LIST OF CASES

CIVIL PROCEDURE
JURISDICTION................................................................................................... 2
RULE 1.............................................................................................................. 4
RULE 2.............................................................................................................. 5
RULE 3.............................................................................................................. 5
RULE 4.............................................................................................................. 7
RULE 6.............................................................................................................. 7
RULE 7.............................................................................................................. 7
RULE 8.............................................................................................................. 8
RULE 9.............................................................................................................. 8
RULE 10............................................................................................................ 8
RULE 12............................................................................................................ 9
RULE 13............................................................................................................ 9
RULE 14............................................................................................................ 9
RULE 15.......................................................................................................... 10
RULE 16.......................................................................................................... 10
RULE 17.......................................................................................................... 11
RULE 18.......................................................................................................... 11
RULE 19.......................................................................................................... 11
RULE 21.......................................................................................................... 12
RULE 22.......................................................................................................... 12
RULE 23.......................................................................................................... 12
RULE 26.......................................................................................................... 12
RULE 29.......................................................................................................... 12
RULE 30.......................................................................................................... 12
RULE 34.......................................................................................................... 13
RULE 35.......................................................................................................... 13
RULE 36.......................................................................................................... 13
RULE 37.......................................................................................................... 13
RULE 38.......................................................................................................... 14
RULE 39.......................................................................................................... 14
RULE 41.......................................................................................................... 17
RULE 45.......................................................................................................... 17
RULE 47.......................................................................................................... 17
RULE 51.......................................................................................................... 17
SUMMARY PROCEDURE..................................................................................18
RULE 57.......................................................................................................... 18
RULE 58.......................................................................................................... 19
RULE 59.......................................................................................................... 20
RULE 60.......................................................................................................... 20

1|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 JURISDICTION
Incapable of pecuniary estimation
1. Ortigas v. Herrera 120 S 89
An action for specific performance is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
2. Copioso v. Copioso 391 S 325
Where issue of ownership and possession of land is joined with the issues of
annulment of sale and reconveyance which are incapable of pecuniary
estimation, jurisdiction is with the RTC.
3. Russell v. Vestil 304 S 738
Action to annul a document is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
4. RCPI v. CA 386 S 67
A complaint for breach of contract of lease is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
5. Raymundo v. CA 213 S 457
An action to compel the removal of unauthorized installation of glasses is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Nature of action of partition

6. Roque v. IAC
There are 2 principal issues in an action for partition: (1) whether the plaintiff is a
co-owner and (2) how the property is to be divided.
7. Vda de Daffon v. CA
There are 2 phases in an action for partition: (1) whether co-ownership exists and
(2) a decision confirming the subdivision.

Real action
8. Ouano v. PGTT 384 S 589
Jurisdiction is based on assessed value in an action for recovery of ownership and
possession of real property with damages; Section 19(8) applies to other cases;
Section 19(8) and 33(1) excludes damages in determining jurisdiction when they
are merely incidental.

Jurisdiction in the award of damages

9. Agustin v. Bacalan 135 S 340, Rule 6
The appellate court may only award a counterclaim within the jurisdiction of the
court of origin
10. Maceda v. CA 176 S 440, Rule 6
The counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court.
11. Vital-Gozon v. CA, G.R. No. 101428, August 5, 1992
The CA has jurisdiction, in a special civil action of mandamus, to take cognizance
of the matter of damages sought to be recovered from the defendant.

What constitutes demand

12. Soliven v. Fastforms, G.R. No. 139031, October 18, 2004.
Damages are excluded in determining jurisdiction when they are merely
incidental to the action
13. Iniego v. Purganan 485 S 394
Actions for damages based on quasi-delict are actions that are capable of
pecuniary estimation. The claim for all kinds of damages, whether arising from
the same or different causes of action, is the basis of determining the jurisdiction
of courts.
14. Mendoza v. Soriano 524 S 260
Same with Iniego
15. Sante v. Claraval 613 S 333

2|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 The totality rule applies to a complaint for damages based on oral defamation
where there are no actual damages.

Jurisdiction by estoppel
16. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
A party is barred by laches from raising the question of jurisdiction 15 years after
the judgment was rendered.
17. Calimlim v. Ramirez
The general rule is that lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage
of the proceedings. The ruling in Tijam is the exception, thus, it was not applied.
Soliven v. Fastforms, supra No. 12
Jurisdiction cannot be assailed for the first in a motion for reconsideration on the
ground of estoppel.
18. Metromedia v. Pastorin
The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction depends
upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not.
19. Figueroa v. People
Applying the general rule, the accused is in no way estopped by laches in
assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in
his appeal before the appellate court.

NLRC
20. Pepsi v. Gal-lang 201 S 695
The labor arbiter has no jurisdiction over a complaint for damages for malicious
prosecution.
21. Pepsi v. Martinez 112 S 579
The labor arbiter has jurisdiction over money claims arising out of employer-
employee relationship.
22. Primero v. IAC 156 S 435
The labor arbiter has jurisdiction over damages the employee may suffer because
of an illegal dismissal.
23. Abejaron v. CA 208 S 899
Same with Gal-lang

Land registration cases

24. Association of Baptists v. First Baptist 152 S 393 under specpro discussed in
passing
25. Averia v. Caguioa 146 S 459: under specpro discussed in passing

HLURB
26. Pilar Devt v. Villar, 505 SCRA 617
Regular courts have jurisdiction over unlawful detainer case filed by subdivision
owner.
27. Cadimas v. Carrion 567 SCRA 101
Regular courts have jurisdiction over a complaint filed by an ordinary seller of
property.

