rule 34). When it appears, however, that not all the material G.R. No. L-17898, October 31, 1962).
allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer,
because some of them were either denied or disputed, and Promulgation
the defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if
proven, would have the effect of nullifying plaintiff’s main It is the process by which a decision is published, officially
cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be announced, made known to the public or delivered to the
rendered (Philippine National Bank v. Aznar, G.R. No. 17105, clerk of court for filing, coupled with notice to the parties or
May 30, 2011) (2015 Bar). their counsel.
Effect when the plaintiff moves for judgment on the NOTE: In civil cases, a judgment is rendered, while in criminal
pleadings and defendant interposes no objection cases and election cases, a judgment is rendered and
promulgated.
The latter is deemed to have admitted the truth of the
allegations of the complaint, so that there is no longer any Judgment on the pleadings vs. Summary Judgment
necessity for the plaintiff to submit evidence of his claims
(Phil. Advertising Counselors, Inc. v. Revilla, G.R. No. L-31869, Judgment on the Pleadings Summary Judgment
August 8, 1973). (Rule 34) (Rule 35)
Based solely on the Based on the pleadings,
NOTE: A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed pleadings. depositions, admissions and
only by the plaintiff or the claimant. affidavits.
Generally available only to Available to both plaintiff and
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS the plaintiff, unless the defendant.
defendant presents a
When proper counterclaim.
It is proper where, upon motion filed after the issues had The answer fails to tender an There is no genuine issue
been joined and on the basis of the pleadings and papers filed, issue or there is an between the parties, i.e. there
the court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material admission of material may be issues but these are
fact except as to the amount of damages (Ley Construction & allegations. irrelevant.
Dev. Corp. v. Union Bank of the Phil., G.R. No. 133801, June 27,
2000). 3-day notice for motion 10-day notice required.
required.
NOTE: A claimant may at any time after the pleading in
answer thereto has been served, and the defendant may, at On the merits May be interlocutory (i.e.
any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or partial summary judgments)
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or or on the merits.
any part thereof (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 35).
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER
Requisites of Summary Judgment
Entry of judgment (2000 Bar)
1. The motion shall be served at least 10 days before the
time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may It refers to the physical act performed by the clerk of court in
serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at entering the dispositive portion of the judgment in the book
least 3 days before the hearing; of entries of judgment and after the same has become final
and executory. The record shall contain the dispositive
NOTE: The hearing contemplated (with 10-day notice) is portion of the judgment or final order and shall be signed by
for the purpose of determining whether the issues are the clerk of court, with a certificate by said clerk that the

judgment has already become final and executor (Sec. 2, Rule Grounds 1. Extrinsic fraud, 1. The damages
36). accident, mistake or awarded are
excusable excessive;
Finality of judgment negligence (FAME) 2. The evidence
which ordinary is insufficient
1. Upon lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, with no prudence could not to satisfy the
appeal perfected within such period, the decision have guarded decision or
becomes final and executor (Sec. 1, Rule 39; Banco de against and by final order; or
Brasil v. CA, G.R. Nos. 121576-78, June 16, 2000); and reason of which the 3. The decision
2. Upon lapse of the reglementary period to file an MR, rights of the or final order
decision rendered by the SC becomes final and executory. aggrieved party is contrary to
were impaired; or law (Sec. 1,
Q: The CA decision finding Vicente liable for encroaching 2. Newly discovered Rule 37).
upon a portion of Lot 297 as shown in a sketch plan evidence, which
became final and executory. Upon Acil’s motion, the RTC could not with NOTE: The
issued a Writ of Execution against which Vicente filed an reasonable motion shall
Urgent Motion to Quash and Enjoin Implementation of diligence, have specifically point
Void Writ of Execution. Vicente claims that the said writ been discovered out the portion of
did not conform to the decision to be executed and that it and produced at the judgment not
could not yet be executed since no prior survey has been the trial, and which supported by
conducted to determine the encroached portion of Lot if presented, would evidence or which
297. RTC denied Acil’s motion since there was no need probably alter the are contrary to
for the appointment of a surveyor for the sheriff to result (Sec. 1, Rule law. Otherwise, it
execute the judgment. The CA had already determined 37). will be considered
the same in its Decision. RTC also directed the issuance of as a pro forma
a new writ of execution to implement the dispositive motion and will
portion of the said CA Decision. Can Vicente validly assail not have the effect
the writ of execution? of suspending or
interrupting the
A: NO. Once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the period to appeal.
ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution to When to If denied, the remedy is to appeal from the
enforce the judgment or order. Execution is the final stage of file judgment or final order (Sec. 9, Rule 37).
litigation, the end of the suit. It cannot be frustrated except
for serious reasons demanded by justice and equity. No such Resolution Both must be resolved within 30 days from
valid reason exist in the instant petition. There are no the time it is submitted for resolution
circumstances that would make the execution impossible or
unjust, justifying the modification or alteration thereof. The Rule Both are prohibited motions under Summary
execution conformed to the judgment to be executed and under Procedure and Small Claims
adhered strictly to the very essential particulars. Moreover, Summary
there is really no need for the appointment of a surveyor Procedure
since the CA decision sought to be implemented had already and Small
determined Vicente’s encroachment on Acil’s property and Claims
had equally identified such illegally occupied area. (Vicente v.
Acil Corporation, G.R. No. 196461, July 15, 2015, Perlas- Denial of the MNT; effect
Bernabe, J.)
If the motion is denied, the remedy is to appeal from the
Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments judgment or final order, and not to appeal the order denying
the motion for new trial, because the order is not appealable.
Otherwise known as the principle of conclusiveness of (Sec. 9, Rule 37)
judgments, this doctrine provides that a judgment that has
attained finality can no longer be disturbed. It is sometimes Grant of the MNT; effect
referred to as “preclusion of issues” or “collateral estoppel”
whereby, issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit If the motion for new trial is granted, the original judgment is
cannot again be raised in any future case between the same vacated and the action shall stand for trial de novo. But the
parties (Riano, 2014). recorded evidence taken upon the former trial, so far as the
same is material and competent to establish the issues, shall
POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES be used at the new trial without retaking the same. (Sec. 6,
Rule 37)
The following are remedies before a judgment or final order
becomes final and executory: Second Motion for New Trial
1. Motion for new trial;
2. Motion for reconsideration; or A second motion for new trial, based on a ground not existing
3. Appeal or available when the first motion was made, may be filed
within the time provided in Section 5, Rule 37 excluding the
Motion for New Trial vs. Motion for Reconsideration time during which the first motion had been pending.
Motion for New Trial Motion for Denial of the MR; effect
Reconsideration
(MR) If the motion is denied, the remedy is to appeal from the
judgment or final order and not to appeal the order denying
the motion because it is not appealable.

Remedial Law
Grant of the MR; effect MODES OF APPEAL
If the motion is granted, the court may amend the judgement ORDINARY APPEAL
or final order, accordingly. The amended judgment is in the
nature of a new judgment which supersedes the original 1. Ordinary appeal under Rule 40 – from MTC to RTC
judgment, and is not a mere supplemental decision. (Esquivel a. Notice on appeal – 15 day period
v. Alegre, G.R. No. 79425, April 17, 1989) b. Record on appeal – 30 day period
Second Motion for Reconsideration Issues to be raised: Questions of fact or mixed questions
of fact and law
GR: No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order. (Sec. 5, Rule 37) 2. Ordinary Appeal under Rule 41 – from RTC in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction to CA
XPNs: a. Notice on appeal – 15 day period
1. Motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, b. Record on appeal – 30 day period
unless it is a mere reiteration of arguments already passed
upon by the court (San Juan, Jr. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 167321, July Issues to be raised: Questions of fact or of law or mixed
31, 2006); question of fact and law that has been raised in the court
2. Where a tribunal renders a decision substantially reversing below and is within the issues framed by the parties.
itself on a matter, MR seeking reconsideration of this reversal,
for the first time, is not prohibited (Cristobal v. Philippine PETITION FOR REVIEW
Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 201622, October 4, 2017); and
3. If filed with the Supreme Court, and only after meeting the 1. Petition for review under Rule 42 – RTC in its appellate
following requirements: jurisdiction to CA;
a. with express leave;
b. for extraordinarily persuasive reasons; Issues to be raised: Questions of fact, of law, or mixed
c. by the vote of at least 2/3 of the actual membership of questions of fact and law
the SC en banc; and
d. before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes 2. Petition for review under Rule 43 – Quasi-judicial bodies
final by operation of the law or by the Court’s declaration. to CA.
(League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
176951, June 28, 2011) Issues to be raised: Questions of fact, of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law
Requisites of newly discovered evidence (Berry Rule)
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
1. The evidence was discovered after trial;
2. Such evidence could not have been discovered and Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45
produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and
3. Such evidence is material, not merely cumulative, a. RTC to SC (Sec. 2(c), Rule 41) – questions of law
corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that if b. CA to SC (Sec. 1, Rule 45) - questions of law
admitted would probably change the judgment (CIR v. A. c. Sandiganbayan to SC (Sec. 1, Rule 45) - questions of law
Soriano Corporation, G.R. No. 113703, January 31, 1997). d. CTA en banc to SC (Sec. 11, RA 9282; Sec. 1 Rule 45, as
amended by AM No. 07- 7-12- SC) – questions of law
Newly discovered evidence need NOT be newly created e. Appeals from a judgment or final order in a petition for a
evidence writ of amparoto the SC (AM No. 07-9-12- SC) – questions
of fact and law
Newly discovered evidence need not be newly created f. Appeals from a judgment or final order in a petition for a
evidence. It may and does commonly refer to evidence writ of Habeas Data (AM No. 08-1-16-SC) - questions of
already in existence prior or during trial but which could not fact and law
have been secured and presented during the trial despite g. Appeals from judgment or final order in a petition for
reasonable diligence on the part of the litigant (Tumang v. CA, writ of Kalikasan (AM No. 09-6-8-SC) - questions of fact
G.R. Nos. 82346-47, April 17, 1989). and law
Fresh Period Rule or Neypes Rule Issue to be raised: In petitions for review on certiorari, only
questions of law may be put in issue. Questions of fact cannot
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and be entertained (Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. v. BPI/MS
to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Insurance Corp. And Mitsui Sum Tomo Insurance Co. Ltd., G.R.
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days No. 193986, January 15, 2014).
within which to file the notice of appeal, counted from the
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an
motion for reconsideration (Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524, examination of the probative value of the evidence presented
September 14, 2005). by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue
must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of
Applicability of the Neypes Rule to administrative circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review
proceedings of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact
(Engr. Apolinario Dueas v. Alice Guce-Africa, G.R. No. 165679,
The Neypes Rule applies to Rule 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45, which October 5, 2009).
are judicial proceedings under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The fresh period rule does not apply to administrative Notice of appeal vs. Record on appeal
appeals. (San Lazaro Ruiz Builders and Developers Group Inc.,
v. Ma. Cristina F. Bayong, G.R No. 194702, April 20, 2015) Notice of Appeal Record on Appeal

Normally, appeal is made by Required only in Special on the ground that it was belatedly filed. It bears stressing
filing a notice of appeal with Proceedings and other that Spouses Cayago's motion for extension of time, as well as
the court which rendered cases of multiple or their petition for review, was physically in the CA's
the judgment or final order separate appeals. possession long before the issuance of its Decision on April
appealed from and serving a 14, 2011, but for reasons completely beyond their control, the
copy thereof upon the However, even in cases motion for extension of time to file their petition belatedly
adverse party. where multiple appeals are reached the ponente's office and was therefore not timely
allowed, if all the issues acted upon. As a result, the same was unceremoniously
have already been dismissed on procedural grounds. (Spouses Cayago v. Spouses
dispensed with by the trial Cantara, G.R. NO. 203918, December 2, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe,
court, filing a record on J.)
appeal is no longer
necessary. (Marinduque PERFECTION OF APPEAL
Mining and Industrial
Corporation v. CA, 567 SCRA Perfection of an appeal as a jurisdictional requirement
483)
GR: Perfection of appeal within the reglementary period is
Deemed perfected as to him Deemed perfected as to him jurisdictional.
upon the filing of the notice upon the approval of record
of appeal. on appeal. (Riano, 2014) XPN: When there has been FAME, resort to Petition for relief
from judgment under Rule 38 (Habaluyas v. Japson, G.R. No.
Period of appeal is 15 days Period of appeal is 30 days 70895, May 30, 1986) (1998, 2002, 2007 2009 Bar).
The court loses jurisdiction The court loses jurisdiction Q: Petitioner, as represented by its President, Daniel
over the case upon (a) only over the subject matter Calilung, filed before the RTC a complaint for Specific
perfection of the appeal thereof upon (a) approval Performance against respondents. The Motion to Dismiss
filed in due time and (b) of the records on appeal filed by respondents was granted. Petitioner moved for
expiration of the time of the filled in due time and (b) the reconsideration, but was also denied. Hence, it filed a
appeal of the other parties expiration of the time to notice of appeal. The RTC ordered the Notice of Appeal,
appeal of the other parties. expunged from the records “for lack of authority from its
Board of Directors to initiate the appeal.” Petitioner
Effect of judgment on those who failed to appeal sought reconsideration, attaching therewith a copy of a
Board Resolution, confirming Calilung’s authority to
1. As to affirmative relief – an appellee who has himself not represent the petitioner, but was also denied. Petitioner
appealed may not obtain from the appellate court any filed the present certiorari petition against the
affirmative relief other than what was granted in the respondents. Was the RTC correct in expunging the
decision of the lower court Notice of Appeal from the records?
2. As to reversal of judgment
A: NO. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
GR: Binding only on the parties in the appealed case and expunged from the records petitioner's Notice of Appeal.
does not affect or inure to the benefit of those who did Under the Rules, an appeal from cases decided by the RTC in
not join or were not made parties to the appeal. the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be made to the
Court of Appeals by filing a notice of appeal with the court
XPN: Where the rights of the parties appealing are so which rendered the judgment, and serving a copy thereof
interwoven and dependent on each other as to be upon the adverse party. The appeal shall be taken, with the
inseparable, in which case a reversal as to one operates full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful
as a reversal to all. fees paid, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment
or final order appealed from. Based on such, a board
NOTE: Even if the appeal was filed out of time, the court still resolution authorizing the representative to initiate the
has jurisdiction to admit and give due course to it, provided appeal is not required for the purpose of filing a notice of
there are justifiable reasons. appeal. This is because a notice of appeal is not a pleading,
initiatory or otherwise, that, when required by the law of the
Q: Spouses Cantara filed a petition for forcible entry rules, must contain, a verification and certification against
against Spouses Cayago. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) forum shopping to be signed by the party or his/her
ruled in favor of Spouses Cantara. On appeal, the representative, and, in the case of a representative, proof os
Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the said decision. his/her identity to file the action, i.e., a secretary’s certificate
Aggrieved, Spouses Cayago filed a motion for with copy of the Board Resolution. (United Interior
reconsideration which was denied by the RTC in an Order Manggahan Homeowners Association v. Hon. Ambrosio De
dated July 6, 2010. Spouses Cayago, through counsel, Luna, G.R. No. 216788, November 20, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
received such order of denial on July 15, 2010. Spouses
Cayago had until July 30 to file an appeal. However, Effect of non-payment of appellate docket fees (2009 Bar)
Spouses Cayago filed a motion for extension of time
praying for an additional period of fifteen (15) days, or Payment of docket fee is jurisdictional. Without such
until August 14, 2010, within which to file their petition payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction
for review. Since August 14, 2010 fell on a Saturday, over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought
Spouses Cayago filed their petition for review with the CA to be appealed from becomes final and executory (Regalado v.
on August 16, 2010. The CA outrightly dismissed the Go, G.R. No. 167988, February 6, 2007).
petition outright for having been filed out of time. Is the
CA correct in dismissing the petition for review? NOTE: However, the failure to pay appellate court docket fee
within the reglementary period allows only discretionary
A: NO. The Supreme Court finds that the CA committed dismissal, not automatic dismissal, of the appeal (Rep. v. Sps.
reversible error when it dismissed Spouses Cayago's petition Luriz, G.R. No. 158992, January 26, 2007).

Remedial Law
concerns the correct arises as to the truth or
THE “HARMLESS ERROR RULE” application of law or falsehood of facts; or
IN APPELLATE DECISIONS jurisprudence to a certain ii. When the query invites
given set of facts; or the calibration of the
No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence ii. When the issue does whole evidence
and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything not call for an examination considering mainly:
done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is of the probative value of the a. The credibility of the
ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside, modifying, evidence presented, the witnesses;
or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to truth or falsehood of facts b. The existence and
take such action appears to the court inconsistent with being admitted (Irene relevancy of specific
substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding Marcos-Araneta, et al. v. CA, surrounding
must disregard any error or defect which does not affect the G.R. No. 154096, August 22, circumstances, as well
substantial rights of the parties (Sec. 6, Rule 51). 2008). as their relation to
each other and to the
In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we whole; and
examine its damaging quality and its impact to the c. The probability of the
substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and situation (Ibid.).
insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome
the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the Q: Sarabia obtained loan from BPI secured by several real
prejudiced party (People v. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. No. 111206-08, etate mortages. Sarabia started to pay interests on its
October 6, 1995). loans as soon as the funds were released in October 1997.
However, largely because of the delayed completion of
Q: A contract was entered into by Northern Islands, Co., the New Building, Sarabia incurred various cash flow
Inc., (Northern Islands) and spouses Garcia whereby the problems. Thus, despite the fact that it had more assets
former should deliver to the latter various appliances in than liabilities at that time, it, nevertheless, filed, on July
the aggregate amount of roughly P8 million. However, 26, 2002, a Petition for corporate rehabilitation with
despite repeated demands, spouses Garcia allegedly prayer for the issuance of a stay order before the RTC as
failed to pay the said amount which prompted Northern it foresaw the impossibility to meet its maturing
Islands to file a complaint with application for a writ of obligations to its creditors when they fall due. RTC issued
preliminary attachment. Instead of filing an answer, a stay order which the CA affirmed. BPI elevated the case
spouses Garcia filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of to SC via a petition for review on certiorari arguing that
Time to File Proper Pleading and Motion for Discovery the approved rehabilitation plan did not give due regard
(Production and Inspection) which were both denied by to its interests as a secured creditor in view of the
the RTC. Spouses Garcia elevated the matter to the CA via imposition of a fixed interest rate of 6.75% p.a. and the
petition for certiorari and mandamus, which partly extended loan repayment period. It likewise avers that
granted the certiorari. Finding that the Notice of Appeal Sarabia's misrepresentations in its rehabilitation
was seasonably filed, the RTC ordered the elevation of petition remain unresolved. Did BPI resorted to the
the entire records of the Main Case to the CA. The CA held proper remedy?
that trial by commissioners under Rule 32 of the Rules of
Court was proper so that the parties may finally settle A: NO. It is fundamental that a petition for review on
their conflicting valuations. Does the RTC still have certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers
jurisdiction over the matter of the preliminary only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable
attachment notwithstanding the transmittal of the and cannot be passed upon by the Court unless one of the
records to the CA? recognized exceptions exists in the case. The distinction
between questions of law and questions of fact is well-
A: NO. Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides defined. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference
that in appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A
jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the question of fact, on the other hand, exists if the doubt centers
appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. This being so, the
appeal of the other parties. Northern Islands had already findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and the
perfected its appeal of the RTC’s decision resolving the Main Court will not review them on appeal. The determination of
Case through the timely filing of its Notice of Appeal. The RTC whether or not due regard was given to the interests of BPI as
had confirmed this fact, and thereby ordered the elevation of a secured creditor in the approved rehabilitation plan
the entire records to the CA. Meanwhile, records do not show partakes of a question of fact since it will require a review of
that respondents filed any appeal, resulting in the lapse of its the sufficiency and weight of evidence presented by the
own period to appeal therefrom. Thus, based on Section 9, parties among others, the various financial documents and
Rule 41, it cannot be seriously doubted that the RTC had data showing Sarabia's capacity to pay and BPI's perceived
already lost jurisdiction over the Main Case. With the RTC's cost of money and not merely an application of law. (Bank of
loss of jurisdiction over the Main Case necessarily comes its the Philippine Islands v. Sarabia Manor Hotel Corp., G.R. No.
loss of jurisdiction all over matters merely ancillary thereto. 175844, July 29, 2013, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
Thus, the propriety of conducting a trial by commissioners to
determine the excessiveness of the subject preliminary RELIEFS FROM JUDGMENTS
attachment, being a mere ancillary matter to the Main Case, is
now mooted by its supervening appeal. (Northern Islands, Co., Motion for new trial/reconsideration vs. Petition for
Inc., v. Sps. Garcia, G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015, Perlas- Relief from judgment (1990 Bar)
Bernabe, J.)
Motion for New Trial / Petition for Relief from
Question of law vis-à-vis Question of fact Reconsideration Judgment
(Rule 37) (Rule 38)
Question of Law Question of Fact Available before judgment Available after judgment has
Exists when: Obtains when: becomes final and executory. become final and executory.
i.The doubt or controversy i. The doubt or difference Applies to judgments or final Applies to judgments, final

orders only. orders and other the judgment sought to be annulled is promulgated
proceedings: (Villanueva v. Nite, G.R. No. 148211, July 25, 2006).
Grounds for motion for new Grounds: (FAME)
trial: Fraud, accident, mistake or A person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be
1. Fraud, accident, mistake excusable negligence. annulled. What is essential is that he can prove his allegation
or excusable negligence; that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and
(FAME) collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby (Islamic
2. Newly discovered Da’wah Council v. CA, G.R. No. 80892, September 29, 1989).
evidence (Sec. 1).
When available
Grounds for motion for
reconsideration: The remedy of annulment of judgment may be availed of
1. The damages awarded are when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
excessive; relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
2. That the evidence is through no fault of the petitioner (Sec. 1, Rule 47).
insufficient to justify
the decision or final NOTE: If the petitioner fails to avail of those other remedies
order, or without sufficient justification, he cannot resort to the action
3. That the decision or final for annulment provided in the Rules, otherwise he would
order is contrary to law benefit from his own inaction or negligence (Regalado, 2012).
(Sec. 1).
Where filed
Filed within the time to Filed within 60 days from
appeal. knowledge of the judgment Judgments of RTC Judgments of MTC
and within 6 months from Filed with the CA Filed with the RTC
entry of judgment. Basis – It has exclusive Basis – RTC as a court of
Legal Remedy Equitable Remedy original jurisdiction over general jurisdiction under
The order of denial is not said action under Rule 47 Sec. 19 (6), BP 129
The order of denial is not appealable; the remedy is CA may dismiss the case RTC has no discretion to
appealable. The remedy is to appropriate special civil outright; it has the dismiss the case outright. It
appeal from the judgment or action under Rule 65. discretion on whether or is required to consider it as
final order on the merits. not to entertain the an ordinary civil action.
Motion need not be verified. Petition must be verified. petition.
NOTE: A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial Annulment of judgments of quasi-judicial bodies
cannot file a petition for relief after the former is denied. The
two remedies are exclusive of one another (Sec. 9, Rule 38; Annulment of judgment does not apply to judgments
Francisco v. Puno, G.R. No. L-55694, October 23, 1981). rendered by quasi-judicial bodies. It does not apply also to
decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative
Who may avail cases whose decisions or orders may be appealed to the CA
under Rule 43 (Macalalag v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 147995,
A petition for relief from judgment together with a MNT and March 5, 2004).
MR are remedies available only to parties in the proceedings
where the assailed judgment is rendered. A person who was The silence of BP 129 on the jurisdiction of the CA to annul
never a party to the case, or even summoned to appear judgments or final orders and resolutions of quasi-judicial
therein, cannot avail of a petition for relief from judgment bodies like the DARAB indicates its lack of such authority.
(Alaban v. CA, G.R. No. 156201, September 23, 2005).
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND
ANNULMENTS OF JUDGMENTS EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
Final Judgment
Annulment of Judgment
The term “final” is used in two senses depending on whether
It is a remedy in law independent of the case where the it is used on the issue of appeal ability or on the issue of
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. Like a petition binding effect (Regalado, 2010).
for relief, an action for annulment of a judgment is a recourse
equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases 1. For the purposes of appeal- it refers to a judgment that
where there is no available adequate remedy (Ramos v. disposes of a case in a manner that leaves nothing more
Combong, G.R. No. 144273, October 20, 2005). to be done by the court in respect thereto. In this sense, a
final judgment is distinguished from an interlocutory
NOTE: A co-equal court cannot annul the final judgment of a order which does not finally terminate or dispose of the
similar court. CA has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for case (Rudecon Management Corp. v. Singson, G.R. No.
annulment of judgments of RTC. An action to annul a 150798, March 31, 2005).
judgment or final order of MTC shall be filed in the RTC 2. For the purposes of binding effect- the word “final” may
having jurisdiction in the former and it shall be treated as an refer to a judgment that is no longer appealable and is
ordinary civil action (Secs. 1&10, Rule 47). already capable of being executed because the period for
appeal has elapsed without a party having perfected an
Who may file appeal or if there has been appeal, it has already been
resolved by a highest possible tribunal (PCGG v.
An action for annulment can be filed by one who was not a Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005). In
party to the action in which the assailed judgment was this sense, the judgment is commonly referred to as one
rendered. It is a remedy in law independent of the case where that is final and executory.

Remedial Law
A dormant judgment is one which has not been enforced by
WHEN EXECUTION SHALL ISSUE motion within 5 years after its entry and is thus reduced to a
mere right of action in favor of judgment-obligee. It may be
A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on enforced by filing an action for revival of judgment and
motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After enforcing the decision therein (Salvante v. Cruz, Salvante v.
the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the stature of Cruz, No. L-2531, Feb. 28, 1951).
limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action (Ting v.
Heirs of Diego Lirio, G.R. No. 16891, March 14, 2007). Revival of judgment
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT An action for revival of judgment is no more than a

procedural means of securing the execution of a previous
Execution will issue as a matter of right when: judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five
(5) years without it being executed upon motion of the
1. The judgment has become final and executory (Sec. 1, prevailing party. It is not intended to re-open any issue
Rule 39); affecting the merits of the judgment debtor’s case nor the
2. Judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right to propriety or correctness of the first judgment. An action for
appeal; revival of judgment is a new and independent action,
3. The period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal different and distinct from the recovery of property case or
having been filed; or the reconstitution case, wherein the cause of action is the
4. Having been filed, the appeal has been resolved and the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon which the
records of the case have been returned to the court of judgment sought to be enforced is rendered. Revival of
origin (Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp, now MAA judgment is premised on the assumption that the decision to
General Insurance Inc., G.R. No. 167976, January 20, 2010). revived, either by motion or by independent action, is already
final and executory (Saligumba v. Palanog G.R. No. 143365,
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION Dec. 4, 2008).
It constitutes an exception to the rule that a judgment cannot NOTE: An action to revive judgment is a personal one.
be executed before the lapse of the period for appeal or
during the pendency of an appeal. The execution of a Judgments not stayed by appeal
judgment under this concept is addressed to the discretionary
power of the court and cannot be insisted upon. Discretionary GR: Judgment is stayed by appeal.
execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a XPNS: Instances when judgment is immediately executory
special order after due hearing (Sec. 2, Rule 39). (IRASO)
1. Injunction;
NOTE: “Good reasons” have been held to consist of 2. Receivership;
compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution 3. Accounting;
lest the judgment becomes illusory. Circumstances must be 4. Support; and
superior, outweighing the injury or damages that might result 5. Such other judgments declared to be immediately
should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment executory unless otherwise ordered by the trial court (e.g.
(Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976, Rule 70, Sec. 19).
January 20, 2010).
PROCEEDINGS WHERE PROPERTY
Remedy when the judgment is reversed or annulled IS CLAIMED BY THIRD PERSONS
The trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of When to file a third-party claim
restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice
may warrant under the circumstances (Sec. 5, Rule 39). At any time, so long as the sheriff has the possession of the
property levied upon, or before the property is sold under
NOTE: In Philippines Nails and Wire Corporation v. Malayan execution (Sec. 14, Rule 57).
Insurance Company, Inc. (G.R. No. 143933, February 14, 2003),
the Supreme Court held that one party may validly question a Requisites for a claim by a third person (Terceria)
decision in a regular appeal and at the same time assail the
execution pending appeal via certiorari without violating the 1. The property is levied;
rule against forum shopping. This is because the merits of the 2. The claimant is a person other than the judgment obligor
case will not be addressed in the Petition dealing with the or his agent;
execution and vice versa. The resolution or a favorable 3. The claimant makes an affidavit of his title thereto or
judgment in either will not amount to res judicata in the right to the possession thereof stating the grounds of
subsequent proceedings between the same parties. (2014 such right or title; and
Bar) 4. The claimant serves the same upon the officer making the
levy and the judgment oblige (Sec. 16, Rule 39)
Staying the discretionary execution
Duty of the officer if the property sought to be levied on is
It may be stayed upon approval by the proper court of a claimed by another person and proper proof of
sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the party against whom ownership or possession is served such officer
execution is directed, conditioned upon the performance of
the judgment or order allowed to be executed in case it shall If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than
be finally sustained in whole or in part. The bond thus given the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an
may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof,
(Sec. 3 Rule 39). stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same
upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the
Dormant judgment judgment obligee, the officer in such a case shall not be bound
to keep the property, unless the judgment obligee, on demand

of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify properties (Sec. 27, Rule 39).
the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of
the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to the NOTE: The period of redemption is not suspended by an
value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the action to annul the foreclosure sale. The periods for
writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or redemption are not extendible. However, the parties may
keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond agree on a longer period, in a in such case, it would be a
unless the action therefor is filed within 120 days from the conventional redemption.
date of the filing of the bond (Sec. 16, Rule 39).
Person/party to redeem the real property sold
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or
keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such Real property sold, or any part thereof sold separately, may
bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such be redeemed by the following persons:
claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the
property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment 1. Judgment obligor, or his successor-in-interest in the
obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate whole or any part of the property;
action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or 2. Redemptioner – a creditor having a lien by virtue of an
plainly spurious claim (Ibid.). attachment, judgment or mortgage on the property sold,
or on some part thereof, subsequent to the lien under
IN RELATION TO THIRD-PARTY CLAIM IN ATTACHMENT which the property was sold [Sec 27(b), Rule 39].
AND REPLEVIN
NOTE: There is no right of redemption in judicial foreclosure
Remedies available to a third person not party to the action of mortgage under Rule 68. The right of redemption exists
but whose property is the subject of execution: only in execution sales and extrajudicial foreclosures where
there is always a right of redemption (Santos v. Register of
1. Terceria – By making an affidavit of his title thereto or his Deeds, G.R. No.L-26752, March 19, 1971).
right to possession thereof, stating the grounds of such
right or title. The affidavit must be served upon the Requirements for the redemptioner or judgment obligor
sheriff and the attaching party (Sec. 14, Rule 57). Upon to redeem the real property
service of the affidavit upon him, the sheriff shall not be
bound to keep the property under attachment except if The judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the
the attaching party files a bond approved by the court. property from the purchaser at any time within 1 year from
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the taking the date of the registration of the certificate of sale by paying
or keeping of the property, if such bond shall be filed. the purchaser:
2. Exclusion or release of property – Upon application of the 1. The amount of his purchase;
third person through a motion to set aside the levy on 2. Amount of any assessments or taxes which the purchaser
attachment, the court shall order a summary hearing for may have paid after purchase;
the purpose of determining whether the sheriff has acted 3. If the purchaser be also a creditor having a prior lien to
rightly or wrongly in the performance of his duties in the that of the redemptioner, other than the judgment under
execution of the writ of attachment. The court may order which such purchase was made, the amount of such other
the sheriff to release the property from the erroneous lien; and
levy and to return the same to the third person. In 4. With 1 percent per month interest up to the time of
resolving the application, the court cannot pass upon the redemption (Sec. 28, Rule 39)
question of title to the property with any character of
finality but only insofar as may be necessary to decide if PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
the sheriff has acted correctly or not (Ching v. CA, G.R. No.
124642, Feb. 23, 2004). Provisional remedies under the Rules of Court (SARIR)
For the conjugal partnership to be liable for a liability 1. Preliminary Attachment (Rule 57);
that should appertain to the husband alone, there must 2. Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58);
be a showing that some advantages accrued to the 3. Receivership (Rule 59);
spouses (Ibid.). 4. Replevin (Rule 60); and
5. Support (Rule 61).
3. Intervention– This is possible because no judgment has
yet been rendered and under the rules, a motion for When to apply and in what principal actions available
intervention may be filed any time before the rendition of
the judgment by the trial court (Sec. 2, Rule 19). Provisional When to Apply In What Principal
Remedy Action/s
4. Accion Reivindicatoria – The third-party claimant is not Preliminary At the 1. Recovery of
precluded by Sec. 14, Rule 57 from vindicating his claim Attachment commencement of liquidated sum
to the property in the same or in a separate action. He (Rule 57) the action or at any of money
may file a separate action to nullify the levy with time before entry of 2. Recovery of
damages resulting from the unlawful levy and seizure. judgment possession of
This action may be a totally distinct action from the property
former case. unjustly or
fraudulently
RULES ON REDEMPTION taken, detained
or converted
Availability of the right of redemption
Preliminary At any stage of the Action for
There is no right of redemption as to personal properties for Injunction action prior to the injunction, whether
the sale is absolute. Such right is available only to real (Rule 58) judgment or final or not coupled with

