Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Rule 3 ........................................................................................22
Contents
Uy v. CA..................................................................................24
Borlongan v. Madrideo............................................................25
Rule 4 ........................................................................................26
Jurisdiction...................................................................................9
CSC v. CA..................................................................................9
Paglaum v. Unionbank.............................................................28
Rule 5 ........................................................................................30
Republic v. Sunvar...................................................................30
Uy v. Javellana ........................................................................32
Rule 1 ........................................................................................11
Rule 6 ........................................................................................35
Gochan v. Gochan...................................................................11
Arenas v. CA ...........................................................................37
Rule 7 ........................................................................................39
Rule 2 ........................................................................................12
Coming Soon
BLOCK B 2016
Filing Fees
SUSON VS CA AND ODILAO
GR 126749 AUGUST 21, 1997
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Facts:
1. Odilao filed a P5.15 million civil suit for damages against
Suson before the RTC of San Juan, Southern Leyte. Odilao
claimed that petitioner made false and groundless
accusations of graft and corruption against him before the
Office of the Ombudsman, and thereafter caused their
publication in a Cebu-based local daily under the headline
ODILAO SUED FOR GRAFT. He paid the sum of P25,600.00
in docket fees to the RTC of Southern Leyte.
2. Suson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of private
respondent Odilao on the ground of improper venue,
alleging therein that Odilao resides in Talisay, Cebu and not
in Himonganan, Southern Leyte. RTC of Southern Leyte
dismissed the case then.
3. Thereafter, Odilao went to the RTC of Cebu to re-file the
same complaint. There the Clerk of Court advised his
counsel to file a formal request with this court thru the
Court Administator for an authority to apply the payment
for docket fees previously made to the RTC - Southern Leyte
to the docket fees to be paid to the RTC Cebu City, which
he did.
4. The Supreme Court Deputy Court Administrator Abesamis
sent a reply-letter to Odilao informing him that he should
present the OR of the fees he paid in Leyte to the RTC of
Cebu. On the basis of the letter, the clerk of court docketed
the complaint without requiring private respondent to pay
anew the prescribed docket fees.
Held:
The non-payment, however, does not automatically cause the
dismissal of the case if the non-payment is not beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Doctrine: 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 thereby vest jurisdiction in the
court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the
amounts sought in the amended pleading.
Facts:
-
BLOCK B 2016
Issues:
1. Whether the court acquired jurisdiction in this case?
2. Did the amended complaint vest jurisdiction in the court?
Held:
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
1. The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee.
o As reiterated in the Magaspi case: "that a case is
deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee
regardless of the actual date of filing in court.
o In the present case, the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case by the payment of only
P410.00 as docket fee, despite the amount of
damages stated in the body of the petition
amounting to roughly P78 Million.
2. Neither can the amendment of the complaint thereby vest
jurisdiction upon the Court. In the first place, there is no
such original complaint that was duly filed which could be
amended because the court failed to acquire jurisdiction to
begin with. Consequently, the order admitting the amended
complaint and all subsequent proceedings and actions
taken by the trial court are null and void.
3. The Court frowned at the practice of counsel of petitioners
who filed the original complaint in this case of omitting any
specification of the amount of damages in the prayer
although the amount of over P78 million is alleged in the
body of the complaint. This is clearly intended for no other
purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees
if not to mislead the docket clerk in the assessment of the
filing fee. It was only when the trial court directed that the
amount of damages be specified in the amended complaint,
that petitioners' counsel wrote the damages sought in the
Mijares v Ranada
BLOCK B 2016
Facts:
Invoking the Alien Tort Act, petitioners Mijares, et al.*, all of
whom suffered human rights violations during the Marcos era,
obtained a Final Judgment in their favor against the Estate of the
late Ferdinand Marcos amounting to roughly $1.9B in compensatory
and exemplary damages for tortuous violations of international law
in the US District Court of Hawaii. This Final Judgment was affirmed
by the US Court of Appeals.
As a consequence, Petitioners filed a Complaint with the
RTC Makati for the enforcement of the Final Judgment, paying P410
as docket and filing fees based on Rule 141, 7(b) where the value
of the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The
Estate of Marcos however, filed a MTD alleging the non-payment of
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
the correct filing fees. RTC Makati dismissed the Complaint stating
that the subject matter was capable of pecuniary estimation as it
involved a judgment rendered by a foreign court ordering the
payment of a definite sum of money allowing for the easy
determination of the value of the foreign judgment. As such, the
proper filing fee was P472M, which Petitioners had not paid.