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
28. Morata v. Go 125 S 444
Conciliation required in cases cognizable by MTC and RTC.
29. Vda De Borromeo v. Pogoy 126 S 217
Katarung pambarangay applies only to individuals.
30. Gegare v. CA 177 S 471
Where there are several respondents and the government is only one of them,
confrontation should still be undertaken.

3|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
31. Agbayani v. Belen 145 SCRA 635
Properties located in the same barangay but parties are from different cities.
32. Galuba v. Laureta 157 S 627
There is no judicial recourse for failure to repudiate an amicable settlement.

Appearance in person
33. Ledesma v. CA 211 S 753
Barangay conciliation requires personal confrontation.
34. Ramos v. CA 174 S 690
Effect of failure to appear by the complainant
35. San Miguel v. Pundogar 173 S 704
Effect of failure to appear by the defendant

When to raise nonreferral

36. Royales v. IAC 127 S 471
Raising the defense of lack of conciliation on appeal constitutes waiver.
37. Fernandez v. Militante 161 S 695
Raising of the issue of lack of conciliation after the filing of answer constitutes
waiver.
38. Abalos v. CA 196 S 576
Where the address in the complaint was changed without objection by the
adverse party, the new address will be considered in determining the need for
barangay conciliation.

Application to labor cases

39. Montoya v. Escayo 171 S 443
Amicable settlements before the lupon do not apply in labor cases.

Definition of the term residence

40. Bejer v. CA 169 SCRA 566
Residence means actual residence and membership in the barangay.

Execution
41. Vidal v. Escueta December 10, 2003
The reckoning period of the 6 months within which execution of the amicable
settlement is allowed before the punong barangay is the date when the obligation
in the settlement is due and demandable.

RULE 1
1. Cabrera vs Tejano 8 S 542***
Civil action is instituted upon filing of the complaint and payment of docket fees.

Docket Fees
2. Manchester vs CA 149 S 562
Where an action involves damages, docket fees shall be assessed considering
such damages which must be stated in the body and prayer of the pleading.
3. Sun Insurance vs Asuncion Feb 13 1989
Same with Manchester but the court became liberal because of the showed
willingness of the plaintiff to pay the docket fees.
4. Ayala Corp vs. Madayag vs 181 S 689
The additional filing which shall constitute a lien on judgment refers to damages
arising after the filing of the complaint.
5. Hodges vs CA 184 S 286

4|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 Where lawyers as plaintiffs failed to pay the docket fees
6. Salientes vs CA 194 S 235
In an action for recovery of possession of land with damages, jurisdiction is
acquired over the action involving the real property where only the docket fees
for the damages were not paid.
7. Maersk-Tabacalera vs. CA 187 S 646 ***
Where the lack of jurisdiction because of nonpayment of filing fees was after the
adverse decision of the CA, the payment of filing fees shall constitute a lien on
the judgment.
8. Orig Development vs CA 202 S 753 ***
The plaintiff must ascertain, in the estimation, the sums he wants and the sums
required to determine the amount of docket fees.
9. Intl Industrial Mgmt. vs CA 205 S 509 ***
Docket fees must still be paid although the claim for damages is not the principal
action.

Kinds of Actions
10. Ching v. CA 181 S 9
Action for reconveyance and cancellation of title is an action in personam.
11. Paderanga v. Buisan 226 S 786, Rule 4
Venue is determined by determining whether the action is personal or real.

RULE 2
Cause of action
1. De Guzman vs CA 192 S 507
A case where the elements of a cause of action were satisfied

Splitting a single cause of action

2. Bachrach vs Encarangal 68 P 287
The non-payment of a promissory note secured by REM is a single cause of
action, thus, creditor may elect either a personal action for debt or a real action
to foreclose.
3. Industrial vs Apostol 177 S 521
Same with Bachrach
4. Bayang vs CA 148 S 91
Claim for ownership of land and claim for income thereon arise from a single
cause of action which cannot be split.
5. Strong vs Repide 22 P 19, Rule 9
An action to recover possession of shares of stock should include claim for
dividends.

Joinder of causes of action

6. Flores vs Mallare-Phillips 144 S 377 ***
7. Insurance vs Warner 21 S 762

RULE 3
Foreign Corporation
1. Hang Lung Bank v. Saulog 201 S
A foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines has legal capacity to
sue.
2. Converse Rubber v. Universal Rubber147 S 154

5|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 A foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines has a legal right to
maintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants
thereof from organizing a corporation therein bearing the same name as the
foreign corporation.
3. Commissioner of Custom v. KMK 182 S 591
Only foreign corporations can avail of the isolated transaction rule.

Personality by estoppel
4. Merrill vs CA 211 S 824
5. Chiang Kai Shek vs CA 172 S 389

Sole proprietorship
6. Juasing v. Mendoza vs 115 S 783

Parties in interest
7. Ralla vs. Ralla199 S 49
8. Ibonilla vs Province 210 S 126
VSC Commercial vs CA 394 S 74

Representatives as parties
9. Tuason vs Bolanos 95 P 106

Spouses as parties
Lim vs Dee 102 P 1171

Minor or incompetent persons

Reyes vs 46 P 658

10. Nunal vs CA 221 S 26 ***

11. Robles vs CA 83 S 180 ***
Cortez vs Avilla 101 S 205
12. Servicewide Specialist vs CA 251 S 17 ***

Class Suit
13. Mina vs Pacson 8 S 774 ***
14. Borlasas vs Polistico 47 P 345 ***
15. Dael vs Teves 136 S 196 ***
16. Casenas vs Rosales 19 S 462 ***
17. Barrameda vs. Barbara Phil 90 P 718, Rule 19 ***
18. Vda DelaCruz vs CA 88 S 697 ***
19. Vda De Haberer vs CA 104 S 535 ***
20. Lawas vs CA 146 S 172 ***
21. Heir Regoso vs 211 S 348 ***

