Remedial Law Review

University of the Philippines College of Law

Second Semester Yr 2010-2011

Prof. TJ Herbosa

Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction

Allegations of complaint determine jurisdiction Hasegawa et al v. Kitamura GR 149177 Nov 23, 2007Jurisdiction by estoppel Figueroa v. People, GR 147407, Jul 14, 2008; Payment of filing fees - Ruby Shelter v. Hon. Formaran GR 174914 Feb 10, 2009Distinguished from venue Chavez v. CA GR 125813 Feb 6, 2007Doctrine of non-interference Springfield v. RTC Judge GR 142626 Feb 6, 2007Primary jurisdiction Sta. Ana v. Carpo GR 164340 Nov 28, 2008

Supreme Court

Philippine Constitution, Article VIIIPower of judicial review Garcillano v. House GR 170338 Dec 23, 2008Doctrine of stare decisis Lazatin v. Desierto GR 147097 June 5, 2009Hierarchy of courts Ferdinand Cruz v. Priscilla Mijares et al GR 154404 Sep 11, 2008; First United v. Poro Point GR 178799 Jan 19, 2009Appellate jurisdiction First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA, GR 110571, Mar 10, 1994SC Power of administrative supervision Sarah Ampong v. CSC GR 167916 Aug 26, 2008

Court of Appeals

BP 129, as amended by RA 7902, Sec. 9 and RA 8246Question of law , fact or both CGP Transport v. PU Leasing GR 164547 Mar 28, 2007

Court of Tax Appeals

RA 9282

Sandiganbayan

RA 8249

Regional Trial Courts

BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, Sec. 5Incapable of pecuniary estimation - Bokingco v. CA, GR No. 161739, May 4, 2006; RCP v.

CA GR 136109 Aug 1, 2002;Recovery of possession Honorio Bernardo v. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas GR 183357 Mar 15, 2010;Encarnacion v. Amigo, GR No. 169793 Sep 15, 2006Issue of constitutionality Planters Products v. Fertiphil GR 166006 Mar 14, 2008Quasi judicial agency Badillo v. CA GR 131903 June 26, 2008CIAC Fort Bonifacio v Domingo GR 180768 Feb 27, 2009RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court Land Bank v. Ralla Balista GR 164631 Jun 26, 2009Default jurisdiction Mun of Pateros v. CA GR 157714 Jun 16, 2009HLURB Tricorp v. CA GR 165742 Jun 30, 2009;Ma. Luisa Dazon v. Kenneth Yap and People Jan 15, 2010

Family Courts

Sec 5, RA 8369 Family Courts Act of 1997A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and

Annulment of Voidable MarriagesA.M. No. 02-11-11 Rule on Legal SeparationA.M. No. 02-11-12 Rule on Provisional Orders

A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to

Custody of MinorsA.M. No. 03-02-05-SC Rule on Guardianship of Minors

A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC Rule on Adoption

Sunday, November 14, 2010

11:07 PM

REMLAW Page 1

A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC Rule on AdoptionSummary Proceedings under the Family Code, Title XI, Chapters 1 to 3 on separation in fact

between husband and wife or abandonment by one of the other and incidents involving parental authority;

Chapter 4 on Art. 41 (declaration of a spouse as presumptively dead),

Art. 51(action of a child for presumptive legitime), Art. 69 (judicial declaration of family domicile in case of disagreement of the spouses),

Art. 73 (spouses objection to the profession of the other spouse), Arts. 96 and

124 (annulment of husbands decision in the administration and enjoyment of community or conjugal property; appointment of spouse as sole administrator except cases of incompetent other spouse which shall be under Rules 93 and 95)

and Art. 217 (entrusting children to homes and orphanages).Madrinan v. Madrinan GR 159374 Jul 12, 2007Yu v Yu GR 164915 Mar 10, 2006

Commercial Courts

Sec. 5.2, RA 8799A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-corporate ControversiesA.M. 00-8-10-SC Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (note FRIA)

Oscar Reyes v. RTC Makati GR 165744 Aug 11, 2008

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts/Circuit Trial Courts

BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, Secs. 2 to 4

Unlawful detainer v. agrarian dispute Sps Fajardo v. Anita Flores GR 167891 Jan 15, 2010Recovery of possession Vda De Barrera et al v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR 174346 Sept 12, 2008;Ouano v. PGTT Gr No. 134230 July 7, 2002;

Barangay Lupon

RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) Secs 399-422Substantial compliance Leo Wee v. George de Castro et al GR 1764095 Aug 20, 2008;Aquino v. Aure, GR 153567 Feb 18, 2008

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Ordinary Civil Actions Rules 1 to 39

Rule 1 General Provisions of the Rules of Court

Liberal application Makati Ins. V. Reyes et al GR 167403 Aug 6, 2008; Rural Bank of Seven Lakes v. Dan GR 174109 Dec 24, 2008;

Rule 2 Cause of Action

Elements of a cause of action - Ceroferr v. CA 376 SCRA 144; Camarines Sur Electric v.

Aquino GR 167691 Sep 23, 2008Sufficiency of allegations Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune GR 141309 Dec 23, 2008Splitting a cause of action BPI Family v. De Coscuella, GR No. 167724, Jun 27, 2006Joinder of causes of action UCPB v. Sps. Beluso GR 159912 Aug 17, 2007

Rule 3 Parties to Civil Actions

Real party in interest Carlos v. Sandoval GR 179922 Dec 16, 2008; Estreller v. Ysmael GR 170264 Mar 13, 2009Indispensable parties Robert De Galicia v. Mercado, GR No. 146744, Mar 6, 2006;Lagunilla v. Velasco GR 169276 Jun 16, 2009; Josephine Marmo v Moises Anacay GR 182585 Nov 27 2009; Leonis Navigation v Catalina Villamater GR 179169 Mar 3, 2010

Necessary parties Relucio v. Lopez 373 SCRA 578; AutoCorp v. Intra Strata GR 166662 Jun 27, 2008Capacity to sue and be sued - Van ZuiDen v. GTVL Manufacturing 523 SCRA 233; Deutsche

v CA GR 152318 Apr 16, 2009Misjoinder/non-joinder of parties Chua v. Torres GR 151900 Aug 30, 2005; Anicia Valdez Tallorin v Heirs of Juanito Tarona GR 177429 Nov 24, 2009; Littie Sarah Agdeppa v Heirs of Ignacio Bonete GR 164436 Jan 15 2010

Successors in interest Sui Man Hui Chan v. CA, GR 147999, Feb 27, 2004Substitute parties Carandang vs. Heirs of De Guzman GR 160347 Nov. 29, 2006; Judge Sumaljag v. Literato GR 149787 Jun 18, 2008; Domingo v Landicho GR 170015 Aug 29, 2007; Napere v. Barbarona GR 160426 Jan 31, 2008

Indigent parties Sps Algura v. LGU GR 150135 Oct 30, 2006

REMLAW Page 2

Indigent parties Sps Algura v. LGU GR 150135 Oct 30, 2006

Rule 4 Venue of Actions

Personal action Uniwide v. Cruz GR 171456 Aug 9, 2007Real Action Infante v. Aran Builders, GR 156594 Aug 24, 2007; HiYield v. CA GR 168863 Jun 23, 2009Principal party ; when to object Irene Marcos-Araneta v. CA GR 154096 Aug 22, 2008Stipulated venue not exclusive - Philbanking v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413; Spouses Lantin v.

Judge Lantion, GR No. 160053, Aug 28, 2006

Rule 5 Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts

Revised Rules on Summary ProcedureSummary procedure Estate of Macadangdang v Gaviola GR 156809 Mar 4, 2009; Angelina Soriente v Estate pf Arsenio Concepcion GR 160239 Nov 25 2009; Sps Edillo v Sps Dulpina GR 188360 Jan 21 2010

Rule 6 Kinds of Pleadings

Answer Rosete v. Lim, GR No. 136051, Jun 8, 2006Compulsory counterclaim Financial Builders. V. FPA 338 SCRA 346; Reillo v. San Jose GR 166393 Jun 18, 2009Permissive counterclaim Banco de Oro v. CA GR 160354 Aug 25, 2005; Dec 19, 2007Third party complaint Asian Construction v. CA 458 SCRA 750; Sy Tiong Shion v Sy Chin GR 174168/179438 Mar 30, 2009Cross-claim Torres v. CA 49 SCRA 67

Rule 7 Parts of a Pleading

Sufficient in form/substance Sps Munsalado v. NHA GR 167181 Dec 23, 2008Signature of counsel Republic v. Kenrich Dev. Do., GR No. 149576, August 8, 2006Verification/Certification Madara v. Porillo GR 172449 Aug 20, 2008; Kaunlaran v. Uy GR 154974, Feb 4, 2008; Sps Valmonte v. Alcala GR 168667 Jul 23, 2008 Who can sign w/o sec cert Mid-Pasig Land v Mario Tablante GR 162924 Feb 4, 2010

Rule 8 Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

Ultimate facts Far East Marble v. CA GR 94093 Aug 10, 1993Specific denial under oath Filipinas Textile v. CA 415 SCRA 635No knowledge Warner Barnes v. Reyes 103 Phil 602Modes of specific denial Gaza et al v. Lim GR 126863 Jan 16, 2003; Actionable document Casent Realty v. Philbanking GR 150731 Sep 14, 2007; Malayan v. Regis Brokerage GR 172156 Nov 23, 2007

Rule 9 Effect of Failure to Plead

No default motu proprio Santos v PNOC GR 170943 Sep 23, 2008Failure to appear Monzon v. Sps Relova GR 171827 Sep 17, 2008Remedies of party declared in default Gomez v. Montalban GR 174414 Mar 14, 2008Default judgment Gajudo v. Traders Royal GR 151098, Mar 21, 2006

Rule 10 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Substantial amendment - PPA v. Gothong and Aboitiz GR 158401 Jan 28, 2008

When amendments allowed - Quirao v. Quirao 414 SCRA 430; Bautista v. Maya-Maya

Cottages, GR 148361, Nov 29, 2005; Marcos -Araneta et al v. CA GR 154096 Aug 22, 2008Conform to evidence Cagungun v. Planters Dev Bank GR 158674 Oct 17, 2005

Rule 11 When to File Responsive Pleading

Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday - Alarilla v. Ocampo 417 SCRA 601

Rule 12 Bill of Particulars

When a complaint is vague Bantillo v. IAC, GR No 75311, Oct. 18, 1988; Republic v. SB and Marcos, GR 148154, Dec 17, 2007

Rule 13 Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Paper

Personal filing and service Maceda, et al. v. Macatangay, GR 164947, Jan 31, 2006Service by registered mail - Andy Quelnan v. VHF Phil GR 138500, Sep16, 2005; Marcelino

Domingo v CA GR 169122 Feb 2 2010; Sps Belen v. Hon. Chavez, GR 175334, Mar 26, 2008 Service upon counsel GCP Many Transport v. Principe GR 141484, Nov 11, 2005Notice of lis pendens Sps Vicente v. Avera GR 169970 Jun 20, 2009

Rule 14 Summons

REMLAW Page 3

Rule 14 Summons

Kinds of actions - Gomez v. CA GR 127692 March 10, 2004; San Pedro v. Ong GR 17758

Oct 17, 2008; Personal vs. substituted service of summons - Guiguinto Credit Coop v. Torres, GR No.