Issue:
Whether or not the amount paid by the Petitioners is the proper
filing fee.
Held:
Yes, but on a different basisamount merely corresponds
to the same amount required for other actions not i nvolving
property. RTC Makati e rred in concluding that the filing fee should
be computed on the basis of the total sum claimed or the stated
value of the property i n l itigation. The Petitioners Complaint was
lodged against the Estate of Marcos but it is clearly based on a
judgment, the Final Judgment of the US District Court. However, the
Petitioners err in stating that the Final Judgment is incapable of
pecuniary estimation because it is so capable. On this point,
Petitioners state that this might lead to an instance wherein a first
level court (MTC, MeTC, etc.) would have jurisdiction to enforce a
foreign judgment. Under the B.P.129, such courts are not vested
with such jurisdiction. 33 of B.P.129 refers to instances wherein
the cause of action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of
rights over property or a sum of money. But here, the subject
matter is the foreign judgment itself. 16 of B.P.129 reveals that the
PONENTE: Abad
PETITIONERS: Do-All Metals Industries Inc., Sps. Domingo Lim and
Lely Kung Lim
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
FACTS:
This case is about the propriety of awarding damages based on
claims e mbodied i n the plaintiffs supplemental complaint filed
without prior payment of the corresponding filing fees.
From 1996 to 1997, Dragon Lady Industries, Inc., owned by
petitioner spouses Lim took out loans from respondent Security
Bank Corporation totaling P92.4 million. Unable to pay the loans on
time, the Lims assigned some of their real properties to the Bank to
secure the same, including a building and the lot on which it stands,
located at M. de Leon St., Santolan, Pasig City. In 1998, the Bank
offered to lease the property to the Lims through petitioner Do-All
Metals Industries, Inc. (DMI) primarily for business although the
Lims were to use part of the property as their residence. DMI and
the Bank executed a two-year lease contract from October 1, 1998
to September 30, 2000 but the Bank retained the right to preterminate the lease. The contract also provided that, should the
Bank decide to sell the property, DMI shall have the right of first
refusal.
In 1999, before the lease was up, the Bank gave notice to
DMI that it was pre-terminating the lease on December 31, 1999.
Wanting to exercise its right of first refusal, DMI tried to negotiate
with the Bank the terms of its purchase but the Bank, wanting a
higher amount, declined its offers. While the negotiations were on
going, the Lims claimed that they continued to use the property in
their business. But the Bank posted at the place private security
guards from Philippine Industrial Security Agency (PISA). The Lims
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it
already had over the case.
2. Whether or not the Bank is liable to DMI and the Lims for the
machineries, equipment, and other properties they allegedly
lost after they were barred from the property in their
supplemental complaint.
NO the bank is not liable. The supplemental complaint specified
from the beginning the actual damages that the plaintiffs sought
against the Bank but the plaintiff paid no filing fees on the same.
And, while petitioners claim that they were willing to pay the
additional fees, they gave no reason for their omission nor offered
to pay the same. They merely said that they did not yet pay the
fees because the RTC had not assessed them for it. But a
supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that
the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon its filing.
The rules do not require the court to make special assessments in
cases of supplemental complaints.
BLOCK B 2016
In its decision dated 15 August 1994, the trial court ruled in favor of
the Bernardos and ordered BENECO to pay them damages. CA
affirmed, hence this appeal, BENECO contending that the appellate
court gravely erred in ordering them to pay damages in light of the
clear evidence that it was third party defendant Canaves fault or
negligence which was the proximate and sole cause, or at least the
principal cause, of the electrocution and death of Jose Bernardo.
Issues:
a. Is BENECO correct in asserting that the jeepney driver
Canave should be held liable for Bernardos death?
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Jurisdiction
CSC v. CA
BLOCK B 2016
Melana v. Tappa
Herald Black Dacasin v. Sharon del Mundo Dacasin
G.R. no. 168785 February 05, 2010
J. Carpio
FACTS:
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Rule 1
San Miguel v. Sandiganbayan
Gochan v. Gochan
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
De Leon v. CA.