Remedial Law
order other prayers does not lie against the funds of the
Receivership At any stage of the 1. Receivership regular departments or offices of the
(Rule 59) proceedings and action Government, but funds of public
even after judgment 2. Real action corporations are not exempt from
has become final involving title garnishment (PNB v. Palaban, et al., G.R.
and executory as to or No. L-33112, June 15, 1978; Regalado,
means of enforcing possession of 2012).
judgment realty Levy on The process after judgment has become
3. Foreclosure of execution executory by which the property of the
mortgage judgment obligor is taken into the custody
4. Dissolution of of the court before the sale of the property
corporation on execution for the satisfaction of a final
judgment.
Replevin At the 1. Recovery of
(Rule 60) commencement of possession of Pursuant to a writ of execution, the sheriff
the action or at any personal or an officer of the court appropriates the
time before answer property property of the judgment debtor as a
2. Recovery of preliminary step to the sale on execution
personal of the property.
property
subject of REQUISITES
chattel
mortgage as a Requisites for the issuance of an order of writ of
preliminary preliminary attachment
step to
extrajudicial 1. An affidavit executed by the applicant, or of some other
foreclosure person who personally knows the facts.
Support At the 1. Support, The affidavit must show that:

Pendente commencement of whether as the
Lite the prior action or main case or as a. A sufficient cause of action exists;
(Rule 61) proceeding or at any one of several b. The case must be any of those where preliminary
time prior to causes of action attachment is proper as stated in Sec. 1, Rule 57;
judgment or final 2. Criminal c. There is no sufficient security for the claim sought to
order actions where be enforced;
the civil liability d. The amount due to the applicant, or the value of the
includes property the possession of which he is entitled to
support of the recover, is as much as the sum for which the order is
offspring as a granted above all legal counterclaims (Sec. 3, Rule
consequence of 57).
the crime, i.e.
rape, seduction 2. Attachment bond – a bond executed in favor of the
adverse party in an amount to be fixed by the judge, not
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT exceeding the plaintiff’s claim, conditioned that the latter
will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the
Preliminary It is one issued at the commencement of adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by
Attachment the action or at any time before entry of reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge
the judgment as security for the that the applicant was not entitled thereto (Sec. 4, Rule
satisfaction of any judgment that may be 57).
recovered in the cases provided for by the
rules. The court takes custody of the Failure to allege matters required under Sec. 3, Rule 57
property of the party against whom the renders the writ totally defective as the judge issuing the writ
attachment is directed. acts in excess of jurisdiction (K.O Glass Construction Co., Inc. v.
Valenzuela, et al., G.R. No. L-48756, September 11, 1982;
NOTE: This is the regular form of Regalado, 2012).
attachment which refers to corporeal
property in the possession of the party ISSUANCE OF ORDER OF ATTACHMENT
(Regalado, 2012).
Garnishment A kind of attachment in which the The writ of preliminary attachment may be issued:
attaching party seeks to subject his claim
either the property of the adverse party in 1. Ex parte and even before summons is served upon the
the hands of a third person called the defendant.
garnishee, or money which the third
person owes the adverse party. NOTE: An ex parte issuance of the writ is intended to pre-
empt any possible disposition of property by the adverse
NOTE: Garnishment does not involve the party to the detriment of the attaching creditor and thus
actual seizure of the property which defeat the very purpose of attachment (Mindanao Savings
remains in the hands of the garnishee. It & Loan Association, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 84481, April 18,
refers to money, stocks, credits and other 1989).
incorporeal property which belong to the
party but are in the possession or under The application for preliminary attachment ex parte may
control of a third person. Garnishment be denied because the fundamental requisites under Rule

57, Section 1 did not exist, and not because ex parte appellate court, with due notice to the attaching party and his
applications are per se illegal (Davao Light & Power Co., surety or sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 93262 December 29, 1991). becomes executory. (Sec. 20, Rule 57)
2. Upon motion and notice of hearing, by the court in which DISCHARGE AND THE COUNTER-BOND
the action is pending and may even be issued by the CA or
the SC (Sec. 2, Rule 57); A party whose property is sought to be attached may prevent
the enforcement of the writ of attachment by:
NOTE: A hearing on a motion or application for
preliminary attachment is not generally necessary unless 1. By depositing with the court from which the writ was
otherwise directed by the trial court (Toledo v. Burgos, issued;
G.R. No. L-75466, December 19, 1988). This is because an 2. By giving a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an
order of attachment may also be issued ex parte. amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order
of attachment or to the value of the property to be
PRINCIPLE OF SENIORITY OF LIENS attached, exclusive of costs (Sec. 5, Rule 57); or
3. By raising the defense that the property covered is
Where property attached by the judgment creditor had exempt from execution (Ibid.).
previously been mortgaged, the judgment creditor’s lien is
inferior to that of the mortgagee, which must first be satisfied PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
in the event of foreclosure. In reality, what was attached by
the judgment creditor was merely the judgment debtor’s right DEFINITIONS AND DIFFERENCES:
or equity of redemption (Top Rate International Services, Inc. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
v. IAC, G.R. No. 67496, July 7, 1986). AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO)
Preference between duly registered attachment by levy Showing of Clear Legal Right
and lis pendens
A preliminary injunctive writ under Rule 58 issues only upon
Preference is given to a duly registered attachment over a a showing of the applicant’s “clear legal right” being violated
subsequent notice of lis pendens, even if the beneficiary of the or under threat of violation by the defendant. “Clear legal
notice acquired the subject property before registration of the right,” within the meaning of Rule 58, contemplates a right
attachment. Such notice does not establish a lien or an “clearly founded in or granted by law” (Executive Secretary v.
encumbrance on the property affected. As the name suggests, Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 199324, January 07,
a notice of lis pendens with respect to a disputed property is 2013).
intended merely to inform third persons that any of their
transactions in connection therewith -- if entered into NOTE: A preliminary injunction may be granted only where
subsequent to the notation -- would be subject to the result of the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought
the suit (Du v. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 156580, and has substantial interest in the right sought to be
June 14, 2004). defended. While the existence of the right need not be
conclusively established, it must be clear (Power Sites and
Preference between duly registered attachment by levy Signs, Inc. v. United Neon G.R. No. 163406, November 24, 2009).
and prior sale of property
Q: Lara obtained an Industrial Sand and Gravel Permit
A levy on execution duly registered takes preference over a (ISAG Permit) from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau
prior unregistered sale; and that even if the prior sale is (MGB) of the DENR, authorizing him to conduct quarrying
subsequently registered before the sale in execution but after operations in a twenty-hectare area situated in
the levy was duly made, the validity of the execution sale Peñablanca Cagayan and extract and dispose of sand,
should be maintained, because it retroacts to the date of the gravel, and other unconsolidated materials from the
levy; otherwise, the preference created by the levy would be Permit Area. Lara also obtained an Environmental
meaningless and illusory (Defensor v. Brillo, G.R. No. L-7255, Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR EMB. Lara's
February 21, 1956). representative, went to the Cagayan Treasurer's Office to
pay the extraction fee and other fees for quarrying
When property is wrongfully attached operations but she was directed to first secure an Order
of Payment from the ENRO Adap. However, when Balisi
Where there is wrongful attachment, the defendant may went to ENRO Adap, the latter refused to issue an Order
recover actual damages even without proof that the plaintiff of Payment. Despite various pleas from Balisi and Atty.
acted in bad faith in obtaining the attachment. However, if it Casauay, Lara's counsel, ENRO Adap remained adamant
is alleged and established that the attachment was not merely with his refusal. This prompted Atty. Casauay to tender
wrongful but also malicious, the defendant may recover and deposit the amount of P51,500.00 with the
moral damages and exemplary damages as well. (Spouses Yu Treasurer's Office corresponding to the said extraction
v. Ngo Yet Te, G.R. No. 155868, February 6, 2007) fee and other related fees. Lara went on the quarrying
operations but later on received a stoppage order from
Application for damages the Mayor alleging that the issuance of the ISAG permit is
not enough fror Lara to commence operations purusuant
The application for damages must be filed: to RA 7160 and a provincial ordinance. The latter filed
1. Before the trial; before the RTC a petition for writ of preliminary
2. Before appeal is perfected; or injunction which was granted. Did the RTC properly
3. Before the judgment becomes executory. issued the WPI?
If the case is on appeal and the judgment of the appellate A: YES. It is well-settled that a writ of injunction would issue
court is favorable to the party against whom the attachment upon the satisfaction of two (2) requisites, namely: (a) the
was issued, he must claim damages sustained during the existence of a right to be protected; and (b) acts which are
pendency of the appeal by filing an application with the violative of the said right. In the absence of a clear legal right,

Remedial Law
the issuance of the injunctive relief constitutes grave abuse of injury would result to the
discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or applicant before the matter
future rights. Where the complainant's right is doubtful or can be heard on notice
disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of
irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is 2) If the matter is of extreme
not a ground for an injunction. In order for an entity to legally urgency and the applicant
undertake a quarrying business, he must first comply with all will suffer grave injustice
the requirements imposed not only by the national and irreparable injury
government, but also by the local government unit where his Can be issued to compel the Cannot be issued to compel
business is situated. Particularly, Section 138(2) of RA 7160 performance of an act the performance of an act
requires that such entity must first secure a governor's
permit prior to the start of his quarrying operations. Status Quo Order
(Province of Cagayan v. Joseph Lasam Lara, G.R. No. 188500,
July 24, 2013, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) It is resorted to when the projected proceedings in the case
made the conservation of the status quo desirable or essential
Preliminary injunction vs. TRO but the affected party neither sought such relief nor did the
allegations in his pleading sufficiently make out a case for a
Preliminary Injunction Temporary Restraining TRO.
Order
Effective during the Duration is non-extendible TRO vs. Status Quo Order
pendency of the action (Sec. 5, Rule 58):
unless earlier dissolved 1. If issued by RTC/MTC – TRO Status Quo Order
20 days from service on Summary hearing Issued motu proprio on
NOTE: The trial court, the the person sought to be equitable considerations.
Court of Appeals, the enjoined;
Sandiganbayan or the Court 2. If issued by CA – 60 days Prevents the doing of an act In the nature of a cease and
of Tax Appeals that issued a from service on the party desist order since it neither
writ of preliminary sought to be enjoined directs the doing or undoing
injunction against a lower which is non-extendible, of acts
court, board, officer, or (2006 Bar);
quasi-judicial agency shall 3. If issued by SC –Effective Requires the posting of a Does not require the posting
decide the main case or until further orders. bond, unless exempted by of a bond
petition within 6 months court
from the issuance of the If the matter is of extreme
writ (Sec. 5, Rule 58, as urgency and the applicant KINDS OF INJUNCTION
amended by A.M. No. 07-7- will suffer grave injustice
12-SC). and irreparable injury, the Preliminary Prohibitory Preliminary Mandatory
judge may issue an ex-parte Injunction Injunction
TRO effective for 72 hours To prevent a person from To require a person to
from issuance but shall the performance of an act perform a particular act
comply with the rule on
contemporaneous service of The act has not yet been The act has already been
summons unless the same performed performed and this act has
could not be served violated the rights of another
personally or by substituted (Riano, 2012).
service despite diligent Status quo is preserved Status quo is restored
efforts. The period may be
extended for a period not Preliminary Injunction vs. Main Action for Injunction
exceeding 20 days including
the 72 hours already given Preliminary Injunction Main Action for Injunction
(Sec.5, Rule 58). (Ancillary Remedy)
Provisional remedy; Independent/Primary
NOTE: Prohibition against
It is not a cause of action Action
the renewal applies only if
itself but merely an adjunct
the same is sought under to a main suit
and by reason of the same
ground for which it was
Seeks to preserve the status Perpetually restraining or
originally issued (Regalado,
quo until the merits can be commanding the
2008).
heard performance of an act after
Restrains or requires the Maintain status quo ante
trial
performance of particular
acts.
Requisites of mandatory injunction
Notice and hearing always GR: Notice and hearing
1. Material and substantial invasion of right;
required (Sec. 5, Rule 58) required
2. Clear and unmistakable right of complainant;
(2001 Bar).
3. Urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
XPN: A TRO effective for 72
serious damages (Bautista v. Barcelona, G.R. No. 11885,
The hearing shall be days from issuance, may be
March 29, 1957);
conducted within 24 hours issued ex-parte under the
4. The effect would not be to create a new relation between
after the sheriff’s return of following instances:
the parties (Alvaro v. Zapata, G.R. No. L-56025, November
service (Sec 4[d], Rule 58).
25, 1982; Regalado, 2008).
1) If great or irreparable

WHEN WRIT MAY BE ISSUED 1. The matter is of extreme urgency involving a
constitutional issue; and
Q: The respondents-spouses, Sps. Sazon filed before the 2. Grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise unless a
RTC a Complaint for Annulment of Sales, Cancellation of temporary restraining order is issued. In this case, the
Titles, Recovery of Possession and Damages with Prayer applicant shall file a bond in an amount to fixed by court
for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Sps. and which shall accrue in favor of the government if the
Sazon alleged that the titles of Peco and Sps. Espiritu are court should finally decide that the applicant was not
invalid, ineffective, null, void, and unenforceable. Sps. entitled to the relief sought (Sec. 3, Ibid.).
Espiritu filed their answer, praying for the dismissal of
the complaint. The RTC granted the application. The CA Sec. 6 of R.A. 8975 impose a penalty on a judge who issues a
denied the petition for certiorari, finding that the RTC did TRO in violation of Sec. 3 of RA 8975. In addition to any civil
not abuse its discretion when it granted the writ of and criminal liability he or she may incur, the judge may
preliminary injunction. Is the CA correct in finding that suffer the penalty of suspension for at least 60 days without
the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it pay.
granted the writ of preliminary injunction in Sps. Sazon's
favor? RECEIVERSHIP
A: YES. A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any It is a provisional remedy wherein the court appoints a
stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final representative to preserve, administer, dispose of and
order requiring a party or a court, an agency, or a person to prevent the loss or dissipation of real or personal property
refrain from a particular act or acts. Its essential role is during the pendency of an action. It can be availed of even
preservative of the rights of the parties in order to protect the after the judgment has become final and executory as it may
ability of the court to render a meaningful decision, or in be applied for to aid execution or carry judgment into effect.
order to guard against a change of circumstances that will (2001 Bar)
hamper or prevent the granting of the proper relief after the
trial on the merits. In a sense, it is a regulatory process meant NOTE: Receivership, like injunction, may also be a principal
to prevent a case from being mooted by the interim acts of the action as the one referred to in Sec. 4 of Rule 39. Rule 59 is a
parties. The rule is well-entrenched that the grant or denial of receivership that is ancillary to a main action (Riano, 2012).
a writ of preliminary injunction is discretionary upon the trial
court because the assessment and evaluation of evidence REQUISITES
towards that end involve findings of fact left to the said court
for its conclusive determination. For this reason, the grant or 1. Party applying for receivership has an existing interest in
denial of a writ of preliminary injunction shall not be the property or funds subject of the action and the
disturbed unless it was issued with grave abuse of discretion property or funds is in danger of being lost, wasted or
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, which does not dissipated;
obtain in this case. (Spouses Espiritu v. Spouses Sazon G.R. No. 2. Verified application filed at any stage of the proceedings
204965, March 2, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) even after final judgment, prior to the satisfaction of
judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 59);
IN RELATION TO R.A. 8975 – BAN ON ISSUANCE OF TRO 3. The application must be with notice and hearing;
OR WRIT OF INJUNCTION 4. The applicant must post a bond executed to the party
IN CASES INVOLVING GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE against whom the application is presented (Sec. 2, Rule
PROJECTS 59); and
5. Receiver must be sworn to perform his duties faithfully
Preliminary injunction or TRO in cases involving and shall file a bond (Sec. 4, Rule 58).
government infrastructure projects
TERMINATION OF RECEIVERSHIP
GR: No court, except the Supreme Court shall issue any TRO,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction Grounds for the discharge of receiver
against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or
any person or entity, whether public or private acting under 1. Posting of counter-bond by adverse party (Sec. 3, Rule 59);
the government direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the
following acts: NOTE: Where counter-bond is insufficient or defective,
receiver may be re-appointed. (Sec. 5, Rule 59)
1. Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-
way and/or site or location of any national government 2. Appointment of receiver was made without sufficient
project; cause (Sec. 3, Rule 59);
2. Bidding or awarding of contract/ project of the national 3. Insufficient or defective applicant’s bond (Sec. 5, Rule 59);
government as defined under Sec. 2 hereof; 4. Insufficient or defective receiver’s bond (Sec. 5, Rule 59);
3. Commencement prosecution, execution, implementation, and
operation of any such contract or project; 5. Receiver no longer necessary (Sec. 8, Rule 59)
4. Termination or rescission of any such contract/project;
and Termination of Receivership
5. The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful
activity necessary for such contract/project. (Sec. 3, RA Receivership may be terminated:
8975).
1. By the court motu propio or on motion by either party;
NOTE: The law further provides that any TRO or preliminary 2. Based on the following grounds:
injunction issued in violation of Sec. 3 is void and of no force
and effect (Sec. 4, Ibid.). a. Necessity for receiver no longer exists;
b. Receiver asserts ownership over the property
XPNs: The prohibition does not apply when: (Martinez v. Graño, G.R. No. L-25437, August 14,
1926);

Remedial Law
NOTE: The court, after due notice and hearing to all SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
interested party, shall settle the accounts of the receiver,
direct the delivery of funds in his possession to the person GENERAL MATTERS
adjudged to be entitled to receive them, and order the
discharge of the receiver (Sec. 8, Rule 59). Ordinary Civil Action vs. Special Civil Action
REPLEVIN Ordinary Civil Action Special Civil Action

Cause of Action
Replevin may be a principal remedy or a provisional relief. It is based on a cause of Not all special civil actions
action (Sec. 1, Rule 2) are based on a cause of
1. As a main action- it seeks to regain the possession of action, i.e. declaratory relief
personal chattels being wrongfully detained from the (Rule 63) and interpleader
plaintiff. (Rule 62).
2. As a provisional remedy- to allow the plaintiff to retain the
thing during the pendency of the action and hold it Declaratory relief – action
pendente lite (BA Finance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 102998, July is brought before there is
5, 1996) breach.
WHEN A WRIT OF REPLEVIN BE ISSUED Interpleader – plaintiff files
a complaint even if he has
The writ of Replevin may only be obtained when the sustained no actual
defendant in the action has not yet filed his answer to the transgression of his rights
complaint where it is necessary to: (Riano, 2012).
Venue
1. Protect plaintiff’s right of possession to property; or
Determined by either the The venue of special civil
2. Prevent defendant from destroying, damaging or
residences of the parties actions is governed by the
disposing of the property.
where the action is general rules on venue,
personal or by location of except as otherwise
NOTE: Under the Resolution of the Supreme Court en banc
the property where the indicated in the particular
dated January 11, 1983, a writ of replevin like the one issued
action is real. rule for said special civil
in the present case may be served anywhere in the
action. Thus, actions for
Philippines (Fernandez v. International Corporate Bank, now
certiorari, prohibition and
Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 131283, October 7,
mandamus should be
1999).
commenced in the proper
Regional Trial Court, but
REQUISITES
the same may, in proper
cases, be commenced in the
1. The application for the writ must be filed at the
Supreme Court or Court of
commencement of the action or at any time before the
Appeals (Sec. 4, Rule 65);
defendant answers (Sec. 1, Rule 60) (1999 Bar);
Special rule of venue is
2. The application must contain an affidavit where the
provided for quo warranto
applicant particularly describes the property that he is
proceedings (Sec. 7, Rule
the owner of the property or that he is entitled to the
66) (Regalado, 2008).
possession thereof;
Jurisdiction
May be filed initially in There are special civil
NOTE: The affidavit must contain the following:
either the Municipal Trial actions which can only be
Court or Regional Trial filed in a Municipal Trial
a. That the applicant is the owner of the property
Court depending upon the Court like the actions for
claimed, particular description of such
jurisdictional amount or forcible entry and unlawful
entitlement to possession particularly
nature of the action detainer. There are also
describing it, or is entitled to the possession
involved (Riano, 2012). special civil actions which
thereof;
cannot be commenced in
b. That the property is wrongfully detained by
the Municipal Trial Court
the adverse party, alleging the cause of
foremost of which are the
detention according to applicant’s knowledge,
petitions for certiorari,
information and belief;
prohibition and mandamus
c. That the property has not been distrained or
(Ibid).
taken for tax assessment or fine, or seized by
writ of execution, preliminary attachment, or
placed in custodia legis, or if so seized, that is INTERPLEADER
exempt or should be released from custody;
d. Actual market value of the property (Sec. 2, It is a special civil remedy whereby a party who has property
Rule 60) in his possession but who claims no interest in the subject, or
whose interest, in whole or in part, is not disputed by others,
3. The applicant must give a bond, executed to the adverse goes to court and asks that conflicting claimants to the
party in double the value of the property as stated in the property or obligation be required to litigate among
themselves in order to determine finally who is entitled to the
affidavit (Sec. 2, Rule 60) (2010 Bar).
same (Sec. 1, Rule 62).
NOTE: The applicant need not be the owner of the property.
It is enough that he has a right to its possession (Yang v. REQUISITES FOR INTERPLEADER
Valdez, G.R. No. 102998, July 5, 1996).

1. There must be two or more claimants with adverse or to be reviewed, unless the Supreme Court shall direct
conflicting interests upon a subject matter; otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just (Sec. 8, Rule
2. The conflicting claims involve the same subject matter 64).
and against the same person (plaintiff); and
3. The plaintiff has no claim upon the subject matter of the CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS
adverse claims or if he has an interest at all, such interest
is not disputed by the claimants (2012 Bar, as cited in Instances when the petitions for certiorari, mandamus
Riano, 2012). and prohibition are NOT available
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES 1. Rule on summary procedure as to interlocutory order
issued by the lower court (Sec. 19(g), Rules on Summary
DECLARATORY RELIEF Procedure);
2. Writ of amparo against any interlocutory order (Sec. 11(l),
It is a special civil action brought by a person: Rule on Writ of Amparo);
3. Petition for writ of habeas data against any interlocutory
a. interested under a deed, will, contract or other order (Sec. 13(l), A.M. No. 08-1-16); and
written instrument; or 4. Small claims cases against interlocutory order issued by the
b. whose rights are affected by a statute, executive lower court. (Sec. 14(g) of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation. CERTIORARI
The action shall be filed before breach or violation thereof, It is an extraordinary writ annulling or modifying the
asking the court to determine any question of construction or proceedings of a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties or quasi-judicial functions when such tribunal, board or officer
thereunder (Sec. 1, Rule 63). has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
NOTE: The enumeration of subject matter is exclusive. jurisdiction, there being no appeal or any other plain, speedy
Declaratory relief is NOT proper if the purpose of the action is and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Sec. 1,
to seek enlightenment of the true import of a judgment. In Rule 65)
this situation, the proper remedy is to file an action for
clarificatory judgment. NOTE: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original
action in itself, and is not the same as petition for review on
Where to file certiorari under Rule 45 which is a mode of appeal. They are
mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot co-exist with
A party may file an action in the appropriate RTC. Hence, the an appeal or any other adequate remedy. (Portillo v. Rudolf
SC ha sno original jurisdiction over petition for declaratory Lietz, Inc., G.R. No. 196539, October 10, 2012)
relief. It may only entertain the petition if it raises questions
that need to be resolved for the common good. (Riano, 2013) Requisites of a valid certiorari
Conversion to ordinary action 1. The petition is directed against a tribunal, board or

officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
If before the final termination of the case, a breach or 2. Such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in
violation of an instrument, or a statute, executive order or excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion;
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation and
should take place (Sec. 6, Rule 63), an action for declaratory 3. There is neither appeal nor any plain, speedy and
relief will be converted into an ordinary action. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the
purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding. There
SIMILAR REMEDIES must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of
power for it to prosper (Sec. 1 Rule 65; Aggabao v.
1. An action for the reformation of an instrument – RTC; Comelec, G.R. No. 163756, January 26, 2005; Riano, 2009).
2. An action to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom – MTC or RTC depending on the assessed value of Necessity for a motion for reconsideration
the property;
3. An action to consolidate ownership – RTC GR: A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the
availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (Chua v.
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195248, November 22, 2017) .
RESOLUTION OF THE COMELEC AND COA
RATIO: Such requirement is imposed to grant the court or
Mode of review tribunal the opportunity to correct any actual or perceived
error attributed to it through the re-examination of the legal
A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on and factual circumstances of the case.
Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by
the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under XPNS:
Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided (Sec. 2, Rule 64). (1) where the order is a patent nullity, such as when the
court a quo had no jurisdiction;
NOTE: The decision of the Civil Service Commission is now (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings
reviewable by the Court of Appeals (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 7902). have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or
are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
Effect of filing court;
(3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of
The filing of a petition for certiorari shall NOT stay the the question, and any further delay would prejudice the
execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the

Remedial Law
subject matter of the action is perishable; 2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act
(4) where a motion for reconsideration would be useless; because it is mandated by law;
(5) where the petitioner was deprived of due process, and 3. The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of
there is extreme urgency for relief; the duty enjoined by law;
(6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is 4. The act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary;
urgent, and the granting of such relief by the trial court is 5. There is no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate
improbable; remedy in the ordinary course of law (Sec. 3, Rule 65;
(6) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for Riano, 2012).
lack of due process;
(7) where the proceeding was ex parte, or the petitioner had Exhaustion of administrative remedies
no opportunity to object; and
(8) where the issue raised is one purely of law, or where GR: Mandamus will not issue when administrative remedies
public interest is involved (Estalilla v. Commission on Audit, are still available.
G.R. No. 217448, September 10, 2019).
XPNs:
Material date rule
1. If the party is in estoppel (Vda. de Tan v. Veterans
The following material dates must be stated in the petition: Backpay Commission, G.R. No. L-12944, March 30, 1959);
a. When notice of the judgment, final order or resolution or
subject of the petition was received; 2. Only questions of law are raised (Madrigal v. Lecaroz, G.R.
b. When a motion for new trial or reconsideration was No. L-46218, October 23, 1990).
filed, if any; and
c. When notice of the denial of the motion for new trial or Discretionary duty
reconsideration was received. (Sec. 3, Rule 46)
GR: Mandamus is only applicable to a ministerial duty.
PROHIBITION However, mandamus can be used to the extent of requiring
the performance of a discretionary duty to act but not to
It is a preventive remedy unlike a petition for certiorari which require performance of such duty in a particular manner.
is a corrective remedy. The purpose of this petition is to
prevent encroachment, excess usurpation or assumption of XPNs:
jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal, court, body or officer.
1. There has been gross abuse of discretion;
NOTE: Prohibition is recognized as a proper remedy to 2. Manifest injustice; or
prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that amount to 3. Palpable excess of authority (Kant Wong v. PCGG, G.R. No.
usurpation of legislative authority. It is also allowed as a 79484, December 7, 1987)
proper action to assail the constitutionality of a law or
prohibit its implementation. (Southern Luzon Drug QUO WARRANTO
Corporation v. DSWD, G.R. No. 199669, April 25, 2017)
It is a proceeding or writ issued by the court to determine the
Requisites of a valid prohibition right to use an office, position or franchise and to oust the
person holding or exercising such office, position or franchise
1. The impugned act must be that of a tribunal, corporation, if his right is unfounded or if a person performed acts
board or person; considered as grounds for forfeiture of said exercise of
2. The respondent must be exercising judicial, quasi-judicial position, office or franchise. It literally means “by what
functions or ministerial functions; authority.”
3. Respondents acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of NOTE: It is commenced by a verified petition brought in the
jurisdiction; and name of the Republic of the Philippines or in the name of the
4. There must be no appeal or other plain, speedy and person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position
adequate remedy (Sec. 2, Rule 65). usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another (Sec. 1,
Rule 66).
NOTE: The mere filing thereof will not immediately enjoin the
performance of an act sought to be prevented. The party must Q: A petition was filed challenging the Chief Justice
file a petition to obtain WPO/TRO pending final resolution of Sereno’s right and title to the position of Chief Justice.
the petition for prohibition. The Republic avers that respondent unlawfully held her
office because in failing to regularly declare her assets,
MANDAMUS liabilities and net worth as a member of the career
service prior to her appointment as an Associate Justice,
Grounds for mandamus and later as Chief Justice, of the Court, she cannot be said
to possess the requirement of proven integrity
1. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person demanded of every aspiring member of the Judiciary. The
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the Republic thus prayed that respondent's appointment as
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, Chief Justice be declared void. Respondent countered
trust or station; or that, as an impeachable officer, she may only be removed
2. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person through impeachment by the Senate sitting as an
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment impeachment court. Is the contention of the OSG correct?
of a right or office to which the other is entitled (Sec. 3, Why?
Rule 65).
A: YES. Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, in part,
Requisites of a valid mandamus provides that the Supreme Court shall exercise original
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
1. There must be a clear legal right to the act demanded; mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. This Court, the

Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have appointment (Riano, 2012).
concurrent jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writs,
including quo warranto. Relatedly, Section 7, Rule 66 of the Grounds: usurpation, Grounds: ineligibility or
Rules of Court provides that the venue of an action for quo forfeiture, or illegal disqualification to hold the
warranto, when commenced by the Solicitor General, is either association (Sec. 1, Rule 66). office (Sec. 253, Omnibus
the Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of Election Code).
Appeals, or in the Supreme Court. While the hierarchy of Presupposes that the Petition must be filed
courts serves as a general determinant of the appropriate respondent is already within 10 days from the
forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs, a direct actually holding office and proclamation of the
invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to action must be commenced candidate (Riano, 2012).
issue such writs is allowed when there are special and within 1 year from cause of
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in ouster or from the time the
the petition (Chamber of Real Estate and Builder Assn., Inc. right of petitioner to hold
(CREBA) v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, office arose.
2010) In the instant case, direct resort to the Court is justified
considering that the action for quo warranto questions the XPN: When the government
qualification of no less than a Member of the Court. The issue is the real party in interest,
of whether a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds and is proceeding mainly to
or arm exercises a public office is a matter of public concern assert its rights, there can
over which the government takes special interest as it be no defense on the
obviously cannot allow an Intruder or impostor to occupy a ground of laches or
public position (Republic v. Publico Corpin, G.R. No. L-11600, prescription.
June 27, 1958) (Remedial Law Reviewer by Albano, pp. 890-
892) BASIS: Prescription does
not lie against the State
Q: Why did the Supreme Court take cognizance of the quo (Art. 1108(4), NCC)
warranto case? (Republic. v. Sereno, G.R. No.
237428, May 11, 2018,
A: The SC took cognizance of the case because of the Tijam, J).
transcendental importance of the issues raised. While Petitioner is person entitled Petitioner may be any voter
traditionally, the principle of transcendental importance to office (Riano, 2012). even if he is not entitled to
applies as an exception to the rule requiring locus standi the office (Riano, 2012).
before the Courts can exercise its judicial power of review,
the same principle nevertheless, finds application in this case Person adjudged entitled to Actual or compensatory
as it is without doubt that the State maintains an interest on the office may bring a damages are recoverable in
the issue of the legality of the Chief Justice's appointment. separate action against the quo warranto proceedings
Further, the petition is one of first impression and of respondent to recover under the Omnibus
paramount Importance to the public in the sense that the damage (Sec 11, Rule 66). Election Code.
qualification, eligibility and appointment of an incumbent
Chief Justice, the highest official of the Judiciary, are being CLASSIFICATION OF QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS
scrutinized through an action for quo warranto.
Classifications of Quo warranto Proceedings
The Court's action on the present petition has far-reaching
implications, and it is paramount that the Court make 1. Mandatory– brought by the Solicitor General or Public
definitive pronouncements on the issues presented for the prosecutor when:
guidance of the bench, bar, and the public in future analogous a. Directed by the President; or
cases. Thus, the questions presented serious merited b. Upon complaint or when he has reason to believe
consideration from the Court and should not be trifled on that the cases for quo warranto can be established by
(Republic. v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, Tijam, J). proof (Sec. 2, Rule 66).
The term "quo warranto" is Latin for "by what authority."
Therefore, as the name suggests, quo warranto is a writ of 2. Discretionary – brought by the Solicitor General or a
inquiry. It determines whether an individual has the legal public prosecutor at the request and upon the relation of
right to hold the public office he or she occupies. Thus, a quo another person, provided there must be:
warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a. Leave of court;
the right or title to the contested public office or to oust the b. At the request and upon the relation of another
holder from its enjoyment. In quo warranto proceedings person; and
referring to offices filled by election, what is to be determine c. Indemnity bond (Sec. 3, Rule 66)
is the eligibility of the candidates elected, while in quo
warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by EXPROPRIATION
appointment, what is determined is the legality of the
appointment (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, Power of eminent domain
2018, Tijam, J) (Remedial Law Reviewer by Albano, pp. 890-
892. It is the right of the State to acquire private property for
public use upon the payment of just compensation.
DISTINGUISHED FROM QUO WARRANTO UNDER THE
OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE NOTE: The scope of the power of eminent domain as
exercised by the Congress is plenary and is as broad as the
Quo warranto under Rule Quo warranto in Electoral police power. Such power however, may also be delegated to
66 Proceedings local political subdivisions and public utilities (Riano, 2012).
Issue is legality of the Issue is eligibility of the
occupancy of the office by person elected (Riano, Expropriation
virtue of a legal 2012).

