Remedial Law Review I Q: RTC even if sitting as special court has jurisdiction over b.
has jurisdiction over b. Yes, because the petition was filed on the wrong venue
Jurisdiction
Q: A protestant purchased a parcel of land from Abdullah, a
Muslim located in Maguindanao for which a TCT was issued in
his name. At the time of the purchase Karim is occupying the
land. A filed a complaint before the Barangay but no settlement
was reached by the parties. A filed a complaint against Abdullah
for the recovery of possession before the SDC for which
summons was served. Despite service of summons, Abdullah
failed to file his answer and a decision was rendered upholding
the right of A. The judgment rendered by the court became final
and executory and a writ of execution was issued. Abdullah filed
a petition for relief from judgment stating that the Court has no
jurisdiction since A is not a Muslim.
A: I will grant the petition for relief.
Under Batas Pambansa B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, the
MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases. P.D. 1083 also provides that actions for
unlawful detainer and municipal courts shall be cognizable by the
municipal courts this is notwithstanding the fact that the parties
are Muslims.
Since, SDC has no jurisdiction, the petition for relief from
judgment must be granted
In case of denial of the petition for relief from judgment, what is
the remedy of the aggrieved party? Why?
A: The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a motion for
reconsideration, and if the same is denied file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. Under the Rule 41, Sec. 1, no appeal shall
be taken from an order denying petition for relief or other similar
action seeking similar relief.
Q: Special Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts
A: Under B.P. 129, the Supreme Court may designate certain
branches of the RTC to handle exclusively:
(a) criminal cases,
(b) juvenile and domestic relations cases,
(c) agrarian cases,
(d) urban land reform cases not falling within the jurisdiction of
any quasi-judicial bodies or agencies or
(e) such other special cases as the Supreme Court may
determine in the interest of speedy and efficient
administration of justice
injunction since it is a court of general jurisdiction
Q: Muhamad, a Muslim is the owner of a residential unit in
Maguindanao which is being leased by Abduliah. For the period
of six months Abduliah failed to pay the agreed rentals totaling
to P500,000. Despite demands, Abdullah failed to pay the
rentals. Muhamad filed an unlawful detainer case against
Abdullah before the MTC of Maguindanao, counsel for Abduliah
filed a Motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter of action
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the motion? Why?
A: Abduliah’s motion to dismiss must be denied.
Under B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691 in relation to P.D. 1083
the Municipal Trial Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over unlawful detainer cases notwithstanding the fact that the
parties are Muslims. Moreover, under the Rules on Summary
Procedure, the jurisdiction of the MTC over unlawful detainer is
irrespective of the unpaid rentals sought to be recovered
In this case, jurisdiction was properly acquired over the subject
matter since the case was filed in the MTC of Maguindanao.
Hence, the motion to dismiss must be denied.
Q: Can a petition for certiorari be filed directly with the SC from
the Order of the RTC?
A: As a general rule, the petition for certiorari against the Order of
the RTC must be filed with the Court of Appeals following the
doctrine of hierarchy of court.
However, as an exception, it may be filed with the Supreme Court
(1) when the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts or (2) where exceptional and compelling
circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for
the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.
Q: A died in his home in Zamboanga City leaving properties
located in Pampanga and Quezon City worth Php 300,000 with B
and C as surviving heirs. B resident of Manila filed a petition for
probate proceedings in the RTC of QC. C opposed the petition
based on improper venue. The judge allowed the petition.
(a) Is the judge correct?
(b) If the petition was filed in Zamboanga City, should the
judge sustain the opposition?
A:
a. No, because the court’s want of jurisdiction appears on the
record.
Q: The doctrine of confluent jurisdiction mean?
A: Concurrent/Confluent/Coordinate is the power conferred upon
different courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take
cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the same or
different judicial territories
Katarungang Pambarangay
Q: A filed a case against B before the barangay for violation of
the lease contract. After the proceedings with the barangay, A
died. C & D heirs of A filed a case for unlawful detainer against B.
B filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with the
condition precedent of barangay referral since C&D is not the
original party in the barangay.
If you were the judge how would you on the motion
A: Yes the judge is correct in dismissing the case.
Under the Rules, the heirs are substituted to the action that
survives without the need of appointment of executor or
administrator when the action survives. However, the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law requires that there should be a
confrontation before the Lupon or Pangkat. Hence, if the original
party to the action dies, he should be properly substituted to the
action but his heirs and another barangay conciliation is required.
In this case, since C and D have not reached a confrontation with
B in the barangay, there is a need for another confrontation
between them before the Lupon or Pangkat. Hence, the action
should be dismissed.
Q: A leased a commercial property to B located in the City of
Manila with a stipulation that B cannot sub-lease the premises
to another and the boarding house is being managed by C.
During the effectivity of the lease contract B went to Hongkong
and worked while C was left to manage the boarding house. A
found out that B sub-leased the property and terminated the
contract. A filed a case before the barangay against B who failed
to appear. Complaint was filed before the MTC, but counsel for B
filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of barangay conciliation
since B is not an actual resident of Manila but of Hongkong.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the motion.
A: I will deny the motion
Under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, a party can institute an
action in the barangay even if the defendant is not a resident here
in the Philippines so long as the plaintiff is an actual resident of
the barangay where he sought to institute its action, for the right
of election belongs to the plaintiff.
Q: Lack of barangay conciliation raised on appeal.
A: If I were the judge, I would deny the appeal raising the issue of
lack of barangay conciliation because the same not being a
jurisdictional requirement, is deemed waived if not seasonably
objected to. Defenses and objections not pleaded are deemed
waived under Rule 9, Sec. 1 if not raised in the motion to dismiss
or answer.
Q: Can a dismissal of the case for non-compliance with the rule
on barangay conciliation be revived by motion after it became
final and executory?
A: No, because it can only be revived by the filing of another
action after compliance with such condition precedent.
Q: Remedy Execution of Award in Katarungang Pambarangay
A:
(1) Execution within 6 months from the date of settlement or
award to the Barangay
(2) File the proper petition with the court after then lapse of 6
months from date or award or settlement, for the execution
Q: Remedy: Failure to refer the case with barangay
Defendant: Motion to dismiss based on failure to comply with a
condition precedent under Rule 16, Sec. 1(j). In case of denial, file
an answer and raise as affirmative defense of failure to comply
with adverse judgment. In case of adverse decision, file an appeal
Plaintiff: In case of motion to dismiss is granted, comply with the
referral of the case and refile the case.
Rule 2: Cause of Action
Q: Remedy: Splitting of Causes of Action
Defendant: File a motion to dismiss on the ground of that there is
another case pending between the same parties for the same
cause of action under Rule 16, Sec. 1(e) or that the cause of action
is barred by prior judgment under Rule 16, Sec. 1(f)
If motion is denied, file an answer alleging as affirmative defense
either both grounds and proceed to trial. In case of adverse
decision, file an appeal.
Rule 3: Parties
Q: PUP entered into a contract with B Corp. for the rehabilitation
of school building. B complied with the obligation. However,
PUP did not pay because its funds were disapproved by COA. B
filed a suit against PUP. PUP filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that it is immune from suit. Decide. CA dismissed the
case. Was the dismissal proper.
A: No, the judgment is not valid.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the State cannot be sued without its
consent.
Q: A Corp. was issued a permit to close and conduct excavation
of La Paz Road a major road connecting all barangays of Binan
Laguna. Residents of other barangay filed before the court a
class suit since they are affected by the closure and excavation
of the said La Paz Road. During the pendency of the action,
residents of some other barangay who are also affected by the
closure of the said road also filed a manifestation before the
court that they are similarly situated with that of the
complainants in the case.
Will the class suit prosper? Why? Basis.
Juana Complex I HOA v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., (2012). In this case,
the suit is clearly one that benefits all commuters and motorists
who use La Paz Road. As succinctly stated by the CA:
The subject matter of the instant case, i.e., the closure and
excavation of the La Paz Road, is initially shown to be of common
or general interest to many persons. The records reveal that
numerous individuals have filed manifestations with the lower
court, conveying their intention to join private respondents in the
suit and claiming that they are similarly situated with private
respondents for they were also prejudiced by the acts of
petitioners in closing and excavating the La Paz Road. Moreover,
the individuals sought to be represented by private respondents
in the suit are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all
as parties and be named individually as plaintiffs in the complaint.
These individuals claim to be residents of various barangays in
Biñan, Laguna and other barangays in San Pedro, Laguna.
Q: Define class suit.
Rule 3, Sec. 12. Class suit — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties,
a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently
numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of
all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in
interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual
interest.
Q: Actions that survive
A:
(a) Action for the recovery of money claims based on contract
whether express or implied
(b) Action to recover personal or real property or an interest
therein from the estate or to enforce lien thereon
(c) Action to recover damages for an injury to person or
property, whether personal or real
(d) Quieting of title
(e) Action arising from delicts or tortious acts
(f) Ejectment cases
Q: A filed a case against B before the barangay for violation of
the lease contract. After the proceedings with the barangay, A
died. C & D heirs of A filed a case for unlawful detainer against B.
B filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the
condition precedent of barangay referral since C & D are not the
original parties in the barangay? If you were the judge, how
would you rule on the motion?
A: Motion overruled. An unlawful detainer case is an action that
survives, hence upon A’s death, C and D as heirs of A are
automatically substituted as parties to the case. In other words, C
and D steps into the shoes of their predecessor A. Since there was
a prior barangay proceedings between A and B, such proceedings
shall be binding also on C & D, There is no need to resort to
another barangay proceedings and the condition precedent is
deemed complied with.
Q: In case the plaintiff died during the pendency of an action for
foreclosure of mortgage with damages, the court will?
A: The court shall continue with the case and order the
substitution of his heirs since it is an action that survives, and any
judgment it shall be enforced in the estate of the deceased
Q: In case the plaintiff died during the pendency of an action for
partition of real property, the court will?
A: Continue with the case and order the substitution of heirs it is
an action that survives.
Rule 4: Venue
Q: A filed a complaint for Nullity of Mortgage Contract,
Promissory Note, Loan Agreement, Foreclosure of Mortgage,
Cancellation of TCT No. 1234, and Damages against B Company
before the RTC-Manila. He alleged that he is the owner of the
subject property, and he learned that his property was being
foreclosed by B Company. Upon A’s investigation, he found out
that he purportedly signed a promissory note, loan agreement
and deed of real estate mortgage covering the lot, and for his
alleged failure to pay B Company they foreclosed the subject
property. A denied having executed any contract with B
Company since he was in Singapore when the documents were
signed and that his signature on the said documents were forged
and assails the validity of the documents. B Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue since in the
subject contracts it is expressly stated that “All legal actions
arising out of the notice in connection with the real estate
mortgage shall only be brought to the jurisdiction of the proper
court of Makati City”
(a) Is the contention of B Company tenable?
(b) If you were the judge, how would you ruled on the
motion?
A: No. As a general rule, the parties may validly agree in writing
before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof
under Rule 4, Sec. 4. However, in Sps. Ochoa v. China Banking
Corp. (2011), it was held by the Supreme Court that Rule 4, Sec. 4
can only be applied to ordinary action and not to foreclosure of
mortgage. Hence, the exclusive of venue of Makati shall only
apply to the actions of complaint for nullity of mortgage contract,
promissory note and loan agreement and the cancellation of TCT
and not with the foreclosure of mortgage.
As judge, I would grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of
improper venue as to the foreclosure of mortgage only and not
with the other remaining actions without prejudice to the refilling
of the case since improper venue as a ground for the dismissal of
the action is not one of those mentioned in Rule 16, Sec. 5 which
is appealable.
Q: Venue/Jurisdiction of Accion Publiciana
A: Jurisdiction is with the RTC in accordance with B.P. 129, as
amended by R.A. 7691
Venue is where the real property subject of the action or any part
thereof is situated.
Q: May a non-resident plaintiff elect the venue of actions?
A: No. In case of non-resident plaintiffs, he can only sue in the
place where the defendant may be found. Election of venue is not
available to a non-resident plaintiff
Rule 6: Pleadings
Q: In a letter dated February 18, 2004, Flordelis B. Menzon,
Regional Director of the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-
IBIG), requested the intervention of Executive Judge Sinforiano
A. Monsanto (Executive Judge Monsanto) of the RTC of
Catbalogan, Samar on the alleged anomalous auction sale
conducted by Sheriff IVLorenzo De Guzman (De Guzman).
According to Pag-IBIG, De Guzman previously acceded to its
request to move the date of the auction sale to January 20,
2004; however, to its surprise, the sale proceeded as originally
scheduled on January 15, 2004. Pag-IBIG also claimed that the
winning bid of Leoncio Lim (Leoncio) in the amount of
P500,000.00 was grossly disadvantageous to the government
considering that the outstanding loan obligations of the
mortgagor, Eduardo Monsanto (Eduardo), was more than the
bid amount. Is the intervention valid?
A: Monsato v. Lim, (2014). In this case, records show that no
formal complaint or petition was filed in court. The case was
supposedly "commenced" through a letter of Pag-IBIG asking the
intervention of Executive Judge Monsanto on the alleged
anomalous foreclosure sale conducted by De Guzman. However,
said letter could not in any way be considered as a pleading. Rule
6, Sec. 1 defines pleadings as "written statements of the
respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the
court for appropriate judgment." To stress, Pag-IBIG’s letter could
not be considered as a formal complaint or petition. First, the
parties to the case were not identified pursuant to Section 1, Rule
3 and Section 1, Rule 7. Second, the so-called claim or cause of
action was not properly mentioned or specified. Third, the letter
miserably failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 7, Rules
of Court. The letter bore no caption; it was not even assigned a
docket number; the parties were not properly identified; the
allegations were not properly set forth; no particular relief is
sought; in fact, only the intervention of Executive Judge Monsanto
is requested; it was not signed by a counsel; and most of all, there
is no verification or certification against forum-shopping.
Q: Does the mere filing of an unfounded civil action by the
plaintiff against the defendant entitle him to a counter-claim for
damages?
A: No, because the filing of an unfounded civil action is not among
the grounds for moral damages under the law.
Remedy: Granting of complete relief in the determination of
counterclaim or cross-claim
A: Motion to bring in new parties under Rule 6, Sec. 12
Rule 7: Parts of the Pleading
Q: A Company filed a complaint for sum of money against B
Company, C & D for their failure to pay the rentals of four leased
machineries. The RTC declared the respondents in default and
thereafter rendered a judgment in A Company’s favor. The CA
and the SC denied respondent’s appeal which became final and
executory. Respondent D filed a petition for annulment of
judgment. The CA denied the petition on the ground of forum
shopping and res judicata, The RTC granted the motion for
execution filed by A company and issued a writ of execution.
Respondents filed a motion for status quo order, but was denied
by the RTC. Thereafter, B Company, C and D filed a petition for
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA to
assail the order granting the writ of execution on the ground
that their rental obligations were offset by market value of the
returned machineries and the guaranty deposit they posted. The
CA granted the petition and annulled the RTC’s order and
prohibited the sheriff from executing the judgment. A company
filed an appeal to the SC assailing that CA incorrectly prohibited
the RTC from enforcing the writ and that the respondents
committed forum shopping.
Is the contention of A company that there is forum shopping
tenable? Why. Legal Basis
Forum shopping (a) is the act of litigants who (b) repetitively avail
themselves of multiple judicial remedies (MJR) in different fora,
(c) simultaneously or successively (SS), (d) all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts
and circumstances; and (e) raising substantially similar issues
either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other
court; or (f) for the purpose of increasing their chances of
obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one court, then in
another.
In this case, although there is identity of the parties in the present
case, the actions filed by the Respondents prayed for different
relief. It is also not resorted to, to gain favorable judgment in
different courts but only in pursuant of the remedies available to
it under the law. Hence, there is no forum shopping.
Q: A filed a complaint for sum of money before the MTC against
B. After hearing, the judge ordered to B to pay A the amount of
250,000. B appealed the decision to the RTC but later on denial
the appeal. B filed a petition for review to the CA which was
notarized by the Clerk of Court of the RTC. CA dismissed the
petition stating that B failed to comply with the verification
under Rule 7, Sec. 4 since the verification was notarized by a
clerk of court.
Is the CA correct in dismissing the petition? Why? Legal basis.
A: Yes, the CA is correct in dismissing the petition.
We have held that “Clerks of Court are notaries public ex-officio,
and may thus notarize documents or administer oaths but only
when the matter is related to the exercise of their official
functions. Clerks of court should not, in their ex-officio capacity,
take part in the execution of private documents bearing no
relation at all to their official functions.”
In this case, there is no showing that the Clerk of Court was
performing his function in an ex officio capacity. Hence, the
verification is defective and the CA is correct in dismissing the
petition
Q: May the court motu proprio dismiss the case based on
violation of certification against non-forum shopping?
A: No, as expressly provided in Rule 7, Sec. 5, dismissal based on
non-compliance with the certification of non-forum shopping
must be upon motion and after hearing. Moreover, it is not a
ground mentioned in Rule 9, Sec. 1 for motu proprio dismissal of
the case.
By way of exception, in Summary Procedure and in Small Claims
cases
Remedy: Defective Verification
Plaintiff: Motion to amend the pleading once as a matter of right
before a responsive pleading has been filed
Defendant: File a motion to strike out the unverified pleading
from the records.
Remedy: Pleading with sham and scandalous matter
A: Motion to strike pleading or part thereof. Plus Rule 7, Sec. 3.
Counsel who deliberately alleges scandalous or indecent matter
shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action
Q: A filed a complaint for Sum of Money in the RTC of Manila.
Upon receipt of the complaint, the judge dismissed the case on
the ground of failure to comply with the certification of non-
forum shopping. Is the dismissal valid?
A: No, the dismissal is no valid.
Under the Rule 7, Sec. 5, failure to comply with the requirements
on certification of non-forum shopping shall be a cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing.
In this case, the court may not dismiss the case at its own
initiative since the rules requires a motion and hearing before it
could dismiss it. Hence, the dismissal is not valid.
Q: Plaintiff file a complaint with the following recital on the
certification against forum shopping, to wit:
(a) That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issue in any court or tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and to the best of his knowledge
(b) If there is such other pending action or claim a statement
of the present status thereof.”
Is the certification against forum shopping valid?
Effect of failure to comply with the requirements. Remedy
A: Yes. Under Rule 7, Sec. 5, it should also contain an undertaking
that if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
However, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, the substantial
compliance rule may be applied with respect to the contents of
the certification because although it is mandatory but
jurisdictional.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the certification of
non-forum shopping shall not be curable by amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided
upon motion and after hearing.
The remedy therefore is to ref-file the case and attach thereto a
valid certification against non-forum shopping
Rule 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
Q: Failure to deny under oath the allegations in an actionable
document
A: As counsel for B, I will move for judgment on the pleadings.
Under Rule 8, Sec. 8, an action based on an actionable document
to be contested must deny specifically under oath the
genuineness and due execution of such document and set forth
the facts that he claims to be.
In this case, since the denial was not under oath, the contents of
the promissory note are deemed admitted. Hence, there is no
longer a triable issue. Thus, as counsel I shall move for judgment
on the pleadings under Rule 34.
Q: A obtained a loan in the amount of P1M from B and executed
a promissory note, A failed to pay the said loaned amount. B
filed a case against A for sum of money. A filed her answer and
denied the existence of the said promissory note for lack of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the said
document.
A: Under Rule 8, Sec. 10, where a defendant is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an
allegation, he shall so state and this shall have the effect of denial.
However, the denial of A constitutes bad faith, and such denial is
constitutes an admission. Moreover in contesting an actionable
document, the genuineness and due execution of such promissory
note are deemed admitted because A did not make a denial under
oath of the genuineness and due execution of the document.
Since there is already an admission by A, judgment on the
pleadings under Rule 34 is proper upon motion of B and the RTC
may grant such relief as B’s pleading may warrant.
In case of a claim for non-payment of debt, who has the burden
of proof?
A: The adverse party has the burden of proving, being a negative
assertion
Q: Keana Reeves registered owner of Reeves Construction
applied for a loan from BPI Family Bank in the sum of Php
400,000 evidenced by promissory note no. 007-04. Pursuant
thereto, Reeves obligated herself to pay the amount with
interest at the rate of 29% per annum. Additionally, it was
stipulated that if the payment was not made upon maturity of
the loan, penalty charges of 1% per month and 25% of the total
amount due would be charged against her. Reeves signed the
aforesaid promissory note together with the disclosure
statement on loan/credit transaction ____ by the bank. Reeves
failed to pay the aforesaid obligation prompting the BPI Family
Bank to send her a letter of demand dated January 2, 1998.
Despite the demand, however, Reeves still failed to settle her
indebtedness. Thus on February 20, 1998, BPI Family Bank filed a
complaint for a sum of money against him. In her answer,
Reeves denied that she received the proceeds of the loan
transaction and prayed that the case against him be dismissed.
a. Is the contention of Keana Reeves tenable. Why? Discuss
and cite your legal basis.
b. If you were the judge, decide the case
c. When is notice of lis pendens available? What are the
grounds for its cancellation
A:
a. Keana Reeves contention is not tenable since the cause of
action of BPI Family Bank is based on actionable document.
Rule 8, Sec. 8 provides that to contest an actionable document, he
should deny the genuineness and due execution of the document
under oath and set forth what he claims to be the facts.
In this case, mere denial that he received the proceeds of the loan
are payed is insufficient. It should be denied under oath for it to
be a valid defense.
b. I would decide the case in favor of BPI Family Savings. Since
the actionable document is not denied under oath, the
genuineness and due execution of the document are
deemed admitted.
c. Notice of lis pendens is available in actions title affecting
title or the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff
and defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed in the
answer, may record in the office of registry of deeds of the
province in which the property is situated notice of the
pendency of the action
The notice of lis pendens may be cancelled ONLY upon order of
the court, after proper showing that:
(a) The notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party,
or
(b) That it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who
caused it to be recorded.
Remedy: Actionable Document
A: The defendant shall specifically deny under oath the
genuineness and due execution of the document and state the
facts which he believes to be true
Rule 9: Effect of Failure to Plead
Q: A filed a case against B Corp. for Damages with Environmental
Protection Order due the emission of toxic gas in the premises of
the latter. Summons were served to Mr. Chiz, the General
Manager of the company. Allan Peter the counsel for B Corp.
filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer copy
furnished A. A through Atty. Marcos filed an Opposition saying
that it is a prohibited motion under the Rules
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the motion?
I will grant the motion for extension of time to file Answer
A: Under the Rules on Environmental Cases, a motion for
extension of time to file a pleading is a prohibited motion, except
to file an answer, the extension of which shall not exceed 15 days.
Hence, a motion for extension of time to file an answer may be
allowed.
Q: In the above problem, despite service of summons and the
filing of the motion, B Corp. failed to file their responsive
pleading prompting the judge on its own initiative declare the
defendant in default, B Corp., through its counsel filed a Motion
for Reconsideration arguing that there was no written motion
filed in violation of the requirements under Rule 9 which was
also denied.
Is B Corp. correct? Why?
A: B Corp. is not correct. Motion for reconsideration must be
denied.
Under the Rules on Environmental Cases, a motion to declare a
defendant in default is a prohibited motion. However, under the
same rules, it provides that:
Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the
period provided, the court shall declare defendant in default and
upon motion of the plaintiff, shall receive in evidence ex parte and
render judgment based thereon and the reliefs prayed for.
Q: Lack of Barangay Conciliation not raised in the answer.
A: As judge, I would deny the appeal raising the lack of barangay
conciliation.
Under the Rules, objections and defenses not raised in the answer
is deemed waived.
In this case, since it was not raised in the answer, the same is
waived. Moreover, participation of the party in the trial
constitutes a waiver of said condition precedent.
Q: May the court motu proprio declare the defendant in default?
A: As a general rule, no because it requires a motion from the
plaintiff in case of ordinary civil action.
By way of exception, under the Rules on Environmental Cases, the
court may motu proprio declare a defendant in default but the
plaintiff may upon motion be allowed to present evidence ex
parte.
Q: Remedy: Judgment by Default
Before finality, file motion for reconsideration or new trial
After finality, file petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38,
annulment of judgment under Rule 47, petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 or collateral attack
Q: A filed an unlawful detainer complaint against B and his wife
D before the MTC. In the said complaint, A averred that
sometime in 1999, he, through an undated contract of lease,
leased to B a portion of a 541 square meter property situated in
Manila, which the latter intended to use as a lottery outlet. The
lease contract has a term of five (5) years and contained a
stipulation “that any case arising from the same shall be filed in
the courts of Davao City only”
A claimed that B and D failed to pay his rental arrears to him and
refused to vacate the subject property, despite repeated
demands. The Defendants, however posited that the
aforementioned lease contract was simulated, and, hence, not
binding on the parties. The MTC dismissed the first ejectment
complaint finding that the same was simulated as evidenced by
failure of A to collect payment and on the ground of improper
venue.
Notwithstanding the dismissal, A filed a second complaint for
unlawful detainer, damages and attorney’s fees (second
ejectment complaint) against B and his wife D also grounded on
their failure to pay rent under the undated lease contract, but
this time, before the MTCC-Davao City, Br. 2. In their answer, B
and D raised the defense of res judicata, particularly averring
that the second ejectment complaint should be dismissed given
that it was already barred by prior judgment.
(a) B&D filed two suits based on the same cause of action? Is
this valid?
(b) In case of adverse decision, what is the remedy of the
aggrieved party? How? Requirements?
A: De Leon v. Dela Llana, (2015)
No, since the action is barred by prior judgment
Res judicata (meaning, a "matter adjudged") is a fundamental
principle of law which precludes parties from re-litigating issues
actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment.35
It means that "a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court
of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties
or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters
determined in the former suit."
In this case, the parties may no longer re-litigate the matters
already adjudged in the first ejectment case in the second
ejectment case since the latter is already barred by prior
judgment.
The remedy in case of dismissal based on res judiciata from the
MTC is to file an appeal with the Regional Trial Court under Rule
40 by filing a notice of appeal within the period of 15 days.
Rule 10: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Q: A Corp. filed a case against B Corp. for Sum of Money and
Damages, in the amount of P1M and paid the corresponding
docket fees. A filed a supplemental complaint increasing the
amount of claim to P1.5. C, counsel for B Corp. filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the action for
failure to complaint with the condition precedent on the
payment of docket fees on the supplemental complaint