170926, Sep 15, 2006; Guanzon v Arrandoza Dec 6, 2006 GR 155392; Potenciano v. Barnes GR 159421 Aug 20, 2008

Substituted service Clarita Garcia v SB and Republic GR 170122 Oct 12, 2009Extraterritorial service Montefalcon et al v. Vasquez GR 165016 Jun 17, 2008; Elmer v. Dakila Trading GR 172242 Aug 14, 2007; Temporarily out PCIB v Alejando GR 175587 Sep 21, 2007; Sps Torres v. Amparo Medina GR166730 Maar 10 2010Domestic juridical entity BPI v. Spouses Santiago Mar 28, 2007; Paramount v. Ordonez GR 175109, Aug 6, 2008Substantial compliance - Mason v. CA 413 SCRA 303; Millenium v. Tan GR 131724 Feb 28,

2000

Rule 15 Motions

Notice of hearing - KKK Foundation Inc. v. Hon. Bargas, et al GR 163785 Dec 27, 2007;

Camarines Corp v. Aquino GR 167691 Sept 23, 2008; Motion for extension Sarmiento v. Zaratan Feb 5, 2007Proof of service Romulo et al v. Peralta, GR 165665 Jan 31, 2007

Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss

Jurisdiction over subject matter DAR v. Hon. Abdulwahid GR 163285 Feb 27, 2008Jurisdiction over person Republic v. Glasgow GR 170281, Jan 18, 2008Failure to state a cause of action - Equitable PCIB v. CA GR 143556 Mar 16, 2004; Goodyear

Phil v. Sy GR 154554 Nov 9, 2005; Aldemita v. Heirs of Silva Nov 2, 2006; PDI v. Alameda GR 160604 Mar 28, 2008; Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag GR 181132 Jun 5, 2009

Lack of cause of action - Rural Bank of Calinog v. CA GR 146519, Jul 8, 2005; Bayot v. CA

GR 155635 Nov 7, 2008Litis pendentia - Mid Pasig Land Dev v. CA 413 SCRA 204; Intramuros Administration v.

Contacto 402 SCRA 581 Res judicata Francisco v. Roque GR 151339 Jan 31, 2006; Cruz v. CA GR 164797 Feb 13, 2006Prescription Heirs of Dolleton v. Fil-estate GR 170750 Apr 7, 2009; Lasquite v Victory Hills GR 175375 Jun 23, 2009; Paid, waived, etc. Doa Rosana Realty v. Molave Dev Corp GR 180523 Mar 26, 2010Forum Non Conveniens Raytheon Intl v. Rouzie GR 162894 Feb 26, 2008Denial of, unappealable Malicdem v. Flores Sep 8, 2006; PNB v Estate of De Guzman et al GR 182507 Jun 16, 2010Rule 17 Dismissal of Actions

Grounds Pinga v. Santiago, GR No. 170354, Jun 30, 2006Failure to prosecute Filinvest v. CA GR 142439 Dec 6, 2006; RN Dev v. A.I.I GR 166104 Jun 26, 2008; Dismissal without prejudice Heirs of Gaudiane v. CA, GR 119879, March 11, 2004; Cruz v. CA GR 164797 Feb 13, 2006

Notice of dismissal prevails over motion to dismiss Dael v. Sps Beltran GR 156470 Apr 30, 2008Counterclaim Mendoza v. Paule GR 175885 Feb 31, 2009Effect Benedicto v. Lacson GR 141508 May 5, 2010

Rule 18 Pre-Trial

AM No. 03-1-09-SC Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of

Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures Effect of failure to appear - Saguid v. CA 403 SCRA 678; Jazmin Espiritu v. Vladimir Lazaro,

GR 181020, Nov 25, 2009Admissions at pre-trial - Biesterbos v. CA 411 SCRA 396 Other pre-trial requirements - Advance Textile Mills v. Tan GR 154040 Jul 28, 2005; Anatalia

Ramos v. Dominga Dizon, GR No. 137247, Aug. 7, 2006

Rule 19 Intervention

Requirements - Nordic Asia v. CA 403 SCRA 390 When to intervene - Salandanan v Sps Mendoza GR 160280 (2009)

Who may intervene GSIS v Nocom GR 175989 Feb 4, 2008; Asias Emerging Dragon v DOTC GR 169914; Rep v CA GR 174166 Mar 24, 2008; Office of Ombudsman v. Maximo D. Sison GR 185954 Feb 16, 2010

REMLAW Page 4

Rule 20 Calendar of Cases

Rule 21 Subpoena

Macaspac v. Flores AM No. P-05-2072 Aug 13, 2008; Re Subpoena of Dir Amante AM No.

10-1-13-SC Mar 2, 2010

Rule 22 Computation of Time

Filing on the last day - De Las Alas v. CA 83 SCRA 200

Rule 23 Depositions Pending Action

DFA Guidelines in Taking Depositions before Philippine Consular Officers Abroad Purpose of rules of discovery Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212.Manner of taking Pfeger Dulay v Dulay, GR 158857 Nov 11, 2005Admissibility Jowel Sales v. Sabino GR 133154 Dec 9, 2005Sec 4- San Luis v. Rojas GR 159127 Mar 3, 2008; Dasmarinas v. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622

Deposition (oral examination) in criminal cases Rosete v. Lim GR 136051 June 8, 2006

Rule 24 Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal

Availability of deponent as a witness - Hyatt Industrial v. Ley Construction, GR No. 147143,

Mar 10, 2006

Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties

Rule 26 Admissions by Adverse Party

Purpose DBP v. CA GR 153034 Sep 20, 2005Period to answer a request for admission- Po v. CA 164 SCRA 668

To whom served - Briboneria v. CA 216 SCRA 616 Effect of non-compliance Limos et al v Sps Odones GR 186979 Aug 11, 2010

Rule 27 Production or Inspection of Documents or Things

Solidbank v. Gateway GR 164805 Apr 30, 2008

Rule 28 Physical and Mental Examination of Persons

See RA 8054 Sec 17 [a]

Rule 29 Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery

Rule 30 Trial

When trial can be dispensed with - Republic v. Vda De Neri GR 139588 Mar 4, 2004

Absence of a party Spouses Calo v. Spouses Tan, GR 151266 Nov 29, 2005Rule 31 Consolidation or Severance

Requisites of consolidation - Republic v. CA 403 SCRA 403

What actions can be consolidated - Teston v. DBP GR 144374 Nov 11, 2005; Gregorio

Espinoza v. UOB, GR 175380, Mar 22, 2010

Rule 32 Trial by Commissioner

When proper Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty GR 123346 Nov 29, 2005

Rule 33 Demurrer to Evidence

Effects of filing a demurrer - Radiowealth Finance Co v. Sps Del Rosario GR 138739 Jul 6,

2000; Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Palma GR 160832 Oct 27, 2006What evidence Casent Realty v. Philbanking GR 150731 Sep 14, 2007

Rule 34 Judgment on the Pleadings

Sham or specific denials - Manufacturers Bank v. Diversified 173 SCRA 357; Tan v. De La Vega, GR No. 168809, Mar 10, 2006Fails to tender an issue Pesane Animas Monzao v. Pryce Properties GR 156474 Aug 16, 2005; Sps Ong v. Roban Lending GR 172592 Jul 9, 2008; Reillo v San Jose GR 166393 Jun 18, 2009

Rule 35 Summary Judgments

Who files Doris Sunbanun v. Aurora Go GR 163280 Feb 2, 2010

Distinguish from Rule 34 Nocom v. Camerino GR 182984 Feb 10, 2009 Genuine issues of fact Evangelista v. Mercator Finance 409 SCRA 410; Bitanga v. Pyramid GR 173526 Aug 28, 2008; Phil Countryside v Toring GR 157862 Apr 16, 2009; BPI v. Sps. Yu GR 184122 Jan 20, 201; Eland Phil v Garcia GR 173289 Feb 17, 2010

Partial summary judgment - Monterey Foods Corp v. Eserjose 410 SCRA 627; Asian

Construction v. PCI Bank, GR No. 153827, Aug 25, 2006; Jose Feliciano Loy v. SMC GR

REMLAW Page 5

Construction v. PCI Bank, GR No. 153827, Aug 25, 2006; Jose Feliciano Loy v. SMC GR 164886 Nov 24, 2009

Not applicable Carlos v. Sandoval GR 179922 Dec 16, 2008

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof

Form of judgment Velarde v. SJS GR 159357 Apr 28, 2004 Several and separate judgments - Miranda v. CA 71 SCRA 295; De Leon v. CA GR 138884

June 6, 2002; Republic v. Nolasco 457 SCRA 400Dispositive portion Obra v. Badua et al GR 149125 Aug 9, 2007

Rule 37 New Trial or Reconsideration

Second MR not allowed Sps Balanoba v. Madriaga GR 160109 Nov 22, 2005 Requisities of MNT Bernaldez v. Francia, 398 SCRA 488; Capuz v. CA 233 SCRA 471Intrinsic fraud v. extrinsic fraud Libudan v. Gil 45 SCRA 17Period to file Delos Santos v. Elizalde Feb 2, 2007

Rule 38 Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings

Propriety of relief from judgment Spouses Que v. CA GR 150739 Aug 18, 2005; Monzon v. Sps Relova GR 171827 Sep 17, 2008Petition for relief before the MTC - Sps Mesina v. Meer GR 146845 Jul 2, 2002

Excusable negligence - Land Bank v. Natividad 458 SCRA 441; Gomez v. Montalban GR

174414 Mar 14, 2008CA Redena v. CA Feb 6, 2007Who may file De La Cruz v. Quiazon GR 171961 Nov 28, 2008

Rule 39 Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments

Immutability of final judgment Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Heir of Manuel Abella GR 143510 Nov 23, 2005; Session Delights Ice Cream v. CA, GR 172149, Feb 8, 2010Res Judicata Heirs of Igmedio Maglaque v. CA 524 SCRA 234; PCGG et al v. SB and Officers GR 124772 Aug 14, 2007; DBP v La Campana GR 137694 Jan 17, 2005Conclusiveness of judgment - Cayana v. CA GR 125607 18 Mar 2004; Republic of the Phil v.