Death of a party
Dizon vs CA 210 S 107
Torijos vs CA 67 S 394 CRIMPRO
People vs Sendaydiego 89 S 120 CRIMPRO

Transfer of interest
22. Jocson vs CA 183 S 189

Indigent Party
23. Acar vs Rosal 19 S 625
6|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Notice to the Solicitor General
Republic vs Polo 89 S 83
Republic vs Partisala 118 S 317

RULE 4
Real Action
1. Fortune Motors vs CA 178 S 674
2. Torres vs Tuazon 12 S 74
Paderanga v. Buissan, supra Rule 1
The action is a real action because while it does explicitly pray for recovery of
possession, such is the necessary consequence thereof.
3. Lizares vs Caluag 4 S 746
4. Hernandez vs. DBP 71 S 290

Personal Action
5. Raymond vs CA, 166 S 50
6. Esuerte vs CA 193 S 541

Meaning of the word principal

7. Marcos-Araneta v. CA 563 S 41, Rule 10 ***

Agreement of parties on venue

8. Polytrade vs Blanco Oct 31 1969
9. Capati vs Ocampo 113 S 794
10. Unimasters vs CA 267 S 759

On the exclusivity of venue in contracts of adhesion

11. Hoechst Phil vs Torres 83 S 297
12. Sweet Line vs Teves 83 S 361
13. Philippine Telecom v. Tecson 428 S 378 ***
14. Dacoycoy vs IAC 195 S 641

RULE 6
Counterclaim
Agustin v. Bacalan, supra Jurisdiction
Maceda v. CA, supra Jurisdiction
1. Calo vs Ajax 22 S 997
A compulsory counterclaim not within the jurisdiction of the court may be filed
separately.
2. Navarro v. Bello 102 P 1019
3. Gojo vs Goyala 35 S 557
4. Ballecer vs Bernardo 18 S 291

RULE 7
Certification against forum shopping
1. Santo Tomas University Hospital vs Surla 294 S 352
2. Loquias vs Ombudsman 338 S 62
3. Medserv Inc. April 5, 2010*** Certification by corporation
7|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
4. Espiritu v. Petron Nov. 24, 2009*** Where one is ok
5. San Miguel Corp. v. Aballa 461 S 392 *** Where one is ok

RULE 8
Alternative causes of action or defenses
1. Gatchalian vs Pavilin 6 S 509
2. Heirs of Marquez vs Valencia 99 P 740

Language in the pleading

3. Tumang v. Bautista ***

Actionable document
4. Bough vs. Cantiveros 40 P 209 ***
5. Hibberd vs Rhode 32 P 476 ***
6. Imperial Textile vs CA 183 S 584
7. Toribio vs Bidin 134 S 162 Actional document of defendant
8. Central Surety vs Hodges L-28633 On waiver
9. Jabalde vs PNB 7 S 791 On waiver
10. Investment vs Comptronics 192 S 725 ***

Specific denial
11. Capitol Motors v. Yabut L-28140, Rule 34
3rd mode of specific denial does not apply where the fact as to which want of
knowledge is asserted is so plainly and necessarily within the defendants
knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue.
12. Galofa vs Nee Bon Sing 22 S 48 ***

RULE 9
Defenses not pleaded
Strong v. Repide, supra Rule 2
1. Ferrer vs Ericta 84 S 705
2. Garcia vs Mathis 100 S 251
3. Chua Lamko vs Dioso 97 P 821

Default
4. Cavili vs Florendo 136 S 208 ***
5. Pascua vs Florendo 136 S 208 ***
6. Phil British vs Delos Angeles 63 S 51 ***
7. Malangyaon vs Sunga 208 S 436 ***
8. Filinvest vs CA 182 S 664 ***
9. Sablas v. Sablas, July 03, 2007 ***

RULE 10
1. Remington vs CA 382 S 499 ***
2. Ng vs Sps. Soco 382 S 243 ***
Marcos-Araneta v. CA, supra Rule 4 ***
3. Quirona v. Alejo*** October 2001 unlawful detainer and forcible entry

Formal Amendment
4. Super Clean vs CA 258 S 165 ***
8|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Amendment as a matter of right
5. Gotico vs Leyte 136 S 218
6. Rosario vs Carandang 96 P 845
7. Contech vs CA 211 S 692

Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence

8. Rogers vs Dick 7 S 1033

Effect of Amendment
9. Magaspi vs Ramolete 115 S 193

Delay
10. Lerma vs Reyes 103 P 1027
11. Gulang vs Nadayag 214 S 355

Formal Amendment
12. Cuyugan vs Dizon L-208 ***

RULE 12
1. Agcanas vs. Mercado
2. Santos v. Liwa ***

RULE 13
1. Solars Entertainment ***
2. Benguet vs NLRC 209 S 54
3. Alimpoos vs CA L-27331
4. Magno vs CA 152 S 555
5. Adamson vs Adamson 179 S 278 ***
6. Viacruz v. Estenzo 5 S 560***
7. Sapida v. Arandonilla 48 S 19 ***
8. Aramburo vs CA 101 S 146 ***
9. Patricio vs Leviste 172 S 774 ***
10. Santos v. CA 295 S 150***

RULE 14
Service of summons with the amended complaint
1. De Dios v. CA 212 S 519

By whom served
2. Bello v. Ubo 117 S 91

Substituted service
3. Ang Ping v. CA 310 S 156
4. BPI v. Evangelista ***
5. Keister v. Navarro 77 S 209
6. Arevalo v. Quilatan 116 S 700
7. Venturanza v. CA 156 S 305