Remedial Law
It is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain. 2007).
NOTE: Expropriation is proper only when: The trial court should first ascertain the market value of the
property, to which should be added the consequential
1. The owner refuses to sell; or damages after deducting therefrom the consequential
2. If the latter agrees, agreement as to the price cannot be benefits which may arise from the expropriation. If the
reached. consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages,
these items should be disregarded altogether as the basic
NOTE: It is the actual filing of complaint for expropriation value of the property should be paid in every case.
which binds the land, and not a mere notice of the intent to
expropriate. However, the owner of the land may still dispose Reckoning point for determining just compensation
of said property, despite the filing of the action, as the grantee
would merely be substituted in his place and holds the land The value of just compensation shall be determined as of the
subject to the results of the action (Regalado, 2010). date of the taking of the property or the filing of the
complaint, whichever came first (Sec. 4, Rule 67).
Requisites of the Exercise of a Valid Expropriation (DCP)
NOTE: The value at the time of the filing of the complaint
1. Due process of law; should be the basis for the determination of the value when
2. Payment of just compensation; and the taking of the property involved coincides with or is
3. Taking must be for public use. subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings.
(NAPOCOR v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 220367, November 20, 2017)
TWO STAGES IN EVERY
ACTION FOR EXPROPRIATION Consequential Benefit
1. First stage – the determination of the authority of the It refers to actual benefits derived by the owner on the
plaintiff to expropriate. This determination includes an remaining portion of his land which are the direct and
inquiry into the propriety of the expropriation – its proximate results of the improvements consequent to the
necessity and the public purpose. expropriation, and not the general benefits which he receives
in common with community (Regalado, 2010).
NOTE: The first stage will end in the issuance of an order
of expropriation if the court finds for plaintiff or in Effect of non-payment of just compensation
dismissal of the complaint if it finds otherwise.
Non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the
2. Second stage – the determination of just compensation private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated
through the court-appointed commissioners (Riano, lots. However, in case where the government failed to pay just
2012). compensation within 5 years from the finality of judgment in
the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall
NEW SYSTEM OF IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF have the right to recover possession of their property
INITIAL JUST COMPENSATION (Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005).
Under Rule 67, the Government is required to deposit with an NOTE: If the compensation is not paid when the property is
authorized government depositary the assessed value of the taken, but is postponed to a later date, the interest awarded is
property for expropriation for it to be entitled to a writ of actually part of just compensation, which takes into account
possession. On the other hand, under R.A. 8974, the such delay (Benguet Consolidated v. Republic, G.R. No. 712412,
Government is required to make a direct payment to the August 15, 1986).
property owner before a writ may issue. Such payment is
based on the zonal valuation of the BIR in the case of land, the FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
value of the improvements or structures under the
replacement cost method, or if no such valuation is available It is the remedy used for the satisfaction of any monetary
and in cases of utmost urgency, the proffered value of the obligation, which a person owes to another, by proceeding
property to be seized (Riano, 2012). against the property used to secure said obligation.
NOTE: RA 8974 provides for a procedure that is more Requisites of a valid foreclosure of REM
favorable to the property owner than Rule 67. This procedure
only applies when the national government expropriates 1. A finding of the amount due the plaintiff including
property for national government infrastructure projects interest, cost and other charges approved by the court;
(Riano, 2012). The intent of RA 8974 to supersede the system 2. Order to defendant to pay said amount within a period of
of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of immediate not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from entry
payment in cases involving national government of judgment; and
infrastructure projects is indeed very clear (MCWD v. J. King 3. If the defendant defaults, the court should order the sale
and Sons, G.R. No. 175983, April 16, 2009). at public auction of the mortgaged property (Sec. 2, Rule
68).
ASCERTAINMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION
Jurisdiction over foreclosure of REM
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of
the property sought to be expropriated. The measure is not It is the RTC of the province where the land or any part
the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. The compensation, to be thereof is situated.
just, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker.
Even as undervaluation would deprive the owner of his NOTE: Foreclosure of REM is incapable of pecuniary
property without due process, so too would its overvaluation estimation because the court in this action would have to
unduly favor him to the prejudice of the public (National resolve the issue of whether or not there is a legal basis for
Power Corporation v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, foreclosure (Riano, 2012).

Thus, having unequivocally opted to exercise the third option
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT of extra-judicial foreclosure under Section 7, Rule 86,
respondent is now precluded from filing a suit to recover any
It is the judgment rendered by the court holding the deficiency amount as earlier discussed. (Heirs of Maglasang v.
defendant liable for any unpaid balance due to the mortgagee Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 171206, September 23,
if the proceeds from the foreclosure sale do not satisfy the 2013, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
entire debt.
JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE vs. EXTRA-JUDICIAL
Recovery of deficiency FORECLOSURE
If there is a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the Judicial Foreclosure Extrajudicial Foreclosure
proceeds of the sale, the court, upon motion, shall render Involves the filing of an Does not require the filing
judgment against the defendant for any balance for which, by independent action of an action
the record of the case, he may be personally liable to the
plaintiff. Execution may issue immediately if the balance is all There is only an equity of Right of redemption exists
due at the time of the rendition of the judgment. If not due, redemption and no right of
the plaintiff shall be entitled to execution at such time as the redemption except when the
balance remaining becomes due under the terms of the mortgagee is a banking
original contract, which time shall be stated in the judgment institution
(Sec. 6, Rule 68; Riano, 2009).
There could be a deficiency There can be no judgment
Liability of a 3 rd party mortgagor in case of deficiency judgment rendered by the for a deficiency because
judgment court in the same there is no judicial
proceeding. Recovery of proceeding although
If such third person did not assume personal liability for the deficiency is by mere recovery of deficiency is
payment of the debt, the extent of recovery in the judgment of motion. allowed and through an
foreclosure shall be limited to the purchase price at the independent action.
foreclosure sale and no deficiency judgment can be recovered
against said person (Phil. Trust Co. v. Tan Suisa, 52 Phil 852). Governed by Rule 68 Governed by Act 3135
INSTANCES WHEN COURT CANNOT RENDER EQUITY OF REDEMPTION vs. RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT
Equity of Redemption Right of Redemption
1. Case is covered by the Recto Law (Art. 1484, NCC); Right of the defendant Right of the debtor, his
2. Mortgagor is a non-resident and who at the time of the mortgagor to extinguish the successor in interest or any
filing of the action for foreclosure and during the mortgage and retain judicial creditor or
pendency of the proceedings was outside the Philippines, ownership of the property judgment creditor of said
unless there is attachment; by paying the debt within a debtor or any person
3. Mortgagor dies, the mortgagee may file his claim with the period of not less than 90 having a lien on the
probate court under Sec. 7, Rule 86; and nor more than 120 days property subsequent to the
4. Mortgagee is a third person but not solidarily liable with from the entry of judgment mortgage or deed of trust
the debtor. or even after the foreclosure under which the property is
sale but prior to sold to redeem the property
Q: Spouses Maglasang obtained credit line from Manila confirmation within 1 year from the
Banking Corporation which was secured by a real estate registration of the Sheriff’s
mortgage executed over seven of their properties. certificate of foreclosure
Flaviano died intestate. After the probate court sale
terminated the proceedings, the loan obligations owed by
the estate to Manila Banking remained unsatisfied. Governed by Rule 68 Governed by Secs. 29-31,
Nonetheless, the probate court expressly recognized the Rule 39
rights of Manila Banking under the mortgage and
promissory notes executed by the Sps. Maglasang, NOTE: Sec. 47 of the General Banking Act provides that in
specifically, its “right to foreclose the same within the case of extrajudicial foreclosure, juridical persons shall have
statutory period.” In this light, Manila Banking proceeded the right to redeem the property until, but not after, the
to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage covering the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale which in no
Sps. Maglasang’s properties and emerged as the highest case shall be more than 3 months after foreclosure,
bidder at the public auction. There, however, remained a whichever is earlier. The pendency of the action stops the
deficiency on Sps. Maglasang’s obligation prompting running of the right of redemption. Said right continues after
Manila Banking to file a suit to recover the deficiency perfection of an appeal until the decision of the appeal.
amount against the estate of Flaviano, his widow Salud (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. IAC, G.R. No. 73341,
and the suriviving heirs. Is the deficiency suit proper? August 21, 1987)
A: NO. Claims against deceased persons should be filed PARTITION

during the settlement proceedings of their estate. In this case,
Manila Banking sought to extra-judicially foreclose the Requisites of a valid partition
mortgage of the properties previously belonging to Sps.
Maglasang (and now, their estates) and, therefore, availed of 1. Right to compel the partition;
the third option. Lest it be misunderstood, it did not exercise 2. Complaint must state the nature and extent of plaintiff's
the first option of directly filing a claim against the estate, as title and a description of the real estate of which partition
the heirs assert, since it merely notified the probate court of is demanded; and
the outstanding amount of its claim against the estate of 3. All other persons interested in the property must be
Flaviano and that it was currently restructuring the account. joined as defendants (Sec. 1, Rule 69).

Remedial Law
Instances when a co-owner may not demand partition It is where one illegally withholds possession after the
(ADL-SU) expiration or termination of his right to hold possession
under any contract, express or implied (Riano, 2012).
1. There is an agreement among the co-owners to keep the
property undivided for a certain period of time but not It is commenced by a verified complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 70).
exceeding ten years (Art. 494, NCC);
2. When partition is prohibited by the donor or testator for NOTE: In a summary action of unlawful detainer, the question
a period not exceeding 20 years (Art. 494; Art. 1083, to be resolved is which party has the better or superior right
NCC); to the physical/material possession (or de facto possession)
3. When partition is prohibited by law (Art. 494, NCC); of the disputed premises. Whereas in the action for recovery
4. When property is not subject to physical division and to of ownership, the question to be resolved is which party has
do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which the lawful title or dominical right (i.e., owner's right) to the
it is intended (Art. 495, NCC); and disputed premises (Bradford United Church of Christ Inc., v.
5. When the condition imposed upon voluntary heirs before Dante Ando, et al. G.R No. 195669, May 30, 2016).
they can demand partition has not yet been fulfilled (Art.
1094, NCC). Requisites of unlawful detainer
Non-inclusion of a co-owner in an action for partition 1. Possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld
from a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person after the
1. Before judgment – Not a ground for a motion to dismiss. expiration or termination of the right to hold possession
The remedy is to file a motion to include the party. by virtue of any contract express or implied;
2. After judgment – Makes the judgment therein void
because co-owners are indispensable parties. NOTE: It has been held that prior physical possession by
the plaintiff is not an indispensable requirement in an
NOTE: Creditors or assignees of co-owners may intervene unlawful detainer case brought by a vendee or other
and object to a partition affected without their concurrence. person against whom the possession of any land is
But they cannot impugn a partition already executed unless unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of
there has been fraud or in case it was made notwithstanding a a right to hold possession (William Go v. Albert Looyuko,
formal opposition presented to prevent it (Sec. 12, Rule 69). G.R. No. 19652, July 1, 2013, citing Sps. Maninang v. CA, 373
Phil. 304).
PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION
2. Action is brought within 1 year after such unlawful
GR: An action to demand partition of a co-owned property deprivation or withholding of possession; and
does not prescribe as long as there is a recognition of the co- 3. Demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease
ownership, expressly or impliedly (Art. 494, NCC). and to vacate is made upon the lessee (Sec. 1, Rule 70).
XPN: A co-owner may acquire ownership thereof by NOTE: If the complaint does not allege facts showing
prescription where there exists a clear repudiation of the co- compliance with the prescribed one-year period to file an
ownership and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of action for unlawful detainer, then it cannot properly qualify
adverse and exclusive ownership (Heirs of Restar v. Heirs of as such action over which the MTC can exercise jurisdiction.
Cichon, G.R. No. 161720, November 22, 2005; Riano, 2012). Such allegations are jurisdictional and crucial. It may then be
an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria (Estate of
NOTE: Prescription of action does not run in favor of a co- Manantan v. Somera, G.R. No. 145867, April 7, 2009).
owner or co-heir against his co-owner or co-heirs as long as
there is a recognition of the co-ownership expressly or Rule in case of tacita reconduccion in relation to unlawful
impliedly. (Art. 494, NCC) detainer
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER Under Art. 1670 of NCC, if at the end of lease, the lessee
continues to enjoy the property leased for 15 days with
FORCIBLE ENTRY consent of the lessor, and no notice to the contrary has been
given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease.
Forcible entry
When there is tacit reconduccion, the lessee cannot be
It is an action to recover possession founded upon illegal deemed as unlawfully withholding the property. There is no
possession from the beginning when one is deprived of unlawful detainer. (Riano, 2012)
physical possession of real property by means of force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. It is commenced by a Forcible Entry vs. Unlawful Detainer
verified complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 70).
Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer
Requisites of forcible entry (PFISTS-1) (Detentacion) (Desahucio)
Possession of the land by the Possession is inceptively
1. A person is deprived of possession of any land or defendant is unlawful from lawful but it becomes
building; the beginning as he acquires illegal by reason of the
2. by force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth possession by FISTS. termination of his right to
(FISTS); and the possession of the
3. Action is brought within 1year from the unlawful property under his
deprivation (Sec. 1, Rule 70). contract with the plaintiff.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER Demand to vacate is not Demand is jurisdictional if

required before the filing of the ground is non-payment
Unlawful detainer the action because of rentals or failure to

occupancy is illegal from the comply with the lease Judgment in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
very beginning (Riano, contract. NOT conclusive as to the title to the property
2009).
The plaintiff must prove that The plaintiff need not have The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or
he was in prior physical been in prior physical detainer is conclusive only as to possession of the property.
possession of the premises possession. Said judgment does not bind the title or affect the ownership
until he was deprived of the land or building. A distinct and separate action between
thereof by the defendant. the same parties respecting title to the land or building may
be had (Sec. 18, Rule 70; Lim v. Spouses Ligon, G.R. No. 183589,
GR: The 1-year period is Period is counted from the June 25, 2014).
counted from the date of date of the last demand or
actual entry on the land. last letter of demand in NOTE: The assertion by the defendant of ownership over the
case of non-payment of disputed property does not serve to divest the inferior court
XPN: When entry is by rentals or violation of the of its jurisdiction. The defendant cannot deprive the court of
stealth, the period must be conditions of the lease jurisdiction by merely claiming ownership of the property
counted from the demand to (Riano, 2012). involved (Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia v. Dimatulac, G.R. No.
vacate upon learning of the 142015, April 29, 2003; Perez v. Cruz, G.R. No. 142503, June 20,
stealth (Riano, 2012). 2003).
ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO RECOVER POSSESSION HOW TO STAY THE IMMEDIATE EXECUTION

OF REAL PROPERTY OF JUDGMENT
1. Accion Interdictal (ejectment); As a rule, judgment of the MTC against the defendant in
2. Accion Publiciana; and ejectment proceedings is immediately executory. The rule on
3. Accion Reinvindicatoria immediate execution is applicable only if the decision is
against the defendant and not if it is against the plaintiff.
Jurisdiction
In case the judgment is against the defendant, and in order to
The actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer are within stay the immediate execution of judgment, the defendant
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the MTC, MeTC and must take the following steps:
MCTC [Sec. 33(2), BP 129; RA 7691] and shall be governed by
the rules on summary procedure irrespective of the amount 1. Perfect an appeal (in the same manner as in ordinary civil
of damages or rental sought to be recovered (Sec. 3, Rule 70) actions, Rule 40);
and which are required to be brought within one year from 2. File a supersedeas bond to pay for the rents, damages and
the date of actual entry, in case of forcible entry, and from the costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed
date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer (Javier v. from; and
Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-48050, October 10, 1994). 3. Deposit periodically with the RTC, during the pendency of
the appeal, the adjudged amount of rent due under the
In case of accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria, RTC contract or if there be no contract, the reasonable value
has jurisdiction if the value of the property exceeds Php of the use and occupation of the premises (Sec. 19, Rule
20,000 or exceeds Php 50,000 in Metro Manila. 70).
Accion Interdictal vs. Accion Publiciana vs. Accion NOTE: The order for the issuance of a writ of execution to
Reinvindicatoria immediately enforce the judgment of the inferior court is
interlocutory and not appealable. Immediate execution is
Accion Accion Publiciana Accion proper if the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff.
Interdictal Reivindicatoria
Summary action A plenary action An action for the CONTEMPT
for the recovery for the recovery of recovery of
of physical the real right of ownership, which It is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its
possession possession when necessarily authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only willful
where the the dispossession includes the disregard or disobedience of court’s orders, but such conduct
dispossession has lasted for recovery of as tends to bring the authority of court and administration of
has not lasted for more than 1 year. possession. law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due
more than 1 year. administration of justice (Regalado v. Go, G.R. No. 167988,
Febraury 6, 2007; Riano, 2012).
All cases of RTC has RTC has
forcible entry jurisdiction if the jurisdiction if the KINDS OF CONTEMPT
and unlawful value of the value of the
1. According to nature (depending on the nature and effect
detainer property exceeds property exceeds
irrespective of P20,000 (outside P20,000 (outside of the contemptuous act)
the amount of Metro Manila) or Metro Manila) or a. Civil
b. Criminal
damages or P50,000 (in Metro P50,000 (in
unpaid rentals Manila). Metro Manila). 2. According to the manner of commission
a. Direct
sought to be
recovered should MTC has MTC has b. Indirect
be brought to the jurisdiction if the jurisdiction if the
Criminal contempt vs. Civil contempt
MTC. value of the value of the
property does not property does
exceed the above not exceed the Criminal Contempt Civil Contempt
amounts. above amounts. It is a conduct directed It is the failure to do
against the authority and something ordered to be

Remedial Law
dignity of the court or a done by a court or a judge near a court.
judge acting judicially; it is for the benefit of the
a conduct obstructing the opposing party therein and Nature of Summary in nature Punished after being
administration of justice is therefore, an offense proceedi charged and heard
which tends to bring the against the party in whose ng
court into disrepute or behalf the violated order How Contempt in facie Constructive
disrespect. (Castillejos was made. (Castillejos done curiae contempt
Consumers Association, Inc. Consumers Association, Inc.
v. Domingues, G.R. No. v. Domingues, G.R. No. Grounds 1. Misbehavior in 1. Misbehavior of an
189949, March 25, 2015; 189949, March 25, 2015; the presence of officer of a court in
Riano, 2012) Riano, 2012) or so near a the performance of
court as to his official duties
NOTE: If the purpose is to obstruct or or in his official
punish, it is criminal in interrupt the transactions;
nature but if to proceedings; 2. Abuse or any
compensate, then it is civil. 2. Disrespect unlawful
Purpose is to vindicate the Purpose is to provide a towards the interference with
authority of the court and remedy for an injured court; the proceedings
protect its outraged suitor and to coerce 3. Offensive not constituting
dignity. compliance with an order personalities direct contempt;
for the preservation of the toward others; 3. Disobedience of or
rights of private persons or resistance to a
4. Refusal to be lawful writ,
Intent is necessary Intent is not necessary sworn or to process, order, or
answer as a judgment of a
State is the real prosecutor Instituted by the aggrieved witness, or to court or
party or his successor or subscribe an unauthorized
someone who has affidavit or intrusion to any
pecuniary interest in the deposition real property after
right to be protected when lawfully being ejected;
required to do 4. Failure to obey a
Proof required is proof Proof required is more so (Sec. 1, Rule subpoena duly
beyond reasonable doubt than mere preponderance 71). served;
of evidence 5. Assuming to be an
If accused is acquitted, If judgment is for attorney or an
there can be no appeal. respondent, there can be officer of the court
an appeal. without authority;
6. Rescue or
Direct contempt vs. Indirect contempt attempted rescue,
of a person or
Direct Contempt Indirect Contempt property in the
Definitio A person guilty of Committed by a custody of an
n misbehavior in the person who does the officer;
presence of or so following acts: 7. Any improper
near a court as to 1. Disobedience or conduct tending to
obstruct or resistance to a degrade the
interrupt the lawful writ, administration of
proceedings before process, order or justice (Sec. 3, Rule
the same, including judgment of a 71).
disrespect toward court; Penalty The penalty for The punishment for
the court, offensive 2. Any abuse of or direct contempt indirect contempt
personalities any unlawful depends upon the depends upon the
toward others, or interference with court to which the level of the court
refusal to be sworn the processes or act was committed: against which the act
or to answer as a proceedings of a 1. If the act was committed:
witness, or to court not constituting 1. Where the act
subscribe an constituting direct direct was committed
affidavit or contempt; and contempt was against an RTC or
deposition when 3. Any improper committed a court of
lawfully required to conduct tending, against an RTC equivalent or
do so (Sec. 1, Rule directly or or a court of higher rank, he
71). indirectly, to equivalent or may be punished
impede, obstruct higher rank, by a fine not
or degrade the the penalty is a exceeding Php
administration of fine not 30,000 or
justice (Siy vs. exceeding imprisonment
NLRC, G.R. No. 2,000 pesos or not exceeding 6
158971, August imprisonment months, or both;
25, 2005). not exceeding 2. Where the act
10 days, or was committed
Location Committed in the Not committed in the both; against a lower
presence of or so presence of the court. 2. If the act court, he may be

constituting punished by a fixed by the court
direct fine not which rendered the
contempt was exceeding 5,000 judgment and
committed pesos or conditioned that he
against a lower imprisonment will abide by and
court, the not exceeding perform the
penalty is a one month, or judgment should the
fine not both. Aside from petition be decided
exceeding 200 the applicable against him (Sec. 2,
pesos or penalties, if the Rule 7; Canada v.
imprisonment contempt Suerte, 474 SCRA
not exceeding consists in the 379).
1 day, or both violation of a
(Sec. 1, Rule writ of Commen No formal 1. May be initiated
71); injunction, TRO cement proceeding is motu proprio by
If the contempt or status quo of required to cite a the court against
consists in the order, he may Contemp person in direct which the
refusal or omission also be ordered t contempt. The court contempt was
to do an act which is to make Proceedi against which the committed by
yet within the complete ng contempt is directed order or other
power of the restitution to the may summarily formal charge by
respondent to party injured by adjudge a person in the court
perform, he may be such violation of direct contempt requiring the
imprisoned by order the property (Sec. 1 Rule 71; respondent to
of the court involved or such Encinas v. National show cause why
concerned until he amount as may Bookstore Inc., G.R. he should not be
performs it. be alleged and No. 162704, July 28, punished for
proved (Sec. 7, 2005). contempt; or
Rule 71); NOTE: This
Where the act was procedure applies
committed only when the
against a person indirect contempt
or entity is committed
exercising quasi- against a court of
judicial functions, judge possessed
the penalty and clothed with
imposed shall contempt powers.
depend upon the
provisions of the 2. By a verified
law which petition with
authorizes a supporting
penalty for particulars and
contempt against certified true
such persons or copies of the
entities. necessary
documents and
Remedy The person Appeal (by notice of papers
adjudged in direct appeal) (independent
contempt by any action; must
court may not The person adjudged comply with
appeal therefrom, in indirect contempt requirements of
but may avail may appeal from the an initiatory
himself of the judgment or final pleadings) (Sec. 4,
remedies of special order of the court in Rule 71).
civil action of the same manner as in
certiorari or criminal cases. The NOTE: If the
prohibition directed appeal will not contempt charges
against the court, however have the arose out of or are
which adjudged him effect of suspending related to a
in direct contempt the judgment if the principal action
(Sec. 2, Rule 71). person adjudged in pending in the
contempt does not file court, the petition
Pending the a bond in an amount for contempt shall
resolution of the fixed by the court allege that fact but
petition for from which the appeal said petition shall
certiorari or is taken. This bond is be docketed,
prohibition, the conditioned upon his heard and decided
execution of the performance of the separately, unless
judgment shall be judgment or final the court in its
suspended, order if the appeal is discretion orders
provided such decided against him the consolidation
person files a bond (Sec. 11, Rule 71). of the contempt

Remedial Law
charge and the
principal action Jurisdiction Venue
for joint hearing Interpleader MTC – where the Where the plaintiff
and decision (Sec. (Rule 62) value of the claim or or any of the
4, Rule 71). the personal principal plaintiff
property does not resides or where
exceed P300,000 the defendant or
Court that has jurisdiction outside Metro any of the principal
Manila or P400,000 defendants resides
1. Where the act was committed against a RTC or a court of in Metro Manila or at the option of the
equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed where the value of plaintiff (Sec. 2,
by it, the charge may be filed with such court; the real property Rule 4).
2. Where the act was committed against a lower court, the does not exceed
charge may be filed with the RTC in which the lower P20,000 outside
court is sitting. It may also be filed in lower court against Metro Manila or
which the contempt was allegedly committed. The P50,000 in Metro
decision of the lower court is subject to appeal to RTC; Manila
3. Where the act was committed against persons or entities
exercising quasi-judicial functions, the charge shall be RTC – if the value
filed in RTC of the place wherein the contempt was exceeds the above
committed (Sec. 12, Rule 71; Riano, 2012). amounts or if the
subject matter is
Necessity for hearing in an indirect contempt charge exclusively within
the jurisdiction of
Since an indirect contempt charge partakes the nature of a the RTC
criminal charge, conviction cannot be had merely on the basis
of written pleadings. A respondent in a contempt charge must [Judiciary Act of
be served with a copy of the motion/petition. While the 1980; Secs. 19(2) and
respondent is not required to file a formal answer similar to 33(3), BP Blg. 129, as
that in ordinary civil actions, the court must set the contempt amended by RA
charge for hearing on a fixed date and time on which the 7691]
respondent must make his appearance to answer the charge.
(Silverio Sr. v. Silverio Jr., G.R. No. 186589, July 18, 2014) Declaratory Declaratory relief – Where the
Relief and RTC petitioner or the
NOTE: If a person charged with indirect contempt fails to Similar respondent resides
appear on the date of hearing of the contempt charge after Reliefs Similar reliefs: at the election of
due notice without justifiable reason, the court does not (Rule 63) MTC - where the the petitioner (Sec.
declare the respondent in default. Instead, court shall order value of the real 2, Rule 4).
his arrest just like the accused in a criminal case. (Riano, property does not
2012) exceed P20,000
outside Metro
WHEN IMPRISONMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED Manila or P50,000
in Metro Manila
When the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do
an act which is yet in the power of the respondent to perform, RTC – if the value
he may be imprisoned by order of the court concerned until exceeds the above
he performs it (Sec.8, Rule 71). Indefinite incarceration may amounts or if the
be resorted to where the attendant circumstances are such subject matter is
that the non-compliance with the court order is an utter exclusively within
disregard of the authority of the court which has then no the jurisdiction of
other recourse but to use its coercive power. the RTC
CONTEMPT AGAINST QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES NOTE: It would be

error to file the
The rules on contempt apply to contempt committed against petition with the SC
persons or entities exercising quasi-judicial functions or in which has no
case there are rules for contempt adopted for such bodies or original jurisdiction
entities pursuant to law, Rule 71 shall apply suppletorily. to entertain a
petition for
Quasi-judicial bodies that have the power to cite persons for declaratory relief
indirect contempt can only do so by initiating them in the (Tano v. Socrates,
proper RTC. It is not within their jurisdiction and competence G.R. No. 110249,
to decide the indirect contempt cases. The RTC of the place August 14, 1997).
where contempt has been committed shall have jurisdiction
over the charges for indirect contempt that may be filed (Sec. Review of Supreme Court on Supreme Court
12, Rule 71; LBP v. Listana, G.R. No. 152611, August 5, 2003). Judgments of certiorari under
COMELEC Rule 65
NOTE: Other acts or violations cannot be punished as AND COA
contumacious conduct by administrative or quasi-judicial (Rule 64 in
entities unless the governing law specifically defines such. relation to
Rule 65)
JURISDICTION and VENUE