Ramon Yu GR 157557 March 10, 2006Execution pending appeal - Stronghold Ins. V. Felix GR 148090 Nov 28, 2006; JP Latex v.

Hon. De Leon GR 177121 Mar 16, 2009; Archinet Intl v Becco GR 183753 Jun 19, 2009; Rosario T. Florendo vs. Paramount Ins. Co. GR 167976 Jan. 20, 2010

By motion/independent action Yau v. Silverio Feb 4, 2008 GR 158848/171994Money judgment Jerome Solco v. Provido Feb 11, 2008 GR 176533 Redemption period - Hi Yield Realty Inc v. CA GR 138978 Sept 12, 2002 Exempt from execution Honrado v. CA GR 166333 Nov 25, 2005Garnishment Cardinal v. Asset GR 149696Sheriffs duties-Benjamin Sanga vs. Florencio Alcantara AMO-09-2657 Jan. 25, 2010; Domingo Pea vs. Achilles Regalado AM P-10-2772 Feb. 16, 2010Third party claimant Fermin v. Hon Estevez GR 147977 Mar 26, 2008Foreign judgment Republic v. Gingoyon GR 166429 Feb 1, 2006; Mijares, et al V. Hon. Judge GR 139325 , 455 SCRA; 2008 Quasha vs. CA GR 182013 Dec. 4, 2009Supervening event Republic v. Antonio et al GR 166866 Mar 27, 2008

Appeals

In General

Payment of docket fee Camposagrado v. Camposagrado GR 143195 Sept 13, 2005 No appeal period - Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino, GR No. 160258, Jan 19, 2005Mode of appeal from special courts - Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon 399 SCRA 376

Appeal from amended judgment De Grano v. Lacaba GR 158877 Jun 16, 2009

Rule 40

Appeal from Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts

Non-payment of appeal fee - Badillo v. Tayag GR 143976 Apr 3, 2003

AM No. 07-7-12-SC Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 Dec 27, 2007Filing of appeal memo Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola GR 156809 Mar 4, 2009Sec 7 (b) Mejillano v. Lucillo GR 154717 Jun 19, 2009

Rule 41

Appeal from RTC

Sec 1 Simeon Valdez v. Financiera Manila, GR 183387, Sept 29, 2009; Palma v Galvez GR 165273 Mar 10, 2010Period of time to appeal - Neypes v. CA GR 141524 Sep 14, 2005; First Aqua Sugar v. BPI

REMLAW Page 6

Period of time to appeal - Neypes v. CA GR 141524 Sep 14, 2005; First Aqua Sugar v. BPI

Feb 5, 2007Appeal from dismissal - Philexport v. Phil Infrastructures GR 120384 Jan 13, 2004; Lullete S

Ko v. PNB GR 169131-32 Jan 20, 2006Period to appeal - Eda v. CA, GR No. 155251, Dec 8, 2004

Presence of grave abuse Benedicta Samson v. Hon. Judge Macaraig, GR 166356, Feb 2, 2010Record on appeal Rovia v Heirs of Deleste, et al GR 160825 Mar 26, 2010

Rule 42

Petition for Review from RTC to CA

Form & contents Sps Lanaria v. Planta GR 172891 Nov 22, 2007; Perez v. Falcatan, GR 139536 Sept 26, 2005; Elsie Ang v. Dr. Grageda GR 166239 Jun 8, 2006Period to appeal - Balgami v. CA, GR 131287, Dec 9, 2004

Rule 43

Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of

Appeals

Formal requirements - Dalton-Reyes v. CA, et al, GR 149580, Mar 16, 2005Quasi judicial bodies - Jose Luis Angelo Orosa v. Alberto Roa, GR No. 140423, July 14,

2006; Villorente et al v. Aplaya Laiya GR 145013 Mar 13, 2005; Ruvivar v. Ombudsman GR 165012 Sept 16, 2008; Phillips Seafood v BOI GR 175787 Feb 4, 2009

Impleading the lower court or agency - Basmayor v. Atencio GR 160573 Oct 19, 2005Attaching copy of judgment CocaCola v. Cabalo, GR 144180 Jan 30, 2006Supporting papers BE San Diego Inc. v. Alzul 524 SCRA 402Appeal from CSC DECS v Cuanan GR 169013 Dec 16, 2008

Rule 44 Ordinary Appealed Cases

Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA)

Grounds for dismissal of appeal - De Leon v. CA 383 SCRA 217

Contents of appellants brief - De Liano v. CA 370 SCRA 349Change of theory Mon v CA GR 118292 Apr 14, 2004

Rule 45 Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

Question of law - Agote v. Lorenzo, 464 SCRA 60, Jul 22, 2005; BPI v. CA, GR 160890,

Nov. 10, 2004; CGP Transportation v. PCI Leasing Mar 28, 2007Limited review Local Superior of the Servants of Charity v. Jody King Construction GR 141715 Oct 12, 2005; Perez Rosario, et al. v. CA, GR No. 140796, June 30, 2006; Republic v. Sta Ana- Burgos, 523 SCRA 309, GR 163254 , 1 June 2007

CA not impleaded Selegna v. UCPB GR 165662 May 3, 2006Distinguished from Rule 65 Tagle v. Equitable PCI GR 172299 Apr 22, 2008; International Corporate Bank v. CA & PNB, Sept 5, 2006; San Miguel Bukid Homeowner v. City of Mandaluyong, GR 153653, Oct 2, 2009

Assignment of errors Phil Hawk Corp v. Vivian Tan Lee, GR 166869, Feb 16, 2010

Rule 46 Original Cases

Rule 65 supplements Rule 46 - Republic v. Carmel Dev 377 SCRA 459

Sec. 3 China Banking Corp v. Padilla Feb 2, 2007

Rule 47 Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions

Extrinsic fraud - Alma Jose v. Intra Strata 464 SCRA 496, Jul 28, 2005; De La Cruz v. Sison,

GR 142464, Sept 26, 2005; Ramos v. Combong, Jr. GR 144273 Oct 20, 2005; Alaban v. CA GR 156021 Sept 23, 2005

Lack of jurisdiction Ancheta v. Ancheta GR 145370, Mar 4, 2004; Republic thru APT v. G Holdings GR 141241, Nov. 22, 2005; Sps Benatiro et al v. Heirs of Evaristo Cuyo GR 161220 Jul 30, 2008; GAUF v. RTC GR 139672 Mar 14, 2009; DENR v. Technological

Advocates, GR 165333, Feb 9, 2010

SC resolution Grande v. UP, GR No. 148456, Sep 15, 2006

Rule 48 Preliminary Conference

Rule 49 Oral Argument Rule 50 Dismissal of Appeal

Discretionary - PNB v. Philippine Milling 26 SCRA 712Direct appeal to SC- Atlas Consolidated Mining 201 SCRA 51 Non-payment of fee Cu-Unjieng v. CA, GR No. 139596, Jan 24, 2006Non-filing of brief Govt v. CA et al GR 164150 Apr 14, 2008; Bachrach v. PPA GR

REMLAW Page 7

Non-filing of brief Govt v. CA et al GR 164150 Apr 14, 2008; Bachrach v. PPA GR 159915 Mar12, 2009

Rule 51 Judgment

Multiple proceedings - Crystal vs. CA, 160 SCRA 79

Rule 52 Motion for Reconsideration

Rule 53 New Trial

Badiola v. Ca GR 170691 Apr 23, 2008

Rule 54 Internal Business

Rule 55 Publication of Judgments and Final Resolutions

Rule 56 Procedure in the Supreme Court

Sec 5 Ericsson v. City of Pasig GR 176667 Nov 22, 2007; Law of the case/conflicting decisions Collantes v. CA 517 SCRA 561 (2007)Prospective effect Land Bank v. De Leon GR 143275 Mar 20, 2003A.M. No. 99-8-09 SC Amended Rules on Who Shall Resolve MRs

Provisional Remedies

Rule 57 Preliminary Attachment

Grounds PCL Industries v. CA GR 147970 March 31, 2006; Magaling v. Peter Ong GR 173333 Aug 13, 2008; Professional Video V Tesda GR 155504 Jun 26, 2009; Metro Inc. et al v. Laras Gifts, GR 171741, Nov 27, 2009

Ex Parte issuance - Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. CA, 204 SCRA 343; Onate v.

Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659 Provisional/ancillary Silangan Textile v. Judge Mar 12, 2007Discharge of an attachment Security Pacific Assurance v. Hon. Judge Tria-Infante GR 144740 Aug 31, 2005; Insular Savings v. CA 460 SCRA 122; Sofia Torres v. Nicanor Satsatin, GR 166759, Nov 25, 2009

Rule 58 Preliminary Injunction-

Clear legal right Filipino Metals v. Secretary of Trade and Industry GR 157498 Jul 15, 2005; Levi Strauss v. Clinton Apparelle, GR No 138900 Sept 20, 2005; Duvaz Corp v. Export & Industry Bank 523 SCRA 405, Jun 7, 2007; Equitable PCIB v. Hon. Apurillo, GR 168746;

Nov 5, 2009

Injunction should maintain status quo - Rualo v. Pitargue GR 140284 Jan 21, 2005; University

v Ang Wong GR 150280 Apr 26, 2006Injunction not proper - Tayag v. Lacson GR 134971 25 Mar 2004

Irreparable injury G.G. Sportswear v. BDO, GR 184434, Feb 8, 2010Summary hearing necessary/Procedure - Borja v. Salcedo 412 SCRA 110; National

Electrification Adm v Val Villanueva GR 168203 Mar 9, 2010RA 8975 act to ensure the expeditious implementation and completion of government

infrastructure projects - Phil Ports Authority v. Pier 8 Arrastre GR No. 147861, Nov. 18, 2005; DFA v Falcon GR 176657 Sep 1, 2010

Grave abuse of discretion in grant Overseas Workers v. Chavez 524 SCRA 451; Power Sites v United Neon GR 163406 Nov 24, 2009

Rule 59 Receivership

No receivership of property in custodia legis - Dolar v. Sundiam 38 SCRA 616 Vivares v. Jose Reyes GR 155408 Feb 13, 2008

Rule 60 Replevin- -Applicant must be owner of property - Servicewide Specialists v. CA 318 SCRA 493

No replevin of property in custodia legis - Vda de Danao v. Ginete 395 SCRA 542 Distinguished from labor case Smart v. Astorga GR 148132 Jan 28 2008 542 SCRA 434Improperly served Rivera v. Vargas GR 165895 Jun 5, 2009

Rule 61 Support Pendente Lite- -Judgment for support never final - Lam v. Chua GR 131286 18 Mar 2004 Future support cannot be subject of compromise - De Asis vs. CA, 303 SCRA 176 (1999)