Facts:
On August 8, 1991, private respondents filed in the Regional
Court of Quezon City a complaint for annulment or rescission of a
contract of sale of two (2) parcels of land against petitioners. Upon
the filing of the complaint, the clerk of court required private
respondents to pay docket and legal fees in the total amount of
P610.00. This amount was paid.
On September 26, 1991, petitioners moved for the dismissal
of the complaint on the ground that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case by reason of private respondents'
nonpayment of the correct amount of docket fees. Petitioners
contended that in addition to the fees already paid based on the
claim for P100,000.00 for attorney's fees, private respondents
should have paid docket fees in the amount of P21,640.00, based on
the alleged value of the two (2) parcels of land subject matter of the
contract of sale sought to be annulled. Private respondents filed
opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing that outright dismissal
of their complaint was not warranted on the basis of the alleged
nonpayment of the correct amount of docket fees, considering that
the amount paid by them was that assessed by the clerk of court.
The trial court held the fees should be based on the value of
the property, but the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the
flat rate should be charged. Hence this petition for review on
certiorari.
BLOCK B 2016
Ratio:
Bautista v. Lim, held that an action for rescission of contract
is one which cannot be estimated and therefore the docket fee for
its filing should be the flat amount of P200.00 as then fixed in the
former Rule 141, 141, 5(10) Although eventually the result may
be the recovery of land, it is the nature of the action as one for
rescission of contract which is controlling. The action should not be
confused and equated with the "value of the property" subject of
the transaction.
Based on Jurisprudence, this is the rule:
1) If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Rule 2
Sta.
Clara
Homeowners
Association
v.
Spouses
Gaston
G.R. No. 141961 || January 23, 2002
Doctrines:
1. A motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and lack of
cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the
allegations in the complaint. It is not dependent on the
BLOCK B 2016
Facts:
Spouses Gaston filed a complaint for damages before the
Regional Trial Court against the Sta. Clara Homeowners Association
(SCHA). The complaint alleged that the Spouses purchased their lots
in Sta. Clara Subdivision and at the time of the purchase, there was
no mention or requirement of membership i n any homeowners
association. From that time on, they have remained non-members
of the SCHA. They also stated that an arrangement was made
wherein homeowners who were non-members of the association
were issued non-member gate pass stickers for their vehicles for
identification by the security guards manning the subdivisions
entrances and exits. This arrangement remained undisturbed until
sometime in the middle of March 1998, when SCHA disseminated a
board resolution which decreed that only its members in good
standing were to be issued stickers for use in their vehicles.
Thereafter, there were three incidents where the Spouses (and their
son) were prevented from entering without showing identification.
The Spouses filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the trial
court had no jurisdiction over the case as it involved an intracorporate dispute between SCHA and its members. The proper
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
1. (Not related to Civ Pro, but sir might ask) It is a settled rule
that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
the allegations in the complaint. Jurisdiction is not affected
by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an
answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction
would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims
of the defendant. The Complaint does not allege that
private respondents are members of the SCHA. In point of
fact, they deny such membership. Thus, the HIGC has no
jurisdiction over the dispute. the HIGC exercises limited
jurisdiction over homeowners disputes. The l aw confines
its authority to controversies that arise from any of the
following intra-corporate relations: (1) between and among
members of the association; (2) between any and/or all of
them and the association of which they are members; and
(3) between the association and the state insofar as the
controversy concerns its right to exist as a corporate entity.
It should be stressed that the Complaint here is for damages. It
does not assert membership in the SCHA as its basis. Rather, it is
based on an alleged violation of their alleged right of access through
the subdivision and on the alleged embarrassment and humiliation
suffered by the plaintiffs.
2. RELATED TO TOPIC: A defendant moving to dismiss a
complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is
regarded as having hypothetically admitted all the factual
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Doctrines:
The rule is that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide
any agrarian dispute or any incident involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Facts:
Isagani Villanueva opened a savings account and a current
account with Citytrust Bank. On May 1986, Villanueva deposited
money in his savings account in the Legazpi Village branch of the
bank. When he realized that he was running out of blank checks, he
requested a checkbook from the Bank representative. He filled out
the necessary form but could not remember his bank account
number. He expressed this to the bank representative who in turn
assured him that she will be the one to supply the information.