9|Page J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
8. Sandoval v. HRET *** doctrine reiterated in this case
9. Paluwagan v. King 172 S 60
10. Busuego v. CA 151 S 376

Service upon incompetents

11. Immaculata v. Navarro 146 S 5

Service upon domestic private juridical entity

12. Far Corp. v. Francisco 146 S 197
13. Mapa v. CA ***
14. Golden Country v. Sanvar 214 S 295
15. EB Vllarosa v. Benito 312 S 65

Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown

16. Citizens Surety v. Melencio-Herrera 38 S 369
17. Magdalena v. Nieto 125 S 758

Extraterritorial service
18. Dial Corp. v. Soriano 161 S 737
19. Banco de Brasil v. CA 333 S 545
20. Cariaga v. Malaya 143 S 441
21. Valmonte v. CA 252 S 92
22. Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros ***

Residents temporarily out of the the Philippines

23. Montalban v. Maximo 22 S 1070 ***
24. HSBC v. Catalan 440 S 499 ***
25. Minucher v. CA 214 S 242 ***

Voluntary appearance
Busuego v. CA, supra No. 10

RULE 15
1. Moya v. Barton 76 P 831
Notice and hearing of motion for extension are not necessary.
2. Tan v. Dimayuga 5 S 712

3. Yap v. CA 115 S 104

4. Azajar v. CA 145 S 3338
5. Corpus v. Corpus 148 S 21
6. BPI v. Far East Molasses Corp. 198 SCRA 689
7. Filipinas v. Magsino 157 S 469

RULE 16
1. La Naval Drug v. CA 236 S 78 ***

Lis Pendens
2. Arceo v. Oliveros 134 S 309
3. Ramos v. Peralta 203 S 412
4. Victronics v. RTC 217 S 17 ***
5. Ramos vs Ebarle 182 S 245 ***
10 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
6. Suntay vs Aguiluz 209 S 500 ***
7. Pascua vs Florendo 136 S 208 ***

Res judicata
8. Lee Bun Ting vs Aligaen 76 S 416 ***
9. Enriquez vs Boyles 226 S 666 ***
10. NHA vs Almeda 525 S 383 ***

No cause of action
11. Lim vs delos Santos 8 S 798 ***
12. Tan v. CA 295 S 247 ***
13. Tan v. Director of Forestry October 27, 1983 ***

Effect of dismissal
14. Cruz vs Caraos 521 S 510, Rule 17 ***

RULE 17
Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff
1. Go vs Cruz 172 S 247 ***

Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff

2. BA Finance vs Rufino Co 224 S 163 ***
3. Olympia vs CA 180 S 353 ***

Failure to present evidence in chief

4. Jalover vs Ytoriaga 80 S 200 ***
Cruz vs Caraos supra, Rule 16 the court did not discuss the dismissal based on
rule 17

Failure to prosecute action for an unreasonable length of time

5. Republic Planters Bank vs Molina 166 S 39 ***

Failure to comply with any order of the court

6. Mina vs Pacson, supra Rule 3
Barrameda vs. Barbara , supra Rule 3
7. Guanzon vs Mapa 7 S 457 ***

RULE 18
1. Founting Ed v. CA *** di ko mahanap
Counsel as representative must have a special power of attorney.

RULE 19
1. Orosa v. Migrino 218 S 311
The seller can not intervene because it had already parted with the property.
2. Ordonez v. Gustilo 192 S 469
Exception: The final dismissal of the main action carries with it the intervention.
3. Metrobank v. RTC 189 S 820 ***
General Rule: The dismissal of the main action does not carry with it the
intervention suit.

11 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 RULE 21
1. People v. Montejo 21 S 722
The rule that a witness is not bound to heed a subpoena if he resides certain
kilometers from his residence to the place of trial applies solely to civil cases.
2. Liebenow v. Phil. Vegetable Oil Co. 39 P 60
Quashing a subpoena duces tecum on the ground of irrelevancy of documents

RULE 22
1. Luz v. National Amnesty Commission G.R. No. 159708, September 24, 2004
A motion for extension of time to file a pleading is counted from the expiration of
the period regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal
holiday.

RULE 23
1. De Lopez vs Macereno 95 P 753 ***
The trial courts refusal to grant the deposition on the ground that it will deprive
the court to examine the demeanor of the witness is not proper because the
taking of a deposition does not follow the person becomes a witness, the party is
still fishing for evidence.
2. Veran vs CA 157 S 438 ***
There must be proof of notice of service that a deposition will be taken.
3. Republic vs Elepano Oct 15 1991 ***
Jurisdiction over the defendant is not necessary to take deposition.
4. Republic v. Sandiganbayan 204 S 212 ***
Mahaba to

RULE 26
1. Uy Chiao vs Dela Rama Steamship 6 S 69 ***
When a motion to dismiss was filed instead of an answer, there could still be a
request for admission.
2. Bayview Hotel vs Ker & Co L-28237 ***
An admission is in the nature of an evidence and its effect may be availed of by
any party.

RULE 29
1. Jaravata vs Karolus June 21 2007 ***
Before one may be declared in default, it is necessary that there is an order to
compel an answer and a refusal thereto.

RULE 30
1. Yu v. Mapayo 144 S 160
When the defendant admits the allegations in the complaint and pleads
affirmative defenses, there will be a reversal of the order of trial.

12 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 RULE 34
Capitol Motors v. Yabut, supra Rule 8
Where there is no specific denial, the court may render judgment upon the
pleadings.
1. Apelario v. Chavez 3 S 226
Where the defendant pleaded an excuse instead of a defense, judgment on the
pleadings is proper.
2. Falcasantos v. How Suy Ching 91 P 456
When the plaintiff files a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the material
allegations in the defendants answer are deemed admitted.