Special Civil Actions

Rule 62 Interpleader- -

Lessees recourse to interpleader - Ocampo v. Tirona GR 147812 Apr 6, 2005Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

Nature; Requisites for declaratory relief - Jumamil v. Caf et al, GR 144570, Sep 21, 2005; Republic v Mangotara, GR 170375 July 7, 2010

REMLAW Page 8

Republic v Mangotara, GR 170375 July 7, 2010Who may file SJS v. Lina GR 160031 Dec 18, 2008When to file Tambunting v. Spouses Sumabat GR 144101 Sept 16, 2005; Hon. Exec Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, etc. GR 164171-72, 168741 Feb 20, 2006; Martelino et al v. NHMFC GR 160208 Jun 30, 2008

Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders and Resolutions of the Commission on

Elections and the Commission on Audit Benguet State University v. COA, 524 SCRA 437

Rule 65

Certiorari

Grave abuse of discretion Phil Rabbit Bus Lines v. Goimco GR 135507 Nov 29, 2005 ; Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. CA, GR No. 163593, Dec 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 387Plain speedy adequate remedy Cervantes v. CA GR 166755 Nov 18, 2005 ; Davao Merchant Marine v. CA GR 144075 April 19, 2006Service of petition New Ever Marketing v. CA GR 140555. July 14, 2005Who are the parties - Flores v. Joven 394 SCRA 339

Where to file Sps Colmenares v. Vda de Gonzales GR 155454 Dec 10, 2008Other requirements - Eagle Ridge Golf v. CA, GR 178989, Mar 18, 2010Constitutional commission Comoporo v. COMELEC GR 178624 Jun 30, 2009 Distinguished from Rule 45 Ang Biat Huan Sons v. CA Mar 22, 2007 ; DOLE v. Ruben Maceda, GR 185112, Jan 18, 2010Sec 6 Jimmy Areno v. Skycable, GR 180302, Feb 5, 2010

Prohibition

Holy Spirit Homeowners v. Defensor, GR No. 163980, Aug. 3, 2006 ; Tan v. CA 524 SCRA

306 ; Estandarte v. PP GR 156851 Feb 18, 2008

Mandamus

Calim v. Guerrero Mar 5, 2007

Sec 7 AM 07-7-12 SC Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee, GR 176831, Jan 15, 2010 (mandamus will not lie if no public

interest)

Rule 66 Quo Warranto- -

Against public officers Calleja v. Panday GR 168696 Feb 28, 2006Clear legal right - Garces vs. CA, 253 SCRA 99 (1996); Feliciano v. Villasin GR 174929 Jun

27, 2008Damages Titus B. Villanueva v. Emma Rosquetta, GR 180764, Jan 19, 2010

Rule 67 Expropriation

Multiple appeals allowed - NPC v. Aguirre-Paderanga, 464 SCRA 481, Jul 28, 2005

Two stages in action for expropriation - National Housing v. Heirs Guivelondo 404 SCRA

389; Sps Curata v PPA GR 154251 Jun 22, 2009Public Use Masikip v. City of Pasig GR 136349 Jan 23, 2006Reckoning date City of Iloilo v Contreras-Besama GR 168967 Feb 12, 2010Commissioners Napocor v. Purefoods GR 160725 Sep 12, 2008

Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage- BPI Family v. Coscuella GR 167724 Jun 27,

2006; Teresita Monzon v. Sps Relova GR 171827 Sep 17, 2008

Rule 69 Partition

Object of partition - Sepulveda v. Pelaez GR 152195 Jan 31, 2005; Balo v. CA GR 129704

Sep 30, 2005; Panganiban et al v. Oamil GR 149313 Jan 22, 2008Two stages Marasigan v. Marasigan GR 156078 Mar 14, 2008; Figuracion-Gerilla v. Vda de Figuracion GR 154322 Aug 22, 2006Publication Reillo v. San Jose GR 166393 Jun 18, 2009

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer- -

Distinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer - Acaylar v Naraya GR 176995 Jul 30, 2008; Sales v. Barro GR 171678 Dec 10, 2008 Question of ownership Go Ke Cheng v Chan GR 153791 Aug 24, 2007; Sps. Samonte v. Century Savings Bank, GR 176413, Nov 25, 2009Jurisdictional requirements for unlawful detainer - Ross-Rica v. Sps Ong GR 132197 Aug 16,

2005; Abaya v. Merit GR 176324 Apr 16, 2008Jurisdictional requirements for forcible entry Leonardo David v. Cordova GR 152992 July

REMLAW Page 9

Jurisdictional requirements for forcible entry Leonardo David v. Cordova GR 152992 July 27, 2005; Domalsin v. Spouses Valenciano GR 158687 Jan 25, 2006; Bunyi v Factor GR 172547 Jun 30, 2009

Stay of judgment Bugarin v. Palisoc GR 157985 Dec 2, 2005; PNB v. DKS International GR 179161, Jan 22, 2010

Rule 71 Contempt

Distinction direct and indirect contempt - Heirs of Vda De Roxas v. CA GR 138660 5 Feb 2004 ; Nunez v Ibay AM RTJ 06-1984 Jun 30, 2009Modes of filing (re indirect contempt) Regalado v. Go GR 167988 Feb 6, 2007

Contempt against quasi-judicial entities - LBP v. Listana 408 SCRA 328Penalty Canada v. Judge Suerte AM No. RTJ-04-1875

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Rule 72 Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules

Distinction between civil action and special proceeding - Natcher v. CA 366 SCRA 385Determination of heirship Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran GR 155555 Aug 16, 2005Termination of proceeding Tabuada v. Ruiz GR 168799 Jun 27, 2008Sec 2 Hilado v. CA GR 164108 May 8, 2009

Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons

Rule 73 Venue and Process- -

Limited jurisdiction of probate court - Camaya v. Patulandon, GR 144915 23 Feb 2004;

Pacioles v. Chuatoco-Ching GR 127920 Aug 9, 2005; Heirs of Doromio v. Heirs of Doromio GR 169454; 541 SCRA 479; Reyes v. Sotero, et al., GR No. 167405, Feb 16, 2006

Termination of the special proceeding - Munsayac-De Villa, v. CA 414 SCRA 436 Meaning of residence San Luis v. San Luis Feb 6, 2007

Rule 74 Summary Settlement of Estates - -

Two year prescriptive period - Pedrosa v. CA, 353 SCRA 620

Extrajudicial partition - Pada-Kilario, et al. vs. CA et al., GR 134329, 19 Jan 2000

Rule 75 Production of Will. Allowance of Will Necessary- -

Probate mandatory - Pascual v. CA, 409 SCRA 105Probate proceeding in rem Alaban v. CA GR 156021 Sept 23, 2005False will Obando v People GR 138696 July 7, 2010

Rule 76 Allowance or Disallowance of Will - -

Grounds Azuela v. CA, GR No. 122880, April 12, 2006

Rule 77 Allowance of Will Proved Outside of Philippines and Administration of Estate Ancheta v. Guersay-Dalaygon; GR No. 139868, June 8, 2006

Rule 78 Letters Testamentary and of Administration, When and to Whom Issued

Failure to attend hearings of applicant - Silverio v. CA, 304 SCRA 541

Intestate estate of Cristina suntay v Isabel Cojuangco GR 183053 June 16, 2010

Rule 79 Opposing Issuance of Letters Testamentary. Petition and Contest for Letters of

AdministrationJustification for appointment of an administrator - Avelino v CA, GR 115181, 31 Mar 2000

Rule 80 Special Administrator

Qualifications - Valarao v. Pascual 392 SCRA 695; Vilma Tan et al v. Hon Gedonio GR

166520 Mar 14, 2008Justification for special administrator - De Guzman vs. Guadiz Jr., et al., L-48585, 31 Mar

1980Appointment of special administrator discretionary - Jamero v. Melicos, GR 140929, 26 May

2005; Heirs of Castillo v. Gabriel GR 162934 Nov 11, 2005 474 SCRARemoval Co v. Rosario et al GR No. 160671 Apr 30, 2008

Rule 81 Bonds of Executors and Administrators

Rule 82- Revocation of Administration, Death, Resignation, and Removal of Executors

and Administrators

Ocampo v Ocampo GR 187879 Jul 2 , 2010Rule 83 Inventory and Appraisal. Provision for Support of Family

Provisional inclusion in inventory - Heirs of Miguel Franco v. CA, 418 SCRA 60; Chua v.

REMLAW Page 10

Provisional inclusion in inventory - Heirs of Miguel Franco v. CA, 418 SCRA 60; Chua v.

Absolute Management Corp. 413 SCRA 547

Rule 84 General Powers and Duties of Executors and Administrators

Conflict of interest - Mananquil v. Villegas, GR 2430, 30 Aug 1990

Rule 85 Accountability and Compensation of Executors and Administrators

Duty to account - Tumang v. Laguio GR 50277 14 Feb 1980; Charges and expenses of the administrator Quasha Pena v. LCN Const GR 174873 Aug 26, 2008

Rule 86 Claims Against Estate

Substitution of heirs - Heirs of Lorilla, et al. v. CA, GR 118655 12 Apr 2000;Liability of heirs for debts of decedent - Union Bank v. Santibaez, GR 149926, 23 Feb 2005 Attys fees - Salonga Hernandez v. Pascual, GR No. 127165, May 2, 2006 Money claims Stronghold v. Republic GR 174561 Jun 22, 2006 ; Gutierrez v. Barreto-Datu GR L-17175 Jul 31, 1962

Rule 87 Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators

Recovery of estate property - Valera v. Inserto GR 56504, 7 May 1987;

Damages arising from crime ABS CBN v Office of Ombudsman GR 133347 Apr 23, 2010

Rule 88 Payment of the Debts of the Estate

Rule 89 Sales, Mortgages, and other Encumbrances of Property of Decedent

Mortgage of estate property - Pahamatong v. PNB, GR 156403, 31 Mar 2005; Orola v. Rural

Bank of Pontevedra, GR 158566 Sept 20, 2005Can heir sell estate property - Aggabao v. RTC, GR No. 146006 Feb 23, 2004

Rule 90 Distribution and Partition of the Estate

Distribution, when Quasha Pena v LCN Const GR 174873 Aug 26, 2008Joinder Guy v. CA GR 163707 Sep 15, 2006

Rule 91 Escheats - Republic v. CA & Solano GR 143483, 375 SCRA

Guardians and Guardianship

Guardianship over Incompetents

Rule 92 Venue

Parco v. CA, L-33152 30 Jan 1982Vanal v. Balmes, GR 132223, 19 June 2001

Rule 93 Appointment of Guardians

Rule 94 Bonds of Guardians

Rule 95 Selling and Encumbering Property of Ward

De Pua v. San Agustin, GR L-17402, 25 July 1981Rule 96 General Powers and Duties of Guardians