Another representative got the form and proceeded to the bank
register which contained all the banks client information. Upon
seeing the name Isagani Villanueva (another person) , she copied
the account number and put it into the form. In a month, Isagani
Villanueva received his checkbook with the wrong account number.
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B
2016
Issue:
W/N the repeated dishonor of a check drawn against a well funded
account but bearing the account of another depositor with the
same name as the drawer would entitle him to compensatory and
attorneys fees.
Ruling:
BLOCK B 2016
Macaslang v. Zamora
Bersamin. May 2011.
FACTS
ISSUES
1. W/N the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction is limited to
assigned errors
2. W/N in an action for unlawful detainer, where there
was no prior demand to vacate and comply with the
conditions of the lease, a valid cause of action exists.
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
Rule 3
Korea Exchange Bank v. filkor
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Uy v. CA
Facts:
Uy and Roxas are agents authorised to sell 8 parcels of land
by its owners. By virtue of such authority, Uy and Roxas offered to
sell the land to the NHA to be utilised as a housing project.
Later, the NHA, through a resolution, approved the
acquisition of said lands, pursuant to which the parties executed
Deeds of Sale covering the said lands. Of the 8 lands however, only
5 were paid for by the NHA due to a report it received from the
DENR that the remaining area is located on an active landslide area
and therefore not suitable for housing.
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Borlongan v. Madrideo
G.R. No. 120267. January 25, 2000.
Facts:
Mrs. Dalisay Camacho was the owner of a parcel of land in
Tondo, Manila. Consolacion Sempio originally rented a certain
portion of the land, which was the subject land in this case. On this
subject land, two (2) houses were built, one owned by spouses
Leonardo and Dominga Borlongan and the other owned by private
respondent Consuelo Madrideo, who paid rentals to Mrs. Camacho.
International Express v. CA
Issue:
Whether or not Madrideo is the real party in interest in the
unlawful detainer case.
BLOCK B 2016
Held:
No. First of all, Madrideo failed to prove her allegations by
preponderance of evidence. The evidences she presented (receipts
of her rental payments) simply confirm she is a lessee, and not that
she is the only lessee of the property. Mrs. Camacho, the owner, has
been unwavering in her declaration that the Borlongans are also
lessees of her property.
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Rule 4
Auction in Malinta v Warren Embes Layuben
DOCTRINE: absent qualifying or restrictive words, the venue shall
either be that stated in the law or rule governing the action or the
one agreed in the contract.
FACTS:
Warren Embes Luyaben filed a
complaint for damages against Auction in Malinta, Inc. (AIMI) in
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
This does not apply when the parties, before filing the
action, have agreed on an exclusive venue. Mere stipulation on
the venue of an action however is not enough to preclude parties
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Held/Ratio:
1) Yes. Real actions are those which affect the title to or possession
of real property. When there is a question as to who, between the
contending parties, would have a better right to the property, the
case can only but a real action. Such is the case at bar. Since Section
1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Civil Procedure provide that venue of real
actions shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof, is situated and the land subject of the litigation is
Coming Soon
Paglaum v. Unionbank
Facts:
Petitioner Paglaum Management and Development
Corporation (PAGLAUM) is the registered owner of three parcels of
land located in the Province of Cebu. Union Bank of the Philippines
BLOCK B 2016
Section 9. Venue. The venue of all suits and actions arising out of
or in connection with this Mortgage shall be in Makati, Metro
Manila or in the place where any of the Mortgaged Properties is
located, at the absolute option of the Mortgagee, the parties
hereto waiving any other venue.
Section 9. Venue. The venue of all suits and actions arising out of
or in connection with this Mortgage shall be in Cebu City Metro
Manila or in the place where any of the Mortgaged Properties is
located, at the absolute option of the Mortgagee, the
xxxxxxxxxxxxx any other venue.
Held:
Section 9. Venue. The venue of all suits and actions arising out of
or in connection with this Mortgage shall be in _________ or in the
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing
of the action on the exclusive venue thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)
Rule 5
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
Republic v. Sunvar
DOCTRINE:
The mandate of Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 is to achieve an
expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases subject of
summary procedure. To achieve this, rules like Section 19 of the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure were created to bar petitions
for relief from judgment, or petitions for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court in
order to avoid what former Chief Justice Panganiban calls a sorry
spectacle of a counterproductive ping pong e very time a party is
aggrieved by an interlocutory order.