If you were the judge how would you rule on the motion
A: Motion to dismiss must be denied.
No, payment of docket fees is no longer required in a
supplemental complaint.
In the case of Do-All Metal Industries, Inc. v. Security Bank Corp. it
was held that on the issue of jurisdiction, respondent Bank argues
that plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing fees on their supplemental
complaint is fatal to their action.
But what the plaintiffs failed to pay was merely the filing fees for
their Supplemental Complaint. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ action from the moment they filed their original
complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on
the same. The plaintiffs’ non-payment of the additional filing fees
due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the
jurisdiction it already had over the case.
A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is
that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon its
filing. The rules do not require the court to make special
assessments in cases of supplemental complaints.
Q: Poe filed a case against Jejomar for specific performance
before the RTC-Manila. Jejomar through counsel filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on the ground of no cause of action but
pending its resolution of the motion to dismiss, Poe amends her
complaint which was admitted by the court, but Jejomar failed
to file his Answer and subsequently he was declared in default.
Jejomar filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that
his allegations in his motion to dismiss should be considered as
his denial to the material allegations in the amended complaint.
(a) Is the court correct? Why?
(b) What is the remedy of Jejomar
A: Under Rule 10, Sec. 2, a party may amend his pleading once a
matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served
or, in case of a reply, at any time within 10 days after it is served.
Moreover, according to jurisprudence, a motion to dismiss is not a
responsive pleading.
Hence, since Jejomar did not file his answer, the court properly
declared him in default.
In case of declaration of default, his remedy is to file a motion to
lift order of default on the ground of FAME with the
corresponding affidavit of merit. If denied, file MR then petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 since there is no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Before finality of the judgment, he may file MR or new trial
After finality, file petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38,
annulment of judgment under Rule 47, petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 or collateral attack
Q: The defendant’s denial is in bad faith
A: Under Rule 10, Sec. 8, where a defendant is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an
allegation, he shall so state and this shall have the effect of denial.
However, denial by disavowal of knowledge must be exercised in
good faith. In this case, the denial of A constitutes bad faith and
amounts to an admission.
Moreover, since A is contesting an actionable document, the
genuineness and due execution of such promissory note are
deemed to be admitted because A did not make a denial under
oath when clearly A is a party to the instrument.
Since there is already an admission by A, a judgment on the
pleadings under Rule 34 is proper upon motion of B and the RTC
may grant such relief as B’s pleading may warrant.
Q: What is the effect of the amendment of the original complain
in relation to a writ of attachment issued in the original
pleading?
A: It will be lifted since the original pleading has already been
superseded by the amended complaint.
Q: A filed a case for sum of money against B before RTC Manila
and applied for a writ of preliminary attachment which was
granted by the court. B filed his Answer with counterclaim
against A. A filed a motion for the amendment of his complaint,
which was granted by the court, but without the certification of
forum shopping. B filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
non-compliance with forum shopping, and move that the writ of
preliminary attachment be dissolved by virtue of the said
attachment. A, on the other hand, contended that the original
complaint contains the required certification against forum
shopping, and the amended complaint is no longer an initiatory
pleading, hence, there is already compliance with the rule.
a. Is the contention of A tenable? Why?
b. If you are the judge, how would you rule on the motion
filed by B?
A:
a. No, the contention of A is not tenable
Under the law, one of the effects of an amended pleading is it
supersedes the original pleading. As a rule, certification of non-
forum shopping is required especially when the amendment is
substantial. However, if it is not substantial, certification of non-
forum shopping is no longer required
b. As to the motion to dismiss, I will deny the same upon lack
of showing that the amendment is substantial, otherwise I
will grant it.
As to the writ of preliminary attachment, I will dissolve the same
because under the law one of the effects of amendment of the
pleading is that all the ancillary remedy issued in the original
pleading shall be deemed vacated or lifted.
Remedy: Matters not raised in the pleadings are tried with
express or implied consent of the parties
A: Motion to amend the pleading to conform to evidence.
However, failure to make such motion will not affect the court’s
judgment on the case.
Rule 12: Bill of Particulars
Remedy: Ambiguity in the Pleadings
Plaintiff: File a motion for bill of particulars under Rule 12
Defendant: File a motion to amend the complaint or pleading as a
matter of right
Remedy: Failure to Comply With Order to File Bill of Particulars
A: Two remedies:
(1) Motion to strike the pleading with ambiguous allegations
(2) Dismissal under Rule 17, Sec. 3 for failure to comply with
lawful order of the court
Rule 13: Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgment and Other
Papers
Q: Can an action for land registration be the subject of notice of
lis pendens?
A: No, there is no title yet to protect. Yes, if the question is action
to recover possession of real estate, quiet title, and action to
remove clouds.
Remedy: Notice of Lis Pendens
Plaintiff: File an appeal to the LRA en consulta within 5 days from
notice of denial.