Rule 97 Termination of Guardianship

Guardianship of Minors

AM 03-02-05 SC Rule on Guardianship of Minors

Rule 98 Trustees

Express trust vs. implied trust Richard Lopez Trustee v. CA GR 157784 Dec 16, 2008; Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. CA 312 SCRA 603; Saltiga de Romero v. CA 319 SCRA 180 ; Richard Lopez v CA GR 157784 Dec 16, 2008

Other Special Proceedings

Rule 99 Adoption and Custody of Minors

RA 8551 An act establishing rules and policies on the domestic adoption of Filipino

children and for other purposes

AM No. 02-6-02-SC Rules on Adoption

AM No. 03-04-04 SC Rules on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to Custody of Minors

In the matter of adoption of Stephanie Garcia, GR 148311, 31 Mar 2005;

Republic v. Miller, 306 SCRA 183; Republic v. Hernandez, GR 117209, 9 Feb 1996In re petition for adoption of Michelle Lim GR 168992 May 21, 2009

REMLAW Page 11

Special Proceedings Involving Family Code Provisions

AM 02-11-10-SC Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and

Annulment of Voidable MarriagesAM 02-11-11 SC Rule on Legal Separation

AM 02-11-12 SC Rule on Provisional Orders

Other (Summary) Proceedings under the Family Code:

Title XI, Chapters 1 to 3 on separation in fact between husband and wife or

abandonment by one of the other and incidents involving parental authority

Chapter 4 on Art. 41 (declaration of a spouse as presumptively dead) Art. 51(action of a

child for presumptive legitime)

Art. 69 (judicial declaration of family domicile in case of disagreement of the spouses)

Art. 73 (spouses objection to the profession of the other spouse) Arts. 96 and 124 (annulment of husbands decision in the administration and enjoyment of community or conjugal property appointment of spouse as sole administrator except cases of incompetent other spouse which shall be under Rules 93 and 95)

Art. 217 (entrusting children to homes and orphanages).

Rule 101 Proceedings for Hospitalization of Insane Persons

Chin Ah Foo v. Concepcion, 54 Phil 775

Rule 102 Habeas Corpus

AM No. 03-04-04 SC Rules on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in

Relation to Custody of Minors

SC Rules on Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data /Writ of KalikasanSec of Defense v Manalo GR 180906 Oct 7, 2009

In Re Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo De Villa, GR 158802, Nov. 17, 2004Glenn Caballes v. CA, GR 163108, 23 Feb 2005; Ilusorio v. Bildner, 332 SCRA 169

Pp v. Andal, 307 SCRA 650; Feria v. CA, 325 SCRA 525; Canlas v. Napico GR 182795 Jun

5, 2008; Tapuz v. Del Rosario GR 182484 Jun 19, 2008P/Supt. Felixberto Castillo v. Dr. Amanda T. Cruz, GR 182165, Nov 25, 2009; Gen Avelino

Razon, Jr. et al. v Mary Jean Tagitis, et al, GR 182498, Feb 16, 2010; Yano et al v Sanchez et al GR 186640 Feb 11, 2010

Rule 103 Change of Name

RA 9048 Clerical Error Law

RA 9255 An act allowing illegitimate children to use the surname of their fatherRepublic v. Lim, GR No. 153883 13 Jan 2004

In Re: Petition of Julian Wang, GR 159966, 30 March 2005

Republic v. Capote GR 157043 Feb 2, 2007

Rule 108 Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry

Tan Co v. Civil Register, GR 138496; 23 Feb 2004

Lee v. CA, 367 SCRA 110

Barco v CA 420 SCRA 162Gerbert Corpuz v Sto Tomas GR 186571 Aug 11, 2010

Rule 109 Appeals in Special Proceedings

Testate of Maria Biascan v. Biascan, 347 SCRA 621; Briones v. Lilia Henson-Cruz GR

159130 Aug 22, 2008; Heirs of Siapian et al v Estate of Mackay GR 184799 Sept 1, 2010

Special Proceedings under Other Laws or SC rules

Sec. 5/2 RA 8799

AM 01-2-04 SC Interim Rules of Procedure governing Intra-corporate Controversies2008 Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation (see rules 2 and 4 re: pre-trial)Pryce Corp v. CA GR 172302 Feb 4, 2008

NB v Equitable PCIBank GR 165571 Jan 20, 2009Jerry Ong v PDUC GR 175117 aug 18, 2010; China Banking v Cebu Printing GR 172880

Aug 11, 2010

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses - -Venue of libel cases - Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255Venue of BP 22 cases - Rigor v. People, GR No. 144887, Nov. 17, 2004

AM No. 02-2-07, Sec 5

REMLAW Page 12

AM No. 02-2-07, Sec 5Filing - Del Rosario v. Vda De Mercado 29 SCRA 116; SEC v Interport GR 135808 Oct 6,

2008Reinvestigation - Crespo v. Mogul 151 SCRA 462; ; Harold Tamargo v. Romulo Awingan

GR 177727, Jan 19, 2010Amendment Pp v. Casey 103 SCRA 21; Fronda Baggao v. Pp GR 151785 Dec 10, 2007; PP v. Hon Cajigal GR 157472 Sep 20, 2007Sec 5 (affidavit of desistance) People v. De la Cerna GR 136899 904 Oct 9, 2002Sec 6 Lasoy et al v. Zenarosa GR 129472; People v. Puig GR 173654 765 Aug 28, 2009Sec 15 Isip v. People GR 170298 Jun 26, 2007; Sony Corp v. Supergreen GR 161823 Mar 22, 2007Relationship People v. Ceredon GR 167179 Jan 28, 2008Date/time of commission People v. Almendral GR 126025 Jul 6, 2004Qualifying circumstances Pp v. Buayaban GR No. 112459 Mar 28, 2003 ; Pp v. Masapol 417 SCRA 371; PP v. Coredon GR 167179 Jan 28, 2008 Sec 13 (duplicity of offenses) People v. Soriano GR 178325 Feb 22, 2008 Complaint-affidavit Hilario P. Soriano v. People, GR 162336, Feb 1, 2010

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action- -

Sec 1 Cancio v. Isip GR 133978 Nov 12, 2002; Cheng v. Sy GR 174238 Jul 7, 2009Sec 3 Samson v. Daway GR 1600554 Jul 21, 2004Sec 5 Ferrer v. SB GR 161067 Mar 14, 2008Sec 7 Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola GR 184861 Jun 30, 2009Implied reservation - Sarmiento v. CA 394 SCRA 315

Express reservation - Hambon v. CA 399 SCRA 255

Civil liability - Salazar v. Pp 411 SCRA 598 ; First Producers Holdings Corp v. Luis Co., GR

139655 July 27, 2000; Corpus v. Siapno AM MTJ-96-1106 Jun 17, 2002; Cruz v. Ca 388 SCRA 72

BP22 Sps Benito Lo Ban Tiong v. Balboa GR 158177 Jan 28, 2008; Cheng v. Sps Sy GR 174238 Jun 7, 2009Sec 4 (death of accused) - People v. Abungan GR 136843 Sept 28, 2000; ABS-CBN v.

Ombudsman GR 133347 Oct 15, 2008 Prejudicial question People v. Consing GR 148193 Jan 16, 2003; Reyes v. Pearlbank GR 171435 Jul 30, 2008; Dreamwork v. Janiola GR 184861 Jun 30, 2009

Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation-AM No. 05-8-26-SC Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts

Probable cause discretion of investigating prosecutor - Hegerty v. CA 409 SCRA 285

Cause of accusation Miranda v. SB GR 154098 Jul 27, 2005Contents of the information People v. Ibanez 523 SCRA 136Authority of prosecutor Tolentino v. Paqueo 523 SCRA 377Sec 3 Santos-Concio et al v. DOJ Sec GR 175057 Jan 29, 2008; Racho v. Miro GR 168578 Sep 30, 2008; Sps Balaguan v Ca GR 174350 Aug 13, 2008Non-interference by court Aguirre v. DOJ GR 170723 Mar 23, 2008; Juanito Chan v. DOJ Sec GR 147065 Mar 14, 2008When to question irregularities Lolita Eugenio v. PP GR 168163 Mar 26, 2008; Failure to comply with Sec 4 - Cruz v CA 388 SCRA 72

Villaflor v. Vivar 349 SCRA 194; Uy v. SB 354 SCRA 651

Sec 6 Baltazar v. People GR 174016 Jul 28, 2008; Tabujara III v. People GR 175162 Oct 29, 2008Sec 7 GR 158211 Aug 31, 2004 San Agustin v. People; Ladlad v. Velasco 523 SCRA 318Secs. 8 and 9 Victorias Milling v. Padilla GR 156962 Oct 6, 2008Issuance of warrant discretionary on judge - Sesbreno v. Aglugub 452 SCRA 365

Second information Saludaga v SB GR 184537 Apr 23, 2010

Rule 113 Arrest-

People v. Escordial GR 138934 January 16, 2002

Requirements for issuance of warrant of arrest - Gutierrez v. Hernandez 524 SCRA 1

Probable cause to issue warrant - AAA v. Carbonell GR 171465 Jan 8, 2007;People v. Laguio GR 128587 March 1, 2007

Inquest Ladlad v. Velasco 523 SCRA 318PP v. Molina 352 SCRA 174; PP v. Salanguit 356 SCRA 683In flagrante delicto People v. Alunday GR 181548 Sep 3, 2008; People v. Carlos de la Cruz GR 182348 Nov 20, 2008;

REMLAW Page 13

GR 182348 Nov 20, 2008; Hot pursuit People v. Recepcion et al GR 141943-45 Nov 13, 2002

Rule 114 Bail- -Right to bail San Miguel v. Hon. Maceda AM RTJ-03-1749 Apr 3, 2007Esteban v. Alhambra GR No. 135012 Sep 7, 2004Procedure re grant - Taborite v. Sollesta 408 SCRA 602; Serapio v. SB GR 148468, 148769,

149116 Jan 28, 2003; Yap v. CA 358 SCRA 564; Pp v. Fitzerald GR 140288 Oct 23, 2006Where to appeal from denial of bail Chua v. CA GR 140842 Apr 12, 2007Discretionary bail (Sec 20) Andres v. Beltran 415 SCRA 598 (2001)Sec. 26 Okabe v. Gutierrez GR 150185 May 27, 2004Meaning of reclusion perpetua Cenzon v. Hon. Abad Santos GR 164337 Jun 27, 2006Sec 5 Jose Antonio Leviste v CA GR 189122 Mar 17, 2010OSG Heirs of Sarah Burgos v CA GR 169711 Feb 8, 2010