RULE 35
1. PNB v. Philippine Leather Co. 105 S 400
There is no genuine issue when the defendant admits the debt except as to the
amount.
2. Urmaneta v. Manzano 4 S 610
In an action where plaintiff claims ownership over a land, there is no genuine
issue where the defendant does not claim to be the owner and admitted that he
is a tenant.
3. Vergara v. Suelto 156 S 753
There is no genuine issue where the issues are sham, characterized by bad faith.
4. Galicia v. Polo 179 S 371
A summary judgment filed by the defendant

RULE 36
1. Consolidated v. CA 189 S 433
A decision may no longer be promulgated after the ponente has vacated his
office.
2. People v. CFI Quezon 227 S 457
Contrary to Consolidated Case, a decision penned by a judge whose temporary
detail to a vacant branch where the case was tried has expired may be
promulgated because he is still an incumbent judge of the same court, albeit
assigned to a different branch.
3. World Machine v. IAC 192 S 459
Judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata, generally not appealable, and
cannot be modified except with the consent of the parties or when there is
vitiated consent.
4. Suarez v. CA 193 S 187
A decision rendered without expressing the facts and the law on which it is based
is void and thus, will not constitute res judicata to another action.
5. Grinen v. Consolacion 5 S 722
A decision does not have to include all the evidence adduced but only those
necessary to support the controverted matters.
6. Fabular v. CA 119 S 329
A decision which has become final could no longer be modified.
7. Pajarito v. Seneris 87 S 275
The subsidiary liability of the employer may be enforced in the same criminal
case where the award was made.

13 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 RULE 37
Newly discovered evidence
1. Tumang v. CA 172 S 328
On the requisites of newly discovered evidence
2. Balamide v. CA 90 S di ko to mahanap ***
Due diligence is that standard of a good father of a family

Pro forma motion

3. Marikina Valley v. 251 S 87 ***
Proforma does not mean repeating, repleading

Effect of new trial

4. David v. Fernandez 62896
When a new trial is granted, the previous judgment, including consequential
effects, shall become void.

RULE 38
Fraud as ground
1. Asian Surety v. Island Steel 118 S 233
Fraud must be extrinsic to be a ground for relief from judgment.
2. Demetriou v. CA 238 S 158
Use of false affidavit of loss constitutes intrinsic fraud; annulment of judgment on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
3. Anuran v. Aquino 38 P 29 read this but cant understand it!!!

Affidavit of merit
4. Ang Lam v. Rosillosa 86 P 447 *** not necessary where based on lack of
jurisdiction
Annulment of judgment for lack of jurisdiction may be filed even after the periods
provided for the filing of petition for relief from judgment.

Nature of petition for relief

5. Francisco v. Puno 108 S 427
Motion for new trial and petition for relief are exclusive of each other.
6. Fajardo v. Bayona L-8314
A petition for certiorari and mandamus bars a petition for relief from judgment.

In what court petition for relief may be availed

7. Mesina v. Meer 383 S 627
A petition for relief is not available as a remedy against the judgment of the CA.
8. Gordulan v. Gordulan 3 S 205***
There is no recital of facts constituting FAME, thus, it was dismissed.
9. Suzara v. Caluag***
A petition for relief filed before judgment became final and there was no affidavit
of merit

RULE 39
Section 1

14 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 Pajarito v. Seneris, supra Rule 36
The subsidiary liability of the employer may be enforced in the same criminal
case where the award was made.
1. Luna v. IAC 137 S 7
Execution of a final and executory judgment may be stayed when there had been
a change in the situation of the parties which makes such execution inequitable;
child who threatened to kill herself if she will be returned to her parents.
2. Tanada v. CA 139 S 419
Ratification of execution of final judgment

Section 2
3. Associated Bank v. Gonong 152 S 470
4. Ong v. CA 403 S 38
5. Valencia vs CA 184 S 561
6. Engineering Construction v. NAPOCOR 163 S 9
7. Borja v. CA 196 S 847
8. Director of Lands vs Reyes 68 S 177
No execution pending appeal in land registration cases
9. Dy v. CA 195 S 585
Notice before execution of judgment

Section 4
10. Roque v. Del Gado 95 P 723
Application of unless otherwise ordered by the trial court; the judgment of the
trial court dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction, but pending appeal, it
ordered the suspension of the dissolution.

Section 5
11. Aranda vs CA 186 S 456

Section 6
12. David vs Ejercito 71 S 484 ***
13. Napocor vs CA 213 S 133 ***
14. Sta Ana vs Menla 1 S 2994 ***
Revival of judgment does not apply in land registration proceedings
15. Canonizado vs Benitez 127 S 610 ***
Judgment for support can be enforced by mere motion notwithstanding the lapse
of 5 years
16. Phil Airline vs CA 181 S 557 ***
Encashment of a sheriff of a check for his own use

Section 9
17. Salazar vs Villaflor 81 S 229 ***
Attachment of much more
18. Barola vs Abogatal 114 S 582 ***
Nonexecution by sheriff
19. Aquino v. Aficial ***
Sheriff can not enter into a compromise with the judgment debtor (He acceded to
the judgment debtors request to pay at a later date)

Section 10
20. Casanova vs Lacsamana 90 S 68 ***
After the lapse of period allowed may demolition be made
21. Arcadio vs Yllagan 143 S 168 ***
No need to secure special order to break open

15 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Section 12
Mai Phil vs NLRC 151 S 196
Filing of a separate action to enforce judgment not necessary

