Page 1 of 23
1. ZACARIAS VS. ANACAY G.R. NO. 202354 SEPT. 4, 2014
It is the rule is that what determines the nature of the action & court which has
jurisdiction over the case, are the allegations in the complaint.
The complaint failed to allege a cause of action for unlawful detainer as it does not describe
possession by the respondents being initially legal or tolerated by the petitioner and which
became illegal upon termination by the petitioner of such lawful possession. In ejectment
cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly
within the class of cases for which Section 112 of Rule 70 provides a summary remedy, and
must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.
Such remedy is either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. While in forcible entry, the plaintiff
is deprived of physical possession of his land or building by means of force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth. In illegal detainer, the defendant.
2. BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC VS COURT OF APPEALS AND
LOLITA G. TOLEDO. G.R. NO. 173946 JUNE 19, 2013
The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result
ofestoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter.
3. SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL VS. MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY G.R. NO. L-
21450 APRIL 15, 1968
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different
reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel
by laches.
Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it
is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which
requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of
limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
4. MACASAET VS. CO G.R. NO. 156759 JUNE 5 2013
Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam is the power of the court to render a
personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other
rulings rendered in the action.
It is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal, except
in actions in rem or quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the defendant in an action in rem or quasi
in rem is not required because the court acquires jurisdiction over an action as long as it
acquires jurisdiction over the res that is the subject matter of the action. The purpose of
summons in such action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to
satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process.
5. BERNARDO VS. HEIRS OF VILLEGAS G.R. 183357
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the
proceeding. Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the court may dismiss
a claim or a case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that
any of those grounds exists, even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion to
dismiss. The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very
authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action.
However, estoppel sets in when a party participates in all stages of a case before challenging
the jurisdiction of the lower court. One cannot belatedly reject or repudiate its decision after
voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction, just to secure affirmative relief against one's opponent
or after failing to obtain such relief. The Court has, time and again, frowned upon the
undesirable practice of a party submitting a case for decision and then accepting the judgment,
only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.
6. RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS VS. SEC. ANGELO REYES G.R. 180771
May the resident mammals in representation by the stewards have locus standi to file a case,
or whether or not animals or even inanimate objects should be given legal standing in actions
before courts of law.
The rules of court demand that parties to a suit be either natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law. It necessitates that the action must be brought in the name of the
real party – in – interest, even if filed by a representatives.

Thus, the SC said that people who have a meaningful relation to that animals or
inanimate objects, including man, who are dependent on it, or who enjoy it for its sight,
its sound, or its life, must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and
which are threaten with destruction.
Therefore, having shown in the petition that there may be possible violations of laws
concerning the habitats of the marine mammals, the petitioners then declared to have
the legal standing to file this petition.
7. JORGE PADERANGA VS. BUISSAN G.R. No. L-49475
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of
a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real
property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to
real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability,
while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person.
Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an
action in rem.
where the ultimate purpose of an action involves title to or seeks recovery of possession,
partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, such an action
must be deemed a real action and must perforce be commenced and tried in the province
where the property or any part thereof lies.
8. CABRERA VS. CLARIN G.R. 215640
A court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal for the
same is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take
cognizance of and to render judgment on the action. It applies even if the issue on jurisdiction
was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment. The exception to the basic
rule mentioned operates on the principle of estoppel by laches whereby a party may be barred
by laches from invoking the lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling
everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea.
Page 2 of 23
9. ALONA G. ROLDAN VS. SPS. BARRIOS G.R. NO. 214803 APRIL 23, 2018
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal trial courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the
claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by RTC.
10. SPOUSES ROMEO PAJARES VS. REMARKABLE LAUNDRY AND DRY
CLEANING G.R. NO. 212690
A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory obligation contained in the penal
clause is actually an action for damages capable of pecuniary estimation.
In an action for damages, the court which has jurisdiction is determined by the total amount
of damages claimed.
10. SPOUSES ROMEO PAJARES VS. REMARKABLE LAUNDRY AND DRY
CLEANING G.R. NO. 212690
To determine whether or not an action is capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought must be determined. Actions other than the recovery of a
sum of money wherein the money claim is purely incidental to the relief sought are not
capable of pecuniary estimation and belong to the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Breach of contract may give rise to a complaint for specific performance or rescission of
contract. In which case, the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction
is lodged with the RTC. However, breach of contract may also be the cause of action in a
complaint for damages. A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory obligation
contained in the penal clause is actually an action for damages capable of pecuniary estimation.
11. HEIRS OF MARCELINO DORONIO VS. HEIRS OF FORTUNATO
DORONIO G.R. NO. 169454

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact. A special proceeding must be instituted
independently in a proceeding for particular relief.
An action for reconveyance with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to
settlement of the estate of a deceased person partake of the nature of a special proceeding.
Special proceedings require the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of
Court. Thus, issues on the impairment of legitime cannot be raised in a civil an action for
reconveyance and damages.
12. RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS VS. REYES G.R. NO. 180771 APRIL 21,
2015
(1) The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allow any Filipino citizen, as a
steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce environmental laws.
(2) Unwilling co-plaintiff: An unwilling party’s name cannot be simply included in a
petition without his knowledge and consent because doing so would deny due process.
13. IN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF
JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL
AUTONOMY UDK-15143 January 21, 2015
A person asserting a public right as a citizen or taxpayer does so as a representative of the
general public. To determine locus standi in these actions, the “direct injury test” is used. A
person who impugns the validity of the suit must have "a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result. The rule is
occasionally relaxed in matters of “transcendental importance to the public”. Such is
determined in a case-to-case basis.
Factors considered in determining “transcendental importance”:
(1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;
Page 3 of 23
(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition
by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and
(3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the
questions being raised.
14. UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL INC. VS COSLAP G.R. 135945
Non-compliance with the requirement of submission of the certification against forum
shopping cannot be excused by the fact that plaintiff is not guilty of forum shopping.
Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from, and independent
of, the avoidance of forum shopping itself.
Failure to comply with the certification requirement is a cause for dismissal, without prejudice,
of the complaint or initiatory pleading while forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal
and constitutes direct contempt.
15. HEIRS OF AUSTINO MESINA VS. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR G.R.
NO. 201816
(1) A non-joinder of indispensable party is not a failure of the complaint to state a cause
of action. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of
an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties
may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If
the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court,
that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order.
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
(2) Verification is a formal requirement, not jurisdictional. It is mainly intended to secure
an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true and
correct and not of mere speculation. Thus, when circumstances so warrant, "the court
may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict
compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served."
16. ALTRES VS. EMPLEO G.R. NO. 180986
 Page 4 of 23

Non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification v. non-

compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum
shopping:

1) Non-compliance with the rule on verification or having a defective verification does

not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading.

Non-compliance with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping or having a

defect in the certification is generally not curable by its later submission or correction
unless the court relaxes the grounds for compelling reasons.

2) 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.

The certification on non-forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners,

otherwise those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. When all the
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense,
the signature of one is considered substantial compliance. The certification against
forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not his counsel. If for reasons
he is unable to sign, a Special Power of Attorney may be executed designating his
counsel to sign on his behalf.