Rule 115 Rights of Accused

Phil. Constitution Art. III

RA 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) and SC Circular No. 38-98RA 7438 An act defining certain rights of person arrested, detained or under custodial

investigation as well as the duties of arresting, detaining and investigating officers and providing penalties for violations thereof Lumanog v People GR 182555 Sep 7, 2010Speedy disposition Cabarles v. Maceda GR 161330 Feb 20, 2007Speedy trial Perez v. People GR 164763 Feb 12, 2008; Benares v. Lim GR 173421 Dec 14, 2006; People v. Jose R. Hernandez, GR No. 154218 and 154372, August 28, 2006; Pp v Baloloy 381 SCRA 31;

Miranda rights Pp v. Teves 356 SCRA 14Out of Court Identification People v. Jojo Musa GR 170472, July 3, 2009Right to counsel Aquino v. Paiste GR 147782 Jun 25, 2008; People v. Serzo Jr GR 118435 Jun 20, 1997; PP v Domingo Reyes GR 178300 Mar 17, 2009

Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea-Change of plea - Pp v Bernas 377 SCRA 391; Pp v. Ulit GR 131799-901 23 Feb 2004;

Sec. 2 - Daan v SB GR 163972-77 Mar 28, 2008

Rule 117 Motion to Quash-

Not a MOD- Antonio Abador v. People GR 186001, Oct 2, 2009Double jeopardy - Alonto v. People GR No. 140078, Dec 9, 2004; Pp v. Velasco 340 SCRA

207; Castro v. People GR 180832 Jul 23, 2008Provisional dismissal - Pp v. Lacson GR 149453 Apr 1, 2003 ; Torres v. Sps Aguinaldo GR

164268 Jun 28, 2005 No authority to file - People v. Hon Garfin GR 153176, 29 Mar 2004 Denial not correctible by certiorari Serana v. SB & PP GR 162059 Jan 22, 2008; Pp v. Romualdez GR 166510 Jul7 23, 2008Res judicata Pacifico Cruz v. SB GR 174599-609 Feb 12, 2010

Rule 118 Pre-Trial-

Stipulation of facts - Bayas v. SB 391 SCRA 415

People v. Sitao, 387 SCRA 701

Rule 119 Trial

RA No. 6981 The Witness Protection ActAffidavit v. testimony - Angcaco v Pp 378 SCRA 297

Right to counsel - People v. Sunga 399 SCRA 624 Demurrer to evidence - People v. Sandiganbayan GR 137707-11, Dec 17, 2004; Pp v.

Sayaboc GR 147201, 15 Jan 2004 ; Cabarles v. Maceda & Pp GR 161330 Feb 20, 2007; Pp v. Tolentino et al GR 176385 Feb 26, 2008

Phil Const Art II Secs 12, 14, 16 and 17

Sec 4 People v. Webb GR 132577 Aug 17, 1999Sec. 15 Vda de Manguerra v. Risos GR 152643 Aug 28, 2008Subpoena Roco v. Contreras GR 158275 Jun 28, 2005Role of private prosecutor Carino v. De Castro GR 176084 Apr 30, 2008

Rule 120 Judgment-

Delay in promulgation - Cea v. Paguio 397 SCRA 494 Failure to appear at promulgation - Tolentino v. People, GR No. 170396, August 31, 2006

Sec 5 Suero v People GR 156408 Jan 31, 2005

REMLAW Page 14

Sec 5 Suero v People GR 156408 Jan 31, 2005Determination of penalty People v. Temporada GR 173473 Dec 17, 2008Sec 2 Lumanog v. People GR 182555 Sep 7, 2010

Rule 121 New Trial or Reconsideration- -

Requisites of MNT - Pp v Judavar 380 SCRA 548 Sec 2, Saludaga v SB GR 184537 Apr 23, 2010

Rule 122 Appeal- -

AM No. 00-5-03-SC Re: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases Pp v. Mateo GR 147678-87, Jul 7, 2004Certiorari from grant of bail - Pobre v. CA, 463 SCRA 50, Jul 8, 2005

Failure to file brief - Tamayo v CA GR 147070 Feb 17, 2004 Escape pending appeal - Pp v. Latayada GR 146865 Feb 18, 2004; Vitto v. CA 404 SCRA

307 Hierarchy of courts - Quesada v. DOJ, GR No. 150325, Aug 31, 2006 Pp v. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239

Rule 123 Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts - -

Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals - -

Dismissal of appeal - Pp v De La Concha 388 SCRA 280Sec 8 - Nino Masas v. PP GR 177313 Dec 19, 2007

Rule 125 Procedure in the Supreme Court- -

Post-conviction review Pp v. Labriaga 250 SCRA 163

Rule 126 Search and Seizure- -

Plain view People v. Que Ming Kha GR 133265 May 29, 2002Unannounced entry- People v. Huang Zhen Hua, GR 139301, Sep 29, 2004

Control of property - People v. Del Castillo GR 153254, Sep 30, 2004

Exceptions to warrant requirement - Caballes v. CA 373 SCRA 221Time of arrest - PP v. Che Cun ting 328 SCRA 592; People v. Zenaida Quebral, GR 185379,

Nov 27, 2009Determination of probable cause - Sony Music v. Espanol GR 156804 March 14, 2005 People v. Judge Laguio & Wang Mar 16, 2007

Things to be seized PP v Raul Nunez GR 177168 Jun 30, 2009Things to be seized Pp v. Raul Nunez GR 177168 Jun 30, 2009Sec 13 Sr. Inspc. Jerry C. Valeroso v. CA & Pp GR 164815, Sept 3, 2009

Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases - -

EVIDENCE

Rule 128 General Provisions- -

Competence Ramirez v. CA 248 SCRA 590

Rule 129 What Need Not be Proved- -

Judicial admission - Republic v. Sandiganbayan 406 SCRA 190; BPI Savings v. CTA 330

SCRA 507 Judicial notice Experttravel v. CA GR 152392

Rule 130 Rules of Admissibility- -

Real Evidence People v. Bardaje 99 SCRA 388DNA read AM No. 06-11-5-SC Oct 15, 2007; Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Minor Diaz GR 171713 Dec 17, 2007; PP v Umamito GR 172607 Oct 26, 2007; Herrera v Alba GR 148220 Jun 15, 2005

Documentary Evidence: Best/Secondary/Parol Evidence

Best evidence rule (Rule 130 Secs 2-8 ; Rule 132 Secs. 25 and 27) - Lee v. People Gr 159288

Oct 19, 2004 ; Mallari v. People, GR 153911 Dec 10, 2004; DECS v. Del Rosario GR 146586 Jan 26, 2005; Citibank Mastercard v. Teodoro 411 SCRA 577; Seaoil v Autocorp GR 164326

Oct 17, 2008

Parol evidence Duvaz Corp v. Export and Industry Bank 523 SCRA 405Parol evidence rule Rule 130 Sec. 9 Ortanez v. CA 266 SCRA 561Falsified document Pacasum v PP GR 180314 Apr 16, 2009

Electronic Evidence

REMLAW Page 15

Electronic Evidence

RA 8792 Electronic Commerce Act Secs. 5, 6-15

AM 01-7-01-SC New Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 2, Sec 1; Rule 3, Rule 4MCC v Ssangyong GR 170633 Oct 17, 2007Aznar v. Citibank Mar 28, 2007; NPC v. Codilla GR 170491 Apr 3, 2007

Ang v CA et al GR 182835 Apr 20, 2010

Interpretation of Documents

Testimonial Evidence: Qualification of Witnesses/Testimonial Privilege/Admissions and

Confessions/Previous Conduct as Evidence

Qualification of witnesses

Mental incapacity Rule 130 Sec 20, 21 - Pp v. Mendoza GR 113791 Feb 2, 1996

Marital disqualification Rule 130 Sec 22 Pp v. Castaneda 88 SCRA 562Deadmans Statute Rule 130 Sec 23 Razon v. IAC 207 SCRA 234

Privileged Communications

Marital communications Rule 130 Sec 24 (a) Pp v. Carlos Mar 1975Attorney-client Rule 130 Sec. 24 (b) Pp v. Sandiganbayan 275 SCRA 505; Regala v. Sandiganbayan 262 SCRA 124Physician-patient Rule 130 Sec. 24 - Lim v. CA 214 SCRA 273 (1992); Krohn v. CA 233

SCRA 146State secrets Rule 130 Sec 24 (e) BF v. Monetary Board 142 SCRA 523 (1986)Parental and filial privilege Rule 130 Sec 25 Newsmans privilege RA 53, as amended by RA 1477

Admissions and Confessions

Admissions against interest Rule 130 Sec 26 & 32 Keller & Co. v. COB 141 SCRA 86Compromises Rule 130 Sec 27 Pp v. Yparriguirre 268 SCRA 35; Pp v. Godoy 250 SCRA 676

Res Inter Alios Acta

Rule 130 Sec 28 - Pp v. Racquel 265 SCRA 248

Exceptions to res inter alios acta rulePartners agents admissions Rule 130 Sec 28Coconspirators statements Rule 130 Sec 30 Pp v. Cabrera 57 SCRA 715Admission by privies Rule 130 Sec 31Sec 32 - Villanueva v. Balaguer GR 180197 Jun 23, 2009

Confessions

Rule 130 Sec 33 Pp v. Yip Wai Ming 264 SCRA 224; Pp v. Wong Chuen Ming 256 SCRA 135Corpus delicti Pp v. Romulo Tuniaco, GR 185710, Jan 19, 2010

The Hearsay Rule

Testimonial knowledge Rule 130 Sec 36 Pp v. Gaddi 170 SCRA 649Hearsay, what is Phil Free Press v. CA 473 SCRA GR 132864Dying Declaration Rule 130 Sec 37 - Pp v. Macandog June 6, 2001 GR 129534; Pp v.