If appeal is denied, file MR if the motion is denied file a petition
for review under Rule 43 with the CA.
In case denial, file MR or new trial under Rule 52 and 53
In case the motion is dismissed, file petition for review on
certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45
Remedy: Adverse Claim
File an appeal to the LRA en consulta within 5 days from denial.
In case of denial, file MR.
If MR is denied, file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals
under Rule 43.
In case of denial, file MR.
In case of denial of MR, file petition for review on certiorari with
the SC within 15 days pursuant to Rule 45
Rule 14: Summons
Q: A filed an action to recover sum of money in the amount of
P1M against B in the RTC-Manila. B filed a Motion for Extension
of Time to file responsive pleading for fifteen (15) days to file the
same. Before the lapse of fifteen days period of extension, B
filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over his
person due to defective service of summons when it was left to
her housemaid who has no proper education
(a) Was there valid service of summons?
(b) As judge, what would you do in case of defect in the
summons?
A:
Under the law, the general rule is that service must be done by
personal service pursuant to Rule 14, Sec. 6. However, substituted
service may be effected provided that the following requisites are
present:
(1) The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must
show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is
impossibility of prompt service
(2) The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted
personal service. The efforts made to find the defendant and
the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in
detail in the Return.
(3) If the substituted service will be effected at defendants
house or residence, it should be left with a person of
suitable age and discretion then residing therein
(4) If the substituted service will be done at defendants office or
regular place of business, then it should be served on a
competent person in charge of the place
In the case at bar, since the personal service of summons was not
made, there was substituted service of summons given to the
housemaid of B, who is living in his residence and of suitable age
and discretion.
I will deny the motion of B
Under the Rule 14, Sec. 20, the defendant’s voluntary appearance
in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. Also,
according to jurisprudence, there can be voluntary appearance of
the defendant when he seeks affirmative relief to the court such
as filing a motion for extension of time.
In this case, his motion for extension of time, which constitutes an
affirmative relief is tantamount to voluntary appearance and the
court has acquired jurisdiction over his person.
Q: Summons to foreign private juridical entity not registered or
has no resident agents may be served with leave of court
through the following means:
(a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court
in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department
of Foreign Affairs;
(b) Publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
court where the defendant may be found and by serving a
copy of the summons and the court order by registered mail
at the last known address;
(c) By facsimile or any other recognized electronic means that
could generate proof of service;
(d) By such other means as the court in its discretion direct
Q: Summons to the resident defendant temporarily outside the
Philippines.
A: Yes.
Where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner or his
whereabouts are unknown, defendant ordinarily resides but is
temporarily outside the Philippines
Q: A filed a case for collection of sum of money against B. Corp.
in the MTC. Service of summons cannot be effected in person or
by substituted service to the officers of the corporation. As
counsel of A, what is your remedy?
A: Under the rules whenever practicable summons maybe served
personally, and in case of failure of personal service by
substituted service. However, if the action is in personam,
summons by publication may be availed of by amending the
pleading and applying for a writ of attachment.
Q: A filed a case for Damages with injunction against B Corp., in
the RTC. Service of Summons cannot be effected through
personal and substituted service of summons to the officers of
the corporation. A filed a motion for service of summons by
publication since the whereabouts of the officers of B Corp.
cannot be determined. If you were the judge, how would you
rule on the motion?
A: I will deny the motion since the action is in personam and
service is by personal service
Q: Teofisto filed a case of forcible entry against Gloria before the
MetC of Manila. Gloria was served a copy of the summons but
without the attachment copy of the complaint. Gloria failed to
file her answer. Teofisto moved that the case be submitted for
resolution which was objected to by Gloria and subsequently
filed her answer. If you were the judge, how will you decide the
issue?
A: I will grant the motion to submit the case for resolution.
Under the law, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can
be acquired by voluntary appearance. By voluntary appearance
can be done when the defendant asked for affirmative relief from
the court regarding the action.
In this case, the subsequent filing of Gloria of her answer is
deemed a voluntary appearance. Hence, the case may be
submitted for resolution.
Rule 15: Motion
Q: What is the omnibus motion rule? What are the exceptions?
Rule 15, Sec. 8. Omnibus motion — Subject to the provisions of
Sec. 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment,
or proceeding (POJP) shall include all objections then available,
and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.
Q: A file a case for collection of sum of money against B in the
RTC of Manila. After hearing, the court rendered a decision in
favor of A ordering B to pay A, which became final and
executory. C, counsel for A file a Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Execution on May 16, 2012 and set it for hearing on May 18,
2012 at 2PM copy furnished D counsel for B. On the hearing of
the motion A & B appeared together with their counsel, and the
latter was given a chance to file his Comment on the motion
within five (5) days. In his comment, D contended that the
motion does not comply with the three (3) days notice
requirement on motions. Is the contention correct?
Answer: No, the contention is not correct.
The 3 day notice rule on motion is not an absolute rule. By way of
exception, as long as the adverse party will be given an
opportunity to be heard and to object on the motion, the 3 day
notice rule will not apply.
In this case, B and his counsel was given five (5) days to comment
on the motion. Hence, there was no violation of the 3 day notice
rule.
XPN to 3-Day Notice Rule: urgent motions, non-litigated motions,
ex parte motions, joint motions, motions agreed by the parties to
be served on shorter notice, and summary judgment motions.
Q: Defendant sent a letter of his inability to attend (Summary
Procedure)
The denial is not proper.
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, Motion means a party’s
request, written or oral to the court for an order or other action.
It shall include an informal written request to the court such as
letter.
Hence, in this case, the letter may be considered a motion if it
seeks an affirmative relief from the court.
Rule 16: Motion to Dismiss
Q: P sued D in the RTC for a sum of money. Summons could not
be served on D because the sheriff could not locate his address.
So, after a year, the RTC dismissed the complaint for “P’s failure
to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time”.
Three months later, P filed another complaint for the same
cause of action against D. D now moves to dismiss this second
complaint on the ground of res judicata.
Resolve D’s motion to dismiss
A: D’s motion to dismiss must be denied.
For dismissal on res judicata to apply, the following requisites
must be present:
(a) There should be a judgment that is final;
(b) The judgment must be an adjudication on the merits
(c) Jurisdiction was acquired by competent court on the subject
matter and defendant
(d) Identity of the parties, causes of action and relief
In this case, since there was no valid service of summons,
jurisdiction was not acquired over the person of the defendant.
Hence, the dismissal on the ground of res judicata shall not apply.
Q: Can the court motu proprio order the hearing of the
affirmative defense raised in the answer?
A: Yes, under Rule 16, Sec. 6, if no motion to dismiss has been
filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule
may be pleaded as affirmative defense in the answer and, in the
discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon
as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
Q: A entered into a contract of lease with B. B defaulted in the
payment of rentals in the amount of Php 500,000. A filed an
ejectment case against B with the MTC and recovery of sum of
money with the RTC. If you are the counsel of B what is your
remedy?
A: I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia
Q: P sued D in the RTC for a sum of money. Summons could not
be served on D because the sheriff could not locate his address.
So, after a year, the RTC dismissed the complaint “for P’s failure
to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time”.
Three months later, P filed another complaint for the same
cause of action against D. D now moves to dismiss the second
complaint on the ground of res judicata. Resolve D’s motion to
dismiss.
A: Motion should be denied.
Under the law, for requisites of res judicata or bar by prior
judgment are:
(a) The former judgment or order must be final
(b) It must be a judgment on the merits
(c) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties
(d) There must be between the first and second actions, identity
of parties, subject matter, and cause of action
In this case, the third requisite is lacking since jurisdiction was not
acquired by the court over the parties because summons was not
served. Hence, the motion should be denied.
Remedy: Motion to Dismiss
Defendant: File an answer alleging as affirmative defense the
ground for dismissal and proceed to trial. In case of adverse
decision, file an appeal.
Plaintiff: if appeal is granted, file MR, and if tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
Rule 17: Dismissal of Actions
A filed a case against B. B filed counterclaim. A failed to
prosecute the case so Judge dismissed the claim and the
counterclaim. Is the dismissal of the counterclaim correct?
A: Under Rule 17, Sec. 3, if, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff
fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time,
the complaint may be dismissed upon defendant’s motion or
upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of
the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action.
In this case, the dismissal of the judge of the counterclaim is not
correct since it can be prosecuted by the defendant in the same or
separate action pursuant to Rule 17, Sec. 3.
Q: A entered into a contract with B for the construction of a
house and lot with a contract price of P5M. It was agreed upon
that A will pay a down payment of P1.5 upon the signing of the
construction agreement and the remaining balance will be paid
on a progress billing depending on the services rendered. A
made the down payment to B and during the course of the
construction there was a disagreement between them as to the
materials used by B in the construction of walls, and a
consequence of which A did not pay the progress billing sent by
A for services rendered by B.
A filed a case before the RTC for specific performance and
damages against B. B filed her answer and raised as
counterclaim the unpaid amount on the progress billing by way
of damages in the amount of P500,000 an attorney’s fees of
P300,000.
During the hearing, A failed to appear in the presentation of his
evidence and upon motion of B the judge dismissed the case
together with the counterclaim of B.
Is the judge correct? Why? Basis.
A: No, the dismissal of the judge is not correct.
Under Rule 17, Sec. 3, if, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails
to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief
on the complaint, the complaint may be dismissed upon
defendant’s motion or upon the court’s own motion, without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.
In this case, the dismissal of the case because of failure of A to out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the
appear in his presentation of evidence in chief is correct. Rule 19: Intervention action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by
However, B must be allowed to recover on his counterclaim. default against that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay
reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorney's
Denial of Motion for Intervention
fees.
Q:
Two remedies:
(a) Failure to appear in envi cases, effect? Rule 32: Trial by Commissioner
(b) Recourse of plaintiff? (1) File an appeal from the order denying motion for
intervention Q: May the court motu proprio order the referral of the case to
A: (2) File a separate action the commissioner?