17. SAMELCO II VS. ANANIAS D. SELUDO, G.R. NO. 173840
(1) Doctrine of primary jurisdiction: The court may suspend a judicial process to enforce
a claim and refer the issues to an administrative agency having special competence or,
if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.
Principle of exhaustion administrative remedies: Before a party can seek the
intervention of the courts, it is a pre-condition that he avail himself of all the
administrative process available to him. Premature resort to the court is fatal to ones
cause of action. Absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case may be dismissed
for lack of cause of action.
(2) Exceptions to the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative
remedies:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical
and oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided
by the courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
(j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) where strong public interest is involved; and
(l) in quo warranto proceedings
18. GUERRERO VS. DIRECTOR OF LMB G.R. NO. 183641 APRIL 22, 2015
Page 5 of 23
Forum shopping can be committed by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved, making the subsequent
case susceptible to dismissal based on res judicata.
To invoke res judicata as a test of whether forum shopping was committed, substantial identity
of parties is sufficient. There is substantial identity of parties when there is shared identity of
interest between a party in the first case and that in the second one, even if the latter party was
not impleaded in the first. There is identity of parties not only when the parties in the cases are
the same, but also between those in privity with them, such as between their successors-in-
interest. Absolute identity of parties is not required.
19. MANCHESTER VS. CA G.R. NO. 75919
All complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of
damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said
damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that
fails to comply with this requirement shall be accepted.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket
fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not vest jurisdiction in the Court,
much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading.
20. HEIRS OF REINOSO VS. CA G.R. NO. 116121
The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory. In Manchester v. Court of Appeals, it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction
over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. The strict application of this
rule was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v.
Asuncion, wherein the Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. This
ruling was made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated his willingness to abide by
the rules by paying the additional docket fees required. Thus, in the more recent case of United
Overseas Bank v. Ros, the Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to
defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules

by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated
in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict regulations set in Manchester, will apply. It has
been on record that the Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-
payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their
cases on the merits. In the case of La Salette College v. Pilotin, the Court stated:
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of
appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified
by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period
allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power
should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion
in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great
deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances.
While there is a crying need to unclog court dockets on the one hand, there is, on the
other, a greater demand for resolving genuine disputes fairly and equitably, for it is far better
to dispose of a case on the merit which is a primordial end, rather than on a technicality that
may result in injustice.
In this case, it cannot be denied that the case was litigated before the RTC and said trial
court had already rendered a decision. While it was at that level, the matter of non-payment of
docket fees was never an issue. It was only the CA which motu propio dismissed the case for
said reason.
Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the
rules so that the petitioners would be able to fully and finally prosecute their claim on the
merits at the appellate level rather than fail to secure justice on a technicality, for, indeed,
the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival
claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but
to promote the administration of justice.
21. CARSON VS. RED ROBIN SECURITY GR no. 225035
Page 6 of 23
In actions in personam, such as the present case, the court acquires jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. However,
because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service and personal service
of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have unbridled right to resort
to substituted service of summons. Before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the
parties must: (a) indicate the impossibility of personal service of summons within a reasonable
time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was
served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is
in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant.
22. DANFOSS VS CONTINENTAL (note blossoms inc vs. mgc) GR 143788
The principle of anticipatory breach enunciated in Blossom & Company, Inc. v.
Manila Gas Corporation does not apply here. In that case, Blossom & Company, Inc. entered
into a contract with Manila Gas Corporation for the sale and delivery of water gas and coal gas
tar at stipulated prices for a period of four years. On the second year of the contract, Manila
Gas willfully and deliberately refused to deliver any coal and water gas tar to Blossom and
Company, Inc. because it was asking for a higher price than what had been previously stipulated
by them. The price of its tar products had gone up. We held that:
even if the contract is divisible in its performance and the future periodic
deliveries are not yet due, if the obligor has already manifested his refusal to
comply with his future periodic obligations, the contract is entire and the
breach total, hence, there can only be one action for damages.[10]
Thus, the principle contemplates future periodic deliveries and a willful refusal to
comply therewith. Here, the obligation was single and indivisible to deliver two units of
frequency converter/inverter by November 19, 1997. The records do not show that petitioner
 Page 7 of 23

form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the
refused to deliver the goods on the date agreed upon. On the contrary, petitioner exerted efforts substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible,
with page references to the record;
to make good its obligation by looking for other suppliers who could provide it the parts needed
x x x x
to make timely delivery of the frequency converter/inverter ordered by respondent.
(f) Under the heading “Argument,” the appellant’s arguments on each assignment of
23. LUI ENTERPRISES VS. ZUELLIG G.R. N. 193494 MARCH 12, 2014 error with page references to the record. The authorities relied upon shall be cited by
the page of the report at which the case begins and the page of the report on which the
Under Rule 50, Section 1, paragraph (f) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court citation is found;
of Appeals may, on its own motion or that of the appellee, dismiss an appeal should the
appellant’s brief lack specific requirements under Rule 44, Section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d), xxxx
and (f):
Lui Enterprises’ appellant’s brief lacked a subject index, page references to the record,
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. – An appeal may be dismissed by the Court and table of cases, textbooks and statutes cited. Under Rule 50, Section 1 of the 1997
of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:c
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Lui Enterprises’
x x x x appeal.

(f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page
references to the record as required in Section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (f) of
Rule 44.
These requirements are the subject index of the matter in brief, page references to the
record, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged and with textbooks and statutes
Except for cases provided in the Constitution, appeal is a “purely statutory
right.” The right to appeal “must be exercised in the manner prescribed by
law” and requires strict compliance with the Rules of Court on
appeals. Otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed, and its dismissal shall not be a
deprivation of due process of law.

Section 13. Contents of the appellant’s brief. – The appellant’s brief shall contain, in 24. MANUEL VS. ONG G.R. NO. 205249
the order herein indicated, the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Personal service of summons has nothing to do with the location where summons is
(a) A subject index of the matter in brief with a digest of the arguments and page served. A defendant’s address is inconsequential. Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited Procedure is clear in what it requires: personally handing the summons to the defendant. What
with references to the pages where they are cited;
is determinative of the validity of personal service is, therefore, the person of the defendant,
x x x x not the locus of service.

(c) Under the heading “Statement of the Case,” a clear and concise statement of the 25. MVRS PUBLICATION VS. ISLAMIC G.R. NO. 135306
nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of
the court, the nature of the controversy, with page references to the record; There is no cause of action for libel.