FACTS:
Petitioners Republic and NAPOCOR are registered coowners of a parcel of land which they leased to the Technology
Resource Center Foundation, Inc., (TRCFI) for a period of 25 years
ending on December 31, 2002. The TRCFI was given the right to
sublease this land, which it did, to Sunvar, through sublease
agreements with the common provision that their sublease
agreements were going to expire on December 31, 2002, the date
ISSUE: Did the RTC violate the Rules on Summary Procedure when it
took cognizance and granted the certiorari petition filed by Sunvar?
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
HELD: YES
RATIO:
Uy v. Javellana
BLOCK B 2016
Bayog vs. Natino where the Court gave due course to an appeal from an interlocutory order
lest grave injustice and irreparable injury that visited him through no f ault o r n egligence on
his p art will only be p erpetuated and Go vs. Court of Appeals where the Court was confronted
with a procedural void in the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure that justified the resort to
a Rule 65 Petition in the RT C. Details in the full text.
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Doctrines:
The revised Rule on Summary Procedure was precisely
adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive
determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of
litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.
Facts:
This is an administrative case which arose from a verified
complaint for gross i gnorance of the l aw and procedures e tc filed
by Public Attorneys Gerlie Uy et al. against Judge Javellana of the
MTC, La Castellana, Negros Occidental.
The complaint against Judge Javellana alleged that he was
grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Several
cases were cited
(1) People v. Cornelio, for Malicious Mischief wherein he issued a
warrant of arrest after the filing of said case despite Section 16 of
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure;
(2) People v. Celeste, et al. for Trespass to Dwelling wherein he did
not grant the motion to dismiss for noncompliance with the Lupon
requirement under Section 18 and 19(a) of the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure, insisting that said motion was a prohibited
pleading;
(3) People v. Celeste, et al. wherein he refused to dismiss outright
the complaint even when the same was patently without basis or
merit, as the affidavits of therein complainant and her witnesses
were all hearsay evidence;
BLOCK B
2016
the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
the following cases falling within their jurisdiction.
x x xx
B. Criminal Cases:
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law
for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months,
or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise,
or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, That in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does
not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). (Emphasis supplied.)
BLOCK B 2016
Ratio:
[with regard to] People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez et al.
Coming Soon
[t]he court shall not order the arrest of the accused except
for failure to appear whenever required.
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the damage
caused and not more than 200 pesos, if the amount involved does
not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be estimated. (Emphasis ours.)
People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez et al were for
malicious mischief. The facts of these cases did not show that they
were special cases falling under Art. 328 of the RPC. These cases fall
under Art. 329 of the RPC and if the amounts of alleged damage to
property of 6,000 and 3,000 pesos are proven, the appropriate
Coming Soon
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Rule 6
FINANCIAL SERVICES vs. FORBES (taken from the wonderful
digests of 3A)
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Oct 27, 1989, Forbes filed with RTC of Makati a Complaint for
Damages, against Financial Building arising from the violation of its
rules and regulations. RTC ruled in favor of Forbes. CA affirmed.
Thus, petition for review on certiorari
ALSO! Since Forbes Park filed a motion to dismiss in Civil Case No.
16540, a compulsory counterclaim at that time is now barred.
Are the issues of fact or law the same in the claim and the
counterclaim?
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
Arenas v. CA
claims in Civil Case No. 16890, then such claims could not
be considered as compulsory counterclaims in Civil Case No.