Certiorari, 1. RTC; 1. RTC, if it is Bar, as cited in located
Prohibition, 2. CA; directed against Riano, 2012) 2. Personal
Mandamus 3. SC; a municipal trial property – the
(Rule 65) 4. Sandiganbayan, court, place where
COMELEC in aid corporation, the plaintiff or
of their board, an officer defendant
appellate or a person; resides at the
jurisdiction 2. CA or with the election of the
(A.M. No. 07-7- SB, whether or plaintiff (Sec.
12-SC). not the same is 13, Rule 69).
in aid of the
court’s appellate Forcible MTC, MTCCs, MCTC Where the
jurisdiction; Entry MeTC; covered by property is
3. If the petition (Rule 70) Rule on Summary located because it
involves an act Procedure (Sec 3, is a real
or an omission RA 7691). action.(Riano,
of a quasi- 2012)
judicial agency,
unless otherwise Unlawful MTC, MTCCs, MCTC, Where the
provided by law Detainer MeTC; covered by property is
or the Rules, the (Rule 70) Rule on Summary located because it
petition shall be Procedure (Sec 3, is a real action
filed with and be RA 7691). (Ibid).
cognizable only
by the Court of Contempt MTC, RTC, CA, SC Where the charge
Appeals; (Rule 71) for indirect
4. In election cases contempt has
involving an act been committed
or omission of against RTC or a
MTC/RTC, it court of
shall be filed equivalent or
exclusively with higher rank, or
the COMELEC, in against an officer
aid of its appointed by it,
appellate the charge may be
jurisdiction (Sec. filed with such
4, Rule 65). court.
Quo RTC, CA, SC (Sec. 7, Where the
warranto Rule 66) respondent or any Where such
of the respondents contempt has
SB in aid of its resides. When the been committed
appellate Solicitor General against a lower
jurisdiction (PD commences the court, the charge
1606, as amended action, it may be may be filed with
by RA No. 8249) brought in the the RTC of the
RTC of the City of place in which the
Manila, in the CA, lower court is
or in the SC (Sec. 7, sitting; but the
Rule 66). proceedings may
also be instituted
NOTE: Subject to in such lower
the principle of court subject to
Hierarchy of appeal to the RTC
Courts of such place (Sec.
Expropriation RTC since incapable Land: where the 5, Rule 70).
(Rule 67) of pecuniary property is
estimation located SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
(Barangay San Personal property:
Roque v. Heirs of the place where It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a right, a
Pastor, G.R. No. the plaintiff or status or a particular fact [Sec. 3(c), Rule 1].
138896, June 20, defendant resides,
2000) at the election of SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS, VENUE,
the plaintiff (Sec. AND PROCESS
2, Rule 4).
Modes of settlement of estate
Foreclosure RTC since incapable Where the land or
of REM of pecuniary any part thereof is 1. Extrajudicial settlement - if the decedent left no will and
(Rule 68) estimation. located.(Sec. 2, no debts, and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are
Rule 4) represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly
Partition RTC since incapable 1. Real property authorized for the purpose (Sec. 1, Rule 74).
(Rule 69) of pecuniary – where the 2. Judicial settlement-where proceedings in court are
estimation (2000 property is necessary, and includes the following:

Remedial Law
a. Summary settlement of estate of small value –
Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased Q: Petitioners filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title
person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not and Reconveyance with Damages against respondent
exceed P10,000.00, the court may proceed Ricaforte. They alleged that Magdaleno died intestate and
summarily, without the appointment of an executor childless leaving behind several lots. Claiming to be the
or administrator (Sec. 2, Rule 74). sole heir of Magdaleno, Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of
b. Testate proceedings –When the decedent left a last Self-Adjudication and caused the cancellation of the
will and testament (Rules 75-79). certificates of title, leading to their subsequent transfer
c. Intestate proceedings –When the decedent died in his name under TCT Nos. T-2637 and T-2638, to the
without a will, or died with a will but was found prejudice of petitioners who are Magdaleno’s collateral
invalid and thereafter disallowed (Rule 79). relatives and successors-in-interest. Gaudioso countered
d. Partition –When there is no will and the parties that he is the lawful son of Magdaleno. By way of
entitled to the estate would agree on the project of affirmative defense, he claimed that: (a) petitioners have
partition (Rule 69). no cause of action against him; (b) the complaint fails to
state a cause of action; and (c) the case is not prosecuted
VENUE IN JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE by the real parties-in-interest, as there is no showing that
the petitioners have been judicially declared as
Resident Non-resident Magdaleno’s lawful heirs. RTC found that the subject
Court of the province/city Court of the province/city complaint failed to state a cause of action against
where the deceased where the estate may be Gaudioso. May RTC dismiss the case for failure to state
resided at the time of found. (Sec. 1, Rule 73) cause of action?
death, whether a citizen or
alien. (Sec. 1, Rule 73) A: NO. It is well-settled that the existence of a cause of action
is determined by the allegations in the complaint. A complaint
As soon as the probate court acquires jurisdiction over all is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what
properties of the deceased, no other court can dispose of such appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be
properties without the probate court’s approval, for that entitled to the relief prayed for. Jurisprudence dictates that
would be tantamount to divesting the latter with jurisdiction the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased
(Union Bank vs. Santibañez, G.R. No. 149926, February 23, must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and
2005). not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and
possession of property. This must take precedence over the
Principle of Preferential Jurisdiction/Exclusionary Rule action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court
has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a
GR: The probate court first taking cognizance of the declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that
settlement of the estate. such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.
The Court reiterated its ruling that matters relating to the
NOTE: The rule on venue does not state that the court rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the
with whom the estate or intestate petition is first filed proper probate court in a special proceeding instituted
acquires jurisdiction. In order for the court to acquire precisely for the purpose of determining such rights. While a
exclusive jurisdiction, said court must also first take court usually focuses on the complaint in determining
cognizance of the same, to the exclusion of all other whether the same fails to state a cause of action, a court
courts. (De Leon & Wilwayco, 2015) cannot disregard decisions material to the proper
appreciation of the questions before it. Thus, a determination
XPN: Estoppel by Laches (Uriarte v. CFI of Negros Occidental, of heirship cannot be made in an ordinary action for recovery
G.R. Nos. L-21938-39, May 29, 1970). of ownership and/or possession. It must be pointed out that
the RTC erred in ruling on Gaudioso’s heirship which should,
EXTENT OF JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT as herein discussed, be threshed out and determined in the
proper special proceeding. It does not in any way fall within
GR: Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the recognized exceptions. Hence, there lies the need to
the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper institute the proper special proceeding in order to determine
special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for the heirship of the parties involved, ultimately resulting to the
recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must dismissal of civil case. (Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon v. Gaudioso
take precedence over the action for recovery of possession Pontreras Ricaforte , G.R. No. 198680, July 8, 2013, Perlas-
and ownership. Bernabe, J.)
XPN: The need to institute a separate special proceeding for SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES
the determination of heirship may be dispensed with:
1. For the sake of practicality, when the parties in the EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the HEIRS, WHEN ALLOWED
trial court and already presented their evidence
regarding the issue of heirship, and the Regional Trial Requisites for extrajudicial settlement (IDA-PPB)
Court had consequently rendered judgment thereon,
or 1. Decedent died intestate;
2. When a special proceeding had been instituted but 2. No outstanding debts at the time of settlement;
had been finally closed and terminated, and hence, - No creditor should have filed a petition for letters of
cannot be re-opened (Heirs of Ypon vs. Ricaforte, G.R. administration within two years after the decedent’s
No. 198680, July 8, 2013). death
3. The probate court may pass upon the issue of 3. Heirs are all of legal age or minors represented by
ownership where the interested parties are the heirs judicial guardians or legal representatives;
who have all appeared in the proceeding and rights 4. Settlement is made in a public instrument or by means of
of third parties are not impaired (Munsayac-De Villa an affidavit, in case of a sole heir, duly filed with the RD;
v. CA, G.R. No. 148597, October 24, 2004).

5. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the EXTRAJUDICIAL SUMMARY
province once a week for 3 consecutive weeks; and SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT
6. Filing of bond equivalent to the value of personal No court intervention Requires summary
property (De Leon & Wilwayco, 2015). adjudication filed with
- The amount of bond is equivalent to the value of the the MTC
personal property that forms part of the estate. This The value of the estate Gross value of the
should be distinguished from the amount of the bond is immaterial estate must not exceed
for purposes of summary settlement of estate, in P10,000
which case, the amount of the bond shall be fixed by Allowed only in Allowed in both testate
the court. intestate succession and intestate
succession
With respect to real estate, there shall be a lien on There must be no Available even if there
the real estate in favor of creditors, heirs, or other
outstanding debts of are debts. It is the
persons for two years after the distribution. the estate at the time court which will make
of the settlement provision for its
In case of disagreement of heirs, they may state their
payment
oppositions in an ordinary action of partition.
TWO-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD Resorted at the May be instituted by

instance and by any interested party
GR: After the expiration of two (2) years from the agreement of all heirs even a creditor of the
extrajudicial partition, distributees or heirs are barred from estate without the
objecting to an extrajudicial partition. consent of all the heirs
Amount of bond is Amount of bond is to
Provided, that the provision of Section 4 of Rule 74, barring equal to the value of be determined by the
distributees or heirs from objecting to an extrajudicial personal property. court irrespective of
partition after the expiration of two (2) years from such whether the estate
extrajudicial partition, is applicable only: If it is a real property, consists of real or
it is subject to a lien personal property
1. To persons who have participated or taken part or had for a period of two (2)
notice of the extrajudicial partition; and years
2. When all the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken
part in the extrajudicial settlement or are represented by PRODUCTION AND PROBATE OF WILL
themselves or through their guardian (Sampilo v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L- 10474, February 28, 1958). NATURE OF PROBATE PROCEEDING
XPN: If on the date of the expiration of the period of 2 years, 1. In rem - It is binding upon the whole world.
the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally
incapacitated, or is in prison or outside the Philippines, he 2. Mandatory - No will shall pass either real or personal
may present his claim within one (1) year after such disability property unless it is proved and allowed in the proper
is removed (Sec. 5, Rule 74). court (Sec.1, Rule 75) (2005, 2006, 2010 Bar).
AFFIDAVIT OF SELF-ADJUDICATION BY SOLE HEIR However, a will may be sustained on the basis of Article
1080 of the Civil Code which states that: “If the testator
An affidavit required to be executed by the sole heir of a should make a partition by an act inter vivos, or by will,
deceased person. He may adjudicate to himself the entire such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice
estate by means of an affidavit filed in the Office of the the legitime of the forced heir” (Mang-Oyv.CA, G.R. No. L-
Registry of Deeds (Sec. 1, Rule 74). 27421, September 12, 1986).
Adjudication by an heir of the decedent’s entire estate to 3. Imprescriptible - because of the public policy to obey
himself by means of an affidavit is allowed only if he is the the will of the testator
sole heir to the estate (Delgado Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of
Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian, G.R. No. 155733, January 27, 4. Doctrine of estoppel does not apply-the presentation
2006). and probate of a will are requirements of public policy,
being primarily designed to protect the testator's,
SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES expressed wishes, which are entitled to respect as a
OF SMALL VALUE, WHEN ALLOWED consequence of the decedent's ownership and right of
disposition within legal limits (Fernandez v. Dimagiba,
Summary settlement of estate may be chosen by the heirs G.R. No. L-23638, October 12, 1967).
regardless of whether the decedent died testate or intestate
(De Leon & Wilwayco, 2015). 5. Res Judicata – once allowed, by the court, it can no
longer be questioned, irrespective of any erroneous
The following requisites must be present: judgment because it serves as the law of the case (Balais
v. Balais, G.R. No. L-33924, March 18,1988).
1. The complaint must allege that the gross value of the
estate of the deceased does not exceed P10,000.00; Scope of Examination of a Will
2. A bond has been duly filed in an amount fixed by the
court; and GR: The probate (allowance or authentication) of a will refers
3. A proper hearing is held not less than one month nor to its due execution and settles only the formal or extrinsic
more than three months from date of last publication validity of the will (Regalado, 2008).
of the notice (Ibid.).
NOTE: The allowance of the decedent’s will is conclusive only

Remedial Law
as to its due execution. The authority of the probate court is Holographic The fact that he The burden of
limited to ascertaining whether the testator, being of sound will petitioned affirms that the disproving shall be on
mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the by testator holographic will the contestant.
formalities prescribed by law. Thus, petitioner’s claim of title himself and the
to the properties forming part of her husband’s estate should signature are in
be settled in an ordinary action before the regular courts his own
(Nittscher v. Nittscher, G.R. No. 160530, November 20, 2007). handwriting
shall be
XPNs: Principle of practical considerations - wherein the court sufficient.
may pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will:
1. In the case of absolute preterition without any provision

in favor of any devises or legatee (Nuguid v. Nuguid, G.R.
No. L-23445, June 23, 1966); or
2. Where the defect is apparent on its face, the probate Substantial Compliance Rule
court may determine the intrinsic validity of the will even
before its formal validity is established, as the probate of If the will has been executed in substantial compliance with
a will may become a useless ceremony if the will is the formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and
intrinsically invalid (Regalado, 2008). fraud is obviated, said will should be admitted to probate
(Art. 809, NCC).
ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL
REPROBATE
GR: Probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of
the testator Reprobate is a special proceeding to establish the validity of a
will proved in a foreign country (De Leon & Wilwayco, 2015).
XPN: The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition
the court having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. REQUISITES BEFORE A WILL PROVED ABROAD WOULD
BE ALLOWED IN THE PHILIPPINES
Mere delivery of will sufficient
Evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of
The court may act upon the mere deposit therein of a wills (PLEAD)
decedent’s testament, even if no petition for its allowance is
as yet filed. 1. Due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign
laws;
Where the petition for probate is made after the deposit of 2. Testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not
the will, the petition is deemed to relate back to the time in the Philippines;
when the will was delivered (De Leon & Wilwayco, 2015). 3. The will has been admitted to probate in such country;
1. The fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court; and
Proving a will 2. The laws of a foreign country on procedure and
allowance of wills (Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, G.R. No. 76714,
Will Uncontested Contested June 2, 1994).
Notarial will The court may All the Doctrine of processual presumption
grant allowance subscribing witnesses
thereof on the and the notary There must be evidence to prove the existence of foreign law,
testimony of one public must otherwise the court should presume that the law of the
of the testify as to due foreign country is the same as Philippine laws.
subscribing execution and
witnesses only, attestation of the will. The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws
if such witness (Sec. 11, Rule76) upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is
testifies that the impelled by the fact that the courts cannot take judicial notice
will was of them (PCIB vs. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896,
executed as is March 29, 1974).
required by law
(Sec. 5, Rule 76). LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND ADMINISTRATION
Holographic At least one The will shall be
will witness who allowed if at least Executor vs. Administrator
knows the three (3)
handwriting and witnesses who EXECUTOR ADMINISTRATOR
signature of the know the How Nominated by Appointed by the
testator handwriting of the
appointed the testator and court in these
explicitly testator explicitly appointed by instances:
declares that the declare that the will the court. 1. Will did not
will and the and the signature are
appoint an
signature are in in the executor;
the handwriting of the
2. Executor
handwritingof testator (Sec.11, Rule
appointed is
the testator (Sec. 76). incompetent,
5, Rule76).
refused the
appointment,
or failed to
give a bond;

3. The will was GR: It should be filed within the time fixed in the notice which
disallowed; or shall not be less than 6 months nor more than 12 months
4. The deceased from the date of the first publication of the notice thereof.
died intestate. Such period when fixed by the probate court becomes
Obligation to Must present No such duty. mandatory and any action not filed within the period shall be
present the will to the court barred forever (Sec. 2, Rule 86).
will to court within 20 days
after XPNs:
knowledge of 1. The creditor may apply with the court for a new
the testator’s period not exceeding one month from the order
death or after allowing the same for just cause (Sec. 2, Rule 86); and
he knows that 2. Creditor may set up his claim as a counterclaim in the
he was action filed by the executor or administrator (Sec. 5,
appointed as Rule 86).
executor.
Bond Testator may Bond is always STATUTE OF NON-CLAIMS
direct that the required unless
executor may exempted by law. The statute of non-claims is a period fixed by the rule for the
serve without a filing of claims against the estate for examination and
bond or with allowance (Herrera, 2005).
only his
individual bond Guidelines as to the statute of non-claims are as follows:
conditioned
only to pay the 1. The period fixed by probate court must not be less than
testator’s 6 months nor more than 12 months from the date of the
debts; but the first publication of the notice.
court may 2. Such period once fixed by the court is mandatory and it
require the cannot be shortened.
executor to 3. The statute of non-claims supersedes the statute of
execute a bond limitations.
in case of a
change in the NOTE: Even if a claim has not yet prescribed under the
circumstance statute of limitations, if such claim is not made with the
or for other probate court within the time set forth in the notice, the
sufficient cause. creditor may no longer collect because of the statue of non-
Amount of Compensation Compensation is claims.
compensation may be governed by Sec.
provided for by 7, Rule 85. Effect of statute of non-claims
the testator in
the will, The statue of non-claims effectively shortens the statute of
otherwise Sec. limitations as regards the right of action to pursue the debtor
7, Rule 85 will is concerned. Still, before a creditor may go against the estate,
be followed. the claim must both within the statute of limitations and
statute of non-claims. In short, the statute of limitations and
CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE statute of non-claims must both concur before a creditor may
collect against the estate (De Leon & Wilwayco, 2015).
They are money claims of pecuniary nature which could have
been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime and could Claims that must be presented under the statute of non-
have been reduced to simple money judgments. claims
GR: Not all money claims may however be presented, but 1. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from
only those which are proper against the decedent, that is, contract, express or implied, whether due, not due, or
claims upon a liability contracted by the decedent before his contingent;
death. 2. All claims for funeral expenses
3. Expenses for the last sickness of the decedent; or
XPN: Claims arising after his death cannot thus be presented 4. Judgment for money against the decedent (Sec. 5, Rule 86)
except:
1. Funeral expenses; and NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive (Festin, 2011).
2. Expenses of the last sickness of the decedent (Testate Estate
of deceased Gabin v. Melliza, et. al, G.R. No. L-1849, October CLAIMS EXTINGUISHED ACTIONS WHICH
25, 1949) BY DEATH SURVIVE
Personal to either of the Those claims which can be
NOTE: Claims originating after the decedent’s death, may be parties filed either against the
allowed as expenses of administration which may be estate or the executor
collected from the administrator or executor personally or by
motion in the testate or intestate proceedings without the The claim can no longer be Claim is not extinguished by
formality and limitation provided for money claims against prosecuted by reason of the death but shall be
the decedent (Herrera, 2005). death of the party prosecuted as a money
claim against the estate of
TIME WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS SHOULD BE FILED; the deceased or against the
EXCEPTIONS executor or administrator

Remedial Law
E.g. legal separation, E.g. contractual money
annulment of marriage, claim, action to recover real DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION
declaration of nullity of property
marriage LIQUIDATION
ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST EXECUTORS AND Liquidation means the determination of all assets of the
ADMINISTRATORS estate and payment of all debts and expenses.
Any action affecting the property rights of a deceased which NOTE: The probate court loses jurisdiction over the
may be brought by or against him if he were alive, may be settlement proceedings only upon payment of all debts and
instituted and prosecuted by or against the administrator, expenses of the obligor and delivery of the entire estate to all
unless by its very nature, it cannot survive, because death the heirs (Guilas v. Judge of CFI of Pampanga, G.R. No. L-
extinguishes such right (De Leon & Wilwayco, 2015). 26695, Jan. 31, 1972).
NOTE: As a rule, actions which survive the decedent’s death Decree of distribution
should be made against the executor or administrator.
Conversely, actions that do not survive must be claimed A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person
against the estate. vests the title to the land of the estate in the distributees,
which, if erroneous may be corrected by a timely appeal. Once
Claims it becomes final, its binding effect is like any other judgment
in rem.
Generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary
nature which could have been enforced against the deceased However, in exceptional cases, a final decree of distribution of
in his lifetime or liability contracted by the deceased before the estate may be set aside for lack of jurisdiction or fraud
his death (Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon, G.R. No. 139868, June 8, 2006).
PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF THE ESTATE Declaration of heirship
If it appears that there are sufficient assets in the estate to The declaration of heirs is undertaken to determine to whom
pay the debts, the executor or administrator shall pay the the residue of the estate should be distributed. The
same for the time limited for that purpose (Sec. 1, Rule 88). declaration is made in the same proceeding, a separate action
for the declaration of heirs not being the proper recourse (De
Payment of contingent claims Leon & Wilwayco, 2015).
If the court is satisfied that a contingent claim duly filed is INSTANCES WHEN PROBATE COURT MAY ISSUE
valid, it may order the executor or administrator to retain in WRIT OF EXECUTION
his hands sufficient estate to pay such contingent claim when
the same becomes absolute, or if the estate is insolvent, GR: Probate court cannot issue writs of execution.
sufficient estate to pay a portion equal to the dividend of the
other creditors (Sec. 4, Rule 88). NOTE: Execution is not the proper remedy to satisfy an
approved claim because payment approving the claim does
Requisites: (FAV) not create a lien upon the property of the estate.
1. Duly filed within the 2-year period allowed for creditors to The proper procedure is for the court to order the sale of the
present their claims; property of the deceased to satisfy the claim and in case of
2. The claim is valid; and refusal to comply with the order; the court may cite him in
3. The claim becomes absolute (Sec. 5, Rule 88) contempt.
NOTE: If the contingent claim is not presented within the two XPNs: (DEP)
(2)-year period after it becomes absolute, the assets retained 1. To satisfy the Distributive shares of the devisees, legatees
in the hands of the executor or administrator, not exhausted and heirs in possession of the decedent’s assets (Sec. 6,
in the payment of claims, shall be distributed by the order of Rule 88);
the court to the persons entitled to the same (Sec. 4, Rule 88). 2. To enforce payment of the expenses of Partition (Sec. 3,
However, the assets so distributed may still be applied to the Rule 90); and
payment of the claim when established, and the creditor may 3. To satisfy the costs when a person is cited for
maintain an action against the distributees to recover the Examination in probate proceedings (Sec. 13, Rule 142).
debt, and such distributees and their estates shall be liable for
the debt in proportion to the estate they have respectively TRUSTEES
received from the property of the deceased (Sec. 5, Rule 88).
Trust
If the contingent claim matures after the expiration of the two
(2)-year period, the creditors may sue the distributees, who Confidence reposed in one person called the trustee, for the
are liable in proportion to the shares in the estate benefit of another called the cestui que trust, with respect to
respectively received by them (Jaucian v. Querol, G.R. No. L- property held by the former for the benefit of the latter.
11307, October 5, 1918).
Trustee
The only instance wherein a creditor can file an action against
a distributee of the debtor’s assets is under Sec. 5 of Rule 88. A trustee is one who is appointed to carry out the provision of
The contingent claims must first have been established and the will or any written instrument executed by the trustor
allowed in the probate court before the creditors can file an (Sec. 1, Rule 98).
action directly against the distributees (De Bautista v. De
Guzman, G.R. No. L-28298, November 25, 1983). Rule 98 applies only to express trust

whatsoever, the court or judge awarding the writ shall
One which is created by will or written instrument, and not to consider in that behalf (Illusorio v. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789,
an implied trust, which is deducible from the nature of the May 12, 2000).
transaction as a matter of intent, or which are superinduced
on the transaction by operation of law as a matter of equity, Scope of the writ
independent of the particular intention of the parties (De
Leon & Wilwayco, 2015 citing O’Lao v. Co Cho Chit, G.R. No. Habeas corpus extends to:
58010, March 31, 1993). 1. All cases of illegal confinement or detention by which a
person is deprived of his liberty; and
CONDITIONS OF THE BOND 2. Cases by which the rightful custody of the person is
withheld from the person entitled thereto (Sec. 1, Rule
Filing of bond 102) (2005 & 2009 Bar).
GR: The trustee is required to file a bond with the clerk of Nature of the petition
court having jurisdiction of the trust in the amount fixed by
the judge of said court. Neglect of trustees to file a bond will 1. Summary
be interpreted by the court as resignation or a decline to
accept the trust (Sec. 5, Rule 98). Habeas Corpus is a summary remedy. It is analogous to a
proceeding in rem when instituted for the sole purpose of
XPN: The trustee may be exempted from filing a bond if having the person of restraint presented before the judge in
requested by the testator or by all persons beneficially order that the cause of his detention may be inquired into and
interested (being of full age) in the trust. However, the court his statements final. The writ of habeas corpus does not act
may cancel such exemption any time (Sec. 5, Rule 98). upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who
holds him in what is alleged to be the unlawful authority.
ESCHEAT Hence, the only parties before the court are the petitioner and
the person holding the petitioner in custody, and the only
A proceeding whereby the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, question to be resolved is whether the custodian has
steps in and claims the real and personal property of a person authority to deprive the petitioner of his liberty (Caballes v.
who dies intestate leaving no heir (De Leon & Wilwayco, CA, G.R. No. 163108, February 23, 2005).
2015).
2. Ancillary
Three kinds of escheat
The writ of habeas corpus and certiorari may be ancillary to
1. Intestate leaving no heir each other where necessary to give effect to the supervisory
When a person dies intestate leaving no heir but leaving real powers of the higher courts. A writ of habeas corpus reaches
property within the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 91); the body and the jurisdictional matters, but not the record. A
writ of certiorari reaches the record but not the body. Hence,
2. Reversion a writ of habeas corpus may be used with the writ of
Actions for reversion of properties alienated in violation of certiorari for the purpose of review (Galvez v. CA, G.R. No.
the Constitution or statute (Sec. 5, Rule91); 114046, October 24, 1994).
NOTE: The proceedings must be instituted in the province However, habeas corpus does not lie where the petitioner has
where the land lies in whole or in part. It may be instituted as the remedy of appeal or certiorari.
a consequence of violation of Article XIII of the Constitution
which prohibits transfers of private agricultural land to aliens Grounds for suspension of the privilege of the writ of
(Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, G.R. No. L-1411, September 29, habeas corpus under the Constitution:
1953).
1. Invasion, when public safety requires it; or
However, reversion will not be allowed even if the original 2. Rebellion, when public safety requires it.
buyer was an alien, if later on the title to the property was
transferred by succession to the buyer’s heirs who are Grounds for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus as a
qualified parties, i.e. Philippine citizens (Republic v. Registry of consequence of judicial proceeding
Deeds of Roxas City, G.R. No. 158230, July 16, 2008).
1. There has been a deprivation of a constitutional right
3. Unclaimed balances resulting in restraint of person;
Dormant accounts for 10 years (Unclaimed Balances Act, Act 2. The court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence;
3936, as amended by P.D.679) 3. An excessive penalty has been imposed, the sentence
being void as to excess;
NOTE: An action to recover unclaimed balances shall be 4. Where the law is amended, as when the penalty is
commenced by the Solicitor General in an action for escheat lowered (Feria v. CA, G.R. No. 122954, February 15, 2000);
in the name of the People of the Philippines in the RTC of the 5. Denial of right to a speedy trial (since it is jurisdictional);
province where the bank is located, in which shall be joined as 6. Where the results of post-conviction DNA testing are
parties the bank and such creditors or depositors (Republic v. favorable to the convict;
Pres. Roxas Rural Bank, Inc., G.R. No. L-30381, August 30, 7. Enable the parents to regain custody of a minor child,
1988). even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of her
own free will (Tijing v. CA, G.R. No. 125901, March 8,
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 2001);
8. In determining the constitutionality of a statute (People v.
It is a writ directed to the person detaining another and Vera, G.R. No. L-45685, November 16, 1937);
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a 9. When testing the legality of an alien’s confinement and
certain time and place with the day and the cause of his proposed expulsion from the Philippines (Lao Tang Bun
caption and detention, to do, submit to and receive v. Fabre, G.R. No. L-1673, October 22, 1948);

Remedial Law
10. In permitting an alien to land in the Philippines (Lim innocent spouse, unless otherwise directed by the court in the
Cheng v. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 16406, interest of the minor children. But when the husband and
September 13, 1920); and wife are living separately and apart from each other, without
11. In determining the legality of an extradition (United decree of the court, the court shall award the care, custody
States v. Rauscher, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425, December 6, and control of each child as will be for his best interest,
1886) permitting the child to choose which parent he prefers to live
with if he is over 7 years of age unless the parent so chosen be
DISTINGUISH PRELIMINARY CITATION FROM unfit to take charge of the child by reason of moral depravity,
PEREMPTORY WRIT habitual drunkenness or poverty (Sy v. CA, G.R. No. 124518,
December 27, 2007).
PRELIMINARY PEREMPTORY WRIT
CITATION Q: Queenie was born in 2012 to Renalyn and Ricky James,
Issued when a Issued when the cause who had been living together with Renalyn's parents
government officer has of the detention without the benefit of marriage. Three (3) years later, the
the person in his appears to be patently relationship ended. Renalyn went to Manila, supposedly
custody, the illegality illegal and the non- leaving Queenie behind in the care and custody of her
of which is not patent, compliance herewith father, Ricky James. In November 2015, Renalyn's
to show cause why the is punishable (Lee Yick parents took Queenie from the school where he had
writ of habeas corpus Hon v. Collector of enrolled her. When asked to give Queenie back, they
should not issue Customs, G.R. No. refused and instead showed a copy of an SPA executed by
16779, March 30, Renalyn granting full parental rights, authority, and
1921). custody over Queenie to them. Consequently, Ricky James
filed a petition for habeas corpus and child custody. The
WHEN NOT PROPER/APPLICABLE RTC ruled that the custody of Queenie rightfully belongs
to Renalyn. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Order
Habeas corpus is NOT applicable when the purpose is to: granting custody to Renalyn stating that the latter has
parental custody of over Queenie as she is an illegitimate
1. Enforce a right of service; child. Nevertheless, it granted Ricky James visitation
2. Determine whether a person has committed a crime; rights of two (2) days a week, with provision for
3. Determine a disputed interstate boundary line; additional visitation days that may be permitted by
4. Punish respondent; Renalyn. Renalyn filed a motion for reconsideration
5. Recover damages or other money award; while Ricky James filed a motion for clarification. In an
6. Assert or vindicate denial of right to bail (In re: Azucena Omnibus Resolution, the CA denied Renalyn’s motion for
Garcia, G.R. No. 141443, November 18, 2000); reconsideration while granting to Ricky James “limited
7. Correct errors in appreciation of facts or law; or and temporary custody” that will allow him to take
8. Enforce marital rights including living in conjugal Quennie out once a month. It held that it is in the best
dwelling. interest of Queenie to have an exclusive time with her
father. Is the decision of CA correct?
RULE ON CUSTODY OF MINORS AND WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN RELATION TO CUSTODY OF MINORS (A.M. No. A: NO. By granting temporary albeit limited custody ahead of
03-04-4-SC) trial, the CA overturned the tender-age presumption with
nothing but Ricky James' bare allegations, to which the Court
Who may file a petition for custody of minor cannot give its imprimatur. As earlier intimated, the issue
surrounding Renalyn's fitness as a mother must be properly
A verified petition for the rightful custody of a minor may be threshed out in the trial court before she can be denied
filed by any person claiming such right. The party against custody, even for the briefest of periods, over Queenie. The
whom it may be filed shall be designated as the respondent Court can only uphold Ricky James' visitation rights, which
(Sec. 2, AM No. 03-04-04-SC). shall be limited to two (2) days per week, without prejudice
to Renalyn allowing him additional days. However, he may
Purpose of the petition take Queenie out only upon the written consent of Renalyn.
Contrary to the posturing of the appellate court, the
To determine who has the rightful custody over the child requirement for the consent of the mother is consistent with
(Bagtas v. Santos, G.R. No. 166682, November 27, 2009). the regime of sole maternal custody under the second
paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code with respect to
Issuance of Hold Departure Order children under seven (7) years of age, which may be
overcome only by compelling evidence of the mother's
The minor child cannot be brought out of the country without unfitness. Until and unless Ricky James is able to substantiate
leave from court while the petition is pending. The minor his allegations, he can only claim visitation rights over his
child subject of the petition shall not be brought out of the daughter. (Masbate v. Relucio, G.R. No. 235498, July 30, 2018,
country without prior order from the court while the petition Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
is pending.
Q: Ruben Tiu is detained at the Sablayan Prison and
The court, motu proprio or upon application under oath, may Penal Farm in Occidental Mindoro seeking his immediate
issue ex parte a hold departure order, addressed to the release from prison on the strength of his conditional
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, directing it not to pardon without parole conditions, as well as the
allow the departure of the minor from the Philippines automatic reduction or his sentence by virtue of his
without the permission of the court (Sec. 16, AM No. 03-04-04- status as a penal colonist. Should a writ of habeas corpus
SC). be issued in his favor?
In case of legal separation of the parents A: NO. Well-settled is the rule that the writ will not issue
where the person in whose behalf the writ is sought is in the
The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge

with jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court Reason: It is intended to address violations of or threats to
of record. The writ is denied if the petitioner fails to show the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and
facts that he is entitled thereto ex merito justicias. In this case, independent remedy beyond those available under the
petitioner is serving sentence by virtue of a final judgment prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these
convicting him of the offense of selling and delivering Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are
prohibited drugs. He failed to show, however, that his further purely property or commercial (Tapuz v. Del Rosario, G.R. No.
incarceration is no longer lawful and that he is entitled to 182484, June 17, 2008).
relief under a writ of habeas corpus. (Tiu v. Dizon, G.R. No.
211269, June 15, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) NOTE: The rule is the same with respect to habeas data.
WRIT OF AMPARO The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final

A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC judgment of the court is not included among the enumeration
of rights for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, available. Their claim to dwelling, assuming they still have
liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security
employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall (Canlas v. Napico Homeowners Association I-XIII, Inc., G.R. No.
cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or 182795, June 5, 2008).
threats thereof (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
2. In a labor dispute
Summary proceeding (2009, 2010 Bar) Reason: Employment constitutes a property right under the
context of the due process clause of the Constitution and does
The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a not constitute an unlawful violation of the right to life, liberty,
summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence or security (Meralco v Lim, G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010).
to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it
is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof NOTE: The rule is the same with respect to habeas data.
beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring
preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility 3. For protection of right to travel
requiring substantial evidence that will require full and Reason: The right to travel refers to the right to move from
exhaustive proceedings (Deliberations of the Committee on the one place to another. The Court held that a person’s right to
Revision of the Rules of Court, August 10, 2007, August 24, travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very
2007, August 31, 2007 and September 20, 2008). necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases,
whether the accused should be permitted to leave the
COVERAGE jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the
court’s sound discretion (Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo is now a procedural law 115132-34, August 9, 1995).
anchored, not only on the constitutional rights to life, liberty
and security, but on a concrete statutory definition as well of Here, the restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a
what an ‘enforced or involuntary disappearance’ is. consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed
Therefore, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC’s reference to enforced against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to
disappearances should be construed to mean the enforced or establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner
involuntary disappearance of persons contemplated in and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his
Section 3(g) of RA No. 9851, otherwise known as “Philippine right to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no
Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, readily available legal recourse or remedy (Reyes v. Gonzalez,
Genocide, and Other Crimes against Humanity” (Navia et al v. G.R. No. 182161, December 3, 2009).
Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012)
4. Inclusion of name in the Order of Battle
Q: Spouses Santiago filed a petition for the issuance of Reason: Mere inclusion in the military’s order of battle which
writ of amparo against the Tulfo brothers following the is not supported by independent and credible evidence
comments and expletives hurled against them by the stands on nebulous grounds. The liberality accorded to
Tulfo brothers who threatened that they will retaliate amparo cases does not mean that a claimant is dispensed
after the brawl that occured between the parties a few with the onus of proving his case (Saez v. Macapagal Arroyo,
days past. Is the petition for a writ of amparo an G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012).
appropriate remedy?
NOTE: The rule is the same with respect to habeas data.
A: NO. It is undisputed that Spouses Santiago’s amparo
petition does not allege any case of extrajudicial killing WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
and/or enforced disappearance, or any threats thereof, in the A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC
senses above-described. Their petition is merely anchored on
a broad invocation of respondents' purported violation of It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
their right to life and security, carried out by private in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
individuals without any showing of direct or indirect unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of
government participation. Thus, it is apparent that their a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
amparo petition falls outside the purview of A.M. No. 07-9-12- collecting or storing of data or information regarding the
SC and, perforce, must fail. (Spouses Rozelle Raymond Martin person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
and Claudine Margaret Santiago, Petitioners, vs. Raffy Tulfo, party (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC) (2009, 2010 Bar) .
Ben Tulfo, and Erwin Tulfo, G.R. NO. 205039, October 21, 2015,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.) Nexus between right to privacy and right to life, liberty,
liberty or security
When writ NOT available
The writ however will not issue on the basis merely of an
1. For protection of a property right alleged unauthorized access to information about a person.