(d) Under the heading “Statement of Facts,” a clear and concise statement in a narrative DOCTRINES:

Defamation - which includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring a person'scharacter, fame or
reputation through false and malicious statements.
It is that which tends toinjure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff
orto excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff.
It is the publication of anythingwhich is injurious to the good name or reputation of another or tends to bring him
intodisrepute.
Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which others in the community may
have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff.
Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse
however ill-natured, whether written or spoken, do not constitute abasis for an action for defamation in the absence
of an allegation for special damages.
The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.
Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable
individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class, no member
of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally demanding right of free speech and
expression, as well as of the press.
APPLICATION:
There was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. Since the persons allegedly
defamed could not be identifiable, private respondents have no individual causes of action; hence, they cannot sue
for a class allegedly disparaged. An individual Muslim has a reputation that is personal, separate and distinct in the
community. A Muslim may find the article dishonorable, even blasphemous; others may find it as an opportunity
to strengthen their faith and educate the non-believers and the "infidels." There is no injury to the reputation of the
individual Muslims who constitute this community that can give rise to an action for group libel. Each reputation
is personal in character to every person. Together, the Muslims do not have a single common reputation that will
give them a common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy.
DOCTRINE:
If the group is a very large one, then the alleged libelous statement is considered to have no application to anyone
in particular, since one might as well defame all mankind. Asthe size of these groups increases, the chances for
members of such groups to recover damages on tortious libel become elusive.
This principle is said to embrace two (2) important public policies:
Page 8 of 23
First , where the group referred to is large, the courts presume that no reasonable reader would take the statements
as so literally applying to each individual member.
Second, the limitation on liability would satisfactorily safeguard freedom of speech and expression, as well as of
the press, effecting a sound compromise between the conflicting fundamental interests involved in libel cases.
26. OGAWA VS. MENIGISHI G.R. NO. 193089
There was no need to deny its genuineness and due execution under oath in accordance with
Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides:
Section 8. How to contest such documents. – When an action or defense is founded upon a
written instrument, copied in, or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding Section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party
does not appear to be party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original is refused.
27. PACANA VS. ROVILA G.R. 168979
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rulesof Court, a motion to dismiss based on the grounds
invoked by the respondents may be waived if not raised in a motion to dismiss oralleged in
their answer.
—The rules are clear and require no interpretation. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules
of Court, a motion to dismiss based on the grounds invoked by the respondents may be waived
if not raised in a motion to dismiss or alleged in their answer. On the other hand, “the pre-trial
is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a case are
properly raised. The purpose is to obviate the element of surprise, hence, the parties are
expected to disclose at the pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to
raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matter.” The issues
submitted during the pre-trial are thus the issues that would govern the trial proper. The
dismissal of the case based on the grounds invoked bythe respondents are specifically covered
by Rule 16 and Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which set a period when they should be raised;
otherwise, they are deemed waived.

28. TANTUICO VS. RP G.R. NO. 89114
A complaint is defined as a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. Its office or purpose is to inform the defendant clearly &
definitely of the claims made vs. him so that he may be prepared to meet the issues at trial. The
complaint should inform the defendant all the material facts on w/c the plaintiffs rely to support
his demand The complaint should inform the defendant of all the material facts on w/c the
plaintiff relies to support his demand; it should state the theory of a cause of action w/c forms
the bases of the plaintiffs claim of liability. The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of
facts: the first, the “ultimate facts”, & the second, the “evidentiary facts.” The term “ultimate
facts” as used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means the essential facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause of action.
29. VIVENCIO VILLAGRACIA VS. FIFTH SHARIA G. R. NO. 188832
The fact that the Sharia courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts in
cases of actions involving real property means that jurisdiction may only be exercised by the
said courts when the action involves parties who are both Muslims. In cases where one of the
parties is a non-muslim, the Shariah Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over it. It would
immediately divest the Shariah court jurisdiction over the subject matter.
30. DOMINGO V. CA
HELD: Personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of
service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is
practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or
filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to
other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to
why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with.
31. PADILLA V. GLOBE ASIATIQUE
Page 9 of 23
HELD: The doctrine that a counterclaim may be necessarily dismissed along with the
complaint, clearly conflicts with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules is a
counterclaim arising from the unfounded suit may proceed despite the dismissal of the
complaint.
32.DIO V. SUBIC BAY
HELD: if the dismissal of the complaint somehow eliminates the cause of the
counterclaim, then the counterclaim cannot survive. Conversely, if the counterclaim
itself states sufficient cause of action then it should stand independently of and survive
the dismissal of the complaint.
33. DACOYCOY V. IAC
HELD: unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the
venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and
purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for
whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial court cannot pre-
empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu
proprio dismissing the case.
34. ASIAN UNITED BANK V. GOODLAND
ISSUE: The crux of the case, however, lies in the issue of whether the successive filing of
the Annulment and Injunction Cases constitute forum shopping.
HELD: Forum shopping can be committed in three ways:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the
previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia);
(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res
judicata); and
 Page 10 of 23

(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers matter must be germane and intertwined with the cause of action stated in the original
(splitting causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or complaint so that the principal and core issues raised by the parties in their original
res judicata). pleadings remain the same.
35. NAVOA V. CA B. the option of a party-litigant to amend a pleading is not without limitation. If the
purpose is to set up a cause of action not existing at the time of the filing of the
HELD: In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the
complaint, amendment is not allowed. If no right existed at the time the action was
complaint may properly be considered. Lack of cause of action must appear on the face
commenced, the suit cannot be maintained, even if the right of action may have accrued
of the complaint and its existence may be determined only by the allegations of the
thereafter
complaint, consideration of other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove
extraneous circumstances not being allowed. C. Specifically, before causes of action and parties can be joined in a complaint
involving multiple parties, (1) the right to relief must arise out of the same transaction
If a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action,
or series of transactions and (2) there must be a question of law or fact common to all
such as what petitioners did in the case at bar, he is regarded as having hypothetically
the parties.
admitted all the averments thereof. The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a
complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged
the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer
thereof. The hypothetical admission extends to the relevant and material facts well
pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Hence, if the
allegations in a complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be
maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be 38. LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES V. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP
assessed by the defendants HELD: It is quite clear, therefore, and we so hold that under the present Rules the fact
that a party has resorted to a particular method of discovery will not bar subsequent
use of other discovery devices, as long as the party is not attempting to circumvent a
36. PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE V. FAR EAST BANK ruling of the court, or to harass or oppress the other party. As a matter of practice, it
will often be desirable to resort to both interrogatories and depositions in one or the
HELD: Even in the presence of fraud, annulment will not lie unless the fraud is
other sequence.
committed by the adverse party, not by one's own lawyer. In the latter case, the remedy
of the client is to proceed against his own lawyer and not to re-litigate the case where
judgment had been rendered.
39. FORTUNE CORPORATION V. CA
HELD: Section 16 of Rule 24 clearly states that it is only upon notice and for good cause
37. CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF IIQUIDATORS V. BANKO FILIPINO that the court may order that the deposition shall not be taken. The matter of good
cause is to be determined by the court in the exercise of judicial discretion. Good cause
HELD:
means a substantial reason — one that affords a legal excuse. Whether or not
A. the fact that a supplemental pleading technically states a new cause of action should substantial reasons exist is for the court to determine, as there is no hard and fast rule
not be a bar to its allowance, still, the matter stated in the supplemental complaint must for determining the question as to what is meant by the term "for good cause shown."
have a relation to the cause of action set forth in the original pleading. That is, the