Latayada GR 146865 Feb 18, 2004; Pp v Cerilla GR 177147 Nov 28, 2007Declaration against interest Rule 130 Sec 38 - Estrada v. Disierto GR 146710-15 Apr 3, 2001;

HKO Ah Pao v. Ting GR 153476; Heirs of Franco v. CA 418 SCRA 60Act or declaration about pedigree / Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree Rule 130

Secs 39, 40, 41 - Rosendo Herrera v. Alba GR 148220 June 15, 2005; Tison v. CA 276 SCRA 582

Res gestae Rule 130 Sec 42 Pepito Capila v. Pp GR 146161 Jul 17, 2006; PP v. Cudal Oct 31, 2006; DPB Pool v. RMN GR 147039 Jan 27, 2006; Pp v. Tolentino 218 SCRA 337; Arthur Zarate v. RTC GR 152263, July 3, 2009

Entries in the course of business Rule 130 Sec 42 - Nestle Phil v. FY Sons GR 150780;

Security Bank v. Gan GR 150464 Jun 27, 2006Entries in official records Rule 130 Sec 44 Pp v. Aureo Rojo GR 82737 July 5, 1989; Pp v. Cabuang 217 SCRA 675; Franco Cruz v. CA GR 172238 Sep 17, 2008Commercial lists and the like Rule 130 Sec 45 PNOC Shipping v. Ca 299 SCRA 402Learned Treatises Rule 130 Sec 46

Prior testimony

Rule 130 Sec 47 Tan v. CA 20 SCRA 54

REMLAW Page 16

Opinion Rule Rule 130 Secs 48 -50

Expert witnesses Milagors Ilao Quianay v. Mapile GR 154087 Oct 25, 2005; Pp v. Adoviso 309 SCRA 1; Bacalso v. Padigos GR 173192 Apr 18, 2008

Character Evidence

Rule 130 Secs 34-35; Rule 132 Sec 14 PP v. Soliman 53 OG 8083

Rule 131 Burden of Proof and Presumptions- -

Republic v. Vda De Neri GR 139588 4 Mar 2004

Barcelon Roxas Sec v. CIR GR 157064 GR 157064 Aug 7, 2006Substantial evidence in adm proc - Republic v. Canastillo 524 SCRA 546; Salvador Pleto v.

PNP GR 169982 Nov 23, 2007Authenticity of signature Sanchez v. Mapalad GR 148516 Dec 27 2007 541 SCRA 397

Rule 132 Presentation of Evidence (Examination of Witnesses)

Examination in open court Galman v. Pamaran 138 SCRA 294Cross-examination Dela Paz v. IAS 154 SCRA 65

Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement Villalon v. IAC 144 SCRA 443Recalling witnesses Pp v. Rivera 200 SCRA 786Pp v. Cadley GR 150735 15 Mar 2004Zalamea v CA 228 SCRA 23

Heirs of Sabanpan v. Comorposa 408 SCRA 692 Adverse party witness - Gaw v. Suy Ben Chua GR 160855; People v Obnuranis GR 181492

Dec 16, 2008SC Administrative Memo No. 00-4-07 Rule on Examination of a Child Witness

Authentication and Proof of Documents

Rule 132 Secs 19-33; E-Commerce Act, Secs. 5, 6-15; REE Rules 5, 6, 9 & 11

Heirs of Gubaton v CA GR 150206 Mar 13, 2009 Llemos et al v. Llemos et al GR 150162 Jan 26, 2007; IBM Phil v. NLRC 305 SCRA 592; Pp

v. Lazaro 317 SCRA 435\Sps De La Rama v Sps Pape GR 142309 Jan 30, 2009

Offer and Objection Rule 132 Secs 34-40Vda de Onate v. CA 250 SCRA 283; Heirs of Doromio v. Heirs of Doromio 541 SCRA 479;

Deutsche Bank v SEC 481 SCRA 672

Rule 133 Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence- -

Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban GR 155110 March 31, 2005; Pp v. Hijada GR 123696 11 Mar

2004; Heirs of Conti v. CA 300 SCRA 345

DNA Evidence

Estate of Ong v Diaz GR 171713 Dec 17, 2007People v. Umanito GR 172607 Oct 26, 2007Herrera v Alba GR 148220 Jan 15, 2005

In re Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo De Villa GR 158802 Nov 17, 2004

Rule 134

Sec. 6 Go v. Looyuko GR 147923 537 SCRA 445 26 Oct 2007Chain of custody in drugs cases Bonifacio Tejada v. Pp GR 180693, Sep 4, 2009

Pasted from

REMLAW Page 17

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA AND NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD. VS. MINORU KITAMURA[G.R. No. 149177, November 23, 2007] NACHURA

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the April 18, 2001 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 60827, and the July 25, 2001 Resolution[2] denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.

On March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign governments, [3] entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines. [4] The agreement provides that respondent was to extend professional services to Nippon for a year starting on April 1, 1999. [5]

Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's consultancy contract with the Philippine Government. [6]

When the STAR Project was near completion, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engaged the consultancy services of Nippon, on January 28, 2000, this time for the detailed engineering and construction supervision of the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project.[7] Respondent was named as the project manager in the contract's Appendix 3.1.[8]

On February 28, 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager for its International Division, informed respondent that the company had no more intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR Project on March 31, 2000, just in time for the ICA's expiry.[9]

Threatened with impending unemployment, respondent, through his lawyer, requested a negotiation conference and demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon insisted that respondents contract was for a fixed term that had already expired, and refused to negotiate for the renewal of the ICA. [10]

As he was not able to generate a positive response from the petitioners, respondent consequently initiated on June 1, 2000 Civil Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City. [11]

For their part, petitioners, contending that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between Japanese nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted that the claim for improper pre-termination of respondent's ICA could only be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.[12]

In the meantime, on June 20, 2000, the DPWH approved Nippon's request for the replacement of Kitamura by a certain Y. Kotake as project manager of the BBRI Project.[13]

Hasegawa et al v. Kitamura GR 149177 Nov 23, 2007Sunday, November 14, 2010

11:16 PM

REMLAW Page 18

Project.[13]

On June 29, 2000, the RTC, invoking our ruling in Insular Government v. Frank[14] that matters connected with the performance of contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance,[15] denied the motion to dismiss.[16] The trial court subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, [17] prompting them to file with the appellate court, on August 14, 2000, their first Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 [docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60205].[18] On August 23, 2000, the CA resolved to dismiss the petition on procedural groundsfor lack of statement of material dates and for insufficient verification and certification against forum shopping.[19] An Entry of Judgment was later issued by the appellate court on September 20, 2000.[20]

Aggrieved by this development, petitioners filed with the CA, on September 19, 2000, still within the reglementary period, a second Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 already stating therein the material dates and attaching thereto the proper verification and certification. This second petition, which substantially raised the same issues as those in the first, was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60827.[21]

Ruling on the merits of the second petition, the appellate court rendered the assailed April 18, 2001 Decision[22] finding no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The CA ruled, among others, that the principle of lex loci celebrationis was not applicable to the case, because nowhere in the pleadings was the validity of the written agreement put in issue. The CA thus declared that the trial court was correct in applying instead the principle of lex loci solutionis.[23]

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA in the assailed July 25, 2001 Resolution.[24]

The honorable court of appeals gravely erred in finding that the trial court validly exercised jurisdiction over the instant controversy, despite the fact that the contract subject matter of the proceedings a quo was entered into by and between two japanese nationals, written wholly in the japanese language and executed in tokyo, japan.

A.

The honorable court of appeals gravely erred in overlooking the need to review our adherence to the principle of lex loci solutionis in the light of recent development[s] in private international laws. [26]

B.

Remaining steadfast in their stance despite the series of denials, petitioners instituted the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari [25] imputing the following errors to the appellate court:

The pivotal question that this Court is called upon to resolve is whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals may be assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, the state of the most significant relationship rule, or forum non conveniens.

However, before ruling on this issue, we must first dispose of the procedural matters raised by the respondent.

Kitamura contends that the finality of the appellate court's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 60205 has already barred the filing of the second petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60827 (fundamentally raising the same issues as those in the first one) and

REMLAW Page 19

the instant petition for review thereof.

We do not agree. When the CA dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 60205 on account of the petition's defective certification of non-forum shopping, it was a dismissal without prejudice.[27] The same holds true in the CA's dismissal of the said case due to defects in the formal requirement of verification [28] and in the other requirement in Rule 46 of the Rules of Court on the statement of the material dates. [29] The dismissal being without prejudice, petitioners can re-file the petition, or file a second petition attaching thereto the appropriate verification and certificationas they, in fact didand stating therein the material dates, within the prescribed period[30] in Section 4, Rule 65 of the said Rules.[31]

The dismissal of a case without prejudice signifies the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissed action had not been commenced. In other words, the termination of a case not on the merits does not bar another action involving the same parties, on the same subject matter and theory. [32]

Necessarily, because the said dismissal is without prejudice and has no res judicataeffect, and even if petitioners still indicated in the verification and certification of the second certioraripetition that the first had already been dismissed on procedural grounds,[33] petitioners are no longer required by the Rules to indicate in their certification of non-forum shopping in the instant petition for review of the second certiorari petition, the status of the aforesaid first petition before the CA. In any case, an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that will not constitute res judicata and litis pendentia, as in the present case, is not a fatal defect. It will not warrant the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings, considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are no longer present.[34]

The Court also finds no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner Hasegawa is only authorized to verify and certify, on behalf of Nippon, the certioraripetition filed with the CA and not the instant petition. True, the Authorization [35] dated September 4, 2000, which is attached to the second certiorari petition and which is also attached to the instant petition for review, is limited in scopeits wordings indicate that Hasegawa is given the authority to sign for and act on behalf of the company only in the petition filed with the appellate court, and that authority cannot extend to the instant petition for review. [36] In a plethora of cases, however, this Court has liberally applied the Rules or even suspended its application whenever a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have been made.[37] Given that petitioners herein sufficiently explained their misgivings on this point and appended to their Reply[38] an updated Authorization[39] for Hasegawa to act on behalf of the company in the instant petition, the Court finds the same as sufficient compliance with the Rules.

However, the Court cannot extend the same liberal treatment to the defect in the verification and certification. As respondent pointed out, and to which we agree, Hasegawa is truly not authorized to act on behalf of Nippon in this case. The aforesaid September 4, 2000 Authorization and even the subsequent August 17, 2001 Authorization were issued only by Nippon's president and chief executive officer, not by the company's board of directors. In not a few cases, we have ruled that corporate powers are exercised by the board of directors; thus, no person, not even its officers, can bind the corporation, in the absence of authority from the board.[40] Considering that Hasegawa verified and certified the petition only on his

REMLAW Page 20

board.[40] Considering that Hasegawa verified and certified the petition only on his behalf and not on behalf of the other petitioner, the petition has to be denied pursuant to Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.[41] Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter that demands strict observance of the Rules. [42] While technical rules of procedure are designed not to frustrate the ends of justice, nonetheless, they are intended to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.[43]

Further, the Court has observed that petitioners incorrectly filed a Rule 65 petition to question the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. It is a well -established rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for certiorarior mandamus. The appropriate recourse is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in the motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course.[44] While there are recognized exceptions to this rule,[45] petitioners' case does not fall among them.

This brings us to the discussion of the substantive issue of the case.