Remedial Law
Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to
life, liberty or security on the other. Thus, the existence of of a 1. Name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or extremely
person’s right to informational privacy and a showing, at least difficult to write or pronounce;
by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation 2. Change is a legal consequence of legitimation or
of right to privacy in life, liberty, or security of the victim are adoption;
indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be 3. Change will avoid confusion;
extended (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, 4. When one has continuously used and been known since
September 29, 2014). childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien
parentage;
Reliefs granted by the court 5. Sincere desire to adopt Filipino name to erase signs of
former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing
If the allegations in the petition are proven through anybody;
substantial evidence, then the Court may: 3. Surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing
that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent
1. Grant access to the database or information; purpose or that the change of name would prejudice
2. Enjoin the act complained of; or public interest.
3. In case the database or information contains erroneous
data or information, order its deletion, destruction or The above grounds are not exclusive.
rectification (Rodriguez vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805,
November 15, 2011). Change of name under Rule 108
Issuance of the writ vs. Privilege of the writ The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048 has
been considered to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT precedence that substantial corrections to the civil status of
This is issued upon the filing of This is issued after hearing, persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected through
the petition if on its face it in the form of a judgment. the filing of a petition under Rule 108. When all the
ought to issue. procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed,
the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect
NOTE: Sec. 7. Upon the filing of NOTE: The court shall substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register is
the petition, the court, justice render judgment within 10 satisfied.
or judge shall immediately days from the time the
order the issuance of the writ petition is submitted for ABSENTEES
if on its face it ought to issue. decision. If the allegations
The clerk of court shall issue in the petition are proven An absentee is a person who disappears from his domicile,
the writ under the seal of the by substantial evidence, the his whereabouts being unknown, and without having left an
court and cause it to be served court shall enjoin the act agent to administer property or the power conferred on the
within 3 days from its complained of, or order the agent has expired (Sec. 1, Rule 107).
issuance; or, in case of urgent deletion, destruction, or
necessity, the justice or judge rectification of the Who may file
may issue the writ under his or erroneous data or
her own hand, and may information and grant 1. Spouse present;
deputize any officer or person other relevant reliefs as 2. Heirs instituted in a will, who may present an authentic
to serve it. The writ shall also may be just and equitable; copy of the same;
set the date and time for otherwise, the privilege of 3. Relatives who would succeed by the law of intestacy; or
summary hearing of the the writ shall be denied. 4. Those who have over the property of the absentee some
petition which shall not be right subordinated to the condition of his death (Sec. 2).
later than 10 work days from
the date of its issuance When to file
CHANGE OF NAME 1. After 2 years

a. From his disappearance and without any news about
Who may file petition the absentee; or
b. From the last news about the absentee.
1. Alien - must be domiciled in the Philippines, not one
temporarily staying (Ong Huan Ting vs. Rep., G.R. No. L- 2. After 5 years if he left an administrator of his property
20997, April 27, 1967); and (Sec. 2)
2. Adopted child (Republic vs. Wong, G.R. No. 97906, May 21,
1992) Declaration of presumptive death
NOTE: The name that can be changed is the name that GR: No independent action for declaration of presumption of
appears in the civil register, and not in the baptismal death. The presumption may arise and be invoked in an
certificate or that by which the person is known in the action or special proceeding (Lukban v. Republic, G.R. No. L-
community (Ng Yao Siong v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20306, 8492, February 29, 1956).
October 30, 1962).
XPN: Under Art. 41 of Family Code, for purpose of present
Venue spouse contracting a second marriage, he must file a
Any person desiring to change his name shall present the summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death of
petition to the Regional Trial Court of the province where the the absentee, without prejudice to the latter’s reappearance.
petitioner has been residing for three (3) years prior to the
date of such filing. This is intended to protect present spouse from criminal
prosecution for bigamy under Art. 349 of RPC. With judicial

declaration that missing spouse is presumptively dead, good petitioner's registered name, the RTC ordered that the
faith of present spouse in contracting marriage is established. same be first corrected before the correction of entry in
the records of the NSO could be had. The CA reversed and
Marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of set aside the RTC Decision and Order and held that
a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the although petitioner correctly invoked Rule 108 of the
celebration of the subsequent marriage the absent spouse Rules of Court in filing his petition, he, however, failed to
was absent for: strictly comply with the requirements thereunder when
he omitted to implead the Local Civil Registrar and his
1. 4 consecutive years – spouse present had a well-founded half-siblings, who stand to be affected by the corrections
belief that the absent spouse was already dead; or prayed for, as parties. Did the CA err in nullifying the
2. 2 years – in danger of death under the circumstances in correction of entry on petitioner's birth certificate on the
Art. 391 of the Civil Code. ground of lack of jurisdiction?
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF A: NO. Petitioner failed to implead both the Local Civil
ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY Registrar and his half-siblings. Although he claims that his
half-siblings have acknowledged and accepted him, the
Nature of proceedings procedural rules nonetheless mandate compliance with the
requirements in the interest of fair play and due process and
GR: Summary in nature to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his
interest if he so chooses. In sum, the failure to strictly comply
It should be limited solely to the implementation of Article with the above-discussed requirements of Rule 108 of the
412 of the Civil Code. The said article contemplates a Rules of Court for correction of an entry in the civil registrar
summary hearing, involving correction of clerical errors of a involving substantial and controversial alterations renders
harmless, innocuous nature, not changes involving civil the entire proceedings therein null and void. (In the Matter of
status, nationality, or citizenship, which are substantial or the Petition For Correction of Entry Felipe C. Almojuela v.
controversial (Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-5609, Republic, G.R. No. 211724, August 24. 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J)
February 5, 1954).
ENTRIES SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION
XPN: Adversarial proceedings if: OR CORRECTION UNDER RULE 108,
1. The procedural requisites under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of IN RELATION TO R.A. NO. 9048
Rule 108 are followed; or
2. When the civil registrar or any person having or claiming (BiMaDeL-AV-LAANE-CJC)
interest in entries sought to be cancelled and/or
corrected files an opposition and it is actively prosecuted 1. Births;
(Republic v. Kho, G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007). 2. Marriages;
3. Deaths;
Who may file petition 4. Legal separations;
5. Judgments of annulments ofmarriage;
Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree 6. Judgments declaring marriages void from the
concerning the civil status of persons recorded in the civil beginning;
registry may file a verified petition. 7. Legitimation;
8. Adoptions;
Reckoning period 9. Acknowledgments of natural children;
10. Naturalization;
The law did not fix a period within which the petition for 11. Election, loss or recovery of citizenship;
correction under Rule 108 in relation to Art. 412 of Civil Code 12. Civil interdiction;
may be filed. Such petition may be filed within 5 years from 13. Judicial determination of filiation;and
the time the petitioner discovered the error or mistake in the 14. Change of name (Sec. 2, Rule108)
civil registry, and not from the date the birth certificate was
registered in the civil registry (Lee v. CA, L-118387, October RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172 Administrative
11, 2001). Correction of Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry
and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil
Substantial corrections Register
When a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the
the civil register involves substantial and controversial power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first
alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy of name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over
compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 is mandated applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged
(Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476, February 2, with the aforementioned administrative officers.
2011).
Coverage
Q: For almost sixty (60) years, Almojuela has been using
the surname "Almojuela." However, when he requested 1. Change of first name or nickname;
for a copy of his birth certificate from the National 2. Correction of clerical or typographical errors;
Statistics Office (NSO), he was surprised to discover that 3. Change of the day and month in the date of birth; and
he was registered as "Felipe Condeno," instead of "Felipe 4. Change of sex of a person (Sec. 1 of RA 9048 as amended
Almojuela." Thus, he filed a Petition for Correction of by RA 10172)
Entry in his NSO birth certificate before the RTC. The RTC
granted the petition. However, considering that the Book Grounds for a change of first name or nickname under RA
of Births of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Pandan, 9048
Catanduanes reflects the name "Felipe Condeno" as

Remedial Law
1. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be 6. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to authority (Planas v. Gil, G.R. No. L-46440, January 18,
write or pronounce; 1939);
2. The new first name or nickname has been habitually and 7. When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
continuously used by the petitioner and he has been (Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795, October 29, 1966);
publicly known by that first name or nickname in the 8. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice
community; or (before a court or judge for consideration);
3. The change will avoid confusion (Sec. 4, RA 9048 as 9. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance
amended by RA10172). or regulation;
10. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
NOTE: The local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, 11. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
jurisdiction over such petitions for correction of clerical 12. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by
errors and change of first name or nickname, with R.A. No. lust for vengeance; and
9048 prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and local 13. Where there is clearly no prima facie case against the
civil registrar should follow. Since R.A. No. 9048 refers accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
specifically to the administrative summary proceeding before denied.
the local civil registrar, it would be inappropriate to apply the
same procedure to petitions for the correction of entries in PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
the civil registry before the courts (Re: Final Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Br. 67, Criminal actions are instituted by:
Paniqui, Tarlac, A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC, October 19, 2007).
1. Where preliminary investigation is required - filing the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of
conducting the requisite preliminary investigation; or
GENERAL MATTERS 2. For all other offenses - filing the complaint or information
directly with the MTC and MCTC, or the complaint with
Requirements of due process in a criminal proceeding the office of the prosecutor (Sec. 1, Rule 110).
1. Court or tribunal is properly clothed with judicial power NOTE: There is no direct filing of an information or complaint
to hear and determine the matter before it; with the RTC because its jurisdiction covers offenses which
2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the require preliminary investigation.
accused;
3. That the accused is given the opportunity to be heard; Effect of institution of a criminal action
and GR: It interrupts the running of the period of prescription of
4. That judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing. the offense charged (Sec. 1, Rule 110).
XPN: When a different rule is provided for in special laws.
REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
WHO MAY FILE THEM, CRIMES THAT CANNOT BE
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter; PROSECUTED DE OFFICIO
2. Jurisdiction over the territory; and
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused. GR: All criminal actions initiated by complaint or information
are filed by the prosecutor.
NOTE: Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case XPNs: Offenses or crimes that cannot be prosecuted de officio.
cannot be conferred upon by the accused, express waiver or
otherwise, since the jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign These are crimes or offenses which cannot be prosecuted
authority which organized the court, and is given only by law except on complaint filed by the offended party or, if the
in the manner and form prescribed by law. (Fukuzume v. offended party is a minor, by the parents, grandparents or the
People, G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005) It is not guardian. These crimes are:
conferred by a mere administrative policy of any trial court.
(Cudia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110315, January 16, 1998) 1. Adultery and concubinage;
2. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness; and
WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN 3. Criminal actions for defamation imputing the
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (1999 Bar) abovementioned offenses (Sec. 5, Rule 110).
GR: The long-standing doctrine that writs of injunction or CONTROL OF PROSECUTION

prohibition will not lie to restrain a criminal prosecution for
the reason that public interest requires that criminal acts be GR: The public prosecutor shall prosecute, direct and control
immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
of society (Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376, information.
January 20, 2000).
XPN: The private prosecutor (private counsel) may prosecute
XPNs: the case provided that:
1. To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an 1. The public prosecutor has heavy work schedule; or
oppressive and vindictive manner (Ibid.); 2. There is lack of public prosecutors.
2. To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights
(Ibid.); Matters within the control and supervision of the
3. For the orderly administration of justice (Hernandez v. prosecutor
Albano, G.R. No. 19272, January 25, 1967); 1. What charge to file;
4. To avoid multiplicity of actions (Ibid.); 2. Whom to prosecute;
5. In proper cases, because the statute relied upon is 3. Manner of prosecution; and
unconstitutional, or was held invalid (Ibid.);

4. Right to withdraw information before arraignment even Preliminary Investigation
without notice and hearing. An amendment as to form Substitution of the
will not require another information entails another
Right to withdraw information before arraignment even preliminary investigation preliminary investigation
without notice and hearing and retaking of plea of the and plea to the new
accused. information.
Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any Double Jeopardy
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or An amended information Requires or presupposes
acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the refers to the same offense that the new information
court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of charged in the original involves a different offense
the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is information or to an which does not include or is
already in court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial offense which necessarily not necessarily included in
court. (Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L- 53373, June 30, 1987) includes or is necessarily the original charge; hence
included in the original the accused cannot claim
NOTE: When a trial court is confronted to rule on "a motion charge, hence substantial double jeopardy.
to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information," it is its amendments to the
"bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the information after the plea
motion, and this assessment must be embodied in a written has been taken cannot be
order disposing of the motion.” The court fails to make an made over the objection of
independent evaluation of the merits of the case when it the accused, for if the
simply declares that it was denying the motion for being original would be
unmeritorious without further elaborating on the bases of its withdrawn, the accused
conclusion. (Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176111, July 17, 2013) could invoke double
jeopardy.
Particularity of the date of the commission of the offense
in the complaint or information Amendment in the Information which changes the nature
of the crime after arraignment
Q : Fianza was charged with two counts of violation of RA
7160 before the RTC. The RTC found Fianza guilty beyond GR: The prosecutor can no longer amend the information
reasonable doubt which was upheld by the CA. Fianza after arraignment as it would prejudice the substantial rights
assails his conviction for the prosecution's failure to of the accused.
specify in the Information in the Criminal Case the date of
commission of the offense and to indicate in the XPN: When a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the
Information in both cases that the complained acts were crime charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or crime, the prosecutor, with leave of court, may amend the
subjected to other sexual abuse in violation of his right to information to allege such supervening fact and upgrade the
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations crime charged to the higher crime brought about by such
against him. Is the contention of Fianza correct? supervening fact.
A: NO. Under Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules, it is not Q: Karlo was charged under the Anti-VAWC law in RTC
necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise Pampanga. In 2009, he physically injured his girlfriend
date the offense was committed except when it is a material and the RTC found probable cause and issued a warrant
ingredient of the offense. Hence, when the date given in the for his arrest. He posted bail and filed a motion for
complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be judicial determination of probable cause and a motion to
proven as alleged. In the case, Fianza had been fully apprised quash the information averring that he is no longer in a
of the charges against him since the Informations stated the relationship with the complainant. Does the RTC have
approximate date of the commission of the offense. Indeed, jurisdiction over the case? Should the motion to quash be
the precise date and time of the incidents are not among the granted on the grounds that the information is defective?
elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA
7610. Further, it is sufficient that the acts or omissions A: First, there was no family court available in the area it is
constituting the offense be stated in the information in proper for the RTC to assume jurisdiction where the crime
ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the was committed and any of its essential elements took place.
language used in the statute, albeit in terms sufficient to Second, the information should not be quashed. SEC. 4.
enable a person of common understanding to know what Amendment of complaint or information.- If the motion to
offense is being charged and for the court to pronounce quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or
judgment. (Christopher Fianza v. People of the Philippines., G.R. information which can be cured by amendment, the court
No. 218592, August 2, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) shall order that an amendment be made. Furthermore, Sec. 14
of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that an information
AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of
court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. In the
Amendment vs. Substitution present case, the accused petitioner has not yet been
arraigned, hence, the RTC was correct in directing the
Amendment Substitution amendment of the Information and in denying the motion
Formal or Substantial (San Diego vs RTC, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013, Perlas-
May involve either formal Involves substantial change Bernabe, J.)
or substantial changes from the original charge
Leave of Court INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY
Amendment, whether It must be with leave of
formal or substantial, court as the original GR: The offended party has the right to intervene by counsel
before the plea is entered information has to be in the prosecution of the criminal action where the civil action
can be effected without dismissed. for the recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal
leave of court. action pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 16, Rule 110).

Remedial Law
XPNs: and 2176 of the Civil Code; and
1. From the nature of the crime and the law defining or b. Civil liability predicated on other sources of
punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of the obligations, i.e. law, contract, and quasi-contract,
offended party, e.g. sedition, rebellion, treason which are subsequently instituted.
(crimes against national security);
2. The offended party waived the right to civil 2. Before arraignment – the offended party may file the
indemnity; civil action against the estate of the deceased (Sec. 4,
3. The offended party had already instituted separate Rule 111).
action; or 3. Pending appeal
4. The offended party reserved the right to institute it
separately. a. Civil liability arising from the crime is extinguished
b. Civil liability predicated from another source
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS survives i.e. civil liability arising from law,
contracts, quasi-contract and quasi-delict.
RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF
CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL ACTION NOTE: In nos. 1 and 3(b), the civil action may be continued
against the estate or legal representative of the accused after
GR: The institution or filing of the criminal action includes the proper substitution, as the case may be. (Sec. 4, Rule 111)
institution therein of the civil action for recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged. Extinguishment of criminal liability
XPNs: When the offended party:
1. Waives the civil action; GR: The extinction of the penal action does not extinguish the
2. Reserves his right to file a separate civil action; or civil action.
3. Institutes a civil action prior to the criminal action XPN: When there is a finding in a final judgment in the
(Sec. 1, Rule 111). criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist (Sec. 2, Rule 111).
Instances when the reservation to file a separate civil
action is NOT allowed NOTE: The civil action that is extinguished refers exclusively
to civil liability arising from the crime and does not include
1. Criminal action for violation of BP 22 [Sec. 1(b), Rule 111]; civil actions:
2. A claim arising from an offense which is cognizable by the 1. Based on quasi-delict;

Sandiganbayan (Herrera, 2007); and 2. Based on Arts. 32, 33 and 34 of the NCC (independent
3. Tax cases [RA9282, Sec.7(b)(1)] civil actions); and
3. Civil obligation not based on the criminal offense
Instances when civil actions may proceed independently (Herrera, 2007).
1. Arising from breach of contract; and Effect of the acquittal of the accused on his civil liability
2. Independent civil actions or those based on Arts. 32, 33,
34 and Art. 2176 of the NCC or quasi-delict (Herrera, 1. If the acquittal is based on the ground that he was not the
2007) author of the crime - it will extinguish his civil liability
which may arise from the offense; or
The quantum of evidence required is merely preponderance 2. If the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of
of evidence (Sec 3, Rule 111). the accused - the civil liability of the accused arising from
the crime may be proved by preponderance of evidence
Reservation of the right to file independent civil action (Herrera, 2007).
The failure to reserve the right to file the above-enumerated NOTE: When the trial court acquits the accused based on
actions does not amount to a waiver to institute a separate reasonable doubt, it could make a pronouncement on the civil
civil action (Herrera, 2007). liability of the accused (Lontoc v. Jarantilla, G.R. No. 80194,
March 21, 1989).
Recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code may be prosecuted separately even without The court may be compelled to include in the judgment of
reservation (DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative v. Velez, G.R. acquittal the civil liability through a petition for mandamus
No. 129282, November 29, 2001). (Maximo v. Gerochi, G.R. Nos. L-47994-97, September 24, 1986).
NOTE: In no case, however, may the offended party recover Q: Marina Oliva was crossing the street when a Nissan
damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the Vanette, bearing plate number UPN-172 and traversing
criminal action. EDSA near the Quezon Avenue flyover in Quezon City, ran
her over. She died while she was being rushed to the
EFFECT OF DEATH OF ACCUSED OR CONVICT ON CIVIL hospital to receive medical attention. Following the day
ACTION of the incident, the daughter of the deceased, Marla Oliva
filed a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting
If the accused died: in Homicide against Antonio Daluraya, the purported
driver of the vehicle. After the prosecution has presented
1. After arraignment and during the pendency of the its witnesses and rested its case, Daluraya filed an Urgent
criminal action Motion to Dismiss (demurrer), which was granted,
asserting that there was no clear and competent evidence
GR: The civil liability of the accused based on the crime of how the incident transpired. The case was elevated to
(civil liability ex delicto) is extinguished. the CA via petiton for review, which was granted and held
XPNs: that the MeTC’s Order showed that since Daluraya’s
a. Independent civil action based on Arts. 32 33, 34 acquittal was based on the failure of the prosecution to

prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Daluraya was
not exonerated from civil liability. Is Daluraya should be 1. Where an information or complaint is filed pursuant to
civilly liable? Sec. 7, Rule 112, i.e. the complaint or information is filed
directly in court (Ibid.); or
A: NO. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also 2. For cases requiring preliminary investigation, when a
civilly liable. The acquittal of an accused of the crime charged, person is lawfully arrested without a warrant provided
however, does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability. In that inquest was made in accordance with Rule 112 (Sec.
case of an acquittal, the Rules of Court requires that the 6, Rule 112).
judgment state "whether the evidence of the prosecution
absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either PROBABLE CAUSE
case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist." Probable cause in preliminary investigation
Records disclose that Daluraya’s acquittal was based on the It is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would
fact that "the act or omission from which the civil liability excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within
may arise did not exist" in view of the failure of the the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was
prosecution to sufficiently establish that he was the author of prosecuted. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the
the crime ascribed against him. Consequently, his civil suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt (Sps.
liability should be deemed as non-existent by the nature of Balangauan v. CA, G.R. No. 174350, August 13, 2008).
such acquittal. (Daluraya v. Oliva, G.R. No. 210148, December 8,
2014, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) Instances when probable cause needs to be established
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION It is not only in preliminary investigation that probable cause

needs to be determined. There are four instances provided
Elements of a prejudicial question under the rules where probable cause needs to be
established;
1. The civil action must be instituted prior to the criminal 1. When issuing a warrant of arrest or a commitment
action; order (Sec 6 and 9, Rule 112);
2. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately 2. A peace officer or a private person making a
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal warrantless arrest (Sec 5(b), Rule 113); and
action; and 3. To determine whether a search warrant shall be
3. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not issued (Sec 4, Rule 126).
the criminal action may proceed (Sec. 7, Rule 111).
Court interference in the conduct of preliminary
NOTE: For the principle of prejudicial question to apply, it is investigation
essential that there be two cases involved, invariably a civil
case and a criminal case. If the two cases are both civil or if GR: The courts cannot interfere in the conduct of preliminary
they are both criminal, the principle does not apply. The law investigations, leaving the investigatory officers sufficient
limits a prejudicial question to a previously instituted civil discretion to determine probable cause.
action not to a subsequent one.
XPN: When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
The tenor of Sec. 7, likewise, presupposes that the issue that authority resulting from a grave abuse of discretion (Sps.
leads to a prejudicial question is one that arises in the civil Balangauan v. CA, G.R. No. 174350, August 13, 2008).
case and not in the criminal case. The former needs to
resolved first before it is determined whether or not the Q: The Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution
criminal case should proceed or whether or not there should finding probable cause against the petitioner for the
be, in the criminal case, a judgment of acquittal or conviction. violation of R.A. No. 7610. Later on, an Information was
(Riano, 2016) filed before the RTC charging the petitioner of the said
crime. The Resolution was penned by an Assistant City
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Prosecutor approved by a Senior Assistant City
Prosecutor. The Information was penned by ACP De La
Preliminary Investigation Cruz, but without approval from any higher authority.
However, there was a Certification claiming that ACP De
It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is La Cruz has prior written authority or approval from the
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a City Prosecutor in filing the said Information. The
crime has been committed and the respondent is probably petitioner moved for the quashal of the Information
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial (Sec. 1, Rule 112). against her on the ground of lack of authority of the
person who filed the same before the RTC. The RTC
It is merely inquisitorial and a means of determining the denied the motion to quash for lack of merit. Is the RTC
persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime. It is correct in denying the motion to quash for lack of merit?
not a trial of the case on the merits (Herrera, 2007).
A: NO. Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
Period when preliminary investigation is required to be Criminal Procedure states that the filing of a complaint or
conducted information requires a prior written authority or approval of
the named officers therein before a complaint or information
GR: Before the filing of a complaint or information for an may be filed before the courts. As a general rule, complaints
offense where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment or informations filed before the courts without the prior
of at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the written authority or approval of the foregoing authorized
imposable fine (Sec. 1, Rule 112). officers renders the same defective and, therefore, subject to
quashal pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the same Rules.
XPNs: Thus, the Resolution finding probable cause to indict

Remedial Law
petitioner of the crime charged, was validly made as it bore improper motive on the part of respondents in making the
the approval of one of the designated review prosecutors for blotter entries as they were made in good faith; in the
OCP-Makati, SACP Hirang, as evidenced by his signature performance of their official duties as barangay officials; and
therein. However, the same could not be said of the without any intention to malign, dishonor, or defame Cariaga.
Information filed before the RTC, as there was no showing Moreover, the statements contained in the blotter entries
that it was approved by either the City Prosecutor of Makati were confirmed by disinterested parties who likewise
or any of the OCP- Makati’s division chiefs or review witnessed the incidents recorded therein. On the other hand,
prosecutors. (Quisay v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. Cariaga's insistence that the blotter entries were completely
216920, January 13, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) false essentially rests on mere self-serving assertions that
deserve no weight in law. Thus, respondents cannot be said to
Q: Does the SC and CA have the power to review have committed the crime of Slander by Deed. (Danilo Calivo
preliminary investigation? Cariaga, v. Emmanuel D. Sapigao and Ginalyn C. Acosta, G.R.
No. 223844, June 28 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
A: YES. The SC and CA have the power to review the findings
of prosecutors in preliminary investigations. Courts should ARREST
never shirk from exercising their power, when the
circumstances warrant, to determine whether the It is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may
prosecutor’s findings are supported by the facts, or by the be bound to answer for the commission of an offense (Sec. 1,
law. In so doing, courts do not act as prosecutors but as Rule 113).
organs of the judiciary, exercising their mandate under the
Constitution, relevant statutes, and remedial rules to settle Persons who are NOT subject to arrest
cases and controversies. The exercise of this Court’s review
power ensures that, on the one hand, probable criminals are 1. A senator or member of the House of Representatives
prosecuted and, on the other hand, the innocent are spared shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
from baseless prosecution (Social Security System v. DOJ, G.R. of imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
No. 158131, August 8, 2007). Congress is in session (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution);
NOTE: Even the RTCs can also make its own determination, NOTE: The privilege of a senator or congressman will not
upon proper motion, whether probable cause exists to hold apply when the offense is:
the accused for trial (Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 172070-72,
June 1, 2007). a. Punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years
even if Congress is in session (People v. Jalosjos, G.R.
Q: In the complaint, Cariaga alleged that respondents, in No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000); or
their respective capacities as Barangay Chairman and b. If the offense is punishable by imprisonment of not
Secretary of Brgy. Carosucan Sur, Asingan, Pangasinan, more than 6 years if Congress is not in session.
made two (2) spurious entries in the barangay blotter,
i.e., (a)stating that an unnamed resident reported that 2. Under the generally accepted principles of international
someone was firing a gun inside Cariaga's compound, and law, sovereign and other chiefs of state, ambassadors,
that when Sapigao went thereat, he was able to confirm ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and
that the gunfire came from inside the compound and was charges d’affaires are immune from the criminal
directed towards the adjacent ricefields; and (b)stating jurisdiction of the country of their assignment and are
that a concerned but unnamed resident reported to therefore immune from arrest; and
Sapigao that Cariaga and his companions attended the 3. Duly accredited ambassadors, public ministers of a
funeral march of former Kagawad Rodrigo Calivo, Sr. foreign country, their duly registered domestics, subject
(Calivo, Sr.) with firearms visibly tucked in their waists to the principle of reciprocity (Secs. 4 and 7, RA 75).
(blotter entries). Claiming that the statements in the
blotter entries were completely false and were made to Instances when warrant of arrest is NOT necessary
dishonor and discredit him, Cariaga filed the said
complaint. In his defense, Sapigao denied the accusations 1. Accused is already under detention;
against him, maintaining that the blotter entries were 2. Complaint or information was filed pursuant to a valid
true, as he personally witnessed their details. For her warrantless arrest; and
part, Acosta averred that she was merely performing her 3. Complaint or information is for an offense penalized by
duties as Barangay Secretary when she certified as true fine only [Sec. 5 (c), Rule 112].
copies the photocopies of the aforesaid blotter entries
requested by the police authorities. May the courts Q: In the morning of December 25, 2006, Police officer
overturn the findings of the public prosecutor in a Renato de Leon was driving his motorcycle. From a
preliminary investigation proceeding on the ground of distance of 8 to 10 meters he saw the appellant Villareal,
grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of his/her holding a plastic sachet of shabu. When Villareal saw him,
functions? he immediately ran away. When de Leon caught Villareal,
he was brought to the police station where he was
A: YES. A public prosecutor's determination of probable arrested and the alleged shabu was turned over to be
cause- that is, one made for the purpose of filing an marked as evidence. The substance was tested and was
information in court - is essentially an executive function and, proven to be a 0.03gram of methylamphetamine
therefore, generally lies beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The appellant was
The exception to this rule is when such determination is charged with the violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A.
tainted with grave abuse of discretion and perforce becomes 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. During
correctible through the extraordinary writ of certiorari. the trial de Leon claimed that the appellant had previous
criminal charges for the same offense and that he
In the instant case, a judicious perusal of the records reveals arrested the appellant because when he saw that the
that the ORSP correctly ruled that there is no probable cause appellant was holding a powdery white substance, it
to indict respondents of the crimes of Slander by Deed and immediately gave him suspicion as to the matter thereof.
False Certification. As aptly found by the ORSP, there was no Was there a valid warrantless arrest?