(a) The court shall not dismiss the complaint, except upon
repeated and unjustified failure to appear. The dismissal
shall be without prejudice and the court may proceed with
the counterclaim.
(b) If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, the court
shall receive evidence ex parte.
Q: Doctrine of Non-Prosequitur
A: Under the Doctrine of non-prosequitur, the failure of the
plaintiff to prosecute his claim within an unreasonable length of
time may be a cause of the dismissal of the action if it can be
shown that there is manifest unwillingness of plaintiff to
prosecute.
Remedy: Dismissal by plaintiff
Rule 23: Deposition Pending Action
Q: May the court motu proprio terminate or limit the taking of
deposition if the examination tends to harass or degrade the
deponent?
No, under Rule 23, Sec. 18, ay anytime during the taking of the
deposition, on motion or petition of any party or of the deponent
and upon showing that the examination s being conducted in bad
faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass or
oppress the deponent or party,
Remedy: Examination of Deponent to harass or annoy him
A: File a motion to terminate or limit examination with the RTC
where the action is pending (Rule 23, Sec. 18)
A: As a general rule, no since under the Rule 32, Sec. 1, the court
may order any or all the issues in a case to be referred to a
commissioner only upon written consent of both parties.
As exception, the court may motu proprio appoint a
commissioner in the following cases:
(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination
of a long account on either side, in which case the
commissioner may be directed to hear and report upon the
whole issue or any specific question involved therein
(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the
information of the court before judgment, or for carrying a
judgment or order into effect
(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings,
arises upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of a case, or
for carrying a judgment or order into effect