The requirement, however, that good cause be shown for a protective order puts the
burden on the party seeking relief to show some plainly adequate reasons for the order.
A particular and specific demonstration of facts, as distinguished from conclusory
statements, is required to establish good cause for the issuance of a protective order.
What constitutes good cause furthermore depends upon the kind of protective order
that is sought.
40. LIANAS SUPERMARKET v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and NATIONAL LABOR UNION G.R. No. 111014, May 31, 1996
What makes the situation a proper case for a class suit is the
c i r c u ms t a n c e t ha t t h er e i s o nl y o n e r i gh t o r c a u s e o f a c t i o n p e r t ai n i n g o r
belonging in common to many persons, not separately or severally to distinct
individuals. The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or against numerous
persons as a group or as an integral entity, and not as separate, distinct
individuals whose rights or liabilities are separate from and independent of those affecting the
others.
In a r e pr es ent at i ve sui t , t her e ar e di f f er e nt c ause s of act i o n
p er t ai ni n g different persons.
41. DAVID REYES (Substituted by Victoria R. Fabella) v. JOSE LIM, CHUY CHENG
KENG and HARRISON LUMBER, INC.
G.R. No. 134241, August 11, 2003
The principle that no person may unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another is
embodied in Article 22 of the Civil Code. This principle applies not only to substantive rights
but also to procedural remedies. One condition for invoking this principle is that the
aggrieved party has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict or
any other provision of law. Courts can extend this condition to the hiatus in the Rules of
Court where the aggrieved party, during the pendency of the case, has no other recourse
based on the provisional remedies of the Rules of Court.
42. MAXIMINA A. BULAWAN v. EMERSON B. AQUENDE
G.R. No. 182819, June 22, 2011
An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the courts action in
the litigation. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants.
Page 11 of 23
The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of
course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable
parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of
judicial power. It is precisely when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) the
action should be dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties
but even as to those present.
43. LILIA B. ADA et al. vs. FLORANTE BAYLON
G.R. No. 182435, August 13, 2012
a. The actions of partition and rescission cannot be joined in a single action.
A joinder of causes of action is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights
of action in one action, the statement of more than one cause of action in a declaration. It is
the union of two or more civil causes of action, each of which could be made the basis of a
separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may under certain
circumstances join several distinct demands, controversies or rights of action in one
declaration, complaint or petition.
The objectives of the rule or provision are to avoid a multiplicity of suits where the
same parties and subject matter are to be dealt with by effecting in one action a complete
determination of all matters in controversy and litigation between the parties involving one
subject matter, and to expedite the disposition of litigation at minimum cost.
b. A misjoined cause of action, if not severed upon motion of a party or by the court sua
sponte, may be adjudicated by the court together with the other causes of action.
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal. Indeed, the courts have
the power, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the severance
of the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded with separately. However, if there is no
objection to the improper joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, and
then there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes
of action.
c. A supplemental pleading may raise a new cause of action as long as it has some relation to
the original cause of action set forth in the original complaint.
44. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., and ALEXANDER BUNCAN
v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and MARTINA GICALE
G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005

a. Permissive joinder of parties requires that:
(a) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of
transactions;
(b) there is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants;
and
(c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on
jurisdiction and venue.
b. To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same evidence
which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient to
authorize a recovery in the first.
45. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. BANGKO SENTRAL
NG PILIPINAS AND THE MONETARY BOARD
G.R. No. 200678, June 04, 2018
General Rule: A motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non condition for the filing of a
petition for certiorari.
Exceptions:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the Court a quo had no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the
lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further
delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject
matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceedings [were] ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity
to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
Page 12 of 23
46. WOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, CHI TIM CORDOVA AND ROBERT
TIONG KING YOUNG vs. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 153867. February 17, 2005
The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand,
and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for
summary judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment
on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending
party’s answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case a of a summary
judgment, issues apparently exist i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there
is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses
are in truth set out in the answer but the issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham,
fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions.
Summary judgment is a procedure aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an
early stage of the litigation. In a summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the issues
raised by petitioners not genuine so as to justify a summary judgment?
A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as
distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived, an issue that does not constitute a
genuine issue for trial.
47. HEIRS OF DR. MARIANO FAVIS, SR., et al. v. JUANA GONZALES, et al.
G.R. No. 185922, January 15, 2014
The motu proprio dismissal of a case was traditionally limited to instances when the
court clearly had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and when the plaintiff did not appear
during trial, failed to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time or neglected to
comply with the rules or with any order of the court. Outside of these instances, any motu
proprio dismissal would amount to a violation of the right of the plaintiff to be heard. Except
for qualifying and expanding Section 2, Rule 9, and Section 3, Rule 17, of the Revised Rules
of Court, the amendatory 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure brought about no radical
change. Under the new rules, a court may motu proprio dismiss a claim when it appears
from the pleadings or evidence on record that it has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter; when there is another cause of action pending between the same parties for the
 Page 13 of 23

same cause, or where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of has no right to expect that his pleadings would be acted upon by the court nor may be object to
limitations. or refute evidence or motions filed against him
Indeed, a defending party declared in default retains the right to appeal from the
judgment by default. However, the grounds that may be raised in such an appeal are restricted
to any of the following: first, the failure of the plaintiff to prove the material allegations of the
48. CHRISTINE CHUA v. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO, TINGA, CHICO- complaint; second, the decision is contrary to law; and third, the amount of judgment is
NAZARIO, JORGE TORRES and ANTONIO BELTRAN excessive or different in kind from that prayed for.17 In these cases, the appellate tribunal should
G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005 only consider the pieces of evidence that were presented by the plaintiff during the ex parte
presentation of his evidence.
a. The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations
in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and - In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party making allegations has the burden of
that the pleading is filed in good faith. The absence of a proper verification is cause to treat the pleading
proving them by a preponderance of evidence. The parties must rely on the strength of their
as unsigned and dismissible. own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent.26 This rule
holds true especially when the latter has had no opportunity to present evidence because of a
b. Misjoinder of parties is not fatal to the complaint. The rule prohibits dismissal of a suit on the grounddefault order. Needless to say, the extent of the relief that may be granted can only be so much
of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. Moreover, the dropping of misjoined parties from the complaintas has been alleged and proved with preponderant evidence required under Section 1 of Rule
may be done motu proprio by the court, at any stage, without need for a motion to such effect from the
133.
adverse party.

49. MEMORACION Z. CRUZ v. OSWALDO Z. CRUZ
G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010
If the action survives despite death of a party, it is the duty of the deceased’s counsel
to inform the court of such death, and to give the names and addresses of the deceased’s legal
representatives. The deceased may be substituted by his heirs in the pending action.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel of the deceased, or the legal
representative fails to appear within a specified period, it is the duty of the court where the
case is pending to order the opposing party to procure the appointment of an executor or
administrator for the estate of the deceased. The reason for this rule is to protect all concerned
who may be affected by the intervening death, particularly the deceased and his estate.
50. Otero vs tan GR. No. 200134
-A defendant who fails to file an answer may, upon motion, be declared by the court
in default. Loss of standing in court, the forfeiture of one’s right as a party litigant, contestant
or legal adversary, is the consequence of an order of default. A party in default loses his right
to present his defense, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses. He
51. Samaniego v Aguila, GR No. 125567
Under Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an indispensable party is a
party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action without that
party being impleaded. Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the
controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the court cannot
proceed without their presence. “Interest”, within the meaning of this rule, should be material,
directly in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from a mere incidental
interest in question involved. On the other hand, a nominal or pro forma party is one who is
joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has any real interest in the subject
matter or because any relief is demanded, but merely because technical rules of pleadings
require the presence of such party on the record.
52. Lu vs lu ym GR. No.153690
-A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed fees.
Hence, without payment of the correct docket fees, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the action filed by David, et al.