testimonies. Clearly, these circumstances do not justify the
A: NO, there was no valid warrantless arrest. A lawful conduct of an in flagrante delicto arrest, considering that
warrantless arrest exists when either of the following there was no overt act constituting a crime committed by
circumstances are present: (a) when, in his presence, the petitioner in the presence or within the view of the arresting
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing officer. Neither do these circumstances necessitate a "hot
or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) when an offense pursuit" warrantless arrest as the arresting Bantay
has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe Bayan operatives do not have any personal knowledge of
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that facts that petitioner had just committed an offense.
he person to be arrested has committed it, and (c) when the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a The Court simply finds highly implausible the prosecution's
penal establishment or place where he is service final claim that a valid warrantless arrest was made on petitioner
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, on account of the alleged public display of his private parts
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement because if it was indeed the case, then the proper charge
to another. Based on the distance and the amount of the should have been filed against him. However, records are
powdery substance it is insufficient to conclude, even with bereft of any showing that such charge was filed aside from
clear vision that such substance constitutes as shabu. The act the instant criminal charge for illegal possession of dangerous
of the appellant of examining the substance is not tantamount drugs — thereby strengthening the view that no prior arrest
to arouse suspicion of a commission or possible commission was made on petitioner which led to a search incidental
of a crime even if he has previous criminal history on the thereto. As stressed earlier, there must first be a lawful arrest
same offense. Personal knowledge is not defined as before a search can be made and that such process cannot be
knowledge of a person’s criminal record, but personal reversed.
knowledge as to the actual commission of the crime. The act
of running away from authority also does not automatically All told, the Bantay Bayan operatives conducted an illegal
imply guilt on the accused. There are various reasons to run search on the person of petitioner. Consequently, the
away from authority, and commission of a crime is just one of marijuana purportedly seized from him on account of such
the possible reasons. Because there is an absence of overt act search is rendered inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the
there is no justification for the appellant’s warrantless arrest. exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987
Hence, it cannot be presented as evidence in court as it is a Constitution. Since the confiscated marijuana is the
fruit of the poisonous tree. (People of the Philippines v. very corpus delicti of the crime charged, petitioner must
Villareal y Lualhati, G.R. NO. 201363, March 18, 2013, Perlas- necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal
Bernabe, J.) liability (Jeffrey Miguel Y Remegio, v. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 227038, July 31 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
Q: Bahoyo was doing his rounds when he purportedly
received a report of a man showing off his private parts Arrest by officer without a warrant
at Kaong Street. Bahoyo and fellow Bantay
Bayan operative Velasquez then went to the said street GR: No peace officer or person has the power or authority to
and saw a visibly intoxicated person, which they later arrest anyone without a warrant except in those cases
identified as petitioner Miguel, urinating and displaying expressly authorized by law. (Umil vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567,
his private parts while standing in front of a gate October 3, 1991)
enclosing an empty lot. BB Velasquez then repeated the
request for an identification card, but instead, petitioner XPNs:
emptied his pockets, revealing a pack of cigarettes 1. In flagrante delicto arrest - When, in his presence, the
containing one (1) stick of cigarette and two (2) pieces of person to be arrested has committed, is actually
rolled paper containing dried marijuana leaves, among committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; [Sec.
others. This prompted BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez to 5 (1), Rule 113]
seize the foregoing items, take petitioner to the police
station, and turn him, as well as the seized items, over to Elements of In flagrante delicto arrest are:
SP03 Rafael Castillo (SPO3 Castillo).
a. The person arrested must execute an overt act
Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge, and indicating that he has just committed, is actually
thereafter, presented a different version of the facts. committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
According to him, he was just urinating in front of his and
workplace when two (2) Bantay Bayan operatives, i.e., BB b. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the
Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, approached and asked him view of the arresting officer.
where he lived. Upon responding that he lived in Kaong
Street, BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez then frisked him, 2. Hot pursuit arrest - When an offense has been
took away his belongings, and thereafter, handcuffed and committed and he has probable cause to believe based
brought him to the barangay hall. Are the pieces of on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
evidence admissible against the accused? the person to be arrested has committed it [Sec. 5 (1),
Rule 113];
A: NO. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure identifies three (3) instances when warrantless Elements of Hot pursuit arrest are:
arrests may be lawfully effected.
a. An offense has been committed and there is close
The Court is inclined to believe that at around past 12 o'clock proximity between the arrest and the time of
in the early morning of May 24, 2010, petitioner went out to commission of the crime (Pamaran, 2007);
the street to urinate when the Bantay Bayan operatives b. The offense has just been committed; and
chanced upon him. The latter then approached and c. Probable cause based on personal knowledge on
questioned petitioner, and thereafter, went on to search his the part of the person making the arrest, of facts or
person, which purportedly yielded the marijuana seized from circumstances that the person/s to be arrested
him. Verily, the prosecution's claim that petitioner was committed it (Herrera, 2007).
showing off his private parts was belied by the aforesaid

Remedial Law
NOTE: There must be compliance with the element of ARREST
immediacy between the time of the commission of the
crime and the time of arrest (People v. Salvatiera, G.R. No. 1. Issued upon probable cause;
104663, July 24, 1997). 2. Probable cause is to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath of the complainant
Personal knowledge and the witnesses he may produce;
3. The judge must personally evaluate the report of the
“Personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the prosecutor and the evidence adduced during the
person to be arrested committed it" means personal preliminary examination (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. L-
knowledge not of the commission of the crime itself but of 82585, November 14, 1988);
facts and circumstances which would lead to the conclusion
that the person to be arrested has probably committed the NOTE: A warrant of arrest issued based only on the
crime. Such personal knowledge arises from reasonably prosecutor’s findings and recommendation like the
worthy information in the arresting person’s possession information and resolution finding a probable cause,
coupled with his own observation and fair inferences without the court determining on its own the issue of
therefrom that the person arrested has probably committed probable cause based on evidence is null and void (Ho v.
the offense (People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, People, G.R. No. 106632, October 9, 1997; Pamaran, 2007).
1999).
4. The warrant must particularly describe the person to be
Obligation of the arresting officer after the warrantless arrested; and
arrest 5. It must be in connection with specific offense or crime.
The arresting officer must comply with the provisions of Art. Q: An information was filed charging Comerciante of
125 of the RPC, otherwise, he may be held criminally liable for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. According to
arbitrary detention under Art. 124, RPC. Jurisdiction over the the prosecution, Agent Radan of the NARCOTICS group
person arrested must be transferred to the judicial and P03 Calag were aboard a motorcycle and patrolling
authorities. Art. 125 is a procedural requirement in case of an area. Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour,
warrantless arrest. A case must be filed in court. they spotted, at a distance of about 10 meters, 2 men,
Comerciante and Dasilla, standing and showing
Period for officers to deliver the person detained under "improper and unpleasant movements" with one of them
Art. 125 of the RPC handing plastic sachets to the other. Thinking that the
sachets may contain shabu, they immediately stopped
The person must be delivered to the judicial authorities and approached the 2 men. Subsequently, Calag
within the period specified in Art. 125 (Delay in the delivery introduced himself, arrested the 2 men, and confiscated 2
of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities): plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
which was later confirmed as shabu.
1. 12 hours - Light penalties
2. 18 hours - Correctional penalties In his defense, Comerciante averred that Calag was
3. 36 hours - Afflictive or capital penalties looking for a certain "Barok", a notorious drug pusher in
the area, when suddenly, he and Dasilla, who were just
NOTE: The accused should be brought to the prosecutor for standing in front of a jeepney, were arrested and taken to
inquest proceedings wherein existence of probable cause will a police station. Did Carag perform a valid warrantless
be determined. Then the judge shall issue a commitment arrest on Comerciante the anwer to which would
order (order issued by the judge when the person charged necessarily affect the admissibility of the sachets of
with a crime is already arrested or detained) and not a shabu?
warrant.
A: NO. One of the recognized exceptions established by
Ratification of an illegal arrest jurisprudence to the requirement of a judicial warrant in a
search and seizure is a search incident to a lawful arrest. In
An illegal arrest may not be ratified by the subsequent filing this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful
of information in court. arrest before a search can be made - the process cannot be
reversed. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
NOTE: Once a person has been duly charged in court, he may Procedure lays down the rules on lawful warrantless arrests.
no longer question his detention by petition for habeas
corpus. His remedy is to quash the information and/or the In the present case, there could have been no lawful
warrant of arrest. warrantless arrest. Considering that Calag was aboard a
motorcycle cruising at a speed of around 30 kilometers per
Q: May authorities resort to warrantless arrest in cases of hour at a distance of around 10 meters, it is highly
rebellion? implausible for him, even assuming that he has perfect vision,
to be able to identify with reasonable accuracy miniscule
A: YES. Since rebellion has been held to be a continuing crime, amounts of white crystalline substance inside 2 very small
authorities may resort to warrantless arrest of persons plastic sachets held by Comerciante. The Court also notes that
suspected of rebellion, as provided under Sec. 5, Rule 113. no other overt act could be properly attributed to
However, this doctrine should be applied to its proper Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of Calag that
context – i.e., relating to subversive armed organizations, such the former had just committed, was committing, or was about
as the New People’s Army, the avowed purpose of which is to commit a crime. Verily, the acts of standing around with a
the armed overthrowing of the organized and established companion and handing over something to the latter cannot
government. Only in such instance should rebellion be in any way be considered criminal act even if Comerciante
considered a continuing crime (People v. Suzuki, G.R. No. and his companion were showing "improper and unpleasant
120670, October 23, 2003). movements" as put by Calag. That his reasonable suspicion
was bolstered by (a) the fact that he had seen his fellow
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT OF officers arrest persons in possession of shabu and (b) he

underwent trainings and seminars on illegal drugs when he of bail is discretionary, the prosecution may show proof to
was still assigned in the province are insufficient to create a deny the bail.
conclusion that what he purportedly saw in Comerciante was
indeed shabu. (Comerciante y Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable
205926, July 22, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or
fiscal, or at least he must be asked for his recommendation.
Remedy for warrant of arrest
Application for bail is not inconsistent with a motion to
Where a warrant of arrest was improperly issued, the proper quash
remedy is a petition to quash it, not a petition for habeas
corpus, since the court in the latter case may only order his The purpose of bail is to obtain the provisional liberty of a
release but not enjoin the further prosecution or the person charged with an offense until his conviction while at
preliminary examination of the accused (Alimpoos v. CA, G.R. the same time securing his appearance at the trial. On the
No. L-27331, July 30, 1981). other hand, a motion to quash an information is the mode by
which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in
WARRANT OF ARREST point of law, or for defects which are apparent on the face of
the information.
Probable Cause
Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or
It refers to facts and circumstances which would lead a irregular preliminary investigation
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person ought to be An application for bail is not a bar to objections in illegal
arrested. It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and arrest or irregularity or lack of preliminary investigation,
convincing evidence of guilty. The test for issuing a warrant of provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The
arrest is less stringer than that used for establishing guilt of court shall resolve the matter as early as possible, not later
the accused. As long as the evidence shows prima facie case than the start of the trial on the case (Sec. 26, Rule 114).
against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to
issue a warrant of arrest. (People v. Tan 608 SCRA 85, 95) It Q: Imelda filed criminal complaints for rape against
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. It Donel and Val, who were jointly charged in two (2)
simply implies probability of guilt and requires more than Informations after she suffered unconsented sexual
bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a intercourse with the two on December 22, 1994.
conviction (The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee Unfortunately, the authorities were able to arrest only
on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136225, April 23, 2008). Donel while Val remained at large. Thus, Donel was
arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged,
BAIL but before the prosecution could conclude the
presentation of its evidence, he jumped bail.
The right to bail is a constitutional right which flows from the Consequently, he was tried in absentia. RTC convicted
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who Donel of 2 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the
should not be subjected to the loss of freedom. Thus, the death penalty for each count. Is an intermediate review
right to bail only accrues when a person is arrested or to the appellate court is proper?
deprived of his liberty. The right to bail presupposes that the
accused is under legal custody. (Paderanga v. Court of Appeals, A: NO. The Court no longer sees the necessity of transferring
G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995) these cases to the CA for intermediate review and instead,
deems it more appropriate to dismiss the instant appeal.
WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT Records reveal that the appellant jumped bail during the
proceedings before the RTC and was, in fact, tried and
1. Before or after conviction by the MeTC and MTC; convicted in absentia. There is dearth of evidence showing
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not that he has since surrendered to the court's jurisdiction. Thus,
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life he has no right to pray for affirmative relief before the courts.
imprisonment; and Once an accused escape from prison or confinement, jumps
3. Before final conviction by all children in conflict with bail as in Donel's case, or flees to a foreign country, he loses
the law for an offense not punishable by reclusion his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or submits to
perpetua or life imprisonment. the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any
right to seek relief therefrom. Thus, even if the Court were to
WHEN A MATTER OF DISCRETION remand these cases to the CA for intermediate review, the CA
would only be constrained to dismiss appellant's appeal, as he
1. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, a is considered a fugitive from justice. (People v. Reyes G.R. Nos.
person charged with a capital offense, or an offense 130714. October 16, 2012 Perlas-Bernabe, J)
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is not strong ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
(Sec. 7, Rule 114);
2. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not If the accused, despite due notice, fails to appear, the
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life arraignment shall not proceed. The court shall issue an order
imprisonment; and of a warrant for his arrest, and the bail bond filed by him, if
3. A child in conflict with the law charged with an there is any, be ordered forfeited. (Citizen’s Surety and
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or Insurance Co. Inc v. Judge Concepcion, G.R. No. L-43233,
life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not January 23, 1978)
strong. (Sec. 28, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)
PLEA OF GUILTY
NOTE: The prosecution cannot adduce evidence for the denial
of bail where it is a matter of right. However, where the grant The plea of guilty does not dispense with the presentation of

Remedial Law
evidence as it is merely a secondary basis of the guilt of the
accused. IMPROVIDENT PLEA
1. For non-capital offenses - the reception of evidence
is merely discretionary on the part of the court. (Sec. It is a plea without information as to all the circumstances
4, Rule 116) If the information or complaint is affecting it. It is based upon a mistaken assumption or
sufficient for the judge to render judgment on a non- misleading information or advice.
capital offense, he may do so. Instances of improvident plea
2. For capital offense - the reception of evidence to 1. Plea of guilty was compelled by violence or
prove the guilt and degree of culpability of the intimidation;
accused is mandatory in which case, the accused may 2. The accused did not fully understand the meaning
present evidence in his behalf and the court shall and consequences of his plea;
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness 3. Insufficient information to sustain conviction of the
and full comprehension of the consequences of his offense charged;
plea. (Sec. 3, Rule 116) 4. Information does not charge an offense; or
5. Court has no jurisdiction.
WHEN SHOULD PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BE ENTERED
Period to withdraw an improvident plea
1. When the accused so pleaded;
2. When he refuses to plead (Sec. 1[c]); The court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be
3. Where in admitting the act charged he sets up withdrawn, at any time before the judgment of conviction
matters of defense or with lawful justification; becomes final, and be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
4. When he enters a conditional plea of guilty (Sec.1[c]);
5. Where after entering a guilty plea, he presents Effect of withdrawal of improvident plea
exculpatory circumstances, his plea shall be deemed
withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered The court shall set aside the judgment of conviction and re-
for him (Sec. 1[d]); and open the case for new trial.
6. When the plea is indefinite or ambiguous.
NOTE: Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are
NOTE: If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment
charged, he may state whether he interposes a negative or (People v. Documento, G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010).
affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond MOTION TO QUASH
reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify
the order of trial and require the accused to prove such The designated purpose of a motion to quash is to assail the
defense by clear and convincing evidence. (Sec. 3, Speedy Trial validity of the criminal information for defects or defenses
Act) apparent on the face of the information (Galzole y Soriaga v.
Briones and People, G.R. No. 164682, September 14, 2001).
Effect of plea of guilty without consent of offended party
and prosecutor GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH
If accused was convicted, the accused’s subsequent conviction 1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
of the crime charged would not place him in double jeopardy 2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
[Sec. 7 (c), Rule 117]. the offense charged;
3. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of
Q: May the accused enter a plea of guilty to a lower the accused (Bar 2000);
offense? 4. That the officer who filed the information had no
A: YES. authority to do so;
1. During arraignment 5. That the information does not conform substantially
a. If the offended party is present, the latter must to the prescribed form;
consent with the prosecutor to the plea; and 6. That more than one offense is charged except when a
b. That the lesser offense is necessarily included in the single punishment for various offense is prescribed
offense charged. by law (Bar 2005);
7. That the criminal action or liability has been
2. After arraignment but before trial provided the following extinguished;
requisites are present: 8. That it contains various averments which if true
a. The plea of guilty is withdrawn; would constitute legal excuse or justification; and
b. The plea of not guilty and the withdrawal of the 9. That the accused has been previously convicted or
previous guilty plea shall be made before trial; acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against
c. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
offense charged; and his express consent (double jeopardy). (Sec. 3, Rule
d. The plea must have the consent of the prosecutor and 117)
the offended party. (Sec. 2, Rule 116)
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
NOTE: No amendment of complaint or information is
necessary. (Sec. 2) A conviction under this plea shall be Period to file motion to quash an information or
equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged for complaint
purposes of double jeopardy. (People v. Magat, G.R. No.
130026, May 31, 2000) GR: At any time before entering his plea, the accused may
move to quash the complaint or information (Sec. 1, Rule 117).
2. After prosecution rests – Allowed only when the
prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to XPN: Instances where a motion to quash may be filed after
establish guilt for the crime charged. entering plea:

1. The facts charged do not constitute an offense; 3. If the ground upon which the motion to quash was
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged; sustained is that the court has no jurisdiction over the
3. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished; offense charged, the better practice is for the court to
and remand or forward the case to the proper court, not to
4. Double Jeopardy (Sec. 9, Rule 117) quash the complaint or information.
4. If the motion is based on any of the following grounds:
NOTE: These grounds may be invoked at any stage of the
proceedings. a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
b. That the officer who filed the information had no
Motion to quash Demurrer to evidence authority to do so;
Filed before the Filed after the c. That it does not conform substantially to the
defendant enters his prosecution has rested prescribed form; or
plea. its case. d. That more than one offense is charged.
Does not go into the Based on the ground of The court should order the prosecution to file another
merits of the case but is insufficiency of information or an amendment thereof, as the case may
anchored on matters evidence adduced by be, with a definite period, the order further stating that in
not directly related to the prosecution in case of failure to comply therewith, the accused if he is in
the question of guilt or support of the custody shall be discharged, or his bond cancelled if he is
innocence of the accusation. bonded (Pamaran, 2010).
accused.
Q: The Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution
Governed by Rule 117 Governed by Rule 119 finding probable cause against the petitioner for the
of the Rules of Court. of the Rules of Court. violation of R.A. No. 7610. Later on, an Information was
filed before the RTC charging the petitioner of the said
Does not require a prior May be filed by the crime. The Resolution was penned by an Assistant City
leave of court. accused either with Prosecutor approved by a Senior Assistant City
leave or without leave Prosecutor. The Information was penned by ACP De La
of court. Cruz, but without approval from any higher authority.
When it is granted, An order granting the However, there was a Certification claiming that ACP De
dismissal of the case demurrer to evidence La Cruz has prior written authority or approval from the
will not necessarily operates as an acquittal. City Prosecutor in filing the said Information. The
follow. The court may Any subsequent petitioner moved for the quashal of the Information
even order the filing of a prosecution of the same against her on the ground of lack of authority of the
new complaint or offense would person who filed the same before the RTC. The RTC
information because an tantamount to double denied the motion to quash for lack of merit. Is the RTC
order sustaining the jeopardy (People v. correct in denying the motion to quash for lack of merit?
motion is generally not Laguio, G.R. No. 128587,
a bar to another March 16, 2007). A: NO. Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
prosecution (Sec. 5-6, Criminal Procedure states that the filing of a complaint or
Rule 116). information requires a prior written authority or approval of
the named officers therein before a complaint or information
EFFECTS OF SUSTAINING THE MOTION TO QUASH may be filed before the courts. As a general rule, complaints
or informations filed before the courts without the prior
1. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order written authority or approval of the foregoing authorized
that another complaint or information be filed except officers renders the same defective and, therefore, subject to
when the motion was based on the extinction of criminal quashal pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the same Rules.
action or liability or when it is based on double jeopardy, Thus, the Resolution finding probable cause to indict
as provided in Section 6 of Rule 117. petitioner of the crime charged, was validly made as it bore
the approval of one of the designated review prosecutors for
a. If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall OCP-Makati, SACP Hirang, as evidenced by his signature
not be discharged unless admitted to bail. therein. However, the same could not be said of the
b. If no order is made, or if having been made, no new Information filed before the RTC, as there was no showing
information is filed within the time specified in the that it was approved by either the City Prosecutor of Makati
order or within such further time as the court may or any of the OCP- Makati’s division chiefs or review
allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody, shall prosecutors. (Quisay v. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
be discharged unless he is also in custody for another 216920, January 13, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
charge (Sec. 5, Rule 117).
Remedy against the denial of a Motion to Quash
2. If the motion to quash is sustained upon any of the
following grounds, the court must state, in its order In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to
granting the motion, the release of the accused if he is in quash filed by the accused results in the continuation of the
custody, or the cancellation of his bond if he is out on trial and the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
bail: accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the lower
courts' decision of conviction is appealed, the accused can
a. That a criminal action or liability has been then raise the denial of his motion to quash not only as an
extinguished; error committed by the trial court but as an added ground to
b. That it contains averments which, if true, would overturn the latter's ruling.
constitute a legal excuse or justification; or
c. That the accused has been previously convicted or Settled is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari and
acquitted of the offense charged. prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a

Remedial Law
motion to quash an information. The established rule is that provisions of the criminal law.
when such an adverse interlocutory order is rendered, the
remedy is not to resort forthwith to certiorari or prohibition, Q: Does the simultaneous filing of BP 22 and estafa cases
but to continue with the case in due course and, when an amount to double jeopardy?
unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the
manner authorized by law. Thus, a direct resort to a special A: NO. Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an estafa case may
civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than the be rooted from an identical set of facts, they nevertheless
general rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly grounded present different causes of action, which, under the law, are
on compelling reasons. considered "separate, distinct, and independent" from each
other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final
However, in grave abuse of discretion cases, certiorari is adjudication — both as to their criminal and civil aspects —
appropriate if the petitioner can establish that the lower subject to the prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a
court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of ruling in a BP 22 case concerning the criminal and civil
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy liabilities of the accused cannot be given any bearing
of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a
The petitioner carries the burden of showing that the related estafa case, as in this instance. (Rimando v. Spouses
attendant facts and circumstances fall within any of the cited Aldaba, G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014, Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
instances. (Maximo v. Villapando, Jr., G.R. Nos. 214925 &
214965, April 26, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL
DOUBLE JEOPARDY Period when provisional dismissal becomes permanent

(RES JUDICATA IN PRISON GREY)
1. Offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years
It means that when a person is charged with an offense and or a fine of any amount, or both - shall become permanent
the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in 1 year after issuance of the order without the case having
any other manner without the consent of the accused, the been revived.
latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical 2. Offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years
offense. - shall become permanent 2 years after issuance of the
order without the case having been revived (Sec. 8, Rule
Finality-of-Acquittal Doctrine 117).
GR: An acquittal rendered by a court of competent Time Bar Rule

jurisdiction after trial on the merits is immediately final and
cannot be appealed (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. If no revival of the case is made within the prescribed period,
164068-69, November 19, 2013). the dismissal shall be removed from being provisional and
shall become permanent.
XPN: When the proceedings were rigged, and a sham and a
mock trial held with pre-determined judgment of acquittal, NOTE: The State may revive a criminal case beyond the one-
the proceedings are unlawful and void ab initio. Double year or two-year periods, provided there is justifiable
jeopardy then cannot be invoked in setting aside such necessity for the delay, and subject to the right of the accused
judgment because the prosecution was denied of due process to oppose the same on the ground of double jeopardy, or that
(Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43, 86-87). such revival or refiling is barred by the statute of limitations
(People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, October 7, 2003).
Kinds of double jeopardy
Requisites of provisional dismissal
1. No person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same
offense. 1. The prosecution with the express conformity of the
2. When the act punished by a law and an ordinance, accused, or the accused, moves for a provisional (sin
conviction or acquittal under either shall be a bar to perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution
another prosecution for the same act (Sec. 21, Art. III, and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the
1987 Constitution). case;
2. The offended party is notified of the motion for a
Elements of Double Jeopardy provisional dismissal of the case;
3. The court issues an order granting the motion and
1. Conviction or acquittal, or dismissal was made without dismissing the case provisionally; and
the consent of the accused; 4. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order
2. Conviction or acquittal, or dismissal was made by a court of provisional dismissal of the case (People v. Lacson, et
of competent jurisdiction; al., G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003).
3. A valid information sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction of the crime charged; PRE-TRIAL
4. Accused enters a valid plea; and
5. The subsequent prosecution is for an offense which is: Plea-bargaining
a. the same as in the former complaint or information;
b. frustration of; or It is the process whereby the accused, the offended party and
c. for any offense which is necessarily included in the the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition
offense charged in the former complaint or of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the
information. defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one
or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return
NOTE: The prohibition against double jeopardy refers to the for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.
same offense and not to the same act. The offense charged in
the two prosecutions must be the same in law and in fact, In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a
because the same acts may be violative of two or more process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a

mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court said remedies. (Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 183152-
approval. (Estipona Jr. vs. Lobrigo, GR No. 226679, August 15, 54, January 21, 2015)
2017) 3. When ordered by the court for purposes of identification.
(Sec. 1, Rule 115)
TRIAL
NOTE: If the accused manifests in open court that he is
Continuous Trial indeed the accused, such shall be considered to be a waiver
to be present at the trial of the case. Defense counsel may
The trial once commenced, shall continue from day to day as also stipulate identity of the accused.
far as practicable until terminated. However, it may be
postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
(Sec. 2, Rule 119).
Requisites of trial in absentia
NOTE: The granting or refusal of an application for
continuance or postponement of the trial lies within the 1. The accused has been arraigned;
sound discretion of the court and the discretion will not be 2. He has been notified of the trial; and
interfered with by mandamus or by appeal, unless there is 3. His failure to appear is unjustified. (Sec. 14(2), Art. III,
grave abuse of discretion. 1987 Constitution of the Phiippines; Bernardo v.
People, G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007)
Factors to be considered for granting continuance
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Whether or not:
1. The failure to grant a continuance would make a The grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal and the
continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a dismissal order may not be appealed because this would
miscarriage of justice; and place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal
2. The case, as a whole, is so novel, unusual and complex, order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only
due to the number of accused or the nature of the through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. For the
prosecution, or that it is unreasonable to expect adequate writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to have acted with
preparation within the periods of time established grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
therein (Sec. 4, Rule 119). jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was denied the
opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham
Reverse trial thus rendering the assailed judgment void. (People v.
Sandiganbayan and Bernas, G.R. No. 174504, March 21, 2011)
When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the
complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the Effect of filing a demurrer with leave of court vs. Filing a
trial court may allow the accused to present his defense first demurrer without leave
and thereafter give the prosecution an opportunity to present
its rebuttal evidence. A departure from the order of the trial is Demurrer With Leave of Demurrer Without Leave
not reversible error as where it was agreed upon or not Court of Court
seasonably objected to, but not where the change in order of If leave of court is denied, If demurrer to evidence is
the trial was timely objected by the defense. the accused may proceed denied, it is tantamount to
with the presentation of his a waiver of the accused’s
Where the order of the trial set forth was not followed by the evidence. right to present evidence
court to the extent of denying the prosecution an opportunity and as a consequence the
to present evidence, the judgment is a nullity. If there is not case will be submitted for
enough evidence to prove the accused’s guilt beyond judgment on the basis of
reasonable doubt, then the defense should file demurrer to the evidence for the
evidence. prosecution.
INSTANCES WHEN THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS If demurer is granted, the If demurer is granted, the
REQUIRED BY LAW case is dismissed and the case is dismissed and the
effect is an acquittal. effect is an acquittal.
1. During arraignment (Sec. 1[b], Rule 116); The motion for leave of court
2. Promulgation of judgment except when the conviction is to file a demurrer to evidence
for a light offense, in which case, it may be pronounced in the shall specifically state its
presence of his counsel or a representative (Sec. 6, Rule 120); grounds and shall be filed
and within a non-extendible
period of 5 days after the
NOTE: The promulgation of judgment shall proceed even prosecution rests its case.
in the absence of the accused despite notice. The The prosecution may oppose
promulgation in absentia shall be made by recording the the motion within a non-
judgment in the criminal docket and serving a copy extendible period of 5 days
thereof to the accused at their last known address or from its receipt.
through counsel. The court shall also order the arrest of
the accused if the judgment is for conviction and the If leave of court is granted,
failure to appear was without justifiable cause. Further, if the accused may file the
failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable demurrer to evidence within
cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the Rules of 10 days. The prosecution
Court against the judgment and the court shall order his may however, oppose the
arrest. But if he surrenders and files a motion for leave of demurrer to evidence within
court to avail of the remedies and proves that his absence a non-extendible period of 10
was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of days from the receipt of the

Remedial Law
demurrer (Sec. 23, Rule 119). trial and which if introduced appeals from being taken.
and admitted would probably The grant by the court of
JUDGMENT change the judgment (Sec. 2, reconsideration should
Rule 121); and require no further
REQUISITES OF A JUDGMENT 3. Other grounds which the proceedings, such as
court may consider in the taking of additional proof.
Formal requisites exercise of its jurisdiction:
a. Negligence or
1. Written in official language; incompetency of counsel or
NOTE: If given verbally, it is incomplete (People v. mistake which is so gross
Catolico, G.R. No. L-31260, February 29, 1972). amounting to deprivation of
2. Personally and directly prepared by the judge; the substantial rights of the
3. Signed by the judge; and accused and due process
4. Contains clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts (Aguilar v. CA, GR No. 114282,
and the law upon which it is based (Sec. 1, Rule 120). November 28, 1995);
b. Recantation of a
Effect of the judgment of conviction upon a minor witness where there is no
evidence sustaining the
GR: The courts shall promulgate the sentence and ascertain judgment of conviction other
any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The than the testimony of such
sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of witness (Tan Ang Bun v. CA,
application pursuant to PD 603 or the Child and Youth G.R. No. L- 47747, February 15,
Welfare Code. In which case, the child shall have been 1990);
committed under the care of the DSWD or any other c. Improvident plea of
accredited government institution until he reaches the age of guilty which may be
21 or until the court so determines. (Sec. 40, RA 9344, Juvenile withdrawn;
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) d. Disqualification of
attorney de officio to represent
XPNs: There is no suspension of sentence when such minor accused in trial; and
offender: e. Interest of justice. (Sec.
1. Has enjoyed previous suspension of sentence; 6, Rule 121)
2. Is convicted of a crime punishable by death or life
imprisonment; SEARCH AND SEIZURE
3. Is convicted by a military tribunal; or
4. Is already of age at the time of sentencing even if he was a DISTINGUISH FROM WARRANT OF ARREST
minor at the time of the commission of the crime Warrant of Arrest Search Warrant
(Declarador v. Gubaton, G.R. No. 159208, August 18, 2006). Order directed to the peace Order in writing in the name
officer to execute the warrant of the People of the
Rule if the minor already reached the age of majority by taking the person stated Philippines signed by the
upon the promulgation of his sentence therein into custody so that judge and directed to the
he may be bound to answer peace officer to search
He is no longer entitled to the suspension of sentence. for the commission of the personal property described
However, the time he spent during the period of his offense. therein and to bring it to
confinement shall be credited to his actual service of court.
sentence. Furthermore, he shall still be entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. (People v. Does not become stale. Validity is for 10 days only.
Francisco, G.R. No. 102976, October 25, 1995; RA 9344, Juvenile May be served on any day and To be served only in daytime
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) at any time of day or night. unless the affidavit alleges
that the property is on the
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION person or in the place to be
searched.
New trial Reconsideration Searching examination of The judge must personally
Rehearing of a case already witnesses is not necessary. conduct an examination of
decided but before the the complainant and the
judgment of conviction therein May be filed in order to witnesses.
rendered has become final, correct errors of law or Judge is merely called upon to Examination must be probing.
whereby errors of law or fact in the judgment. It examine and evaluate the Not enough to merely adopt
irregularities are expunged does not require any report of the prosecutor and the questions and answers
from the record or new further proceeding. the evidence. asked by a previous
evidence is introduced, or both investigator.
steps are taken. Concerned with the seizure of Concerned with the seizure of
Grounds: Grounds: a person so he may be made personal property subject of
1. Errors of law or 1. Errors of law; or to answer for the commission the offense, stolen or
irregularities prejudicial to the 2. Errors of fact. of an offense. It involves embezzled property, fruits of
substantial rights of the (Sec.3,Rule 121) taking of a person into the offense, or those intended
accused have been committed custody. to be used to commit an
during the trial; NOTE: The principle offense.
2. New and material underlying this rule is to Presupposes the existence of Does not require the
evidence has been discovered afford the trial court the a pending criminal case that existence of a criminal case. It
which the accused could not, opportunity to correct its gave rise to the warrant. may be issued prior to the
with reasonable diligence, have own mistakes and to filing of the case.
discovered and produced at the avoid unnecessary