Dismissal by plaintiff may be effected by notice to the court but if
a prior action has been dismissed by notice, the defendant may
file a motion to dismiss on the basis of the two dismissal rule
pursuant to Rule 17, Sec. 1
Dismissal may also be by motion of the plaintiff. The dismissal is
without prejudice
Remedy: Two Dismissal Rule
A: File an appeal to the next lower court by filing a notice of
appeal within 15 days since dismissal is with prejudice
Rule 18: Pre-Trial
Q: In case the plaintiff fails to move ex parte for the conduct of
pre-trial, what is the effect?
A: The clerk of court will issue a notice of pre-trial conference
Q: For failure of the plaintiff to appear during pre-trial
conference, the court issued an order stating that the case is
hereby dismissed. If you are the counsel, what is the remedy?
A: File an appeal since the dismissal with prejudice.
Rule 26: Admission by Adverse Party
When Admission under Rule Motion to be relieved from the
26 is thru mistake admission.
File a motion to withdraw or
amend admission (Rule 26, Sec.
4) on the ground that no
admission was actually made
and that his silence on the
request for admission was
merely due to inadvertence or
excusable neglect.
Rule 29: Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery
Q: Refusal to comply with written interrogatories
Rule 29, Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers — If a
party or an officer or managing agent of a party wilfully fails to
appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being
served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to
interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of
such interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike
Rule 33: Demurrer to Evidence
A filed a case against B before the RTC of Quezon City for
collection of sum of money. After the presentation of the
plaintiff’s evidence, B filed a demurrer to evidence which was
denied by the court, and the trial proceeded, then the court
rendered a judgment in favor of A. B filed an appeal to the Court
of Appeals and assigned as one of the errors the denial of his
demurrer to evidence. The Court of Appeals set aside the
judgment of the lower court and granted the demurrer to
evidence based on insufficiency of evidence, and dismissed the
case. Is the dismissal valid?
A: No, considering that demurrer to evidence is a motion to
dismiss which must be filed before the court which renders the
judgment, and it is no longer within the power of the Court of
Appeals to rule on the same.
The power to grant or deny demurrer to evidence is within the
powers of the province of the trial. It is outside the province of
the Court of appeals.
Hence, the CA is not correct.
Q: May the court motu proprio dismiss a civil case since the
plaintiff has no right of relief based on the evidence?
A: As a general rule, there must be a motion filed by the
defendant after the plaintiff has rested its case.
By way of exception, in case of Summary Procedure or Rules on
Small Claims
Q: A filed a case against B before the QC-RTC for Collection of
Sum of Money. After the presentation of the plaintiff’s evidence,
B filed a Demurrer to Evidence which was denied by the Court,
the trial proceeded, then the court rendered a judgment in favor
of A. B then filed an appeal to the CA and assigned as one of the
errors the denial of his D2E. The CA set aside the judgment of
the lower court and granted the D2E based on insufficiency of
evidence, and dismissed the case, is the dismissal valid.
A: No, considering that demurrer to evidence is a motion to
dismiss which must be filed before the court which renders the
judgment, and it is no longer within the power of the CA to rule
on the same.
Rule 34: Judgment on the Pleadings
Q: A obtained a loan in the amount of P1M from B and executed
a promissory note. A failed to pay the loan amount. B filed a
case against A for Sum of Money. A filed her Answer and denied
the existence of the said promissory note for lack of knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the said document
If you were the counsel of B, what is your legal recourse?
A: As counsel of B, I will a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Under Rule 8, Sec. 8, an cause of action based on actionable
document to be contested must be denied specifically under oath
the genuineness and due execution of the same and set forth the
facts that he claims to be.
In this case, although there was denial on the part of A, it was not
made specifically under oath. As a consequence, the allegations in
the complaint is deemed to be impliedly admitted. Hence,
judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 is proper.
A filed a complaint against B based on a contract of mortgage
entered by them. After the service of summons, B died and was
substituted by C, son of B, but before his death, B filed an
unverified answer. If you are A what is the remedy?
A: A should file a motion for judgment on the pleadings since the
answer is unverified and posed no triable issue
Rule 35: Summary Judgment
Q: A filed a suit against B. A served a written request for
admission to B on the promissory note he executed from which
the complaint was based. B failed file an answer.
What is the recourse of A? Why? Basis.
A: The recourse of A is to file a motion for summary judgment
since there is no genuine issue
Under the implied admission rule pursuant to Rule 26, each of the
matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party files a sworn statement of his
denial of the matters in the admission.
In this case, since there was already an implied admission on the
part of B and there is no genuine issue, A may move for summary
judgment
Q: A filed a suit against B. A served a written request for
admission to B on the promissory notes he executed from which
the complaint was based. B failed to file an answer. What is the
recourse of A?
A: File a motion for summary judgment.
Rule 36: Judgment
A file a case against B, C, D. D is a corporation. Judgment in favor
of A. B filed a petition for certiorari of the judgment. It was
signed by counsel (no board resolution). While the petition for
certiorari was pending. Judgment by A was satisfied. If you were
the judge, how would you treat the decision?
A: Jacinto v. Gumaru, G.R. No. 191906, June 2, 2004
The Court finds that the Petition has become moot and academic.
It is true, as petitioner asserts, that if for reasonable or justifiable
reasons he is unable to sign the verification and certification
against forum shopping in his CA Petition, he may execute a
special power of attorney designating his counsel of record to sign
the Petition on his behalf. In Altres v. Empleo, this view was taken:
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in
capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already
reflected above respecting noncompliance with the requirements
on, or submission of defective, verification and certification
against forum shopping:
(1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with
the requirement on or submission of defective verification,
and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission
of defective certification against forum shopping.
(2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect
therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective. The court may order its submission or correction
or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are
such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed
with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
(3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one
who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification,
and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in
good faith or are true and correct.
(4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance
therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is
generally not curable by its subsequent submission or
correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule
on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of
"special circumstances or compelling reasons."
(5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by
all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those
who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case.
Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as
when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense,
the signature of only one of them in the certification against
forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
(6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be
executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. H,
however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-
pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power
of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his
behalf.
However, while the Court takes the petitioner's side with regard
to the procedural issue dealing with verification and the
certification against forum shopping, it nonetheless appears that
the Petition has been overtaken by events. In a May 24, 2011
Manifestation, respondent informed this Court that the judgment
award has been satisfied in full. The petitioner does not dispute
this claim, in which case, the labor case is now deemed ended. "It
is axiomatic that after a judgment has been fully satisfied, the
case is deemed terminated once and for all." And "when a
judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond review, satisfaction
being the last act and the end of the proceedings, and payment or
satisfaction of the obligation thereby established produces
permanent and irrevocable discharge; hence, a judgment debtor
who acquiesces to and voluntarily complies with the judgment is
estopped from taking an appeal therefrom."
With the above development in the case, the instant Petition is
rendered moot and academic. The satisfaction of the judgment in
full has placed the case beyond the Court's review. "Indeed, there
are no more proceedings to speak of inasmuch as these were
terminated by the satisfaction of the judgment."
 the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in Hence, C is correct in contending that they have a fresh period of
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being moot and the same case continues to be the law of the case, … so long as 15 days within which to file the appeal.
academic. the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be
the facts of the case before the court. Rule 38: Petition for Relief
Q: What are the judgments which are immediately executory?
Otherwise put, the principle means that questions of law that
have been previously raised and disposed of in the proceedings Q: Remedy in case of petition for relief from judgment?
A: The following are judgments which are immediately executory:
shall be controlling in succeeding instances where the same legal
question is raised, provided that the facts on which the legal issue A: The remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration. And in case
(1) Injunction of denial of MR, file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since
was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the
(2) Receivership under Rule 41, no appeal shall be taken from an order denying a
court. Guided by this definition, the law of the case principle
(3) Accounting petition for relief or other similar action seeking relief.
cannot provide petitioners any comfort.
(4) Support
(5) Judgment in forcible entry and unlawful detainer
Q: A filed a MR of the Order of the court denying his motion to Rule 39: Execution
(6) Judgment in Summary Procedure
(7) Judgment in Small Claims dismiss. The court issued the order as follows: after careful
(8) Judgment in Contempt examination of the issues and arguments posited in the instant Q: A filed an ejectment case against B. The court, after due
motion, the same is hereby denied. Is the order valid hearing, ruled in favor of A. During the execution of B suddenly
disappeared, hence, it cannot be enforced. How would you
Q: Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment
A: No, because the Order does not state the facts and the law on enforce the judgment after 5 years? Which court has
which the denial is made (Constitution) jurisdiction? Venue?
A: A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if
Rule 37: New Trial or Reconsideration A: I will file action for revival of judgment with the RTC because it
the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It depends whether the
or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it
property is real or personal.
or by the highest court of the land Q: Remedy in case of denial of motion for reconsideration or
new trial.
XPN: But like any other rule, it has exceptions, namely: Q: Remedy in case of refusal to perform an act other than the
A: Appeal the judgment as well as the order denying the motion payment of money or surrender of possession.
(1) The correction of clerical errors; for new trial or reconsideration pursuant to the amendments to
(2) The so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no Rule 37 as set forth in A.M. No. 07-07-12-SC A: Seek an order for special judgment
prejudice to any party;
(3) Void judgments; and Q: What are the effects of Foreign Judgment?
A filed an action against B for Damages on May 1997. After
(4) Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
hearing, the court finally rendered a decision on January 15,
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. A: Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders —
2012, in favor of B and the action was dismissed, w/c judgment
(5) Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign
was received by C (counsel for A) on January 30, 2012. C filed a
MR on the judgment on the 15th day or on Feb. 14, 2012, which country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order
Q: May injunction lie to restrain a final and executory judgment? was denied by the Court in its Order dated February 9, 2012, is as follows:
which was received by C on March 15, 2012. On March 20, 2012,
A: As a general rule, injunction will not restrain to restrain a final C filed a Notice of Appeal, while D (counsel for B) filed a MTD the (a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the
and executory injunction, except: appeal for being filed out of time since he has only one (1) day to judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the
appeal. B opined that the case should be governed by the Rules thing, and
(a) If facts or circumstances later transpire that would render at the time of filing of the case by A on 1997. C contended that (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the
execution inequitable and unjust; or they have another 15 days to appeal in accordance with the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as
(b) When there is a change in the situation of the parties that Neypes Rule. Rule on MTD between the parties and their successors in interest by a
may warrant injunctive relief subsequent title.
A: I will deny the motion.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by
Q: What is the “law of the case”?
Under the “Neypes rule” a party has a fresh period of 15 days evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
from denial of motion for new trial or reconsideration to appeal collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a
former appeal. It is a term applied to an established rule that the case. According to jurisprudence, it is a procedural law that
when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the should be given retroactive effect to pending actions at the time Q: Remedy in case of refusal to issue writ of possession
case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question of its enactment.
there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent
appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as
A: File a petition for mandamus since the grant of such writ, when
proper, becomes a ministerial duty of the court which is
compellable by mandamus
Q: What is the remedy of terceria?
A: Terceria is a remedy available to a third person, not party to
the action, wherein his property has been levied upon on
execution by the sheriff, the principal purpose of which is to
recover his property. Terceria is available in execution under Rule
39, in preliminary attachment under Rule 57 and replevin under
Rule 60.
Q: After the lapse of 5 years, how will a party execute the
judgment?
A: After the lapse of 5 years, I will file an action for revival of
judgment with the RTC since the subject matter of the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. After such revival, the
judgment may be ,executed by way of motion by the winning
party.
Q: In case of revival of ejectment case, venue?
A: Since the ejectment case is a real action, it shall be filed in the
court where the property or a part thereof is situated.
Q: Writ of Demolition
I will file a motion for the issuance of special order of demolition
to remove the structures and to cite the defendant in contempt
for failure to obey with a lawful order of the court
Q: Can the court motu proprio order the execution of judgment
or final order?
A: No, it requires an ex parte motion by the prevailing party
pursuant to Rule 39, Sec. 1. Except in cases where the judgment is
immediately executory.
Q: Can the court motu proprio dismiss the case based on
conclusiveness of judgment?
A: Yes, since conclusiveness of judgment is a specie of res judicata
which may be motu proprio be dismissed under Rule 9, Sec. 1
Q: A filed an ejectment case against B. The court, after due
hearing, ruled in favor of A. During the execution B suddenly
disappeared, hence it cannot be enforced.
How would you enforce the judgment after five years? Which
court has jurisdiction? In this action, where do you file the case
(Venue)?
A: I will file an action for revival of judgment in the RTC.
Under the Rule 39, after the lapse of 5 years from the time the
action became final and executory and before it is barred by
statute of limitations, an action may be filed to revive the
judgment. According to jurisprudence, action for revival of
judgment maybe cognizable by the court which rendered the
same judgment or the court designated by statute
Since ejectment is a real action, it shall be filed in the place where
the real property or a portion thereof is situated.
Remedy in case of denial of File a motion for
writ of execution reconsideration.
In case of denial, file petition
for mandamus under Rule 65.
(Note: Writ of execution shall
issue as a matter of right when
the judgment has become final
and executory. Hence, it is the
ministerial duty of the court to
issue it)
Appeals
Q: Lack of verification in appealed cases
A: Yes, the CA is correct in dismissing the action
Under the Rules, non-compliance of the formal requirements in
appealed cases shall be a ground for the dismissal of the CA motu
proprio or upon motion of the appellee of the case.
In this case, the CA correctly dismissed the case since verification
is a formal requirement in appealed cases.
Q: A filed a case before the MTC for the recovery of a sum of
money which was dismissed by the said court for lack of
jurisdiction. A appealed to the RTC wherein said court assumed
jurisdiction.
(a) Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the case?
(b) In case of adverse decision of RTC, what is the proper
remedy?
A:
(a) Rule 40, Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without
trial; lack of jurisdiction – If an appeal is taken from an order
of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the
merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as
the case may be. In case of affirmance and the ground of
dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try
the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with
it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further
proceedings.
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on
appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction
thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the
preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of
amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of
justice.
(b) Since it is as if originally filed with the RTC, the remedy is to
file an appeal, by notice of appeal within 15 days from
decision by way of Rule 41.
Q: RTC sitting as Special Commercial Court, remedy?
A: The remedy in case of adverse decision of RTC sitting as special
commercial court is to file a petition for review under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court with the court of Appeals
Under the Intellectual Property Code, the RTC sitting as
commercial court is acting as a quasi-judicial body in adjudicating
the cases before it.
Hence, I would file a petition for review under Rule 43 with the
Court of Appeals.
Q: Where no appeal can be taken?
A; Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of appeal — An appeal may be taken
from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the
case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these
Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion
seeking relief from judgment;
(c) An interlocutory order;
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by
consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(f) An order of execution;
(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of
several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-
claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is
pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
 orders in third-party
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not complaints, while the main Summary Procedure
appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special case is pending is generally not
civil action under Rule 65. (n) appealable, unless the court Q: A filed collection for sum of money for 100,000 and attorney’s
allows an appeal therefrom. fee (jurisdictional amount sa summary procedure). B filed a
Q: Remedy to assail the judgment or final order of the Court o counterclaim for 50,000. A failed to appear in the trial? Judge
Appeals. Motion for Reconsideration of File a petition for certiorari dismissed the complaint and counterclaim.
an Interlocutory Order under Rule 65 pursuant to Rule
A: File a motion for reconsideration or new trial. If the same is 41, Sec. 1(b) a. Was the dismissal of the complaint proper?
denied, file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with
the SC within 15 notice of denial. Failure to make page Rule 50, Sec. 1(f). An appeal Yes, Under Sec. 7 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, the failure
reference in appellant’s brief may be dismissed by the Court of the plaintiff to appear in pre-trial shall be a cause for the
of Appeals, on its own motion dismissal of the complaint.
Q: Can the CA dismiss the notice of appeal for having been taken
or on that of the appellee
out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful
fees? b. Is the dismissal of the counterclaim proper?
RTC in Unfair Competition File an MR. If MR is denied, file
a petition for review under Under Sec. 7, the defendant who appears in the absence of the
A: No. Under Rule 41, Sec. 13, prior to the transmittal or the
original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the Rule 43 with the CA since the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in
trial court may, motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the appeal for RTC is acting as a quasi-judicial accordance with Sec. 6 hereof. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.
body.
having been taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket
and other lawful fees. If the sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be
Rule 47: Annulment of Judgment entitled to judgment either upon motion or motu proprio by the
court as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint
Q: May the appellate court motu proprio dismiss the appealed and limited to what is prayed for.
filed by a party? Q: What are the grounds for annulment of judgment?

A: The grounds for annulment of judgment are: This Rule shall not apply where one of two or more defendants
A: Yes, provided the grounds for the dismissal of appeal under sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a
Rule 50, Sec. 1 are present common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference.
(1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
(2) Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
1. A filed a case before the MTC for recovery of a sum of Q: Jurisdiction in Summary regardless of unpaid rentals sought.
(3) Extrinsic fraud
money which was dismissed the said court for lack of
(4) Lack of due process
jurisdiction. A appealed to the RTC wherein said court A: The motion should be denied.
assumed jurisdiction. In case of adverse decision of the
RTC, what is the proper remedy? Denial of Petition for Two remedies:
Annulment of Judgment Under B.P. 129, as amended, the MTC shall have exclusive original
(1) If annulment of judgment jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases. Moreover, the Rules on
A: The proper remedy is to appeal the case via Rule 41 by notice Summary Procedure provides that jurisdiction of MTC over
or record of appeal within 15 or 30 days, respectively. of MTC, file an appeal by
notice of appeal within unlawful detainer cases is irrespective of the unpaid rentals
15 days to the Court of sought to be recovered.
Under the Rule 40, if the MTC dismissed the case on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction without trial on the merits, the RTC may take Appeals under Rule 41
(2) If annulment of judgment In this case, jurisdiction was properly acquired since the case was
cognizance of the case as if it was originally filed with it. filed in the MTC of Maguindanao. Hence, the motion should be
of RTC, file a petition for
review on certiorari with dismissed/denied.
In this case, since the dismissal was due to lack of jurisdiction on
the subject matter, the proper remedy is to appeal via Rule 41. 15 days to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45 Q: Unlawful detainer where parties are Muslims