53. Dbp vs carpio GR. No. 195450
- In other words, to recover damages on a replevin bond (or on a bond for preliminary
attachment, injunction or receivership), it is necessary (1) that the defendant-claimant has
secured a favorable judgment in the main action, meaning that the plaintiff has no cause of
action and was not, therefore, entitled to the provisional remedy of replevin; (2) that the
application for damages, showing claimant's right thereto and the amount thereof, be filed in
the same action before trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes
executory; (3) that due notice be given to the other party and his surety or sureties, notice to
the principal not being sufficient; and (4) that there should be a proper hearing and the award
for damages should be included in the final judgment.
54. De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, GR No. 194751
An action for annulment of judgment “may not be invoked (1) where the party has
availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate
remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his
own fault or negligence” Thus, an action of annulment of judgment is not always readily
available even if there are causes for annulling a judgment.
Litis Pendentia: The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) identity of parties, or
interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that
any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
Summons: Regardless of the nature of the action, proper service of summons is
imperative. A decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a defect in
jurisdiction. Respondent’s institution of a proceeding for annulment of petitioner’s certificate
of title is sufficient to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res, but it is not sufficient for
the court to proceed with the case with authority and competence.
55. Limos vs odones GR. No. 186979
Page 14 of 23
-A request for admission is not intended merely to reproduce or reiterate the allegations
but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request.
-Non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action. The
remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order
of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such
times as are just. It is only when the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite
the order of the court, that the latter may dismiss the complaint. In this case, no such order was
issued.
56. Bote v Spouses Veloso, GR No. 194270
The court clarified that, “It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither
averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court below cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due
process.” This principle forbids the parties from changing their theory of the case. The
“theory of the case” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as: A comprehensive and orderly
mental arrangement of principle and facts, conceived and constructed for the purpose of
securing a judgment or decree of a court in favor of a litigant; the particular line of reasoning
of either party to a suit, the purpose being to bring together certain facts of the case in a
logical sequence and to correlate them in a way that produces in the decision maker’s mind a
definite result or conclusion favored by the advocate.
57. The United Residents of Dominican Hill v. Coslap, GR No. 135945
Forum shopping exists when a party “repetitively avails of several judicial remedies
in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by some other court.
The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the plaintiff of
principal party, and not by his counsel. Hence, one can deduce “that the certification is a
peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance given to the
court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same
parties, issues, and causes of action.” Forum shopping is evident where the elements of litis
pendentia or res judicata are present.
 Page 15 of 23

The willful attempt by a party to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after It has been also held that prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not an
it failed to acquire the same from the original court constitutes grave abuse of the judicial indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case brought by a vendee or other person
process. against whom the possession of any land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of a right to hold possession.

58. Gadrinab v. Salamanca, GR No. 194560

61. Katon v. Palanca, GR No. 151149
There is Res Judicata when the following concur: (1) Previous final judgment; (2) By
a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; (3) On the merits of the Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, defenses and objections not pleaded
case; (4) Between identical parties, on the same subject matter, and cause of action. either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except when (1) lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res judicata and (4) prescription are
There are two rules that embody the principle of res judicata. The first rule refers to
evident from the pleadings or the evidence on record. In the four expected instances, the court
“bar by prior judgment”, which means that actions on the same claim or cause of action
shall motu proprio dismiss the claim or action.
cannot be relitigated (Rule 39, Section 47b). The second rule refers to “conclusiveness of
judgment”, which means that facts already tried and determined in another action involving a Under the new rules, a court may motu proprio dismiss a claim when it appears from
different claim or cause of action cannot anymore be relitigated (Rule 39, Section 47c). the pleadings or evidence on record that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; when
there is another cause of action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
59. Cahayag v. Comm Credit Corp, GR No. 168078
where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations.
As a general rule, in the interest of fair play and justice, the introduction of new
argument must be barred. Exceptions are written in case law. First, an issue of jurisdiction
may be raised at any time, even on appeal, for as long as the exercise thereof will not result in 62. Mejia-Espinoza v. Carino, GR No. 193397
a mockery of the demands of fair play; second, in the interest of justice and at the sound
There are two elementary rules in litigation that the CA failed to apply. First, the
discretion of the appellate court, a party may be allowed to change its legal theory on appeal,
party who alleges must prove his case. Second, questions of fact must be resolved according
but only when the factual bases thereof would not require further presentation of evidence by
to the evidence presented.
the adverse party for the purpose of addressing the issue raised in the new theory; and last,
which is actually a bogus exception, is when the question falls within the issues raised at the Under the Rules, there are three requirements that must be satisfied before a Rule 47
trial court. petition can prosper. First, the remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer
resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies through no fault of the petitioner. This means that a Rule 47 petition is a remedy of
60. Go v. Looyuko, GR No. 196529 last resort-it is not an alternative to the ordinary remedies under Rules 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43,
and 45. Second, an action for annulment of judgment may be based only on two grounds:
The Court has consistently upheld the registered owners’ superior right to possess the
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. If based on extrinsic fraud, it must be filed within four
property in unlawful detainer cases. It is an age-old rule that the person who has a Torrens
years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be
Title over a land is entitled to its possession. It has repeatedly been emphasized that when the
brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel. Third, the action must be filed within the
property is registered under the Torrens system, the registered owner’s title to the property is
temporal window allowed by the Rules.
presumed legal and cannot be collaterally attacked, especially in a mere action for unlawful
detainer. It has even been held that it does not even matter if the party’s title to the property is
questionable.