Section 13
22. Gomez vs Gealone 203 S 474 ***
When the right to exemption from execution may be invoked
23. Gaa vs CA 140 S 304 ***
On salaries
24. Pentagon vs Gimenez 192 S 492 ***
On tools and implements

Section 16
25. Arabay Inc vs Salvador 82 S 138 ***
Filing by the 3rd party claimant of a separate action
Bayer vs Agana 63 S 355
Right of 3rd party claimant may not be taken up in the case where such claims are
presented, but in a separate and independent action instituted by the claimant

Section 22
Filipinas Mills vs Dayrit 192 S 158
26. Abrogar vs IAC 157 S 57***
Invalid postponement of an auction sale

Redemption
Cenas vs Santos 204 S 53
On purchaser-creditor
Gorospe vs Santos 69 S 191
Anticamara vs Ong 82 S 387

Section 33
27. Roxas v. Buan 167 S 43 ***
Successor in interest not holding the property adversely because he only acquired
the right to redeem
28. Malonzo vs Soriano 173 S 667 ***
Lessees not possessing the property adversely
29. Mariano vs CA 174 S 59***
Husband of the judgment debtor not a stranger to the case
30. Cometa vs IAC 151 S 563 ***
Writ of possession is complementary to a writ of execution

Section 37
31. Alazas vs Salas 179 S 804 ***
Examination of judgment obligor who has unissued shares of stock
32. PCIB vs CA 193 S 452 ***
Bank secrecy on garnishment
33. NPC vs Gonong 177 S 365 ***
Denial of debtor of judgment obligor

Section 47
Lee Bun Ting vs Aligaen, supra Rule 16`
On the law of the case

Section 48
16 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 Hang Lung Bank v. Saulog, supra Rule 3

34. Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139125, April 12, 2005 ***
Docket fees not based on the amount of the award in the foreign judgment because
such can no longer be litigated

RULE 41
Section 1
1. LPBS v. Amila, G.R. No. 147443, February 11, 2008
An order denying a motion for issuance of a TRO is an interlocutory order, thus,
no appeal may be taken.
2. Banaga v. Majaducon, G.R. No. 149051, June 30, 2006
Improper or irregular execution of a judgment is appealable.

Section 3
3. Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005
Fresh period rule: A party who filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration has a
fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal counted from
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration.

4. PNB v. CA 548 S 557 ***

Effect of perfecting an appeal; notice of appeal cannot be withdrawn to revive the
jurisdiction of the court

Of a particular matter
Miranda vs CA, G.R. No. L-33007, June 18, 1976 *** Landmark

Appeals in the Family Court

Republic v. CA 458 S 200 ***
Republic v. Bermudez-Levino 449 S 51***

Multiple Appeals
Briones v. Henson-Cruz G.R. No. 159130 ***

Appeals on expropriation cases

Marinduque Mining v. CA 567 S 483 ***

Period to Appeal
PCI Leasing and Finance v. Milan 617 S 258 ***

Wrong Mode of Appeal

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. World Interactive G.R. No. 169332, February
11, 2008 ***

Appeals in naturalization
In Re: Shewak A. Keswani v. Republic G.R. No. 153986, June 8, 2007 ***

RULE 42
1. Bernardo v. People G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007

17 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 Petitioner filed a motion for 30-day extension to file petition for review; the CA
may grant an additional period of 15 days only, another 15 days for most
compelling reason.

Appeals against the decision of the RTC seating as an agrarian court

LBP v. De Leon 399 S 376***
LBP v. Rodriguez G.R. No. 148892, May 6, 2010***
LBP v. CA G.R. No. 190660, April 11, 2011 ***

RULE 44
Section 13 Contents of appellants brief
1. Estate of Vda. De Villegas v. Gaboya, G.R. No. 143006July 14, 2006
Failure to comply with the requirements of Sec. 13 (a), (c) and (d) is a ground for
dismissal under Section 1(f) of Rule 50

Section 15 Questions that may be raised on appeal

2. Del Rosario v. Bonga, G.R. No. 136308, January 23, 2001
Raising issues for the first time on appeal; exceptions

RULE 45
Question of fact or law
1. Southern Negros Devt Bank vs. CA 233 S 460
The question of improper venue is a question of law.
2. Caina vs. People 213 S 309
The question of whether there is a preponderance of evidence is a question of fact.
3. Victorias v. IAC ***
The determination of whether the court has jurisdiction is a question of law. (Under
the present law, no longer appealable because it is dismissal without prejudice)
4. Kho v. Camacho 204 S 150
The trial court cannot disallow an appeal on the ground that involves purely question
of law.
5. Lloren v. Chief Inspector 233 S xii
Appeal from decisions of RTCs on pure questions of law to the SC may only be made
by petition for review not notice of appeal.
6. RCAM vs CA G.R. No. 111328, July 5 1996

7. Sesbreno v. CA 240 S 606

8. Manila Bay Club vs. CA G.R. No. 110015, July 11 1995

Appeal from decisions of the Ombudsman

9. Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998
Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of
Rule 43, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
10. Cabrera v. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006
The remedy from resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of
criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45.
11. Lanting v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, May 6, 2005
Except in administrative cases, only the Supreme Court has the appellate
authority in decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.
18 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 RULE 47
1. Fraginal v. Heirs of Paraal
2. Padua v. CA
Judgment rendered by a quasi-judicial body may not be annulled under Rule 47.
3. People v. Bitanga
Rule 47 does not apply to criminal cases.
4. Grandef v. UP
Rule 47 does not pertain to the nullification of the decision of the CA.
5. Alaban v. CA
Failure to take the remedies at law deprives a party to the remedy under Rule 47
6. Case next time
There can be an annulment of judgment of the RTC acting a land registration court