In other words, without trial on the merits, lack of jurisdiction, Rule 52: Motion for Reconsideration Under Batas Pambansa 129, cases of forcible entry and unlawful
Rule 41. detainer falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC.
Also the rules on Summary Procedure provides that jurisdiction of
Q: What is “Single Motion Rule”
Trial on the merits, lack of jurisdiction, Rule 42 MTC over unlawful detainer cases is irrespective of the unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered and even if one or both of the
A: Rule 52, Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration – No
parties are Muslims.
Denial of Third Party File MR, if MR is denied file second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
Complaint petition for certiorari under resolution by the same party shall be entertained except only
Rule 65 since judgment or final when there is leave of court and the same is granted.
In this case, SDC has no jurisdiction over forcible entry or unlawful
detainer cases even if both or one of the parties is Muslim. It is
the MTC which has jurisdiction.
Q: Can the Court dismiss the case for failure to comply with the
barangay conciliation in cases falling under the Rules of
Summary Proceedings?
A: Yes. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, when the court
finds from the examination of the allegations and the evidence
attached thereto that any grounds apparent for the dismissal of
the civil action, it shall dismiss the case outright.
Q: Is an application for the issuance of a writ of attachment
available as a remedy in Summary Procedure?
A: Yes. Because there is no prohibition under the Rules on
Summary Procedure.
Q: A filed a case against B for unlawful detainer. B filed his
answer. B subsequently filed a motion to amend his complaint
with the amended complaint attached. B filed an opposition
since it is a prohibited motion, the proceedings being summary
in nature. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the
motion to amend?
A: I will grant the motion since there is no prohibition under the
Rules on Summary Proceeding
Q: Is the prohibition in the filing for a petition for certiorari
absolute in case of summary proceedings?
A: No. Petition CFM allowed against final judgments. It is not
allowed in interlocutory orders.
Q: A filed a civil case against B for the collection of Php 5,000 in
the MTC of Manilla. After an examination of the complaint, the
judge dismissed the case outright due to improper venue. A filed
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, contending that a
provision in the promissory note attachment to the complaint
and made as the basis thereto clearly shows that the case must
be filed with the Manila Court. Although realizing and admitting
that he committed an error in dismissing because no action can
be taken on the motion for reconsideration, which is a
prohibited pleading under the summary rules. Is the judge
correct?
A: No. Motion for reconsideration may be filed in summary may
still be filed.
Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited motion in case it is directed to a
judgment.
In this case, the motion for reconsideration filed by A is only
interlocutory. Hence, it is not a prohibited under the Rules on
Summary Procedure.
Small Claims
Q: Rodrigo is engaging in the business of lending money to
persons who needs it with a monthly rate of seven percent (7%)
per month with his principal business in Makati City and a
branch office in Davao City. Jejomar, a resident of Davao City
went to the Office of Rodrigo in Davao City and borrowed oney
from the latter in the amount of P200,000 payable within 6
months with an interest rate of seven percent (7%) per month or
its equivalent of P14,000 as interest. After six months, Jejomar
failed to pay despite demand to pay.
If you were the counsel for Rodrigo where will you file the case?
Why?
As counsel for Rodrigo, and considering that the amount claimed
is within the Rules on Small Claims, I will file the case in the
Municipal/City Trial Court in Davao.
Under the 2016 Amended Rules on Small Claims, as a general rule,
the regular rules on venue shall apply, However, if the plaintiff is
engaged in the business of lending and that he has a branch
where the defendant resides, it shall be filed where such branch is
located.
In this case, since Rodrigo has a branch in Davao, the case shall be
filed in the City or Municipal Trial Court of Davao.
Q: During the hearing of the case, the judge asked Rodrigo
whether he is engaged in the lending business, and he replied
that he is not and reasoned out that the loan is a personal one,
but later upon inquiry the judge learned that he is indeed
engaged in the said business then the judge dismissed the case.
Is the dismissal correct? Why?
A: Yes, the dismissal is correct since under the Amended Rules on
Small Claims, when the plaintiff falsely represents that he is
engaged in the business of lending or similar activities, it shall be a
cause of the dismissal of the Statement of Claims with prejudice
and shall be meted with appropriate sanctions such as direct
contempt.
Hence, the dismissal is proper
Q: What is the remedy of Rodrigo? Why?
A: The remedy is petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since
judgment in Small Claims is final, executory and unappealable. He
may no longer move for reconsideration since it is a prohibited
pleading under the Rules on Small Claims
Q: Assuming that during the preliminary conference Rodrigo
failed to appear despite notice but he sent a letter through her
daughter Sara to the court containing the following statement:
Dear Judge,
May I ask for the resetting of the preliminary conference of the
case since I was suffering from LBM
Very yours truly,
Rodrigo.
The judge denied the request of Rodrigo since he was duly
notified and he failed to file the appropriate motion, hence the
case was dismissed together with the counterclaim of Jejomar.
(a) Is the denial of the request for Rodrigo proper? Why?
(b) Is the dismissal of the counterclaim valid? Why?
No. A request for postponement of a hearing may be granted only
upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before
the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of
only one (1) postponement.
Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to the court for
an order or other action. It shall include an informal written
request to the court, such as a letter;
The counterclaim of Jejomar should not have been dismissed.
Under the Amended Rules on Small Claims, the failure of the
plaintiff to appear in the hearing shall be cause of dismissal of the
Statement of Claims but the defendant that appear shall be
entitled to a judgment on his permissive counterclaim.
In this case, Jejomar may proceed with his counterclaim pursuant
to the ruling in Padilla v. Globe Asiatic (2014).
Q: Failure of the plaintiff to appear
Sec. 20. Non-appearance of Parties – Failure of the plaintiff to
appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the Statement of
Claim/s without prejudice. The defendant who appears in the
absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on a
permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect as
failure to file a Response under Section 14 of this Rule. This shall
not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued
under a common cause of action and have pleaded a common
defense appears at the hearing.

Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with
prejudice of both the Statement of Claim/s and the counterclaim.
Q: Effect in case of failure to serve summons in Small Claims
cases.
A: Court shall order plaintiff to cause service of summons within
30 days from notice of failure of service; otherwise the Statement
of Claims shall be dismissed without prejudice to those who were
not served with summons.
Q: Joinder in small claims is allowed.
A: Yes, under the Amended Rules on Small Claims joinder may be
allowed provided that the amount of the claim does not exceed
P200,000, exclusive of interest and cost.
Q: Application of JDR in Small Claims Cases
A: Under Sec. 28 of the Amended Rules on Small Claims, the rules
on JDR shall not apply, inasmuch as the parties may enter into
compromise at any stage of the proceedings.
Q: Upon receipt of the Statement of Claims for the recovery of
P100,000 filed by the plaintiff, the court dismissed the case motu
proprio for failure to comply with the barangay conciliation.
A: Yes, as expressly provided under the Rules on Small Claims that
the court may dismiss the case on its own initiative in any of the
grounds under Rule 16, Sec. 1
Small Claims File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with
Cases the RTC since the adverse decision in Small
Claims is final, executory and unappealable. No
MR is required since it is a prohibited pleading in
Small Claims Cases.
Failure of the Respondent to Amended Rules on Small
file Verified Response in Small Claims, Sec. 14. Should the
Claims defendant fail to file his/her/its
Response within the required
period, and likewise fail to
appear on the date set for
hearing, the court shall render
judgment on the same day, as
may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the Statement of
Claim/s.
Should the defendant fail to
file his/her/its Response within
the required period but
appears on the date set for
hearing, the court shall
ascertain what defense
he/she/it has to offer which
shall constitute his/ her/its
Response, and proceed to hear
or adjudicate the case on the
same day as if a Response has
been filed.
Rule 57: Preliminary Attachment
Rule 57, Sec. 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue — At
the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of
judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of
the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any
judgment that may be recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money
or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of
action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or
quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the
Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or
fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a
public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney,
factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his
employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary
capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly
or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the
property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed,
or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the
applicant or an authorized person;
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in
contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which
the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of
his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his
creditors; or
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be
served by publication. (1a)
Q: In dissolving a writ of injunction, a counter-bond is always
necessary.
A: False. Under Rule 57, a writ of attachment may be quashed on
the ground that it was improperly or irregularly issued and no
counter-bond is necessary.
Q: The liability of the surety in the attachment counter-bond
begins when?
A: Upon demand made on surety, notice and summary hearing on
the same action
Q: An action for sum of money with application for writ of
attachment is what kind of action?
A: Quasi in-rem
Rule 58: Preliminary Injunction
Q: Is TRO allowed in the Environmental Cases?
A: Under the Rules on Environmental Cases, no court can issue a
TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against lawful actions of
government agencies that enforce environmental laws or prevent
violations thereof, except the Supreme Court.
Q: Can the RTC acting as Special Commercial Court issue
injunction?
A: Concorde Condominium, Inc. v. Baculio, et. al., (2016). Yes,
since the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction
Q: Remedy in case of denial of application for writ of injunction.
A: In case the injunction is sought as a provisional remedy, the
proper remedy is to file an MR and if the same is denied file a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since a denial of writ of
injunction is an immediately executory, thus not appealable
Q: What is the Doctrine of Strong Arm of Equity?
A: Thunder Security and Investigation Agency v. NFA. Doctrine of
Strong Arm of Equity – There is no power the exercise of which is
more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the
issuance of an injunction. Hence, such power must be issued by
the courts with caution and should be extended only when the
courts cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in
damages.
Q: What are the grounds for injunction?
Rule 58, Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction —
A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and
the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of,
or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a
limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the (a) commission, (b) continuance or (c) non-
performance of the act or acts complained of during the
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening,
or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be
done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of
the applicant respecting the subject of the action or
proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
Q: What is a status quo ante order?
A: A status quo ante order is an order issued by the court to
maintain the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status of the
parties which precedes the controversy
Q: What is a TRO?
A: A TRO is an interlocutory order or writ granted by a court as a
restraint on the defendant until the propriety of issuance of writ
of injunction is determined, thus goes no further in its operation
than to maintain the status quo until that determination
Rule 60: Replevin
Q: Replevin: E-E Relationship v. Civil
A: Motion to dismiss denied. The issue involved in this case is who
has the better possession of the personal property detained.
Hence, the remedy of replevin is proper. Moroever, The relations
involved in this case is that of creditor-debtor and not that of
employee.
Q: A bond is necessary in case the replevin is issued in favor of
the Government?
A: No. Under the Rule 60, when the writ of replevin is issued in
favor of the Republic of the Philippines, filing of bond is no longer
required.
Rule 61: Support Pendente Lite
Q: Failure to comply with the Order to Provide Support
Pendente Lite
Rule 61, Sec. 5. Enforcement of Order – If the adverse party fails
to comply with an order granting support pendente lite, the court
shall, motu proprio, or upon motion, issue an order of execution
against him, without prejudice to his liability for contempt
Rule 62: Interpleader
Q: Venue and Jurisdiction: Interpleader
Jurisdiction: If real property, with the RTC if the value of the
property within Metro Manila exceeds P50,000, otherwise MTC
If real property, with the RTC if the value of property outside
Metro Manila exceeds P20,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the value of the property
within Metro Manila exceeds P400,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the value of the property
outside Metro Manila exceeds P300,000, otherwise with the MTC
Venue: If real property, where the real property or a part thereof
is situated
If personal property, where the plaintiff or any principal plaintiff
resides or any of the principal defendant or any defendants
resides, or in case of a non-resident where he may be found at the
election of the plaintiff
Rule 63: Declaratory Relief and Other Similar Remedies
Q: On what ground may quieting of title may issue?
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on (a) title to real property or
(b) any interest therein, by reason of any: instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding (IRCEP) which is apparently
valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable (IIVU), and may be prejudicial to said
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet
the title.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or
interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the
action. He need not be in possession of said property.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over an action for quieting of
title?
A: RTC or MTC depending on the assessed value of the property
Rule 64: Review of Judgments and Final Order or Resolutions of
the COMELEC and COA
Q: Respondent Provincial Government of Antique (LGU) and the
petitioner executed a MOA concerning the life insurance
coverage of qualified barangay secretaries, treasurers and
tanod, the former obligating P4,393,593.60 for the premium
payment, and subsequently submitting the corresponding
disbursement voucher to COA Antique for pre-audit. The latter
office disallowed the payment for lack of legal basis under R.A.
7610, LGC. Respondent LGU appealed but its appeal was denied.
Consequently, the petitioner filed its petition for money claim in
the COA. On November 15, 2012, the COA issued its decision
denying the petition, holding that under Sec. 447 and Sec. 458,
LGC only municipal or city governments are expressly vested
with the power to secure group insurance coverage for barangay
workers; and noting the LGU’s failure to comply with the
requirement of publication under Sec. 21 of R.A. 9184
(Government Procurement Reform Act).
The petitioner received a copy of the COA decision on December
14, 2012, and filed it MR on January 14, 2013. However, the COA
denied the motion, the denial being received by the petitioner
on July 14, 2014.
Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on August
12, 2014, but the petition for certiorari was dismissed as earlier
stated through the resolution promulgated on August 19, 2014
for (a) the late filing of the petition; (b) the non-submission of
the proof of service and verified declaration; and (c) the failure
to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondents.
In its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner submits that it
filed the petition for certiorari within the reglementary period
following the fresh period rule enunciated in Neypes v. CA; and
that the petition for certiorari included an affidavit of service in
compliance with Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. It
admits having overlooked the submission of a verified
declaration; and prays that the declaration attached to the
motion for reconsideration be admitted by virtue of its
substantial compliance with the Efficient Use of Paper Rule by
previously submitting a compact disc (CD) containing the
petition for certiorari and its annexes. It disagrees with the
Court, insisting that it showed and proved grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the COA in issuing the assailed decision.
(a) Can the Neypes Rule apply in Rule 64?
(b) Can Neypes Rule can be given retroactive effect?
A: The petitioner posits that the fresh period rule applies because
its Rule 64 petition is akin to a petition for review brought under
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court; hence, conformably with the fresh
period rule, the period to file a Rule 64 petition should also be
reckoned from the receipt of the order denying the motion for
reconsideration or the motion for new trial.
The petitioner’s position cannot be sustained.
There is no parity between the petition for review under Rule 42
and the petition for certiorari under Rule 64.
As to the nature of the procedures, Rule 42 governs an appeal
from the judgment or final order rendered by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Such appeal is on a question
of fact, or of law, or of mixed question of fact and law, and is
given due course only upon a prima facie showing that the RTC
committed an error of fact or law warranting the reversal or
modification of the challenged judgment or final order. In
contrast, the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is similar to the
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and assails a judgment or
final order of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), or the
Commission on Audit (COA). The petition is not designed to
correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
Questions of fact cannot be raised except to determine whether
the COMELEC or the COA were guilty of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are
different. In the former, the aggrieved party is allowed 15 days to
file the petition for review from receipt of the assailed decision or
final order, or from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial
or reconsideration. In the latter, the petition is filed within 30
days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if allowed under the procedural rules of the
Commission concerned, interrupts the period; hence, should the
motion be denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within
the remaining period, which shall not be less than five days in any
event, reckoned from the notice of denial.
The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on January 14,
2013, which was 31 days after receiving the assailed decision of
the COA on December 14, 2012. Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 64,
it had only five days from receipt of the denial of its motion for
reconsideration to file the petition. Considering that it received
the notice of the denial on July 14, 2014, it had only until July 19,
2014 to file the petition. However, it filed the petition on August
13, 2014, which was 25 days too late.
We ruled in Pates v. COMELEC that the belated filing of the
petition for certiorari under Rule 64 on the belief that the fresh
period rule should apply was fatal to the recourse. As such, the
petitioner herein should suffer the same fate for having wrongly
assumed that the fresh period rule under Neypes applied. Rules of
procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice
that is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness
in not complying with the prescribed procedure. Absent this
reason for liberality, the petition cannot be allowed to prosper.
Q:
(a) In case of judgment, final order or resolution of COA, what
is your remedy? (You will be asked as counsel the legal
recourse)
A: File a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation Rule 65
within 30 days from notice of judgment, final order or resolution.
(b) Provided that MR was filed within the 15 day period, but it
was denied, how many days will you file the petition for
certiorari?
A: Within 15 days (balance of the 30 day period). Note: Neypes
rule is not applicable in Rule 64 petition for certiorari.
Rule 65: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
Petitioner Rolly Mijares (Mijares) prays for the issuance of a writ
of mandamus in order to compel this court to exercise its judicial
independence and fiscal autonomy against the perceived
hostility of Congress. The complaint implied that certain acts of
members of Congress and the President after the promulgation
of these cases show a threat to judicial independence. Will
mandamus lie?
Answer: Requisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus not
shown Rule 65, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that:
Rule 65, Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus – When any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some
other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to
be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the
damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful
acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
The writ of mandamus will issue when the act sought to be
performed is ministerial. An act is ministerial when it does not
require the exercise of judgment and the act is performed in
compliance with a legal mandate. In a petition for mandamus, the
burden of proof is on petitioner to show that one is entitled to the
performance of a legal right and that respondent has a
corresponding duty to perform the act. Mandamus will not lie "to
compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or
which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant anything
to which he is not entitled by law."
In this case, petitioner has not shown how he is entitled to the
relief prayed for. Hence, this court cannot be compelled to
exercise its power of judicial review since there is no actual case
or controversy.
Note: See Highlighted parts
Q: XPN to the Rule that certiorari is not a substitute for lost
appeal
Associated Anglo American Tabacco Corp. v. CA. While ordinarily,
certiorari is unavailing where the appeal period has lapsed, there
are exceptions:
(1) When public welfare and the advancement of public policy
dictates (PW-APP-D);
(2) When the broader interest of justice so requires; (BIJ)
(3) When the writs issued are null and void; (WI-NV)
(4) When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive
exercise of judicial authority (OppEx)
(5) When, for persuasive reasons (FPR), the rules may be
relaxed to relieve the litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure
(6) In other meritorious cases.
Q: Can a petition for certiorari be filed questioning the wisdom
and legal soundness of a decision?
A: No, because errors in the exercise of jurisdiction is not within
the province of a petition for certiorari. The proper remedy in
questioning the legal soundness of a decision is to file an appeal.
Petition for certiorari File a petition for certiorari, the
petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
In case of grave abuse of File MR, then file a petition for
discretion of Civil Service certiorari with the Supreme
Commission Court
Rule 66: Quo Warranto
Q: Venue of Quo Warranto
A: If commenced by a private person, Petition for quo warranto
may be filed in the SC, CA or RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction
over the area where the respondent resides. It may also be filed
with the Sandiganbayan in aid of appellate jurisdiction in case
falling under E.O. 1, 2, 14, 14-A pursuant to R.A. 10660. It may
also be filed in the Sharia District Courts under P.D. 1083.
In case it is commenced by the Solicitor General, it may be filed
with the SC, CA or the RTC in the City of Manila.
Rule 67: Expropriation
Q: During the pendency of the trial, the property expropriated
was no longer intended for public purpose. Plaintiff filed a
motion to discontinue expropriation. Rule on the motion