63. Sumbilla v. Matrix finance Corp, GR No. 197582
A final and executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be
modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land. However, this Court has
relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty,
honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of
the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate
the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflects this principle. The power to suspend or even
disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself
had already declared to be final.
64. Mamanteo vs. Deputy Sheriff Magumun AM No. P-98-1264
As observed by the OCA, the writ of replevin has been repeatedly used by
unscrupulous plaintiffs to retrieve their chattel earlier taken for violation of the Tariff and
Customs Code, tax assessment, attachment or execution. Officers of the court, from the
presiding judge to the sheriff, are implored to be vigilant in their execution of the law
otherwise, as in this case, valid seizure and forfeiture proceedings could easily be undermined
by the simple devise of a writ of replevin. Hence, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, as agents of
the law, are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence
because in serving the courts writs and processes and implementing the orders of the
court, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the
efficient administration of justice.
65. Lorenza C. Ongco v. Valeriana Ungco Dalisay, GR No. 190810
It can be readily seen that intervention is not a matter of right, but is left to the trial
court's sound discretion. The trial court must not only determine if the requisite legal
interest is present, but also take into consideration the delay and the consequent prejudice to
the original parties that the intervention will cause. Both requirements must concur, as the
Page 16 of 23
first requirement on legal interest is not more important than the second requirement that no
delay and prejudice should result. To help ensure that delay does not result from the granting
of a motion to intervene, the Rules also explicitly say that intervention may be allowed only
before rendition of judgment by the trial court.
There is wisdom in strictly enforcing the period set by Rule 19 of the Rules of Court
for the filing of a motion for intervention. Otherwise, undue delay would result from many
belated filings of motions for intervention after judgment has already been rendered, because
a reassessment of claims would have to be done. Thus, those who slept on their lawfully
granted privilege to intervene will be rewarded, while the original parties will be unduly
prejudiced.
66. RP v. Sandiganbayan GR. 90478
The State is, of course, immune from suit in the sense that it cannot, as a rule, be sued
without its consent. But it is axiomatic that in filing an action, it divests itself of its sovereign
character and sheds its immunity from suit, descending to the level of an ordinary
litigant. The PCGG cannot claim a superior or preferred status to the State, even while
assuming to represent or act for the State.
67. AFULUGENCIA, VS. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO G.R. NO. 185145
The calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories
are first served upon the latter, by way of an exception, the court may order an adverse party
not served with written interrogatories to give testimony in open court or to give a deposition
pending appeal for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
68. Teston v DBP G.R. NO. 144374
Consolidation is improper if the causes of action in the two cases arise from different events or
transactions, involve different issues, and ultimately will depend on different evidence. This
rule stands even if both cases which were raffled to the same court, involve similar prayer for
determination and payment of just compensation, and petitioners Teston and Colarina are
represented by the same counsel, and respondents LBP and DAR Secretary are common
defendants.

69. CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v PHILBANKING CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 150731
When the defense in the answer is based on an actionable document, a reply specifically
denying it under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the
document will be deemed admitted.
(70) METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY
v. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFONSO ROXAS CHUA
G.R. No. 110147
April 17, 2001
If an order leaves something to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case,
it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. Once determined to be final, the order may be the
subject of an appeal.
(71) DOMINGO NEYPES, LUZ
v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 141524
September 14, 2005
A party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional
Trial Courts decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the final order) denying
his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. The new 15-day period may be availed
of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the
lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 41, Section 3.
(72) JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO BARTOLOME, represented by his
attorneys-in-fact and acting in their personal capacities, RODOLFO and RUBY
BARTOLOME
v. SPOUSES JESUS D. MORALES and CAROLINA N. MORALES
G.R. No. 199283
June 9, 2014
A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under exceptional
circumstances. To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, parties must file the petition
within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within 6 months after the judgment or final
order was entered; otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed outright.
If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable negligence of counsel, parties must
show that their counsel’s negligence could not have been prevented using ordinary diligence
and prudence.
Page 17 of 23
OPTION NIYO NA KUNG IDARAGDAG NIYO ‘TO:
The mere allegation that there is excusable negligence simply because counsel was 80 years
old is a prejudicial slur to senior citizens. It is based on an unwarranted stereotype of people in
their advanced years. It is as empty as the bigotry that supports it.
(73) DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC.
v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, QUEENSLAND HOTEL or MOTEL or QUEENSLAND
TOURIST INN, and TEODORICO ADARNA
G.R. No. 93262
December 29, 1991
Writs of attachment may properly issue ex parte provided that the Court is satisfied that the
relevant requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the applicant, although it may, in its
discretion, require prior hearing on the application with notice to the defendant; but that levy
on property pursuant to the writ thus issued may not be validly effected unless preceded, or
contemporaneously accompanied, by service on the defendant of summons, a copy of the
complaint (and of the appointment of guardian ad litem, if any), the application for attachment
(if not incorporated in but submitted separately from the complaint), the order of attachment,
and the plaintiff's attachment bond.
(74) THOMAS YANG
v. THE HONORABLE MARCELINO R. VALDEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch XXII, General Santos City, SPS. RICARDO
MORANTE and MILAGROS MORANTE
G.R. No. 73317
August 31, 1989
Under Section 5 of Rule 60, petitioner may "at any time before the delivery of the property to
the plaintiff" require the return of the property; in Section 6 of Rule 60, he may do so, "within
five (5) days after the taking of the property by the officer." Both these periods are mandatory
in character. Thus, a lower court which approves a counter-bond filed beyond the statutory
periods, acts in excess of its jurisdiction.
(The decisional principle on the filing of counter replevin bond to entitle the defendant to the
redelivery or retaining possession of the property is compliance with all the conditions
precedent pursuant to the rules, and failure to comply therewith entitles plaintiff to possession,
and the initial steps in obtaining redelivery must be taken within the time limit provided
thereto.)

(75) LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO, et al.
v. CESAR B. QUIAZON, et al.
G.R. No. 201248
March 11, 2015
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency allegation in the pleading. On the
other hand, lack of cause of action is the insufficiency of factual basis for the action.
In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the allegations in the complaint may
properly be considered. For the court to do otherwise would be a procedural error and a denial
of the plaintiff’s right to due process.
(76) TERLYNGRACE RIVERA
v. FLORENCIO L. VARGAS
G.R. No. 165895
June 5, 2009
Not only should the writ or order of replevin comply with all the requirements as to matters of
form or contents prescribed by the Rules of Court. The writ must also satisfy proper service in
order to be valid and effective: i.e. it should be directed to the officer who is authorized to serve
it; and it should be served upon the person who not only has the possession or custody of the
property involved but who is also a party or agent of a party to the action.
(77) BP PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY BURMAH CASTROL PHILIPPINES,
INC.) v. CLARK TRADING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 175284
September 19, 2012
The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of
preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part of or an incident of an
independent action or proceeding. The writ of injunction would issue upon the satisfaction of
two requisites, namely: (1) the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) acts which are
violative of said right.
Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainant’s right
is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without
proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.
(78) SUSAN LIM-LUA vs. DANILO Y. LUA
G.R. Nos. 175279-80
Page 18 of 23
June 5, 2013
The matter of increase or reduction of support should be submitted to the trial court in which
the action for declaration for nullity of marriage was filed. The amount of support may be
reduced or increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the necessities
of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to support.
OPTION NIYO NA KUNG IDARAGDAG NIYO ‘TO:
Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature that its
allowance is essentially provisional; for during the entire period that a needy party is entitled
to support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased or
decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to final
determination (Advincula v. Advincula).
(79) GORGONIO PANDES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., et al.
G.R. No. L-6666
May 12, 1954
1. The exemption from attachment, garnishment or sale under execution of properties under
receivership is not absolute. Such properties may not be levied upon "except by leave of the
Court appointing the receiver."
2. Real estate in the custody of a receiver can be levied upon and sold under execution, provided
only that the actual possession of the receiver is not interfered with. The reason is that only a
receiver’s possession of property subject to receivership is entitled to protection against
interference.
3. The interference enjoined is that resulting from orders or processes of a court "other" than
that which appointed the receiver, the rule being predicated upon the need of preventing
"unseemly conflicts between courts whose jurisdiction embraces the same subjects and
persons."
4. The possession by the receiver is not affected by an order of court directing the sale at public
auction of whatever rights, interest or participation a partner has or might have in the
partnership which has a personality separate and distinct from that of its partners.
5. Properties which are not under custodia legis are subject to levy, even without the permission
of the court appointing the receiver.
80. P.L.UY REALTY CORPORATION VS. ALS MANAGEMENT G.R. NO. 166462

Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides:
Court may motu proprio dismiss a case when any of the four (4) grounds is present:
(a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) litis pendentia;
(c) res judicata; and
(d) prescription of action.
81. ANDREW TAN VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND WU SEN WOEI G.R. NO.
142401
Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, which is also known as preclusion of issues
or collateral estoppel, issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be
raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.
82. FLEXO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION VS. COLUMBUS FOODS,
INCORPORATED AND PACIFIC MEAT COMPANY G.R. NO. 164857
Execution pending appeal requires the observance of the following requisites:
(a) there must be a motion therefor by the prevailing party;
(b) there must be a good reason for issuing the writ of execution; and
(c) the good reason must be stated in a special order.
83. ROSENDO T. UY VS. HONORABLE PEDRO T. SANTIAGO G.R. NO. 131237
Requirements to stay immediate execution of judgment for ejectment cases:
(1) perfection of appeal;
(2) filing of a supersedeas bond; and
(3) periodic deposit of the rentals falling due during the pendency of the appeal.
Page 19 of 23
84. DOUGLAS F. ANAMA VS. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK G.R. NO. 187021
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, all the issues between the parties are deemed
resolved and laid to rest. All that remains is the execution of the decision which is a matter of
right. The prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is the trial
court’s ministerial duty.
85. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. CARLITO LEE G.R. NO. 190144
The RTC is not permitted to dissolve or discharge a preliminary attachment or garnishment
except on grounds specifically provided in the Revised Rules of Court, namely,
(a) the debtor has posted a counter-bond or has made the requisite cash deposit;
(b) the attachment was improperly or irregularly issued as where there is no ground for
attachment, or the affidavit and/or bond filed therefor are defective or insufficient;
(c) the attachment is excessive, but the discharge shall be limited to the excess;
(d) the property attachment is exempt from preliminary attachment; or
(e) the judgment is rendered against the attaching creditor.
86. RUFA A. RUBIO VS. LOURDES ALABATA G.R. NO. 203947
Procedural rules may be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons in order to relieve a litigant
of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with
the procedure prescribed. Corollarily, the rule, which states that the mistakes of counsel bind
the client, may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in the outright
deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or where the interest of justice so requires.
87. AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA),
REPRESENTED BY JOSEPHINE B. OMICTIN VS.LORETO G. NICOLAS AND
OLIMPIO CRUZ G.R. NO. 168394

Difference between Rule 45 and 65 petitions:
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an ordinary appeal. It is a continuation of
the case from the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts. The petition must only raise
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth and discussed.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action. It seeks to correct errors of
jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one in which the act complained of was issued by the
court, officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion which is tantamount to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. The purpose of the
remedy of certiorari is to annul void proceedings; prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of
legal authority; and provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.
88. REPUBLIC VS.BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS G.R. NO. 203039
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the period within which an
aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and file a
motion for new trial is within the period to file an appeal, which is fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the judgment or final order. It is explicit from the stated provision that the fifteen day period
to file a motion for new trial will start to run from receipt of judgment or final order. A
judgment, final order or resolution shall be served upon a party either personally or through
registered mail. Moreover, Section 13 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure specifically
provides for the proof of service of judgments, final orders or resolution
89. ISABELO ESPERIDA VS. FRANCO K. JURADO, JR., G.R. NO. 172538
.DOCTRINE:
RULE 71
The procedural requisites before the accused may be punished for indirect contempt. First,
there must be an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for
contempt. Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge
against him. Third, there must be a hearing and the court must investigate the charge and
consider respondent's answer. Finally, only if found guilty will respondent be punished
accordingly. The law requires that there be a charge in writing, duly filed in court, and an
opportunity given to the person charged to be heard by himself or counsel. What is most
Page 20 of 23
essential is that the alleged contemner be granted an opportunity to meet the charges against
him and to be heard in his defenses. This is due process, which must be observed at all times.
90. CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY CITY
MAYOR REINALDO A. BAUTISTA, JR., VS.ATTY. BRAIN S. MASWENG
G.R. NO. 188913
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments,
orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of
justice.27 Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be
exercised, however, such power, being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should
not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.28 The court must exercise
the power of contempt judiciously and sparingly, with utmost self–restraint, with the
end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the
court, not for retaliation or vindication. (Rule 71)
91. WACK WACK GOLF VS. LEE E. WON G.R. NO. L-23851
It is the general rule that before a person will be deemed to be in a position to ask for an order
of intrepleader, he must be prepared to show, among other prerequisites, that he has not become
independently liable to any of the claimants.
It is also the general rule that a bill of interpleader comes too late when it is filed after judgment
has been rendered in favor of one of the claimants of the fund, this being especially true when
the holder of the funds had notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of the judgment
and had an opportunity to implead the adverse claimants in the suit in which the judgment was
rendered. United Procedures Pipe Line Co. v. Britton; Nash v. McCullum.16
If a stakeholder defends a suit by one claimant and allows it to proceed so far as a judgment
against him without filing a bill of interpleader, it then becomes too late for him to do so. Union
Bank v. Kerr, 2 Md. Ch. 460; Home Life Ins. Co. v. Gaulk, 86 Md. 385, 390, 38 A. 901; Gonia
v. O'Brien, 223 Mass.