658. The fact that the rule on summary procedure governs
BLOCK B 2016
First. In Civil Case No. 16890, the damages prayed for arose
not from contract but from quasidelict. They constitute
separate and distinct causes of action. MTC involves an unlawful
detainer with damages. The basis is the contract of lease. RTC
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Rule 7
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Coming Soon
HELD/RATIO:
Unlike the case of Melo vs. Court of Appeals where there was a
complete failure to attach a Certification of Non-forum Shopping, in
this instance, however, petitioner complied with this procedural
requirement except that it was not accompanied by a board
resolution or a secretarys certificate that the person who signed it
was duly authorized by petitioner to represent it in the case. It
BLOCK B 2016
FACTS:
Spouses Augusto and Maria Hontiveros, filed a complaint for
damages against Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson before
the RTC of Iloilo. In said complaint, petitioners alleged that they are
the owners of a parcel of land as shown by an OCT issued pursuant
to the decision of the IAC in a land registration case filed by private
respondent Gregorio Hontiveros; that petitioners were deprived of
income from the land as a result of the filing of the land registration
case; that such income consisted of rentals from tenants of the land
in the amount of P66,000.00 per year from 1968 to 1987, and
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Of course, there are instances when the trial court may order the
dismissal of the case even without a motion to that effect filed by
any of the parties. In Baja v. Macandog, this Court mentioned these
cases, to wit:
The court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio without violating the
plaintiffs right to be heard, except in the following instances: if the
plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial; if he fails to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or if he fails
to comply with the rules or any order of the court; or if the court
finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
ISSUES + HELD/RATIO:
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Digital Microwave v. CA
The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the
complaint. The verification is merely a formal requirement
intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are
true and correct. If the court doubted the veracity of the allegations
regarding efforts made to settle the case among members of the
same family, it could simply have ordered petitioners to verify
them. As this Court has already ruled, 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 be
served. Otherwise, mere suspicion or doubt on the part of the trial
court as to the truth of the allegation that earnest efforts had
been made toward a compromise but the parties efforts proved
unsuccessful is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Only if
it is later shown that such efforts had not really been exerted
would the court be justified in dismissing the action.
Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art. 151 of the Family Code does
not apply in this case since the suit is not exclusively among family
members. Whenever a stranger is a party in a case involving
family members, the requisite showing of earnest efforts to
compromise is no longer mandatory. The inclusion of private
Coming Soon
Iglesia ni Kristo v. CA
Facts:
The heirs of Santos represented by Enrique G. Santos filed a
complaint for Quieting of Title or Accion Reinvindicatoria before the
RTC of Quezon City against petitioner Iglesia ni Kristo(INC). The heirs
of Santos allege that their predecessor have been in open,
continuous and peaceful possession of the property in controversy
covered by the TCT issued by the RoD since 1961.
However, the RoD of QC burned down in 1988 which along
with i t the original copy of the said title. When the Sanots tried to
reconstitute such title they found out that INC was also claiming
ownership over the property as well. The Santos had the property
fenced but it was the INC who deprived the Santos of the final use
and enjoyment of the property.
Relevant CivPro Part:
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B
2016
Catubig has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are
true and correct of her personal knowledge or based on authentic
records. It contends that a pleading l acking proper v erification is
treated as an unsigned pleading having no legal effect.
RTC received evidence and then proceeded to pre-trial and ruled for
Vallacar.
CA reversed holding that they were both negligent, and awarded
P250k damages to Catubig.
Hence this petition
Issue:
W/N the complaint should be dismissed for Catubigs failure to
verify the same - No.
Held:
BLOCK B 2016
No.
In its answer with counterclaim, Vallacar contends that the
proximate cause of the collision was the sole negligence of Catubig
when he imprudently overtook another vehicle. As a special and
affirmative defense, Vallacar asks for the dismissal of the complaint
for not being verified and for failure to state a cause of action
because there is no allegation that Vallacar was negligent in its
supervision of its employee Cabanilla.
Vallacar contends that the certification against non-forum shopping
is invalid because it cannot substitute for the verification that
Coming Soon
The complaint was filed in 1995 when the 1964 Rules of Court was
still in effect. The Rule prevailing at that time provided that,
Sec. 6. V erification.A pleading is verified only by an affidavit
stating that the person verifying has read the pleading and that the
allegations thereof are true of his own knowledge.
Verifications based on information and belief, or upon
knowledge, information and belief, shall be deemed insufficient.
any person who personally knows the truth of the allegations in the
pleading may sign it.