A: Motion to discontinue expropriation granted.
Under the 1987 Constitution, private property shall not be taken
for public use without payment of just compensation. Moreover,
jurisprudence provided that public use is a continuing
requirement in expropriation proceeding such that if it cease to
exist, it becomes duty of the court to dismiss the complaint.
Hence, since the property expropriated is no longer intended of
public purpose, the motion to discontinue expropriation
proceedings must be granted.
(b) Is the respondent entitled to anything, if any?
Answer: Respondent shall not be entitled to “just compensation”
since the property expropriated shall be reverted to him as a
consequence of the expropriation proceedings. However, he shall
be entitled to actual and other compensatory damages from the
time of taking (filing of complaint/actual taking) up to the time
that the property is reverted to him.
Expropriation. Is motion to dismiss allowed in expropriation?
Answer: Under Rule 67, Motion to Dismiss is not allowed in
expropriation proceedings. The proper remedy is to file an Answer
and raise affirmative defense the grounds for dismissal.
Q: Counter-claim and cross-claim allowed in Expropriation?
A: No. Cross-claims and counterclaims are prohibited pleadings in
expropriation
Q: Motion to dismiss in expropriation
A: Under Rule 67, the court shall order the party affected by the
expropriation to file his Answer in case of a Motion to dismiss in
case he has any objection or defenses that he wants to raise. The
Answer must be served within the period stated in the summons.
Certification of non-forum shopping is required.
Adverse decision in The appeal shall be taken
expropriation, how made? within 15 days from notice of
judgment or final order appeal
from. Where a record on
appeal is required, the
appellant shall file a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal
within 30 days from notice of
the judgment or final order.
Appeal is with the RTC
Rule 68: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Q: When can equity of redemption be exercised?
A; The mortgagor may exercise his equity of redemption in judicial
foreclosure in the following cases
(1) during the period of not less than 90 days nor more than
120 days from entry of judgment of foreclosure or
(2) Even after the foreclosure sale but before judicial
confirmation of the same.
The exception is when the mortgagee is a bank or other finance
institutions, there shall be a right of redemption within one (1)
year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale, even if
it is a judicial foreclosure of mortgage
Q: Is a third party claim allowed in expropriation?
A: As expressly provided under Rule 67, third party claim is a
prohibited pleading in actions for expropriation.
Q: Remedy in case of death of mortgagor
Rule 86, Sec. 7. Mortgage debt due from estate — A creditor
holding a claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or
other collateral security, may:
(1) Abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the manner
provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of
the assets of the estate; or
(2) He may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security,
by action in court, making the executor or administrator a
party defendant, and
(3) If there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the
mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the
foreclosure or other proceeding to realize upon the security,
he may claim his deficiency judgment in the manner
provided in the preceding Section or
(4) He may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone, and
foreclosure the same at any time within the period of the
statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be
admitted as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the
distribution of the other assets of estate;
but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the executor or
administrator from redeeming the property mortgaged or
pledged, by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under
the direction of the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be for
the best interest of the estate that such redemption shall be
made.
Q: Venue of foreclosure of REM
A: it shall be filed with the MTC or RTC based on the jurisdictional
value in the place where the real property mortgaged is situated.
Q: Venue and Jurisdiction: Foreclosure of Mortgage
Jurisdiction: Where the value of the property exceeds 50,000
within Metro Manila, the venue is with the RTC, otherwise the
MTC
Where the value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside Metro
Manila, the venue is with the RTC, otherwise the MTC
Venue: Where the real property or part thereof is situated
Denial of Foreclosure of REM The appeal shall be taken
within 15 days from notice of
judgment or final order appeal
from. Where a record on
appeal is required, the
appellant shall file a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal
within 30 days from notice of
the judgment or final order.
Appeal is with the RTC or CA as
the case may be
Rule 69: Partition
Q: Partition available in an action for quieting of title (True or
False)
Alejandrino v. CA, (1998). False. Partition of the estate may not
be ordered in an action for quieting of title.
Partition and action for quieting of title are separate and distinct
actions, both being independent actions in itself.
Partition is the division of a property subject of a co-ownership,
governed by Rule 69 while action to quiet title is an action to
remove any cloud in the title to real property which appears to be
valid by reason of some instrument, record, or encumbrance but
is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or
unenforceable which is governed by Rule 63
Q: What are the Stages of Partition?
A: The stages of partition are as follows:
(1) First stage: The determination of the propriety of the
partition
(2) Second stage: The actual partitioning of the subject property
(3) Third Stage: The implementation and execution of the order
of partition