It is the general rule that a bill of interpleader comes too late when application therefore is
delayed until after judgment has been rendered in favor of one of the claimants of the fund, and
that this is especially true where the holder of the fund had notice of the conflicting claims prior
to the rendition of such judgment and an opportunity to implead the adverse claimants in the
suit in which such judgment was rendered.
92. ARTURO SARTE FLORES VS. SPOUSES LINDO G.R. NO. 183984
The rule is that a mortgage-creditor has a single cause of action against a mortgagor-debtor,
that is, to recover the debt.10 The mortgage-creditor has the option of either filing a personal
action for collection of sum of money or instituting a real action to foreclose on the mortgage
security.11 An election of the first bars recourse to the second, otherwise there would be
multiplicity of suits in which the debtor would be tossed from one venue to another depending
on the location of the mortgaged properties and the residence of the parties.12
The two remedies are alternative and each remedy is complete by itself.13 If the mortgagee opts
to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the debt, and
vice versa.14
Nevertheless, petitioner still has a remedy under the law.
In Chieng v. Santos,20 this Court ruled that a mortgage-creditor may institute against the
mortgage-debtor either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage.
The Court ruled that the remedies are alternative and not cumulative and held that the filing of
a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was in effect a collection suit or a
suit for the recovery of the mortgage-debt.21 In that case, however, this Court pro hac vice,
ruled that respondents could still be held liable for the balance of the loan, applying the
principle that no person may unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.22
93. CAPITOL HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB VS. SANCHEZ G.R. NO.
182738
Page 21 of 23
In contempt proceedings, the respondent must be given the right to defend himself or herself
and have a day in court – a basic requirement of due process. This is especially so in indirect
contempt proceedings, as the court cannot decide them summarily pursuant to the Rules of
Court. As We have stated in Calimlim, in indirect contempt proceedings, the respondent must
be given the opportunity to comment on the charge against him or her, and there must be a
hearing, and the court must investigate the charge and consider the respondent’s answer.45
In this case, the proceedings for indirect contempt have not been initiated. To the Court’s mind,
the September 3, 2007 Resolution could be treated as a mere reiteration of the September 10,
2002 Order. It is not yet a “judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt” as
contemplated under the Rules. The penalty mentioned therein only serves as a reminder to
caution petitioners of the consequence of possible non–observance of the long–overdue order
to produce and make available for inspection and photocopying of the requested
records/documents. In case of another failure or refusal to comply with the directive, the court
or respondent could formally initiate the indirect contempt proceedings pursuant to the
mandatory requirements of the Rules and existing jurisprudence.
Section 11, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court lays down the proper remedy from a judgment in
indirect contempt proceedings. It states;
Sec. 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay.––The judgment or final order of a
court in a case of indirect contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in criminal cases.
But execution of the judgment or final order shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the
person adjudged in contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from which the appeal is taken,
conditioned that if the appeal be decided against him he will abide by and perform the judgment
or final order.
94. MANGASER VS. UGAY G.R. NO. 204926
Before the Court continues any further, it must be determined first whether the issue of
ownership is material and relevant in resolving the issue of possession. The Rules of Court in
fact expressly allow this: Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that the issue of
ownership shall be resolved in deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is
intertwined with the issue of ownership. But this provision is only an exception and is allowed
only in this limited instance - to determine the issue of possession and only if the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership.39

This Court is of the strong view that the issue of ownership should be provisionally determined
in this case. First, the juridical act from which the right of ownership of petitioner arise would
be the registration of the free patent and the issuance of OCT No. RP-174(13789). Apparently,
the Torrens title suggests ownership over the land. Second, respondent also asserts ownership
over the land based on his prior, actual, continuous, public, notorious, exclusive and peaceful
possession in the concept of an owner of the property in dispute.40 Because there are conflicting
claims of ownership, then it is proper to provisionally determine the issue of ownership to settle
the issue of possession de facto.:
95. ACBANG VS. LUCZON G.R. NO. 164246
The ruling in Chua v. Court of Appeals12 is instructive on the means of staying the immediate
execution of a judgment in an ejectment case, to wit:
As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately
executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the
property in question. To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is
pending the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the
defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits
the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the defendant
to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment,
the duty of the court in this respect being "ministerial and imperative." Hence, if the defendant-
appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of
the judgment would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas bond will not
stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the
supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal.
96. FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION VS ARTURO LOO PO G.R. NO.
217694
Similarly, under Section 7, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which governs the rules for forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint within the period
provided, the court has no authority to declare the defendant in default. Instead, the court, motu
Page 22 of 23
proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for.28
This has been enunciated in the case of Don Tino Realty and Development Corporation v.
Florentino,29 citing Bayog v. Natino,30 where the Court held that there was no provision for an
entry of default under the Rules of Summary Procedure if the defendant failed to file his answer.
In the case of Lazaro v. Brewmaster32 (Lazaro), where judgment was rendered based on the
complaint due to the failure of the defendant to file an answer under the Rules of Summary
Procedure, it was written that:
x x x To determine whether the complaint states a cause of action, all documents attached
thereto may, in fact, be considered, particularly when referred to in the complaint. We
emphasize, however, that the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material
allegations in the complaint. Thus, consideration of the annexed documents should only be
taken in the context of ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.
97. ELSA DEGAYO VS. MAGBANUA-DINGLASAN G.R. NO. 173148
Res judicataliterally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing
or matter settled by judgment." It also refers to the "rule 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 points and matters determined in the former suit. 13 It rests on the
principle that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once
This principle cannot be overemphasized in light of our clogged dockets. As this Court has
aptly observed in Salud v. Court of Appeals:17
"The interest of the judicial system in preventing relitigation of the same dispute recognizes
that judicialresources are finite and the number of cases that can be heard by the court is limited.
Every dispute that is reheard means that another will be delayed. In modern times when court
dockets are filled to overflowing, this concern is of critical importance. Res judicata thus
conserves scarce judicial resources and promotes efficiency in the interest of the public at large.
Once a final judgment has been rendered, the prevailing party also has an interest in the stability
of that judgment. Parties come to the courts in order to resolve controversies; a judgment would
 Page 23 of 23

be of little use in resolving disputes if the parties were free to ignore it and to litigate the same
claims again and again. Although judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial error should
be corrected through appeals procedures, not through repeated suits on the same claim. Further,
to allow relitigation creates the risk of inconsistent results and presents the embarrassing
problem of determining which of two conflicting decisions is to be preferred. Since there is no
reason to suppose that the second or third determination of a claim necessarily is more accurate
than the first, the first should be left undisturbed.
98. LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION VS. DISTRIBUTION
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO. 155849
administration of justice.7 The reason behind the power to punish for contempt is that respect
of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution; without such guarantee, the institution
of the courts would be resting on a very shaky foundation.8
Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt, which is committed in the presence
of or so near the judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice; and constructive or
indirect contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the lawful process or order of the
court.9
A civil contempt consists in the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or judge
in a civil case for the benefit of the opposing party therein.10

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority.
In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a
legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or
insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the
respect due to such a body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a
despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court.1 The phrase contempt of court is
generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety of different acts.2
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts,3 and need not be specifically granted
by statute.4 It lies at the core of the administration of a judicial system.5 Indeed, there ought to
be no question that courts have the power by virtue of their very creation to impose silence,
respect, and decorum in their presence, submission to their lawful mandates, and to preserve
themselves and their officers from the approach and insults of pollution.6 The power to punish
for contempt essentially exists for the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and for the
enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for the due

1 17 CJS, Contempt, 1. of a duty in the end that means appropriated for the preservation and enforcement of the constitution
2 Id., 2. may be secured); and Re Debs, 158 US 564 (the power of a court to make an order carries with it the
3 In Re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944. equal power to punish for a disobedience of that order, and the inquiry as to the question of disobedience
4 In Re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595. has been, from time immemorial, the special function of the courts).
5 Juidice v. Vail, 430 US 327. 8 Cornejo v. Tan, 85 Phil. 772.
6 Re Robinson, 19 Wall 505; Re Terry, 128 US 289; Bessette v. M.B. Conkey Co., 194 US 324; 9 Narcida v. Bowen, 22 Phil. 365.
Michaelson v. US ex rel. Chicago, St. P.M. & O. R. Co., 266 US 42; .Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat 204. 10 Perkins v. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271.
7 Perkins v. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271. See Ex parte Hudgings, 249 US 378 (the only purpose
of the power to punish for contempt is to secure judicial authority from obstruction in the performance