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
Examples of exception:
1. all pleading filed in civil cases under the 1991 Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure
2. petition for review from the RTC to SC raising pure
questions of law
3. petition for review from RTC to CA
4. petition for review from quasi-judicial bodies to CA
5. petition for review to the SC
6. petition for annulment of judgments or final orders and
resolutions
7. complaint for injunction
8. application for TRO or preliminary injunction
9. application for appointment of a receiver
10. application for support pendente lite
11. petition for certiorari against constitutional commissions
12. petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under
Rule 65
13. petition for quo warranto
14. complaint for expropriation
15. petition for indirect contempt
16. all complaints or petitions involving intra-corporate
controversies
17. complaint or petition for rehabilitation and suspension of
payment
Rule 8
KALILID WOODS INDUSTRY CORP. v. IAC
G.R. No. L-75502 November 12, 1987
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Rule 9
Sps. Diaz v. CA
Vlason Enterprises Corporation vs. CA and Duraproof
Services
GR Nos. 121662-64. July 6, 1999. Ponente: Panganiban
Facts:
Poro Point Shipping Services requested permission for its
vessel, which had engine trouble, to unload its cargo and store it at
the Philippine Ports Authority compound in San Fernando, La Union.
It was approved by the Bureau of Customs. However, the customs
personnel still boarded the vessel and seized the same ad its cargo
believing that it was the hijacked vessel owned by Med Line
Philippines, Co. A notice of hearing for seizure proceedings was
served to its consignee, Singkong Trading, and its shipper, Dusit
International. While the same was ongoing, La Union was hit by
three typhoons causing the vessel to run aground and abandoned.
In line with this, Cadacio, its authorized representative, entered into
a salvage agreement with respondent Duraproof to secure and
repair the vessel.
The vessel and cargo were eventually forfeited in favor of
the government despite the finding that no fraud was committed.
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B
2016
The OSG appealed with the CA, which reversed the RTC
decision and instead ordered the dismissal of the petition
for registration. The CA found the evidence presented by
Martinez insufficient to support the registration of the
subject lots.
ISSUES:
FACTS:
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
HELD/RATIO:
1. NO.
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Justice Francisco
Justice Regalado
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
2. NO
The Court upheld the decision of the CA stating appellee has
apparently taken the absence of representation for appellant at the
hearing of his petition as license to be perfunctory in the
presentation of his evidence It i s not enough for an applicant to
declare himself or his predecessors-in-interest the possessors and
owners of the land for which registration is sought. He must present
specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just
offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law
requiring e videntiary support and substantiation.
Republic v. Hidalgo
G.R 161657 || October 4, 2007
BLOCK B 2016
Facts:
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
Issue:
W/N respondent Judge Hidalgo acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing an order declaring the petitioner Republic in
default and rendering judgement by default in favor of Mendoza
and against the Republic.
Held:
a. Petition is without merit with regard to the declaration of
the TCT of the Republic over the land as null and void.
b. Petition is with merit regarding the order of the trial court
to pay respondent 1.48 billion as rental compensation
Ratio:
a.
-Due process, in its procedural aspect, guarantees in the minimum
the opportunity to be heard. Grave abuse of discretion, however,
cannot plausibly be laid at the doorstep of the respondent judge on
account of his having issued the default order against the petitioner,
then proceeding with the hearing and eventually rendering a
default judgment. For, what the respondent judge did hew with
what Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court prescribes and allows in
the event the defending party fails to seasonably file a responsive
pleading. The provision reads:
The court took account the facts that the Arlegui property is
relatively small with an assessed value of only 2.38 million and
that it had minimal rental value during the relatively long amrtial
law years. Hence, the award of 20,000 pesos per month is a more
reasonable rental compensation.
BLOCK B
2016
Facts:
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
Versoza v. CA
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
Chua v. CA
Asean Pacific v. Urdaneta
Tiu v. PBCOM
Facts:
-
Issue: WON the RTC made a valid order in allowing allowing the
substitution of the document (Surety Agreement).
BLOCK B 2016
BLOCK B
2016
Coming Soon
Held / Ratio:
TANTUICO v REPUBLIC
Facts:
The Republic filed a case against defendants Kokoy Romualdez,
Imelda and Ferdinand
Marcos as principal defendants, with the Sandiganbayan. Tantuico
who was the Chairman of the Commission on Audit during the
Marcos regime was included as a defendant. Republic contends that
1.) Tantuico connived with the principal defendants, and acted as a
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016
BLOCK B 2016
Coming Soon
BLOCK B
2016