RULE 51
1. Dadizon v. Bernadas 588 S 678 ***
The reversal of judgment on appeal may only affect parties in the appeal case and
will not inure to the benefit of those who did not appeal. Exception: Where the
judgment is inseparable, the reversal of one is a reversal to all even if the others did
not appeal.
(e.g., surety appealed but not the principal, judgment in favor of the former will
benefit the latter)
2. Borlongan v. Buenaventura February 27, 2006 ***
Upon death, lawyer-client relationship ceases, thus appealed filed where the
petitioner has died is a mere scrap of paper.
Del Rosario v. Bonga, supra Rule 41
On Section 8
Consolidated Bank v. CA, supra Rule 36
On Section 9

SUMMARY PROCEDURE
1. Combate v. San Jose 135 S 693
Theft is not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure; trial is required before
judgment
2. Heirs Olivas v. Florentino 161 S 393
Noncompliance with the requirement of conducting a preliminary conference
3. Lasaca v. CA 215 S 17
The defendant may not be declared in default where an answer was filed
4. Bayubay v. CA 224 S 557
Failure to give the parties an opportunity to submit affidavits is a violation of the
Rule on Summary Procedure

RULE 57
1. Sievert v. CA 168 S 692
The writ of preliminary attachment cannot bind the defendant without service of
summons.
2. Davao Light v. CA 204 S 343
The writ of preliminary attachment may be issued even before acquisition of
jurisdiction.

19 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
3. Uy v. CA 215 S 859

4. Miranda v. CA, G.R. No. 80030, October 26, 1989

Old rule: Fraud under 1(d) refers only to dolo causante.

5. Salas v. Adil 90 S 122

6. Carpio v. Macadaeg 9 S 52

7. Calderon v. IAC 155 S 531

8. Benitez v. IAC 154 S 141

9. D.P. Lub Oil v. Nicolas 191 S 423

10. Santos v. Aquino 205 S 127

11. Perla v. Ramolete 203 A 487

12. Olib v. Pastoral 188 S 692

Sec 14
13. Uy vs CA 191 S 275
14. Traders Royal Bank vs. IAC133 S 141

Sec 20
15. Pioneer Insurance vs. Hontangas 78 S 447
16. Consolidated Bank vs. IAC 153 S 233
Santos vs Rustia 90 P 360
Lee Lin vs C&S Agro 121 S 725
17. Towers Assurance vs. Ororama 80 S 262
Rivera vs Talavera 2 S 272
Mobil Oil 225 S 486
Morillo vs CA
Neypes vs CA 141524
Sumaway vs Urban Bank 142534
Habaluyas vs Sy
Lacsamana vs IAC
Gocotano vs. Gocotano 136814
Borlongan vs Buenaventura 167234
Fabian vs Desierto
Keswani vs. Republic153986
Bautista vs CA 143375
Alaban vs CA 156021
Villegas vs. Gaboya 143006
Bernardo vs People 166980

20 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 RULE 58
BP 129 Section 21 (1)
1. Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Aligaen 33 SCRA 368 ( 1970) ***
The acts relative to the establishment of a local telephone system by petitioners
were being done within the territorial boundaries of the province or district of
respondent Court, and so said Court had jurisdiction to restrain them by injunction. It
does not matter that some of the respondents in the trial court, against whom the
injunction order was issued, had their official residence outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial court.

2. Gonzales vs. Secretary of Public Works G.R. No. L-21988, September 30, 1966, 18
SCRA 296**
The only question raised was whether the Court of First Instance of Davao had
jurisdiction to entertain a case the main purpose of which was to prevent the
enforcement of a decision of the Secretary of Public Works who was in Manila this
Court held that, inasmuch as the acts sought to be restrained were to be performed
within the territorial boundaries of the province of Davao, the Court of First Instance
of Davao had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and to issue the necessary
injunction order.

3. Limjap v. Animas G.R. No. L-53334. January 17, 1985 ***

RTC of Manila has jurisdiction because PPA holds office in Manila.

4. Dagupan Electric Corporation vs. Pao, 95 SCRA 693 (1980) ***

5. Decano v. Edu G.R. No. L-30070. August 29, 1980 ***

It is true that the order of dismissal was issued by respondent Edu, but it was to be
implemented in Dagupan City

6. Olongapo v. NPC G.R. No. L-24912. April 9, 1987 ***

PD 1818
7. Garcia v. Burgos G.R. No. 124130. June 29, 1998 ***

RA 7227
8. Allied Domecq v. Villon G.R. No. 156264. September 30, 2004 ***
9. Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Uy G.R. No. 144062. November
2, 2006 ***
The action is for a final injunction, thus, the RTC has jurisdiction. What is disallowed
is the issuance of a TRO or a preliminary injunction.

RA 8975
10. DFA v. Falcon G.R. No. 176657. September 1, 2010 ***

RULE 59
1. Elarde v. Enriquez ***
The trial court erred in appointing a receiver when title is in issue and there is no
showing that the property or fund is in danger of being lost.

2. Central Surety v. Alto Assurance ***

21 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Receivership of property not a subject of the litigation may be allowed under Rule 39
Section 41

RULE 60
1. Machineries Engineering Supplies v. CA 96 Phil ***
If a personal property is embedded or attached to a real property its nature is
converted to a real property such that it is no longer subject of replevin.