Asserting that the RTC of Lipa City is an inconvenient forum, petitioners question its jurisdiction to hear and resolve the civil case for specific performance and damages filed by the respondent. The ICA subject of the litigation was entered into and perfected in Tokyo, Japan, by Japanese nationals, and written wholly in the Japanese language. Thus, petitioners posit that local courts have no substantial relationship to the parties[46]

following the [state of the] most significant relationship rule in Private International Law.[47]

The Court notes that petitioners adopted an additional but different theory when they elevated the case to the appellate court. In the Motion to Dismiss[48] filed with the trial court, petitioners never contended that the RTC is an inconvenient forum. They merely argued that the applicable law which will determine the validity or invalidity of respondent's claim is that of Japan, following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and

lex contractus.[49] While not abandoning this stance in their petition before the appellate court, petitioners on certiorari significantly invoked the defense of forum non conveniens.[50] On petition for review before this Court, petitioners dropped their other arguments, maintained the forum non conveniens defense, and introduced their new argument that the applicable principle is the [state of the] most significant relationship rule.[51]

Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to deny this petition merely on the basis of the change in theory, as explained in Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo. [52] We only pointed out petitioners' inconstancy in their arguments to emphasize their incorrect assertion of conflict of laws principles.

To elucidate, in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: (1) Where can or should litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will the court apply? and (3) Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?[53]

Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. [54] Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction

and the choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the minimum contacts for one

REMLAW Page 21

and the choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the minimum contacts for one do not always provide the necessary significant contacts for the other.[55] The question of whether the law of a state can be applied to a transaction is different from the question of whether the courts of that state have jurisdiction to enter a judgment. [56]

In this case, only the first phase is at issuejurisdiction. Jurisdiction, however, has various aspects. For a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the petitioner, over the defendant or the respondent, over the subject matter, over the issues of the case and, in cases involving property, over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation. [57] In assailing

the trial court's jurisdiction herein, petitioners are actually referring to subject matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law.[58] It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.[59] To succeed in its motion for the dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction

over the subject matter of the claim, [60] the movant must show that the court or tribunal cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law grants it the power to adjudicate the claims.[61]

In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do not claim that the trial court is not properly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for, indeed, Civil Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages is one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City. [62] What they rather raise as grounds to question subject matter jurisdiction are the principles of lex

loci celebrationis and lex contractus, and the state of the most significant relationship rule.

The Court finds the invocation of these grounds unsound.

Lex loci celebrationis relates to the law of the place of the ceremony[63] or the law of the place where a contract is made. [64] The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed.[65] It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract [66]

and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended

by them either expressly or implicitly. [67] Under the state of the most significant relationship rule, to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties. [68] This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved.[69]

Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law. [70] They determine which state's law is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem.[71] Necessarily, as the only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet called for.

Further, petitioners' premature invocation of choice-of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. [72] Also, when the law of a

REMLAW Page 22

situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. [72] Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the

existence of such law must be pleaded and proved. [73]

It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account

or apply the law of some other State or States. [74] The courts power to hear cases and controversies is derived from the Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to recognize laws of foreign nations, the court is not limited by foreign sovereign law short of treaties or other formal agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by foreign sovereigns.[75]

Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens, [76] be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground. [77]

Second, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the

sound discretion of the trial court. [78] In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of defense.[79]

Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctly denied the petitioners motion to dismiss.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.

Pasted from

REMLAW Page 23

FIGUEROA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESJULY 14, 2008NACHURA, J.SUBJECT AREA: Estoppel by lachesNATURE: Petition for review on certiorari

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The RTC found him guilty. In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner, for the first time, questioned RTCs jurisdiction on the case.

The CA in affirming the decision of the RTC, ruled that the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTCthe trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively participating therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity.

The petitioner, for his part, counters that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at any time even for the first time on appeal. As undue delay is further absent herein, the principle of laches will not be applicable. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON petitioners failure to raise the issue of jurisdiction during the trial of this case,constitute laches in relation to the doctrine laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, notwithstanding thefact that said issue was immediately raised in petitioners appeal to the CA

HELD:No .

RATIO: Citing the ruling in Calimlim vs. Ramirez, the Court held that as a general rule, the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. Laches should be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy doctrine to be applicable, that is, lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it.

In Sibonghanoy, the party invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after fifteen years and at a stage when the proceedings had already been elevated to the CA. Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case because of the presence of laches.

In the case at bar, the factual settings attendant in Sibonghanoy are not present. Petitioner Atty. Regalado, after the receipt of the Court of Appeals resolution finding her guilty of contempt, promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the said courts jurisdiction based on procedural infirmity in initiating the action. Her compliance with the appellate courts directive to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt and filing a single piece of pleading to that effect could not be considered as an active participation in the judicial proceedings so as to take the case within the milieu of Sibonghanoy. Rather, it is the natural fear to disobey the mandate of the court that could lead to dire consequences that impelled her to comply.

The petitioner 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. At that time, no considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach.

Figueroa v. People, GR 147407, Jul 14, 2008Sunday, November 14, 2010

11:18 PM

REMLAW Page 24

yet elapsed for laches to attach.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition for review on certiorari is granted. Criminal case is dismissed

Pasted from

REMLAW Page 25

G.R. No. 175914 : February 10, 2009

RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. PABLO C. FORMARAN III, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 21, Naga City, as Pairing Judge for Regional Trial Court Branch 22, Formerly Presided By HON. NOVELITA VILLEGAS-LLAGUNO (Retired 01 May 2006), ROMEO Y. TAN, ROBERTO L. OBIEDO and ATTY. TOMAS A. REYES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision[1] dated 22 November 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94800. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, affirmed the Order[2] dated 24 March 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga City, in Civil Case No. RTC-2006-0030, ordering petitioner Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation to pay additional docket/filing fees, computed based on Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The present Petition arose from the following facts: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioner obtained a loan[3] in the total amount of P95,700,620.00 from

respondents Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) and Roberto L. Obiedo (Obiedo), secured by real estate mortgages over five parcels of land, all located in Triangulo,

Naga City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) No. 38376,[4] No. 29918,[5] No. 38374,[6] No. 39232,[7] and No. 39225,[8] issued by the Registry

of Deeds for Naga City, in the name of petitioner. When petitioner was unable to pay the loan when it became due and demandable, respondents

Tan and Obiedo agreed to an extension of the same. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In a Memorandum of Agreement[9] dated 17 March 2005, respondents Tan

and Obiedo granted petitioner until 31 December 2005 to settle its indebtedness, and condoned the interests, penalties and surcharges accruing

thereon from 1 October 2004 to 31 December 2005 which amounted to P74,678,647.00. The Memorandum of Agreement required, in turn, that

petitioner execute simultaneously with the said Memorandum, by way of dacion en pago, Deeds of Absolute Sale in favor of respondents Tan and

Obiedo, covering the same parcels of land subject of the mortgages. The Deeds of Absolute Sale would be uniformly dated 2 January 2006, and state that petitioner sold to respondents Tan and Obiedo the parcels of land for

Ruby Shelter v. Hon. Formaran GR 174914 Feb 10, 2009Sunday, November 14, 2010

11:19 PM

REMLAW Page 26

that petitioner sold to respondents Tan and Obiedo the parcels of land for

the following purchase prices: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

TCT No. Purchase Price

38376 P 9,340,000.00

29918 P 28,000,000.00

38374 P 12,000,000.00

39232 P 1,600,000.00

39225 P 1,600,000.00 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioner could choose to pay off its indebtedness with individual or all five

parcels of land; or it could redeem said properties by paying respondents Tan and Obiedo the following prices for the same, inclusive of interest and

penalties: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

TCT No. Redemption Price

38376 P 25,328,939.00

29918 P 35,660,800.00

38374 P 28,477,600.00

39232 P 6,233,381.00

39225 P 6,233,381.00

In the event that petitioner is able to redeem any of the afore-mentioned

parcels of land, the Deed of Absolute Sale covering the said property shall be nullified and have no force and effect; and respondents Tan and Obiedo shall

then return the owners duplicate of the corresponding TCT to petitioner and also execute a Deed of Discharge of Mortgage. However, if petitioner is

unable to redeem the parcels of land within the period agreed upon, respondents Tan and Obiedo could already present the Deeds of Absolute

Sale covering the same to the Office of the Register of Deeds for Naga City so respondents Tan and Obiedo could acquire TCTs to the said properties in their names. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Memorandum of Agreement further provided that should petitioner

contest, judicially or otherwise, any act, transaction, or event related to or necessarily connected with the said Memorandum and the Deeds of Absolute

Sale involving the five parcels of land, it would pay respondents Tan and Obiedo P10,000,000.00 as liquidated damages inclusive of costs and

attorneys fees. Petitioner would likewise pay respondents Tan and Obiedo the condoned interests, surcharges and penalties.[10] Finally, should a contest

arise from the Memorandum of Agreement, Mr. Ruben Sia (Sia), President of petitioner corporation, personally assumes, jointly and severally with petitioner, the latters monetary obligation to respondent Tan and Obiedo.

REMLAW Page 27

petitioner, the latters monetary obligation to respondent Tan and Obiedo. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Respondent Atty. Tomas A. Reyes (Reyes) was the Notary Public who

notarized the Memorandum of Agreement dated 17 March 2005 between respondent Tan and Obiedo, on one hand, and petitioner, on the other. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, petitioner, represented by Mr.

Sia, executed separate Deeds of Absolute Sale,[11] over the five parcels of land, in favor of respondents Tan and Obiedo. On the blank spaces provided

for in the said Deeds, somebody wrote the 3rd of January 2006 as the date of their execution. The Deeds were again notarized by respondent Atty. Reyes

also on 3 January 2006. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Without payment having been made by petitioner on 31 December 2005,

respondents Tan and Obiedo presented the Deeds of Absolute Sale dated 3 January 2006 before the Register of Deeds of Naga City on 8 March 2006, as

a result of which, they were able to secure TCTs over the five parcels of land in their names. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On 16 March 2006, petitioner filed before the RTC a Complaint[12] against

respondents Tan, Obiedo, and Atty. Reyes, for declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary

injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO). The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 2006-0030. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On the basis of the facts already recounted above, petitioner raised two

causes of action in its Complaint. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

As for the first cause of action, petitioner alleged that as early as 27

December 2005, its President already wrote a letter informing respondents Tan and Obiedo of the intention of petitioner to pay its loan and requesting a

meeting to compute the final amount due. The parties held meetings on 3 and 4 January 2006 but they failed to arrive at a mutually acceptable

computation of the final amount of loan payable. Respondents Tan and Obiedo then refused the request of petitioner for further dialogues.

Unbeknownst to petitioner, despite the ongoing meetings, respondents Tan and Obiedo, in evident bad faith, already had the pre-executed Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized on 3 January 2006 by respondent Atty. Reyes. Atty.

Reyes, in connivance with respondents Tan and Obiedo, falsely made it appear in the Deeds of Absolute Sale that Mr. Sia had personally

acknowledged/ratified the said Deeds before Atty. Reyes. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Asserting that the