Q: Which court has jurisdiction in an action for partition?
A: The RTC or MTC depending on the assessed value of the real
property, or the value of the personal properties involved in the
action.
Q: Venue and Jurisdiction: Partition
Jurisdiction: If real property, with the RTC if the value of the
property within Metro Manila exceeds P50,000, otherwise MTC
If real property, with the RTC if the value of property outside
Metro Manila exceeds P20,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the value of the property
within Metro Manila exceeds P400,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the value of the property
outside Metro Manila exceeds P300,000, otherwise with the MTC
Venue: If real property, where the real property or a part thereof
is situated
If personal property, where the plaintiff or any principal plaintiff
resides or any of the principal defendant or any defendants
resides, or in case of a non-resident where he may be found at the
election of the plaintiff
Adverse decision in partition, The appeal shall be taken
how made within 15 days from notice of
judgment or final order appeal
from. Where a record on
appeal is required, the
appellant shall file a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal
within 30 days from notice of
the judgment or final order.
Appeal is with the RTC
Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Q: Jurisdiction and Venue: Accion Interdictal
Jurisdiction: MTC, MeTC, MCTC
Venue: Where the real property or part thereof is situated
Q: Plaintiff in unlawful detainer refuses to receive the payment
of rentals of the defendant.
A: There must be valid tender of payment the lessor and it must
be shown that the refusal to receive the payment of rentals is
unjustified. After such tender of payment, notice to lessor and
consignation with the court of competent jurisdiction must be
complied with.
Q: What are the mandatory allegations in an action for forcible
entry?
A: The mandatory allegations in an action for forcible entry are:
(1) Plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the
property
(2) Plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of his possession
by means of FISTS
Q: Remedy in case of adverse decision in forcible entry and
unlawful detainer.
A: Appeal to the RTC by notice of appeal within 15 days from
notice of judgment plus the filing of supersedeas bond approved
by the court and the payment of periodic monthly rentals
Q: Defect in the demand to pay and vacate in unlawful detainer
A: I will raise as a defense the defect in the demand letter sent by
A. It is a requirement in unlawful detainer cases that there must
be a demand to pay and vacate but the lessee refused to do the
same.
Q: Restoration of possession of property during pendency of
FEUD
A: Remedy is to file a motion for the issuance of preliminary
mandatory injunction within 10 days from the perfection of
appeal to restore the plaintiff to the possession of the property
upon showing that the appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that
appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious.
Q: Failure to pay periodic monthly rentals.
A: File a motion for an order of execution of the judgment
appealed from upon proof of such failure to pay such periodic
monthly rentals with respect to the restoration of possession. But
such execution shall not be a bar to the appeal taking its course
until final disposition thereof on the merits under Rule 70, Sec. 19.
Q: A filed an Unlawful Detainer case before the MTC alleging
that he is the owner of a condominium unit leased by B by
verbal agreement with a monthly rental of P20,000. A sent a
demand letter to B demanding payment of P200,000
representing rental arrears and to vacate the premises within 15
days from receipt of the same, but despite receipt B refused to
vacate. B failed to file an answer, hence A filed a Motion to
Render Judgment and the MTC considered the case submitted
for decision.
The judge dismissed the case for lack of merit due to A’s failure
to prove his ownership by preponderance of evidence since
there is no evidence attached to the complaint in support of his
cause of action against B.
Is the court correct in dismissing the complaint?
A: Fairland Knitcraft Corp. v. Loo Po, (2016). No. The court is not
correct in dismissing the petition.
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, Section 6 is clear that in
case the defendant failed to file his answer, the court shall render
judgment, either motu proprio or upon plaintiff’s motion, based
solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is
prayed for. The failure of the defendant to timely file his answer
and to controvert the claim against him constitutes his
acquiescence to every allegation stated in the complaint.
Logically, there is nothing to be done in this situation except to
render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the
complaint.
Thus, A is entitled to the judgment based solely on the facts
alleged in the complaint.
Q: A filed an unlawful detainer case against B due to non-
payment of rentals before the MTC. After due hearing, the court
rendered a decision in favor of A, ordering B to vacate the
premises and to pay monthly rentals plus attorney’s fees. B
appealed the decision of the RTC and deposited the current
monthly rentals with the said court. While the case was pending
appeal, A ‘s counsel filed a motion for execution for its non-
perfection for failure to file a supersedeas bond. The judge
issued a writ of execution.
a. Is the order of execution pending appeal correct? Why?
b. Remedy as counsel for the defendant Why?
A:
a. Yes, since the payment of supersedeas bond is required to
stay the execution pending appeal
Under Rule 70, in unlawful detainer cases, execution shall issue
immediately upon motion, unless appeal has been perfected and
the defendant files a supersedeas bond, executes in favor of
plaintiff the payment of rents and period deposits to cover the
amount of rentals due.
In this case, since supersedeas bond is not paid. Hence, execution
pending appeal shall issue immediately.
b. File a MR. Then appeal to the Court of Appeals via Rule 42
and ask for Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction. In
 case of adverse judgment, MR under Rule 52. In case of
denial of MR, file a petition of review on certiorari under
Rule 45.
Improper Venue in Unlawful File Answer and raise as
Detainer Cases affirmative defense the ground
of improper venue and
proceed to trial.
Note: Motion to dismiss is a
prohibited motion in summary
proceedings. So hindi pede
mag MTD.
Adverse Decision in Accion If originally filed with the MTC,
Publiciana, how made? file a notice of appeal within 15
days from notice of judgment
or final order appealed from
under Rule 40. Appeal is with
the RTC
If originally filed with the RTC,
file a notice of appeal within 15
days from notice of judgment
or final order appealed from
under Rule 41 with the RTC.
Adverse decision in interdictal, File a notice of appeal within
how made? 15 days from notice of
judgment or final order
appealed from under Rule 41.
Appeal should be filed with the
RTC
1. FEUD, defendant in case Motion for the issuance of
of non-payment of order of execution
periodic monthly rentals
Rule 71: Contempt
Q: What are the kinds of contempt under the Rules?
A: Yes. The courts have power to cite person in administrative failure of the plaintiff to appear. The dismissal shall be without
cases when the administrative agency where contemptuous act prejudice, and the court may proceed with the counterclaim.
was committed has power to cite the power of contempt. In
which case, the complaint for indirect contempt shall be filed with If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, the court shall
the RTC of the place where the contemptuous act was committed. receive evidence ex parte.
As a general rule, an administrative body may not cite a person in Since the dismissal is without prejudice, the remedy is to re-file
contempt unless a statute gives it authority to do so. the case and ensure attendance in the pre-trial conference.
Furthermore, it must be used only in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial function. If it has no express authority to cite a person in Q: Remedy in case of dismissal of SLAPP.
contempt, it should file a case for contempt in the RTC where the
contemptuous act is committed. A: The dismissal of the action by reason that it is a SLAPP is with
prejudice. Hence, the remedy is to appeal
Q: Remedy in case of indirect contempt
Action is a SLAPP Rules on Envi, Rule 6, Sec. 2.
A: The judgment or final order of court in a case of indirect SLAPP as a defense; how
contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in criminal alleged – In a SLAPP filed
cases. against a person involved in
the enforcement of
But the execution of the judgment or final order shall not be environmental laws, protection
suspended until a bond is filed in the amount fixed by the court of the environment, or
from which appeal is taken conditioned that if appeal is against assertion of environmental
him he shall abide and perform the judgment or final order. rights, the defendant may file
his answer interposing as
Adverse decision in indirect Under Rule 71, Sec. 11, the defense that the case is a
contempt judgment or final order of a SLAPP and shall be supported
court in a case of indirect may by documents, affidavits,
be appealed to the proper papers, and other evidence,
court as in criminal cases. But and, by way of counterclaim,
execution of the judgment or pray for damages; attorney’s
final order shall not be fees and costs of suit.
suspended until a bond is filed
by the person adjudged in In case of adverse decision in
contempt, in an amount fixed SLAPP.
by the court from which the
appeal is taken, conditioned Rules on Envi, Rule 6, Sec. 4.
that if the appeal be decided The dismissal shall be with
against him he will abide by prejudice.
and perform the judgment or
final order. Remedy: Appeal

A: The kinds of contempt under the Rules are: Rule on Environmental Cases File a Writ of Kalikasan and ask
for Temporary Environmental
(1) Direct contempt Consent Decree under the Rules on Environmental cases means a Protection Order in the same
(2) Indirect contempt judicially approved compromise between the parties concerned action
(3) Civil contempt based on public policy and interest in order to protect and
(4) Criminal contempt preserve the environment. Writ of Continuing Mandamus
(5) Out of court contempt
(6) In-court contempt Q: Failure to appear in pre-trial hearing in environmental cases Q: Can a writ of mandamus be enforced in two or more cities?

Q: Power of courts to cite persons in contempt in administrative Sec. 7. Effect of failure to appear at pre-trial – The court shall not A: No, the power of the court, in this case the RTC, to issue a
case. dismiss the complaint, except upon repeated and unjustified continuing mandamus can only be exercised and implemented
within the territorial area where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred.
 45. being a “responsive pleading” pleading in light of supervening
Q: What is continuing mandamus? under the Rules events, setting forth
The appeal may raise questions “transactions, occurrences or
A: Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in of fact or law or both. events (TOE) which have
environmental cases directing any agency or instrumentality of happened since the date of the
the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of The period to appeal shall be 5 pleading sought to be
act decreed by final judgment which shall remain until judgment working days from the date of supplemented.
is fully satisfied. notice of the adverse
judgment. The appeal shall be The court may however
Denial of Continuing File MR, if denied, file petition given priority as in habeas require an amendment during
Mandamus for certiorari under Rule 65 corpus. the presentation of evidence of
with the next lower court the plaintiff, if evidence that is
Distinctions not in issue is not objected to
by the defendant, in which
Writ of Kalikasan
case the evidence is deemed
Q: Error of Judgment v. Error of Jurisdiction “impliedly admitted” so an
Q: What is a writ of kalikasan? amendment is not really
Error of Judgment Error of Jurisdiction necessary to appreciate the
A: Under the Rules on Environmental Cases, a writ of kalikasan is a One which the court may One which the court acts evidence; or when an objection
remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity commit in the exercise of without or in excess of was in fact made, but at the
authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental jurisdiction jurisdiction liberal discretion of the court
organization or any public interest group accredited by or Such an error does not deprive Such an error renders an order “if the presentation of the
registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons the court of jurisdiction or judgment void or voidable merits of the action and the
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is Correctible by appeal Correctible by the special civil ends of substantial justice will
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or action of certiorari be subserved thereby (Rule 10,
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or Sec. 5)
entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to Q: Failure to State Cause of Action v. Lack of Cause of Action If the motion to dismiss is If a demurrer is denied, the
prejudice life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more denied, the movant shall be defendant shall have the right
cities or provinces required to file his answer to present evidence
Failure to State Cause of Lack of Cause of Action
Action within the balance of the
Denial of Writ of Kalikasan Under Rule 7, Sec. 16 of the Rule 16, Sec. 1(g) Rule 33; Rule 10, Sec. 5 period to which he is entitled
Rules on Environmental cases, at the time such motion was
Refers to the insufficiency of Refers to a situation where the
within 15 days from the date of filed, but in no case shall be
the pleading, and a ground for evidence does not prove the
notice of the adverse judgment less than five (5) days (Rule 16,
dismissal under Rule 16 cause of action alleged in the
or denial of the motion for Sec. 4)
pleading
reconsideration, any party may If a motion to dismiss on the If a demurrer to evidence is
A matter of insufficiency of the A matter of insufficiency of
appeal to the SC under Rule 45. ground of failure to state a granted, the dismissal is with
pleading evidence
The appeal may raise question cause of action has been prejudice, as the same is
The remedy is to move for The remedy is to demur to
of fact. granted, the dismissal is considered a judgment on the
dismissal of the pleading evidence
without prejudice to the merits of the case, hence, the
Motion to dismiss is made Demurrer is filed after the
Rules on Writ of Amparo refilling of the action remedy of the plaintiff is to
within the time for but before plaintiff has completed the
appeal from such judgment.
the filing of an answer presentation of his
Q: May writ of amparo be availed of in case a party fails to evidence/rested its case.
Consequently, on appeal, if the
perfect an appeal or file petition for certiorari? Determined on the basis of the Based on the appreciation of judgment was reversed, the
allegations in the complaint of evidence
defendant shall be deemed to
A: No, the writ of amparo is not an alternative or a substitute the plaintiff
have waived his right to
remedy in case party fails to perfect an appeal or to file a petition May still be curable by When a demurrer is filed on present his evidence
for certiorari. Moreover, it only covers enforced disappearances amendment of the pleading the ground of insufficiency of
and extrajudicial killings. May be invoked in a motion to The ground of insufficiency of
(Rule 16, Sec. 3) as a matter of evidence after the plaintiff dismiss or as an affirmative evidence may be invoked in a
right before a responsive rests its case, the latter may
defense in the pleading (Rule motion for demurrer to
Denial of Writ of Amparo Under Sec. 19 of the Rule on pleading has been filed, even not anymore ask for an
16, Sec. 6) evidence (Rule 33), in a MR
Writ of Amparo, any party may when a motion to dismiss on amendment of his pleading, (Rule 37) or in an appeal
appeal from the final judgment such ground has been made by but may ask the court for the
memorandum
or order to the SC under Rule the defendant, the same not admission of a supplemental
Q: Compulsory Counterclaim v. Permissive Counterclaim
Compulsory Counterclaim
Also known as Principle of
recoupment
Arises out of or is connected
with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing
party’s claim
Barred if not set-up in the
answer (or in the amended
answer)
Plaintiff need not answer. He
cannot be declared in default
for not answering
Does not require certification
against forum shopping
Docket and other lawful fees
are suspended
Responsive pleading
Does not require for its
adjudication presence of third
parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction
defendant’s whereabouts is unknown which was granted by the
court. Is the service valid?
Permissive Counterclaim
Also known as Principle of set-
off
May not arise out of and may
not be connected with the
transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter
of the opposing party’s claim
Not barred even if not set up in
the answer
Plaintiff need to answer. He
can be declared in default in
respect thereto
Requires certification of non-
forum shopping
Docket and other lawful fees
should be paid
Initiatory pleading
Requires for its adjudication
the presence of third parties of
whom the court can acquire
jurisdiction

Tita Cory died of cancer last Aug. 1, 2009 in QC in her place of

residence, leaving a will. May the RTC of Manila take cognizance
of the petition for probate of her will even if she left no
properties in Manila?

In proceedings for the settlement of D’s Estate, H, one of the

heirs, caused the annotation of notice of lis pendens on real
properties of the estate. The other heirs moved to cancel this
annotation on the ground that it was not necessary to protect
the rights of H. Is the annotation correct?

A filed an unlawful detainer case against B before the Manila-

MTC. On the scheduled hearing, A failed to appear and his case
was dismissed w/o prejudice. A filed a MR on the said dismissal,
which was opposed by B on the ground that it was a prohibited
motion. Rule on the motion.

Due to lack material time, A filed a MR on the judgment on the

15th day without setting the same for hearing due to urgency.
Upon receipt, the court denied the motion for lack of merit.
Denial correct?

A filed a case for injunction with damages before the RTC against
B Corp. Summons cannot be served to the officers of B Corp.
despite repeated efforts and substituted service. A filed a
motion to serve summons by publication on the ground that the