2. Bachrach Motors v. ***

3. Case v. Hugo ***

Substantial compliance of furnishing plaintiff copy of the counterbond

4. Jago v. CA ***
Right to reject of the plaintiff

5. Stronghold Assurance v. CA ***

On Section 20 of Rule 57

6. Sagupay v. CA ***
7. Tilson v. CA**

22 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Cases that were in the list but not discussed

Jurisdiction
TIPAIT vs. HON. REYES, G.R. No. 70174. February 9, 1993
Enerio vs Alampay 64 S 142
Suarez vs CA 186 S 339
Trade Unions vs Coscolluela 140 S 302
Bulao vs CA 215 S 321
Lozon vs NLRC 310 S 1
ARZAGA vs. COPIAS, G.R. No. 152404. March 28, 2003 (DARAB)
Notre Dame vs Mallare 197 S 187
Mangaliyag v H. Catubig-Pastoral 474 S 153
Parcon v. CA
ALLGEMEINE vs. MBTC, G.R. No. 159296. February 10, 2006
Dela Cruz vs CA 442 S 492
Javellana vs Judge RTC 443 S 497
Sandoval vs Caneba 190 S 77
Osea vs. Ambrosio
BPI vs. ALS, G.R. No. 151821. April 14, 2004
Roxas vs. CA 439 Phil 966 (2002)

Rule 2
Aurelio vs CA 196 S 674

Rule 4
Tacay vs Tagum old rule on jurisdiction of RTC involving real property; docket
fees

Rule 6
Far Eastern Marble vs CA 225 S 245
Delos Santos vs. Provincial Sheriff 64 P 193 demurrer; authority to order
amendment
Cayetano vs Ceguerra 13 S 73
Intl Container vs CA 214 S 456

Rule 7
Chavez v. Sandiganbayan 193 S 282
Bulacan vs Torcino 134 S 252
Heirs Masangya v. Masangya 189 S 234 service of judgment in case of death
of counsel
Estoesta vs CA 191 S 303 plaintiff filed a motion without the assistance of
counsel
Cortez vs CA 83 S 91 service of notice to counsel who was not properly
substituted
Jureidini vs CA 83 S 91 attorneys fees
BR Sebastian vs CA 206 S 28 failure of counsel to file appellants brief
Gutierrez vs Abila 111 S 658 defamatory remarks in the answer not privileged
com.
People vs Aquino 18 S 555 alleged defamatory remarks in the reply privileged
Telan vs CA 202 S 535 right to appeal not lost where lawyer is fake
Arambulo vs CA 226 S 589
Alinsug vs RTC 58 225 S 553

23 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 Republic vs CA 201 S 1
Docena vs Lapesura 355 S 658
Ortiz vs CA 299 S 708
Far Eastern vs CA 297 S 30
Ortigas vs Velasco 234 S 455

Rule 8
Sps. Donato vs CA 217 S 196

Rule 9
Director Land vs CA 209 S 457
Metals Engineering vs CA 203 S 273
BA Finance vs Co 224 S 163
Mangelen vs CA 215 S 230

Rule 10
NAPOCOR vs CA 113 S 556
Legaspi vs Geronimo 76 S 174
Aznar III vs Bernad 161 S 276

Rule 14
Summit Trading vs Avendano 124 S 434
ATM Trucking vs. Buencamino
Pacific Micronesion Line vs Del Rosario 93 P 23
Talsam Enterprises vs Buliuag Transit 310 S 156
Santos vs CA 295 S 147
Viewmaster Construction vs. Maniulit 326 S 821

Rule 16
PNB vs Hipolito 13 S 20
Borje vs CFI 88 S 576
Continental vs CA 184 S 728

Rule 17
Meliton vs CA 216 S 485

Rule 18
Taroma vs Sayo 67 S 508
Chan vs Abaya 90 S 61
Golloop vs CA 212 S 498
FilOil vs 160 S 133
Jungco vs CA 179 S 213

Rule 23
Dasmarinas Garments vs Reyes 225 S 622

Rule 25
Dayo vs Comelec 92542

Rule 26
Briboneria vs CA 101682
PCSFC Financial Corp. vs CA
Estate Lim Ching vs Bacalan March 14 2007

24 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Rule 29
Co vs IAC

Rule 30
Jalover vs Horriaga
Cosiquien vs 188 S 619

Rule 36
Mascona v. PB Negros 79 S 399 just read daw
Filinvest vs CA 226 S 257
Pengson vs IAC 130 S 289
Partosa vs CA 216 S 692

Rule 37
Valdes v. Jugo 74 P 49
Dapin vs Dionaldo 209 S 38
Habaluyas vs 138 S 46
Rebuldela vs IAC 155 S 520

Rule 38
People v. Pareja 189 S 143
Arcilla 138 S 560
Leyte 152 S 496
Teburcio 161 S 583
Mateo 196 S 280

Rule 39
Motion to Dismiss Preliminary hearing
Abrahano vs Salas
Tan vs CA Sept 22 1998
Request for Admission
Concrete vs 266 S 88
Doque vs Ca July 2 2002
Brinoneria vs
Summary Judgment
Asian vs PCIB April 25 2006
Estate Lim Ching vs Bacalan March 14 2007
Relief Judgement
Guian vs CA 510 S 568
Sec 6
Luzon Surety vs Eya 151 S 652
Sec 10
Young vs. Momblan 205 S 33
Sec 16
Escorvila vs. CA 179 S 108
Sy vs. Habacon-Garyblas 228 S 644
Consolidated Bank vs. CA 193 S 158
Sec 27
Redemption
Writ of Possession
Pascua vs Simeon 161 S 1
Res Judicata

25 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
 Tiro vs CA 85 S 554
Madrigal 5 S 943
Admin Res Judicata
Dulay vs Minister of Natural Resources 218 S 562
NHA refer above
Cayetano de Borja vs. CAR 78 S 485
Pajarito vs Ineris 87 S 275
Republic Surety vs IAC 152 S 309
Vda de Medina vs IAC 207 S 269
Filinvest vs IAC 207 S 269

26 | P a g e J PE AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r