Probable cause to arrest vs. Probable cause to search 5. Checkpoints; body checks in airports;
6. Stop and frisk situations (Terry doctrine);
Probable cause to arrest Probable cause to search 7. Enforcement of custom laws;
In determining probable Probable cause to search 8. Exigent and emergency circumstances; and
cause to arrest, the judge requires facts to show that 9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
must have sufficient facts in particular things connected enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building
his hands that would tend to with a crime are found in a regulations.
show that a crime has been specific location.
committed and that a Plain view doctrine
particular person committed
it. Objects falling in the plain view of an officer has a right to be
in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and
Q: Atty. Fria was charged for the crime of Open may be presented as evidence.
Disobedience under Article 231[5] of the RPC for his For the doctrine to apply, the following requisites must be
failure to obey the order of the said court for the issuance met:
of a writ of execution which is her ministerial duty as
branch clerk of court in relarion to a civil case handled by 1. There must have been a legal presence in the place where
complainant law firm that has become final and the search is made;
executory. Complainant alleged that as early as April 4, 2. The evidence was discovered inadvertently by an officer
2006, it had been following up on the issuance of a writ of with a right to be where he is;
execution to implement the July 29, 2005 judgment. 3. The evidence is immediately apparently illegal; and
However, Atty. Fria vehemently refused to perform her 4. There is no need for any further search to obtain the
ministerial duty of issuing said writ. Atty. Fria posited a evidence (People v. Compacion, G.R. No. 124442, July 20,
draft writ of execution not addressed to her but to 2001; People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003;
Branch Sheriff Jaime Felicen who was then on leave. People v. Go; G.R. No. 144639, September 12, 2003).
Neither did she know who the presiding judge would
appoint as special sheriff on Felicen's behalf. MTC The ‘inadvertence’ requirement under the plain view
dismissed the case for lack of probable cause which was doctrine
affirmed by RTC. It found that aside from the fact that
Atty. Fria is a judicial officer, the Law Firm failed to prove It means that the officer must not have known in advance of
the existence of the other elements of the crime of Open the location of the evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery
Disobedience. Was the dismissal proper? should not be anticipated. (United Laboratories v. Isip, G.R. No.
163858. June 28, 2005)
A: YES. Under Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, a trial court judge may immediately dismiss a The plain view doctrine does not apply where officers did not
criminal case if the evidence on record clearly fails to just accidentally discover the evidence but actually searched
establish probable cause. It must, however, be observed that for it. The plain view doctrine may not be used to launch
the judge's power to immediately dismiss a criminal case unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a
would only be warranted when the lack of probable cause is general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of
clear. Once the information is filed with the court and the defendant’s guilt (Valeroso v. CA, G.R. No. 164815, September 3,
judge proceeds with his primordial task of evaluating the 2009).
evidence on record, he may either: (a) issue a warrant of
arrest, if he finds probable cause; (b) immediately dismiss the The “Immediately apparent” requirement under the
case, if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish plain view doctrine
probable cause; and (c) order the prosecutor to submit
additional evidence, in case he doubts the existence of To be immediately apparent, the rule does not require an
probable cause. The Court held that a clear-cut case of lack of unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminating
probable cause exists when the records readily show character of the evidence. “It requires merely that the seizure
uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which be presumptively reasonable assuming that there is probable
unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the cause to associate the property with criminal activity; that a
crime charged. the MTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in nexus exists between a viewed object and criminal activity”
dismissing the criminal case for lack of probable cause. The (United Laboratories v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005).
dismissal ought to be sustained since the records clearly
disclose the unmistakable absence of the integral elements of Remedies against an unlawful search
the crime of Open Disobedience. While the first element, i.e.,
(Art. 231 of RPC) that the offender is a judicial or executive 1. Motion to quash the search warrant;
officer, concurs in view of Atty. Fria's position as Branch Clerk 2. Motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken
of Court, the second and third elements of the crime evidently (exclusionary rule – any evidence obtained through
remain wanting. (The Law firm of Chavez Miranda v. Atty. unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible
Josefina C. Fria, G.R. No. 183014, August 7, 2013, Perlas- for any purpose in any proceeding);
Bernabe, J.) 3. Replevin, if the objects are legally possessed; and
4. Certiorari, where the search warrant is a patent nullity.
EXCEPTIONS TO SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT
NOTE: The remedies are alternative. If a motion to quash is
GR: The procurement of a warrant is required before a law denied, a motion to suppress cannot be availed consequently.
enforcer can validly conduct a search and seizure. The illegality of the search warrant does not call for the
return of the things seized, the possession of which is
XPNs: (Instances of a valid warrantless search) prohibited by law. However, those personalties seized in
1. Search incident to lawful arrest; violation of the constitutional immunity whose possession is
2. Plain view doctrine; not illegal or unlawful per se ought to be returned to their
3. Consented search (waiver of right); rightful owner or possessor.
4. Search of moving vehicle (Caroll doctrine);

Remedial Law
Q: Alfredo Salucana went to the Gingoog Police Station to
report a mauling incident where accused Billy Acosta Principle of Uniformity
allegedly hit him with a piece of wood. He also reported
that Acosta was illegally planting marijuana. The report As a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be the same in
prompted the police operatives to proceed to Acosta’s all courts and in all trials and hearing (Sec. 2, Rule 128).
home. Thereat, Salucana identified Acosta who was then
walking on the trail leading towards the house. The Proof vs. Evidence
police officers rushed towards Acosta and arrested him
before he entered his home. After the arrest, they found
Proof Evidence
13 hills of suspected marijuana plants just outside
Acosta’s home. The police officers then brought Acosta It is merely the probative It is the mode or manner of
and the uprooted marijuana plants to the police station effect of evidence and is the proving competent facts in
where he was charged with the crime of illegal planting conviction or persuasion of judicial proceedings
and cultivation of marijuana plant. In his defense, Acosta the mind resulting from (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil.
maintained that the charge against him was fabricated consideration of the 640).
and that the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence.
evidence as the “plain view” doctrine is not applicable. Is Without evidence, there is
the contention of Acosta proper? no proof.
A: Yes. Based on the testimony of Salucana, he knew of Effect or result of evidence Medium of proof
Acosta’s illegal activities even prior to the mauling incident. In
fact, it may be reasonably inferred that the mauling incident
had something to do with Acosta's planting of marijuana. It is Burden of proof vs. Burden of Evidence
also clear that Salucana apprised the police officers of the
illegal planting and cultivation of the marijuana plants when
he reported the mauling incident. Thus, when the police Burden of proof Burden of evidence
officers proceeded to Acosta's abode, they were already Burden of proof or “onus Burden of evidence is that
alerted to the fact that there could possibly be marijuana probandi” traditionally logical necessity which
plants in the area. This belies the argument that the refers to the obligation of a rests upon a party at any
discovery of the plants was inadvertent. | party to the litigation to particular time during the
persuade the court that he trial to create a prima facie
Verily, it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was is entitled to relief. case in his favor or to
inadvertent when the police officers already knew that there overthrow one created
could be marijuana plants in the area. Armed with such against him.
knowledge, they would naturally be more circumspect in
their observations. In effect, they proceeded to Acosta's Duty of a party to present Duty of the party to go
abode, not only to arrest him for the mauling incident, but evidence to establish his forward with the evidence
also to verify Salucana's report that Acosta was illegally claim or evidence by the to overthrow the prima
planting marijuana. Thus, the second requisite for the amount of evidence facie evidence against him
"plain view" doctrine is absent. Considering that the required by law, which is (Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R.
"plain view" doctrine is inapplicable to the present case, the preponderance of evidence No. L-45137, September, 23,
seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against in civil cases (Supreme 1985)
Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous tree. (People v. Transliner, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
Acosta, G.R. No. 238865 , January 28, 2019, Perlas-Bernabe, J.) No. 125356, November 21,
2001).
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Does not shift and remains The burden of going
They are those to which parties may resort for the throughout the entire case forward with the evidence
preservation or protection of their rights or interests and for exactly where the may shift from party to
no other purposes during the pendency of the action. pleadings originally placed party as the exigencies of
it. the trial require
They are applied to a pending litigation for the purpose of (Chamberlayne, Sec. 203,
securing the judgment or preserving the status quo; and in 108, 169).
some cases, after judgment, for the purpose of preserving or
Generally determined by Generally determined by
disposing of the subject matter (Cala v. Roldan, G.R. No. L-252,
the pleadings filed by the the developments of the
March 30, 1946).
party. trial, or by the provisions of
substantive law or
KINDS OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
procedural rules which
may relieve the party from
Kinds of Provisional Remedies available in criminal cases
presenting evidence on the
facts alleged.
1. Attachment (Rule 57);
2. Preliminary injunction (Sec. 58);
3. Receivership (Rule 59); Equipoise rule or equiponderance doctrine
4. Replevin (Rule 60); and
5. Support pendente lite (Rule 61) The Equipoise Doctrine refers to a situation where the
evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt
EVIDENCE on which side the evidence preponderates (or weighs more
heavily) (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115625, January
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of 23, 1998).
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 128).

It is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of his
life, liberty or property without due process of law (Sec. 1, Art It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may
III., Constitution). properly take and act upon without proof because they are
supposed to be known to them. It is based on considerations
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE of expediency and convenience. It displaces evidence, being
equivalent to proof (Regalado, 2008).
REQUISITES FOR ADMINISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Function of judicial notice
1. The evidence is relevant to the issue; and
It dispenses the presentation of evidence and fulfills the
NOTE: It is relevant if “it has such a relation to the fact in purpose for which the evidence is designed to fulfill. Its
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence” function is to abbreviate litigation by admission of matters
(Sec. 4, Rule 128). that needs no evidence because judicial notice is a substitute
for formal proof of a matter by evidence (Riano, 2016).
2. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent).
Kinds of judicial notice
NOTE: Competency is determined by the prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence. 1. Mandatory – insofar as those matters enumerated
under Sec. 1, Rule 129;
Relevancy is an affair of logic, human experience and 2. Discretionary – on matters which are of public
common sense while competency is determined by law. knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
EXCLUSIONARY RULES because of their functions (Sec. 2, Rule 129).
Constitutional exclusionary rules MANDATORY
1. Unreasonable searches and seizures (Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 When the matter is subject to a mandatory judicial notice, no
Constitution) motion or hearing is necessary for the court may take judicial
2. Privacy of communication and correspondence (Sec. 3, Art. notice of a fact.
III, 1987 Constitution)
3. Right to counsel, prohibition on torture, force, violence, When judicial notice is mandatory (EPOL-APOL-MG)
threat, intimidation or other means which vitiate the free
will; prohibition on secret detention places, solitary, 1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
incommunicado (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987 Constitution) 2. Political history, forms of government and symbols of
4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 nationality;
Constitution) 3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
Statutory exclusionary rules seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
1. Lack of documentary stamp tax to documents required to 6. Official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
have makes such document inadmissible as evidence in departments of the Philippines;
court until the requisite stamp/s shall have been affixed 7. Laws of nature;
thereto and cancelled. (Sec. 201, NIRC) 8. Measure of time; and
2. Any communication obtained by a person, not being 9. Geographical divisions (Sec. 1, Rule 129)
authorized by all the parties to any private communication,
by tapping any wire/cable or using any other DISCRETIONARY
device/arrangement to secretly overhear / intercept /
record such information by using any device, shall not be When the matter is subject to discretionary judicial notice, a
admissible in evidence in any judicial/quasi- hearing is necessary before judicial notice is taken of a
judicial/legislative/administrative hearing or investigation. matter.
(Secs. 1 and 4, R.A. No. 4200 or Wire-Tapping Act)
When judicial notice of a fact may be taken
JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS 1. During trial;
2. After trial and before judgment; or
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED 3. Appeal
Facts that need not be proved
In all instances, the court may act on its own initiative or
1. Those of which the courts may take judicial notice (Rule on request of a party (Sec. 3, Rule 129).
129);
2. Those that are judicially admitted (Rule 129); When judicial notice is discretionary (2005 Bar) (PDF)
3. Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule 131);
4. Those that are disputably presumed but uncontradicted 1. Matters which are of public knowledge;
(Rule 131); 2. Capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
5. Immaterial allegations; 3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
6. Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been functions (Sec. 2, Rule 129).
sufficiently alleged (Sec. 1, Rule 8);
7. Res ipsa loquitur; and Requisites for the application of the principle of
8. Admissions by adverse party (Rule 26) discretionary judicial notice
MATTERS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. The matter must be one of common and general
knowledge;
Judicial notice

Remedial Law
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and 1. Actual Admission–When a party categorically admits a
3. It must be one which is not subject to a reasonable material allegation made by the adverse party.
dispute in that it is either: 2. Implied Admission– When the admission is inferred from
the failure to specifically deny the material allegations in
a. Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the other party’s pleadings.
the trial court; or
b. Capable of accurate and ready determination by EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questionable (Expertravel & Tours, Inc. 1. They do not require proof; and
v. CA, G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005). 2. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive
upon the party making it.
NOTE: The principal guide in determining what facts may be
assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. NOTE: Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is
required to prove the same (Solivio v. CA, G.R. No. 83484,
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS February 12, 1990).
These are admissions, verbal or written, made by a party in Admissions made in pleadings which were NOT filed with
the course of the proceedings in the same case, which does the court
not require proof (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
Admissions made therein are not judicial admissions:
Judicial admissions vs. Extrajudicial admissions 1. If signed by the party litigant himself – Considered as
extrajudicial admission.
Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions 2. If signed by the counsel – Not admissible because a
counsel only binds his client with respect to admissions
Those made in the course of Those made out of court or in open court and in pleadings actually filed with the
the proceeding in the same in a judicial proceeding court (Riano, 2016).
case other than the one under
consideration Averments in pleadings which are not deemed
admissions
Do not require proof and Regarded as evidence and
may be contradicted only must be offered as such, There are averments in the pleadings which are not deemed
by showing that it was otherwise the court will not admitted even if the adverse party fails to make a specific
made through palpable consider it in deciding the denial of the same as
mistake or that no such case. 1. Immaterial allegations (Sec. 11, Rule 8);
admission was made. (Sec. 2. Conclusions, non-ultimate facts in the pleadings (Sec 1,
4, Rule 129) Rule 8); and
3. Amount of unliquidated damages (Sec. 11, Rule 8)
Judicial admissions need Requires formal offer for it
not be offered in evidence to be considered
Implied admission of allegations of usury
since it is not evidence. It is
superior to evidence and
If the complaint makes an allegation of usury to recover
shall be considered by the
usurious interest, the defendant must not only specially deny
court as established.
the same but must likewise do so under oath. Failure to make
Conclusive upon the Rebuttable the proper denial under oath would involve an implied
admitter admission of the allegation of usury (Riano, 2016).
Admissible even if self- Not admissible if self- Effect of an invalid and ineffective denial of actionable
serving serving documents attached to the complaint
Subject to cross- Not subject to cross- When an action or defense is founded upon an actionable
examination examination document, the genuineness and due execution of the same
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless it is specifically
Requisites of judicial admission denied under oath (Sec. 8, Rule 8).
1. It must be made by a party to the case or his counsel; The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of said
2. It must be made in the course of the proceedings in the document amounts to a judicial admission (PNB v.
same case; and Refrigeration Industries, Inc., GR No. 156178, January 20,
3. It can be verbal or written admission (Regalado, 2008). 2006).
How judicial admissions are made NOTE: But the failure to deny the genuineness and due
execution of an actionable document does not preclude a
Judicial admissions may be made in: party from arguing against the document by evidence of
1. The pleadings filed by the parties; fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations,
2. The course of the trial either by verbal or written estoppel and want of consideration. He is however, precluded
manifestations or stipulations, including depositions, from arguing that the document is a forgery because the
written interrogatories and requests for admissions; or genuineness of document is impliedly admitted (Acabal v.
3. Other stages of the judicial proceedings, as in pre-trial Acabal, G.R. 148376, March 31, 2005; PNB v. Refrigeration
(Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 154430, June 16, Industries, Inc, supra).
2006).
Admissions in the pre-trial of civil cases
Two ways in which admissions are made in pleadings

A pre-trial is mandatory. One of the purposes of pre-trial in 2. Oral admission – The counsel may move for the exclusion
civil cases is for the court to consider the possibility of of such admission.
obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts. Admissions
therefore, in the pre-trial, as well as those made during JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW OF
depositions, interrogatories or requests for admissions, are NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
all deemed judicial admissions because they are made in the
course of the proceedings of the case (Riano, 2016). Judicial notice of foreign laws (2005 Bar)
Admissions in the pre-trial of criminal cases GR: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They
must be alleged and proved.
Admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a criminal
case is not necessarily admissible against him. To be XPN: When said laws are within the actual knowledge of the
admissible, the conditions set forth by Sec. 2 of Rule 118 must court and such laws are:
be complied with. 1. Well and generally known; or
2. Actually ruled upon in other cases before it; and none of
All the agreements or admissions made or entered during the the parties claim otherwise (PCIB v. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-
pre-trial conference shall be: 27860 L-278896, March 29, 1974).
1. Reduced in writing; and Rules regarding judicial notice of municipal or city

2. Signed by the accused and counsel. ordinances
Otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused (Sec.2, 1. MTCs are required to take judicial notice of the
Rule 118). ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit.
2. RTCs must take judicial notice of ordinances in force in
Rule in case of admissions made in amended pleadings the municipalities within their jurisdiction only:
Admissions in a pleading which had been withdrawn or a. When expressly authorized to do so by statute; or
superseded by an amended pleading, although filed in the b. In case on appeal before them and wherein the
same case, are considered as extrajudicial admissions. inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance
involved in the same case.
Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the
record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial 3. Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of
admissions, and to be utilized as extrajudicial admission, they ordinances not only because the lower courts took
must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in judicial notice thereof but because these are facts capable
evidence (Ching v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110844, April 27, of unquestionable demonstration (Riano, 2016).
2000).
Rule on judicial notice of records of another case
Rule regarding self-serving evidence previously tried
The self-serving rule is not applicable to judicial admissions. GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
If the declaration is made in open court, it is admissible contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases
because the witness may be cross-examined on that matter. have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard
Effect of a guilty plea made by the accused during his or are actually pending before the same judge (Calamba Steel
arraignment later withdrawn Center, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 151857, April 28, 2005).
A plea of guilty entered by the accused may be later XPNs:

withdrawn at any time before the judgment of conviction 1. When in the absence of any objection, with the
becomes final. Such plea is not admissible in evidence against knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said
the accused and is not even considered as an extrajudicial other cases are clearly referred to by title and number in
admission. a pending action and adopted or read into the record of
the latter;
HOW JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS 2. When the original record of the other case or any part of
MAY BE CONTRADICTED it is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court’s
discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of the
Grounds for contradicting judicial admissions parties, and admitted as part of the record of the pending
case (Jumamil v. Cafe, G.R. No. 144570, September 21,
1. Upon showing that the admission was made through 2005);
palpable mistake; or 3. When the action is closely interrelated to another case
2. When it is shown that no such admission was made (Sec. pending between the same parties;
4, Rule 129). 4. Where the interest of the public in ascertaining the truth
are of paramount importance;
NOTE: This argument may be invoked when the statement of 5. In cases seeking to determine what is reasonable exercise
a party is taken out of context or that his statement was of discretion or whether the previous ruling is applicable
made not in the sense it is made to appear by the other in a case under consideration; or
party. (Riano, 2016) 6. Where there is finality of a judgment in another case that
was previously pending determination and therefore, res
Remedy of party who made a judicial admission judicata (Herrera, 1999).
1. Written admission – File a motion to withdraw such Matters NOT proper subject of judicial notice
pleading, or any other written instrument containing
such admission; and

Remedial Law
1. GR: Courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of the 2. Ensure that there have been no significant changes in the
practice of banks in conducting background checks on object’s condition.
borrowers and sureties.
Circumstances when the court may refuse the
XPN: They nevertheless may do so under the rule on introduction of object or real evidence and rely on
discretionary judicial notice (Solidbank Corporation v. testimonial evidence alone
Mindanao Ferroalloy Corp., G.R. No. 153535, July 28, 2005).
1. Its exhibition is contrary to public morals or decency;
2. That a registered letter when posted is immediately
stamped with the date of its receipt, indicating therein NOTE: But if the exhibition of such object is necessary in
the number of the registry, both on the covering envelope the interest of justice, it may still be exhibited, and the
itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who court may exclude the public from such view. Such
delivered the letter to the office. exhibition may not be refused if the indecent or immoral
objects constitute the very basis of the criminal or civil
GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the action (Moran, 1980).
contents of the records of other cases even when said
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or 2. To require its being viewed in court or in ocular
before the same judge. inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, or
unnecessary expenses which are out of proportion to the
XPN: They may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or evidentiary value of such object;
the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same 3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading,
court if: (a) the parties present them in evidence, absent as when the purpose is to prove the former condition of
any opposition from the other party; or (b) the court, in the object and there is no preliminary showing that there
its discretion, resolves to do so (Land Bank v. Yatco has been no substantial change in said condition; or
Agricultural, G.R. No.172551, January 15, 2014). 4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already
presented clearly portrays the object in question as to
3. Proprietary acts of GOCCs e.g. management contract render a view thereof unnecessary (Regalado, 2008).
entered into by the GOCC (Asian Terminals v. Malayan
Insurance, G.R. No. 171406, April 4, 2011) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
4. The assessed value of realty; and
5. Administrative regulation or of a statute that is not yet Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material
effective. containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other
modes of written expressions, offered as proof of their
OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE contents. (Sec. 2, Rule 130)
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE Document
Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the A document is a deed, instrument or other duly notarized
court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court (Sec. 1, Rule (Regalado, 2008).
130).
NOTE: Any instrument notarized by a notary public or a
It is not limited to the view of an object. It covers the entire competent public official, with the solemnities required by
range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell, and touch law, is a public document. Pleadings filed in a case and in the
(Riano, 2016). custody of the clerk of court are public documents. All other
documents are private documents (Bermejo v. Barrios, G.R. No.
NOTE: Documents are object (real) evidence if the purpose is L-23614, February 27, 1970).
to prove their existence or condition, or the nature of the
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY (RAMO)
handwriting thereon, or to determine the age of the paper
used, or the blemishes or alterations thereon, as where
1. The document should be relevant;
falsification is alleged (Regalado, 2008).
2. The documents should be authenticated and proved in
the manner provided in the Rules of Court. Such
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
authentication must be done by a competent witness;
3. The documents should be identified and marked; and
1. It must be relevant and competent;
4. They should be formally offered to the court and shown
2. It must be authenticated;
to the opposing party so that the latter may have the
opportunity to object thereto (Ramcar, Inc. v. Hi-Power
NOTE: To authenticate the object, it must be shown that
Marketing, G.R. No. 157075, July 17, 2006).
the object is the very thing that is either the subject
matter of the law suit or the very one involved to prove
Theory of indivisibility (Rule on Completeness)
an issue in the case.
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness
record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the
who should identify the object to be the actual thing
same subject may be inquired into by the other; and when a
involved; and
detached act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence (Riano,
given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation,
2016).
writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be
given in evidence (Sec. 17, Rule 132).
Purposes of authentication of object evidence
1. Prevent the introduction of an object different from the BEST EVIDENCE RULE
one testified about; and

GR: It provides that when the subject of the inquiry is the 2. The cause of its unavailability; and
contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible 3. The unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith
other than the original document itself. on his part (Sec. 5, Rule 130).
XPNs: (LCNP) NOTE: Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follows:

existence, execution, loss, and contents. This order may be
1. When the original has been lost, or destroyed, or cannot changed if necessary at the sound discretion of the court
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the (Citibank, N.A. MasterCard v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905,
offeror; September 23, 2003).
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control
of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the Due execution of the document
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or It may be proved through the testimony of:
other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be 1. The person who executed it;
established from them is only the general result of the 2. The person before whom its execution was
whole; and acknowledged;
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a 3. Any person who was present and saw it executed and
public officer or is recorded in a public office (Sec. 3, Rule delivered;
130) (1997Bar). 4. Any person who thereafter saw and recognized the
signature;
NOTE: Where the issue is only as to whether such a document 5. One to whom the parties, thereto had previously
was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances confessed the execution thereof; or
relevant to or surrounding its execution or delivery (external 6. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
facts), the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial handwriting of the maker (Sec. 20, Rule 132).
evidence is admissible (Moran, 1980).
Intentional destruction of original document
The Best Evidence Rule, applied to documentary evidence,
operates as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary evidence Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who acted
cannot be inceptively introduced as the original writing itself in good faith does not preclude the introduction of secondary
must be produced in court, except in the four instances evidence of the contents thereof (Regalado, 2008).
mentioned in Sec. 3 (Regalado, 2008).
Production of documents under Sec. 8, Rule 130 vs. Rule
WHEN APPLICABLE 27 (mode of discovery)
1. The subject matter must involve a document; and Production of Documents Mode of Discovery
2. The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the (Sec. 8, Rule 130) (Rule 27)
document.
Procured by mere notice to The production of
NOTE: When the truth of the document is in issue and not the the adverse party, which is document is in the nature
contents thereof, the best evidence rule will not be applicable. a condition precedent for of a mode of discovery and
In such case, it is the hearsay rule that will apply. (Riano, the subsequent can be sought only by
2016) Where the issue is the execution or existence of the introduction of secondary proper motion in the trial
document or the circumstances surrounding its execution, the evidence by the proponent. court and is permitted only
best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is upon good cause shown.
admissible (Arceo, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 142641, July 17, 2006).
Presupposes that the Contemplates a situation
REQUISITES FOR INTRODUCTION OF document to be produced wherein the document is
SECONDARY EVIDENCE is intended as evidence for either assumed to be
the proponent who is favorable to the party in
It refers to evidence other than the original instrument or presumed to have possession thereof or that
document itself. It is the class of evidence that is relevant to knowledge of its contents. the party seeking its
the fact in issue, it being first shown that the primary production is not
evidence of the fact is not obtainable. It performs the same sufficiently informed of the
functions as that of primary evidence (EDSA Shangri-La Hotel contents of the same.
and Resort, Inc. v. BF Corporation, G.R. Nos. 145842 & 145873,
June 27, 2008; Francisco, 1992). PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
NOTE: All duplicates or counterparts of such document must When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
first be accounted before one can resort to secondary writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed
evidence. It must appear that all of them have been lost or upon and there can be, between the parties and their
destroyed or cannot be produced in court. successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement (Sec. 9, Rule 130).
The non-production of the original document, unless it falls
under any of the exceptions in Sec. 3, Rule 130, gives rise to
NOTE: Among the evidentiary rules, it is the parol evidence
the presumption of suppression of evidence (De Vera, et al. v.
rule that has direct application to the law on contracts. The
Aguilar, et al. G.R. No. 83377, February 9, 1993).
rule applies only to contracts which the parties have decided
Requisites before the contents of the original document to set forth in writing. Hence, parol evidence does not apply to
may be proved by secondary evidence (laying the oral contracts (Riano, 2016).
basis/laying the predicate) (2000 Bar)
Parol evidence
The offeror must prove the following:
1. Execution or existence of the original document;
Remedial Law
It is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) which is
intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and Waiver of the parol evidence rule
enforceable agreement embodied in a document (Regalado,
2008). It may refer to testimonial, real or documentary Failure to invoke the benefits of the rule constitutes as waiver
evidence. of the rule. Inadmissible evidence may be rendered
admissible by failure to object (Riano, 2016).
NOTE: Parol evidence is evidence outside of the agreement of
the parties while the parol evidence rule prevents the Probative value
presentation of such parol evidence.
Even if the parol evidence is admitted, it does not mean that
Rationale for the adoption of the parol evidence rule the court would give probative value to the parol evidence.
(2009 Bar) Admissibility is not the equivalent of probative value or
credibility (Riano, 2016).
It is designed to give certainty to a transaction which has
been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much Considering the agreement’s mistake, imperfection or
more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting supposed failure to express the parties’ true intent was
memory only (Francisco, 1992). Moreover, it gives stability to successfully put in issue in the complaint, this case falls under
written statements, removes the temptation and possibility of the exceptions provided by Sec 9, Rule 130. Accordingly, the
perjury and prevents possible fraud. testimonial and documentary parol evidence sought to be
introduced, which attest to these supposed flaws and what
Condition precedent and a condition subsequent they aver to have been the parties’ true intent, may be
established by parol evidence admitted and considered. However, this admission and
availability for consideration is no guarantee of how exactly
Condition precedent may be established by parol evidence the parol evidence adduced shall be appreciated by the court.
because there is no varying of the terms of the written They do not guarantee the probative value, if any, that shall
contract by extrinsic agreement because there is no contract be attached to them (Paras v. Kimwa Construction and
in existence. There is nothing in which to apply the excluding Development Corp., G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015).
rule. Conditions subsequent may not be established by parol
evidence since a written contract already exists. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
NOTE: The present rule now requires that the admissibility of The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the
subsequent agreements be conditioned upon its being put in legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the
issue [Sec 9(d), rule 130]. parties intended otherwise. (Sec. 10, Rule 130)
APPLICATION OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE When there are several provisions or particulars
Requisites for the application of the rule In the construction of an instrument, where there are several
1. There must be a valid contract; provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing. be adopted as will give effect to all. (Sec. 11, Rule 130)
“Agreement” includes wills;
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in- Conflict between general and particular provision
interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement. When a general and a particular provision are inconsistent,
the following rules shall be followed:
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN 1. The particular provision is paramount to the general;
THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND 2. So a particular intent will control a general one that is
THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE inconsistent with it. (Sec. 12, Rule 130)
Interpretation according to circumstances

Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule
The original document is Presupposes that the The proper construction of an instrument according to the
not available or there is a original document is circumstances shall be as follows:
dispute as to whether said available in court 1. The circumstances under which it was made, including
writing is original the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it,
may be shown.
Prohibits the introduction Prohibits the varying of the 2. Such circumstances must be shown so that the judge
of secondary evidence in terms of a written may be placed in the position of those who language he is
lieu of the original agreement to interpret. (Sec. 13, Rule 130)
document regardless of
whether it varies the Respondent's reliance on Aragon's use of a "check writer," a
contents of the original machine used to input a numerical or written value
impression in the "payment amount field" of a check that is
Applies to all kinds of Applies only to written very difficult to alter, on the left side of each letter-
writings agreements (contracts) certification, was misplaced, what prevails being the
and wills wordings of the letter-certifications. (Bank of Commerce v.
Goodman Fielder Int’l Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 191561, March
Can be invoked by any Can be invoked only when 7, 2011)
party to an action whether the controversy is between
he has participated in the the parties to the written Presumption on terms of writing
writing involved agreement, their privies, or
any party affected thereby The terms of writing shall be interpreted as:
like a cestui que trust 1. It shall be presumed to have been used in their primary
and general acceptation;

2. Evidences is admissible to show that they have a local, 1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
technical, or otherwise peculiar signification; and immaturity (Sec. 21, Rule 130);
3. It was so used and understood in the particular instance, 2. Disqualification by reason of marriage (Sec. 22, Rule 130);
in which case the agreement must be construed 3. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse
accordingly. (Sec. 14, Rule 130) party (Sec. 23, Rule 130); and
4. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication:
Conflict between written and printed
a. Marital privilege;
When an instrument consists partly of written words and b. Attorney-client privilege;
partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the c. Doctor-patient privilege;
written controls the printed form. (Sec. 15, Rule 130) d. Minister-penitent privilege; or
e. Public officer as regards communications made in
When the character of writing is difficult to decipher official confidence (Sec. 24, Rule 130).
When the characters in which an instrument is written are NOTE: The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood are determined as of the time they are produced for
by the court, it can be proved by: examination in court or at the taking of the depositions. Blood
1. The evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the relationship does not disqualify a witness (Bernardo, 2008,
characters, or citing Angelo v. CA, G.R. No. 83392, June 26, 1992).
2. Those who understand the language, is admissible to
declare the characters or the meaning of the language. Absolute disqualification vs. Relative disqualification
(Sec. 16, Rule 130)
Absolute Disqualification Relative Disqualification
Q: What is the rule in case the terms of an agreement
admit of two (2) interpretations? The proposed witness is The proposed witness is
prohibited to take the prohibited to testify only
A: When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a witness stand. (Herrera, on certain matters
different sense by the different parties to it, it shall be 1999) specified under Secs. 23
construed as follows, to wit: and 24, Rule 130 due to
1. That sense is to prevail against either party in which interest or relationship, or
he supposed the other understood it, and to privileges of other
2. When different constructions of a provision are parties. (Ibid.)
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the
most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision 1. Disqualification by 1. Disqualification by
was made. (Sec. 17, Rule 130; Tan, 2014) reason of mental incapacity reason of death or insanity
or immaturity. (Sec. 21, of the adverse party (Dead
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Rule 130) Man’s Statute). (Sec. 23,
IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE Rule 130)
2. Disqualification by 2. Disqualification by
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be
reason of marriage. (Sec. reason of privileged
admitted as evidence unless accompanied with a translation
22, Rule 130) communication. (Sec. 24,
into English or Filipino (Sec. 33, Rule 132).
Rule 130)
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Conviction of a crime as a ground for disqualification
Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence elicited from the
mouth of a witness. It is sometimes called viva voce evidence GR: Conviction of a crime is not a ground for disqualification
which literally means “living voice” or by word of mouth. In as a witness (Sec. 20, Rule 130).
this kind of evidence, a human being (witness) is called to the
stand, is asked questions, and answers the question asked of XPNs: Otherwise provided by law, such as the following:
him (Riano, 2016). 1. Those who have been convicted of falsification of a
document, perjury or false testimony are prohibited from
QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS being witnesses to a will (Art. 821, NCC);
2. Those who have been convicted of an offense involving
Who may be a witness moral turpitude cannot be discharged to become a State
witness (Sec. 17, Rule 119; Sec. 10, R.A. 6981); and
1. Can perceive; 3. Those who fall under the disqualification provided under
2. Can make known his perceptions to others; Secs. 21-24, Rule 130.
3. Must take either an oath or an affirmation; and
4. Must not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by Dead Man’s Statute vs. Marital Disqualification Rule
law or the rules (Riano, 2016).
Factors that do not affect the competency of a witness Dead Man’s Statute Marital Disqualification
Rule
1. Religious;
Only a partial A complete and absolute
2. Political belief;
disqualification as the disqualification
3. Interest in the outcome of the case; or
witness is only prohibited
4. Conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law
from testifying on the
(Sec. 20, Rule 130).
matters therein specified
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES Applies only to a civil case GR: Applies to a civil or

or special proceeding over criminal case

Remedial Law
the estate of a deceased or voted;
insane person XPN: In a civil case by one 4. Trade secrets;
spouse against the other, or 5. Information contained in tax census returns (Ibid.);
in a criminal case for a 6. Bank deposits (Sec. 2, R.A. 1405);
crime committed by one 7. Information and statements made at conciliation
spouse against the other or proceedings (Art. 233, Labor Code);
the latter’s direct 8. Institutions covered by the law and its officers and
descendants or ascendants employees who communicate a suspicious transaction to
the Anti-Money Laundering Council (Sec. 6 of R.A. 9194
It prohibits testimony that It prohibits testimony that amending Sec. 9 of R.A. 9160); and
is against the estate of a is for or against the party- 9. The prosecutor may not be compelled to present an
deceased person or against spouse (Sec. 22, Rule 130). informer to protect his identity and when his testimony
a person of unsound mind would be merely corroborative and cumulative. (Herrera,
(Sec. 23, Rule 130). 1999)
NOTE: On the ground of public policy, the rules providing for

Marital Disqualification vs. Marital Privilege
production and inspection of books and papers do not
authorize the production or inspection of privileged matter;
Disqualification By Reason Disqualification By that is, books and papers which, because of their confidential
of Marriage Reason of Marital and privileged character, could not be received in
(Sec. 22) Privilege evidence. Such a condition is in addition to the requisite that
[Sec. 24(a)] the items be specifically described, and must constitute or
contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action
Who may invoke
and which are in the party’s possession, custody or control.
Can be invoked only if one of Can be claimed whether (Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell Inc., G.R. No. 172835,
the spouses is a party to the the other spouse is a party December 13, 2007)
action to the action
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Coverage
Requisites for admissions to be admissible
Includes facts, occurrences Only to confidential
or information even prior to information received 1. They must involve matters of fact and not of law;
the marriage during the marriage
2. They must be categorical and definite;
3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
Duration 4. They must be adverse to the admitter’s interests,
otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible.
Applies only if the marriage Can be claimed even after (Regalado, 2008)
is existing at the time the the marriage has been
testimony is offered dissolved Admissions vs. Confessions
Limitations
Admission Confession
Constitutes a total Applies only to
A statement of fact A statement of fact
prohibition against any confidential
which does not which involves an
testimony for or against the communications between
involve an acknowledgment of
spouse of the witness the spouses.
acknowledgment of guilt or liability
(Regalado, 2008)
guilt or liability
Can no longer be invoked The spouse affected by
May be made by Can be made only by
once the marriage is the disclosure of the
third persons and the party himself
dissolved information or testimony
in certain cases, are and, in some
may object even after the
admissible against instances, are
dissolution of the
a party admissible against
marriage. (Riano, 2016)
his co-accused
NOTE: It is not affected Applies to both Applies only to
by the death of the other criminal and civil criminal cases
spouse. cases
In both cases, it is essential that they be legally married to May be express or Must be express
claim such privilege. tacit
Other privileged matters (GEV-STB-CAP

Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions
1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding
It states that extrajudicial confessions independently made
concerning any information, statement, or opinion
without collusion which are identical with each other in their
received from the child in the course of serving as
essential details and corroborated by other evidence against
guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary to
the persons implicated, are admissible to show the
promote the best interests of the child [Sec. 5(e), Rule on
probability of the latter’s actual participation in the
Examination of a Child Witness];
commission of the crime. (People v. Mulit, G.R. No. 181043,
2. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
October 8, 2008)
published news (R.A. 53, as amended by R.A. 1477);
3. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they

2. By a party against whom the statements of the
SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE interpreter where offered in evidence (Principal-Agent
Rule).
GR: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE (1999 Bar)
same or similar thing at another time.(Sec. 34, Rule 130) This
is also referred to as the “Propensity Rule.” (2002 Bar) 1. Dying declaration (Sec. 37);
2. Declaration against interest (Sec. 38);
NOTE: This provision constitutes as the second branch of the 3. Act or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 39);
res inter alios acta rule as previously mentioned. 4. Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43);
5. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (Sec. 47);
XPNs: Evidence of similar or previous acts may be received to 6. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec.
prove the following: (SKIPS-SCHUL) 40);
1. Specific intent; 7. Common reputation (Sec. 41);
2. Knowledge; 8. Parts of res gestae (Sec. 42);
3. Identity; 9. Entries in official records (Sec. 44);
4. Plan; 10. Commercial lists and the like (Sec. 45); and
5. System; 11. Learned treatises (Sec. 46)
6. Scheme;
7. Custom; NOTE: Items 1 to 5 require death or unavailability of
8. Habit; declarant.
9. Usage; and
10. The like (Ibid.) The exceptions are hearsay but they are deemed admissible
by reason of necessity and trustworthiness (Riano, 2016).
HEARSAY RULE
Reason for admissibility
Hearsay
They are admissible by reason of relevancy, necessity and
It states that a witness can testify only to those facts which he trustworthiness. (Estrada v. Desierto, supra)
knows of based on his personal knowledge or those which are
derived from his own perception. (Sec. 36, Rule 130) (2003, OPINION RULE
2007, 2011 Bar)
Opinion
NOTE: The rule that excludes hearsay applies to both written
and oral statements. A person’s thought, belief, or inference, especially a witness’s
view about facts in dispute, as opposed to personal
Elements of hearsay evidence knowledge of the facts themselves. (Black’s Law Dictionary,
2004)
1. There must be an out-of-court statement; and
2. The statement made out of court, is repeated and offered GR: The opinion of a witness is not admissible. A witness
by the witness in court to prove the truth of the matters testifies only with respect to facts personally observed by him
asserted by the statement. (Riano, 2016) and it is for the court to draw conclusions from the facts
testified to. (2011 Bar)
NOTE: Newspaper clippings are hearsay and of no
evidentiary value at all whether objected to or not, unless XPNs:
offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the 1. Opinion of expert witness; and
matter asserted. (Feria v. CA, G.R. No. 122954, February 15, 2. Opinion of ordinary witnesses.
2000)
NOTE: Opinion testimony involving questions of law or the
Medical certificates cannot be admitted in the absence of the ultimate fact in issue is not admissible.
testimony of the physician who examined the complaint for
alleged torture wounds. Hearsay evidence vs. Opinion evidence
Affidavits are inadmissible unless the affiants themselves are

Hearsay Evidence Opinion Evidence
placed in the witness stand to testify therefrom.
Consists of testimony that Expert evidence based on
Statements made through an interpreter is not based on personal the personal knowledge,
knowledge of the person skill, experience or training
GR: Statements made through an interpreter are considered testifying of the person testifying and
hearsay if a witness is offered to testify to the statements of evidence of an ordinary
another person, spoken in a language not understood by him, witness on limited matters.
but translated for him by an interpreter, such witness is not
qualified, because he does not speak from personal
knowledge. All that he can know as to the testimony is from Q: While Donton was in the United States, he discovered
the interpretation thereof which is in fact given by another that Respondents took possession and control of the
person. property and the management of his business. Upon
returning to the Philippines, Donton learned that the
XPNs: In cases where the interpreter had been selected: Respondents were able to transfer the ownership of the
1. By common consent of the parties endeavoring to property to their names, through fraudulent means. He
converse; or filed a complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance
of property against Respondent. Donton denied signing
or executing the document in favor of respondents,
especially considering that on the date of its purported
Remedial Law
execution, he was allegedly still in the United States. involved in the moral trait involved reasonable
Respondents claimed that Donton executed a Special offense charged. in the offense degree the
Power of Attorney (SPA), in favor of Stier, giving him full charged, unless in probability or
authority to sell, mortgage, or lease the property. During rebuttal when the improbability of
the trial, Donton presented the findings of a Document accused opens the the offense
Examiner of the PNP Crime Laboratory, who, after issue by charged.(2002,
comparing the alleged signature of Donton on the Deed of introducing 2010 Bar)
Absolute Sale to his standard ones, found significant evidence of his
divergencies in the manner of execution, line, quality, good moral
stroke structure, and other individual handwriting character.
characteristics between them, and concluded that they
were not written by one and the same person. Is the
evidence presented by Donton proper to establish NOTE: In criminal cases, character evidence is inadmissible
forgery? under the following situations:
A: NO. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be 1. In rebuttal, proof of the bad character of the victim is not
proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the admissible if the crime was committed through treachery
burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery, in this case, and premeditation; and
the petitioners. Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of 2. In rape cases, the evidence of complainant’s past sexual
Court provides that the fact of forgery can only be established conduct, or reputation or opinion thereof shall not be
by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and admitted unless and only to the extent that the court
the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the
signature is theorized to have been forged. It bears stressing case. (Sec. 6, R.A. 8505)
that the opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily
binding upon the court, the expert's function being to place CIVIL CASES
before the court data upon which the court can form its own
opinion. To prove forgery, petitioners offered in evidence the The moral character of either party thereto cannot be proved
findings and testimony given by expert witness Perez. In unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the
cross-examination, however, Perez admitted that she had no case. (Sec. 51, Rule 130)
actual knowledge of the source of the specimen signatures
given to her for examination. Hence, Perez's findings deserve Proof of bad character
little or no probative weight at all, considering that the
signatures which she used for comparison came from an 1. Cross-examination; or
unverified source. Perforce, petitioners are left with no 2. Independent evidence of bad character.
conclusive evidence to prove their allegation that Donton's
signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged. (Heirs of NOTE: Personal opinion as to the moral character of the
Peter Donton v. Duane Stier, G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017, accused and the specific conduct of the part exhibiting
Perlas-Bernabe, J.) character is excluded as evidence. However, reputation in the
community is admissible.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
PRESUMPTIONS
Character
These are inferences of the existence or non-existence of a
The aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of
distinguish an individual person; the general result of one’s other facts (In the matter of the Intestate Estates of Delgado
distinguishing attributes. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004) and Rustia, G.R. No. 175733, January 27, 2006).
Admissibility of Character Evidence NOTE: A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with
the evidence. It imposes on the party against whom it is
GR: Character evidence is NOT admissible in evidence. directed the burden of going forward with evidence to meet
or rebut the presumption (Bautista, 2004, citing Mueller and
XPNs: Kirkpatrick, §3.4.).
1. In certain criminal cases;
2. In civil cases; and In a sense, a presumption is an inference which is mandatory
3. In case the character of a witness has been unless rebutted.
previously impeached (Sec. 14, Rule 132)
Presumption vs. Inference
NOTE: The reason for this is that the evidence of a person’s
character does not prove that such person acted in Presumption Inference
conformity with such character or trait in a particular
occasion. It is mandated by law and It is a factual conclusion
establishes a legal relation that can rationally be
CRIMINAL CASES between or among the drawn from other facts
facts. (Riano, 2016).
As to the As to the As to the It is a deduction directed It is a permissive deduction
Accused Prosecution Offended Party by law. (Francisco, 1996).
He may prove They may not prove His good or bad
his good moral the bad moral moral character Effect of presumption
character which character of the may be proved as
is pertinent to accused which is long as it tends to A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely
the moral trait pertinent to the establish in any on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in

issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a 5. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the judicial affidavit
presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed (Diesel shall take the place of direct testimonies of witnesses.
Construction, Inc v. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. (Sec. 2, Judicial Affidavit Rule); and
154937, March 24, 2008). 6. If the witness is incapacitated to speak; and
7. The question calls for a different mode of answer.
Presumption of law vs. Presumption of fact
OFFER AND OBJECTION
Presumption of Law Presumption of Fact
(Praesumptiones Juris) (Praesumptiones GR: The court shall consider only the evidence which has been
Hominis) formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified. (Sec. 34, Rule 132) (2007 Bar)
It is a deduction which It is a deduction which
the law expressly directs reason draws from the XPNs:
to be made from facts proved without an 1. Marked exhibits not formally offered may be admitted
particular facts. express direction from provided it complies with the following requisites:
law to that effect.
a. Must be duly identified by testimony duly recorded;
A certain inference must Discretion is vested in and
be made whenever the the tribunal as to b. Must have been incorporated in the records of the
facts appear which drawing the inference. case (Ramos v. Dizon, G.R. No. 137247, August 6,
furnish the basis of the 2006);
inference.
2. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, where no full
Reduced to fixed rules Derived wholly and
blown trial is held in the interest of speedy
and forms a part of the directly from the
administration of justice;
system of jurisprudence circumstances of the
3. In summary judgments under Rule 35 where the judge
particular case by
based his decisions on the pleadings, depositions,
means of the common
admissions, affidavits and documents filed with the court;
experience of mankind
4. Documents whose contents are taken judicial notice of by
Need not be pleaded or Has to be pleaded and the court;
proved if the facts on proved 5. Documents whose contents are judicially admitted;
which they are based are 6. Object evidence which could not be formally offered
duly averred and because they have disappeared or have become lost
established after they have been marked, identified and testified on
and described in the record and became the subject of
cross-examination of the witness who testified on them
Kinds of presumptions of law during the trial (Tabuena v. CA, G.R. No. 85423, May 6,
1991; People v. Napat-a, G.R. No. 84951, November 14,
1. Conclusive presumptions (presumptions juris et de jure); 1989); or
and 7. Documents and affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial
2. Disputable presumptions (presumptions juris tantum) or administrative cases. (Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
(Rule 131; Regalado, 2008). Inc., G.R. No. 153660, June 10, 2003)
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
Identification of a Documentary Evidence vs. Formal
GR: The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or Offer as an Exhibit
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or Identification of a Formal Offer as an
the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers Documentary Exhibit
of the witness shall be given orally. (Sec. 1, Rule 132) Evidence
XPNs: Done in the course of Done only when the

The testimony of the witness may not be given in open court the trial and party rests its case.
in the following cases: accompanied by the (Dizon v. Court of Tax
marking of the evidence Appeals, G.R. No.
1. In civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and under the as an exhibit. 140944, April 30, 2008)
limitations of Rules 23 and 24 (Regalado, 2008);
2. In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional WHEN TO MAKE AN OFFER
examinations, pursuant to Secs. 12-15, Rule 119, and Sec.
1, Rule 123, or by the records of the preliminary
Testimonial Evidence Documentary and Object
investigation, under the circumstances of Sec. 1(f) of Rule
Evidence
115 (Regalado, 2008);
3. In criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Offer must be made at the Must be made after the
Procedure, the affidavits of the parties shall constitute time the witness is called to presentation of party’s
the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the testify. (2009Bar) testimonial evidence, and
same (Riano, 2016, citing Sec. 15, Rule on Summary before resting his case.
Procedure); (Sec. 35, Rule 132)
4. In civil cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, the parties are merely required to submit the
affidavits of their witnesses and other pieces of evidence
on the factual issues, together with their position papers,
setting forth the law and the facts relied upon (Riano,
2016, citing Sec. 9, Rule on Summary Procedure);
Remedial Law
Every time a new witness is The evidence is only Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure
called to testify, there must offered once, after all the contravene the provisions of this Rule. (Sec. 1, JAR)
be an offer of evidence. testimonial evidence are
offered and prior to the NOTE: In civil cases (with the exception of small claims), the
resting of the case for a application of the JAR is mandatory regardless of the amount
party. of money claimed.
NOTE: The presentation of Recent jurisprudence on JAR

a documentary or object
evidence for marking and Regardless of whether the requested witness, who is the
identification during trial is adverse party’s witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a
not the offer contemplated judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to present the
in the rules. (Riano, 2016) documents, Section 5 cannot be made to apply to him for the
reason that he is included in a group of individuals expressly
exempt from the provision’s application. (Ng Meng
NOTE: The offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the Tamv. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 214054, August 5,
court to be in writing. (Sec. 35, Rule 132) 2015)
OBJECTION The attachment of documentary or object evidence to the

affidavits is required when there would be a pre-trial or
Ways of impeaching the evidence of the proponent preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing. As stated
earlier, where a defendant fails to file an answer, the court
1. By objection and without objection, the objection is shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon plaintiff’s
waived and the evidence is admitted (Sec. 36, Rule 132); motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and
or limited to what is prayed for. Thus, where there is no answer,
2. By motion to strike (Sec. 39, Rule 132) there is no need for a pre-trial, preliminary conference or
hearing. (Fairland Knitcraft Corporation v. Loo Po, G.R. No.
English Exchequer Rule vs. Harmless Error Rule 217694, January 27, 2016)
English Exchequer Rule Harmless Error Rule QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE

(WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE)
It provides that a trial The appellate court will
court's error as to the disregard an error Weight of evidence
admission of evidence was committed by the trial
presumed to have caused court in the admission of It is the probative value given by the court to particular
prejudice and therefore, evidence unless in its evidence admitted to prove a fact in issue.
almost automatically opinion, some substantial
required new trial. wrong or miscarriage of Trial court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses,
justice has been not disturbed on appeal
occasioned.
The trial court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on
NOTE: We follow the harmless error rule, for in dealing with appeal, unless there is a clear showing that it plainly
evidence improperly admitted in the trial, courts examine its overlooked matters of substance which, if considered, might
damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of affect the results of the review. The credibility of witnesses is
the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, appellate best determined by the trial judge, who has the direct
courts disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight opportunity to observe and evaluate their demeanor on the
of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced part. witness stand (People v. Pacuancuan, G.R. No. 144589, June 16,
(People v. Teehankee Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995) 2003).
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE Uncorroborated testimony of an accused who turned into

A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC a State witness sufficient to convict his co-accused
Scope and Where Applicable It may suffice to convict his co-accused if it is given in a
straightforward manner and is full of details which by their
This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents nature could not have been the result of deliberate
requiring the reception of evidence before: afterthought, otherwise, it needs corroboration, the presence
or lack of which may ultimately decide the case of the
1. The MeTC, MTC in Cities, MTC, and the MCTC, and the prosecution and the fate of the accused (People v. Sunga, G.R.
Shari‘a Circuit courts; No. 126029, March 27, 2003).
NOTE: It shall not apply to small claims cases under A.M. No. Sufficiency of evidence
08-8-7-SC;
In determining the sufficiency of evidence, what matters is
2. The RTC and the Shari‘a District Courts; not the number of witnesses but the credibility and the
3. The Sandiganbayan, CTA, CA and the Shari‘a Appellate nature and quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a
Courts; lone witness is sufficient to support a conviction if found
4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the positive and credible (Ceniza-Manantan v. People, G.R. No.
Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the IBP; 156248, August 28, 2007).
and
5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules Partial credibility of a witness
of procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme

The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and Ephemeral electronic communication
disbelieved in another part, depending on the probabilities
and improbabilities of the case (People v. Tan, G.R. No. 176526, Refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
August 8, 2007). sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is
NOTE: If the testimony of the witness on a material issue is not recorded or retained.
willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the
court may disregard all the witness’ testimony under the Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus rule (Riano, 2016). This is not a ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the
mandatory rule of evidence but is applied by the courts in its testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who
discretion. The court may accept and reject portions of the has personal knowledge thereof. In this case, complainant
witness’ testimony depending on the inherent credibility who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had
thereof (Regalado, 2008). personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and
import. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone
number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE messages originated was hers. Moreover, any doubt
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text
messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel
Electronic document (2012 Bar) signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages
between her and complainant. It is also well to remember
It refers to: that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and
1. Information or the representation of information, data, evidence are not strictly applied. There is no doubt as to the
figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, probative value of the text messages as evidence in
described or however represented, by which a right is determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent (Nuez v.
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a Cruz-Apao, A.M. No. CA-05-18-P, April 12, 2005).
fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or By analogy, a deleted Facebook post may be admitted as an
produced electronically; and ephemeral electronic communication subject to the
2. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out exclusionary rule of whether it was illegally obtained or not.
or output, readable by sight or other means, which
accurately reflects the electronic data message or NEW TOPICS ON 2019 BAR SYLLABUS
electronic document.
RULE ON CYBERCRIME WARRANTS
NOTE: It may be used interchangeably with “electronic data
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC
message.”
VENUE
For the document to be deemed electronic, it is important
that it be received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
The venue for criminal actions for violation of Cybercrime
retrieved, or produced electronically. The Rule does not
Prevention Act of 2012, shall be filed before the designated
absolutely require that the eletronic document be initially cybercrime court of the province or city
generated or produced eletronically (Riano, 2016).
1. Where the offense or any of its elements is committed
OR
Burden of proving authenticity 2. Where any part of the computer system used is situated,
OR
The person offering the document has the burden to prove its
3. Where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical
authenticity. person took place:
Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper- Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first filed
based documents
shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts.
(Sec. 2.1, A.M. 17-11-03-SC)
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing,
document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other
Effective period of warrants
form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
electronic document. Any warrant issued under this Rule shall only be effective for
the length of time as determined by the court, which shall not
Electronic Data Message vs. Electronic Document
exceed a period of ten (10) days from its issuance. The
court issuing the warrant may, upon motion, extend its
Electronic Data Electronic Document effectivity based only on justifiable reasons for a period not
Message exceeding ten (10) days from the expiration of the original
period. (Sec. 2.5, A.M. 17-11-03-SC)
Information Information or the representation of
generated, sent, information, data, figures, symbols or WARRANT TO DISCLOSE COMPUTER DATA (WDCD)
received or other modes of written expression,
stored by described or however represented, It is an order:
electronic, by which a right is established or an 1. In writing
optical or obligation extinguished, or by which 2. Issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
similar means. a fact may be proved and affirmed, 3. Signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement
which is received, recorded, authorities (LEA),
transmitted, stored, processed, 4. Authorizing the LEA to issue an order to disclose and
retrieved or produced accordingly, require any person or service provider to
electronically. It includes digitally disclose or submit subscriber's information, traffic data, or
signed documents. relevant data in his/her or its possession or control. (Sec. 4.2,

Remedial Law
A.M. 17-11-03-SC) 4. Motion to quash information when the ground is not one of
those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.
WARRANT TO SEARCH, SEIZE, AND EXAMINE 5. Motion for bill of particulars that does not conform to Sec.
COMPUTER DATA (WSSECD) 9, Rule 116.
6. Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not
It is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of stated under Sec. 11, Rule 116.
the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law 7. Petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground of
enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to search the prejudicial question, when no civil case has been filed,
particular place for items to be seized and/ or examined. (Sec. pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 111.
6.1, A.M. 17-11-03-SC)
Postponement
WARRANT TO EXAMINE COMPUTER DATA (WECD)
GR: Motion for postponement is prohibited
It is issued upon acquiring possession of a computer device or
computer system via a lawful warrantless arrest, or by any XPN: If it is based on acts of God, force majeure or physical
other lawful method, BUT law enforcement authorities shall inability of the witness to appear and testify.
first apply for a warrant (WECD) before searching the said
computer device or computer system for the purpose of NOTE: If the motion is granted based on such exceptions, the
obtaining for forensic examination the computer data moving party shall be warned that the presentation of its
contained therein. evidence must still be finished on the dates previously agreed
upon.
The verified application for a WECD, as well as the supporting
affidavits, shall state the essential facts similar to those in REVIVAL OF PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED CASES
Section 4.3 of this Rule, except that the subject matter is the
computer data sought to be examined. In addition, the Revival of provisionally dismissed cases shall conform to the
application shall disclose the circumstances surrounding the requisites and the periods provided for under Sec. 8, Rule
lawful acquisition of the computer device or computer system 117. Provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by
containing the said computer data. (Sec. 6.9, A.M. 17-11-03-SC) imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
amount or both shall become permanent one (1) year after
REVISED GUIDELINES FOR CONTINUOUS issuance of the order without the case having been revived.
TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC Provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment
of more than six (6) years, shall become permanent two (2)
APPLICABILITY years after the issuance of the order without the case having
been revived. (Par. 7, A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC)
The Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(Revised Guidelines) shall apply to all newly-filed criminal Requisites:
cases, including those governed by Special Laws and Rules, in
the First and Second Level Courts, the Sandiganbayan and the 1. The prosecution with the express conformity of the
Court of Tax Appeals as of effectivity date. The Revised accused, or the accused, moves for a provisional dismissal (sin
Guidelines shall also apply to pending criminal cases with perjuicio) of his case; or both the prosecution and the accused
respect to the remainder of the proceedings. moved for its provisional dismissal
2. The offended party is notified of the motion for a
Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Revised provisional dismissal of the case;
Guidelines shall not apply to criminal cases filed under the 3. The court issues an order granting the motion and
Rule on Summary Procedure. dismissing the case provisionally; and
4. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of
PROHIBITED MOTIONS provisional dismissal of the case. (Bonsubre, Jr v. Pedro, G.R.
No. 205952, February 11, 2015)
(JuDePre-ReQua-BiSuSu)
BAIL
1. Motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
2. Motion for preliminary investigation filed beyond the five Petition for bail
(5)-day reglementary period in inquest proceedings under
Sec. 6, Rule 112, or when preliminary investigation is Petition for bail filed after the filing of the information shall
required under Sec. 8, Rule 112, or allowed in inquest be set for summary hearing after arraignment and pre-trial.
proceedings and the accused failed to participate in the Testimony of a witness in petition for bail may be in the form
preliminary investigation despite due notice. allowed, provided that the demeanor of the witness is not
3. Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor essential in determining his/her credibility.
recommending the filing of information once the information
has been filed before the court Petition for bail shall be heard and resolved within a non-
(1) if the motion is filed without prior leave of court; extendible period of thirty (30) calendar days from date of
(2) when preliminary investigation is not required the first hearing, except in drug cases which shall be heard
under Sec. 8, Rule 112; and and resolved within twenty (20) calendar days, without need
(3) when the regular preliminary investigation is of oral argument and submission of memoranda, consistent
required and has been actually conducted, and the with the summary nature of the proceedings.
grounds relied upon in the motion are not meritorious,
such as issues of credibility, admissibility of evidence, Motion for reconsideration on the resolution of petition for
innocence of the accused, or lack of due process when bail shall be resolved within a non-extendible period of ten
the accused was actually notified, among others. (10) calendar days from date of submission of the motion.


UST PW Remedial Law PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

UST PW Remedial Law PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF REMEDIAL LAW or would work

Substantive Law Remedial Law RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 1 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR Voluntary appearance is any appearance of the defendant in

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 3 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

2. Public policy – One cannot question the jurisdiction TOTALITY RULE

JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES CIVIL PROCEDURE

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 5 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Joinder of causes of action (2005 Bar) 1. Natural persons;

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 7 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise RULES ON PLEADINGS

EFFECTS ON STIPULATIONS ON VENUE KINDS OF PLEADINGS

Stipulations on venue (WEB) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM;

1. In writing; Compulsory Counterclaim Permissive Counterclaim

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 11 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 13 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly SUMMONS

2. When evidence is objected to - Amendment may also be Effect of voluntary appearance

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 15 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE, WHEN ALLOWED 1. Ex parte motions;

1. The action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; Examples:

Kinds of motions OMNIBUS MOTION RULE

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 17 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 19 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 21 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN Production or Inspection of Subpoena Duces Tecum

NOTE: The remedy of the party, in this case, is to file a

It is a judicial process of investigating and determining the Rule on consolidation of cases

NOTE: It can be subject to petition for certiorari in case of

1. The case shall be dismissed;

2. Upon appeal, the appellate court reversing the order

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

A: NO. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised Judgment

NOTE: One cannot appeal an interlocutory order.

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 27 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 29 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 31 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT An action for revival of judgment is no more than a

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 33 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

Support At the 1. Support, The affidavit must show that:

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 35 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS 37 UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S

REPLEVIN Ordinary Civil Action Special Civil Action

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS UST L A W B A R O P E R A T I O N S