You are on page 1of 27

RECENT PHILIPPINE

JURISPRUDENCE FOR
REMEDIAL LAW (CIVIL
PROCEDURE)

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. N.E. MAGNO


CONSTRUCTION, INC., RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 208181, August 31, 2016,

No one has a vested right to file an appeal or a petition for certiorari.


These are statutory privileges which may be exercised only in the
manner prescribed by law.

The rationale for the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to
prevent the use (or abuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a
case or even defeat the ends of justice. Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions
to file petition on compelling grounds did away with the filing of such motions. As
the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days
from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.

Clearly, allowing a petition for certiorari, even if belatedly filed, should never be
taken lightly. The order attains finality by the lapse of the period for taking an
appeal without such assailing the said order. Decisions or resolutions must attain
finality at some point and its attainment of finality should not be made dependent
on the will of a party.7
It is a well-settled principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would
result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice,
must always be eschewed. In deciding a case, the appellate court has the discretion
whether or not to dismiss the same, which discretion must be exercised soundly and
in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, taking into account the
circumstances of the case8. No one has a vested right to file an appeal or a petition
for certiorari. These are statutory privileges which may be exercised only in the
manner prescribed by law. Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and
should not be discarded with by the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.


ARTHUR PARCON Y ESPINOSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 219592, August 17, 2016

It is within the appellate courts mandate to dismiss the appeal motu


proprio if the appellant fails to file his brief within the prescribed time.

Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. The


Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice
to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his
brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is
represented by a counsel de oficio.

The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio,
dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail
or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.

Clearly, it is within the appellate courts mandate to dismiss the appeal motu
proprio if the appellant fails to file his brief within the prescribed time. The
primordial policy is faithful observance of the Rules of Court, and their relaxation or
suspension should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases. A
bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice will not suffice to override a
stringent implementation of the rules.1
The reason for the dismissal lies in the nature of the right to appeal. The right to
appeal is statutory and one who seeks to avail of it must comply with the statute or
rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period
specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as
well; hence, failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. 2

CONCHITA A. SONLEY, PETITIONER, VS. ANCHOR SAVINGS


BANK/ EQUICOM SAVINGS BANK, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 205623, August 10, 2016

A writ of execution is a necessary consequence of a judgment based on


compromise agreement.

While the assailed dispositions of the trial court and the CA do not specify the
remedies that respondent is entitled to, it is clear that rescission and eviction were
specifically sought and prayed for in respondents Manifestation and Motion for
Execution, and petitioner was given the opportunity to oppose the same. In her
Opposition to the Motion for Execution, 3 she in fact acknowledged and admitted
that she was in default and that she violated the Compromise Agreement by her
failure to make regular payments as required therein. Indeed, it may be said that
respondents motion for execution, with a prayer for rescission, for the of
petitioners payments as rental, and for her eviction, constituted sufficient written
notice to petitioner, and it was duly heard; petitioner opposed the motion and even
filed a rejoinder4 to respondents reply5, but she could not proffer any defense;
quite the opposite, she openly admitted liability. The facts, evidence, and pleadings
are clear and within the cognizance of the trial court; petitioners failure to abide by
the agreement should result in execution, cancellation and rescission of the
Compromise Agreement and Contract to Sell, and her eviction from the property.
Certainly, a compromise agreement becomes the law between the parties and will
not He set aside other than [sic] the grounds mentioned above. In Ramnani v. Cburt
of Appeals, we held that the main purpose of a compromise agreement is to put an
end to litigation because of the uncertainty that may arise from it. Once the
compromise is perfected, the parties are bound to abide by it in good faith. Should a
party fail or refuse to comply with the terms of a compromise of amicable
settlement, the other party could either enforce the compromise by a writ of
execution or regard it as rescinded and so insist upon his/her original, demand.

Petitioner may be right in arguing that respondent has the option to proceed with
the sale and charge corresponding penalties instead, pursuant to the stipulations in
the Contract to Sell; however, respondent chose to rescind the same, an option
which it is equally entitled to by contract and under the law, 7 and thus evict
petitioner from the premises. Respondent must have thought that if past actions
were a gauge, petitioner was no longer in a position to honor her obligations under
the Contract to Sell.

MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FELICIDAD


VILLAMENA, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 192477, July 27, 2016,

A party cannot wager on the result of a litigation by belatedly assailing


a default judgment which was prompted by its belated filing of answer.

We concur with the CAs justification. The RTC and the CA acted in accordance with
the Rules of Court and the pertinent jurisprudence. The petitioner was insincere in
assailing the default judgment, and its insincerity became manifest from its failure
to move for the lifting of the order of default prior to the rendition of the default
judgment. The CA rightly observed that the petitioner had apparently forsaken its
expeditious remedy of moving soonest for the lifting of the order of default in
favor of wager[ing] on obtaining a favorable judgment. The petitioner would not
do so unless it intended to unduly cause delay to the detriment and prejudice of the
respondent.
The sincerity of the petitioners actions cannot be presumed. Hence, it behooves it
to allege the suitable explanation for the failure or the delay to file the answer
through a motion to lift the order of default before the default judgment is rendered.
This duty to explain is called for by the philosophy underlying the doctrine of default
in civil procedure, which Justice Narvasa eruditely discoursed on in Gochangco v. CFI
Negros Occidental,11 to wit:

The underlying philosophy of the doctrine of default is that the defendants failure
to answer the complaint despite receiving copy thereof together with summons, is
attributable to one of two causes: either (a) to his realization that he has no
defenses to the plaintiffs cause and hence resolves not to oppose the complaint, or,
(b) having good defenses to the suit, to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence which prevented him from seasonably filing an answer setting forth
those defenses. It does make sense for a defendant without defenses, and who
accepts the correctness of the specific relief prayed for in the complaint, to forego
the filing of the answer or any sort of intervention in the action at all. For even if he
did intervene, the result would be the same: since he would be unable to establish
any good defense, having none in fact, judgment would inevitably go against him.
And this would be an acceptable result, if not being in his power to alter or prevent
it, provided that the judgment did not go beyond or differ from the specific
relief stated in the complaint. It would moreover spare him from the embarrassment
of openly appearing to defend the indefensible. On the other hand, if he did
have good defenses, it would be unnatural for him not to set them up
properly and timely, and if he did not in fact set them up, it must be
presumed that some insuperable cause prevented him from doing so:
fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence. In this event, the law will
grant him relief; and the law is in truth quite liberal in the reliefs made
available to him: a motion to set aside the order of default prior to
judgment, a motion for new trial to set aside the default judgment; an
appeal from the judgment by default even if no motion to set aside the
order of default or motion for new trial had been previously presented; a
special civil action for certiorari impugning the courts jurisdiction.12
Doreen grace parilla medina, a.k.a. doreen grace medina
koike, petitioner, vs. Michiyuki koike, the local civil registrar
of quezon city, metro manila, and the administrator and civil
registrar general of the national statistics office,

G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016,

The validity of a divorce decree and the pertinent laws thereof are
factual matters which are beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition.

Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and
Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter
are essentially factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence presented
before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant appeal is obviously a question
of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review.

Heirs of babai guiambangan, namely, kalipa b. Guiambangan, saya


guiambangan darus, neneng p. Guiambangan, and edgar p. Guiambangan,
[1]
petitioners, vs. Municipality of kalamansig, sultan kudarat, represented
by its mayor rolando p. Garcia, members of its sangguniang bayan, and its
municipal treasurer,[2] respondents.

G.R. No. 204899, July 27, 2016

The Acceptance Of A Petition For Certiorari, And Necessarily The Grant


Of Due Course Thereto, Is Addressed To The Sound Discretion Of The
Court
The acceptance of a petition for certiorari, and necessarily the grant of due course
thereto, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the court may reject
and dismiss a petition for certiorari (1) when there is no showing of grave abuse of
discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when mere are
procedural errors, such as violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court
circulars.

In this case, the CA dismissed petitioners special civil action for certiorari because
of procedural errors, namely: (1) failure to implead private respondent; (2) failure to
attach copies of the pleadings and documents relevant to the petition; (3) failure to
file a motion for reconsideration of the Order of Implementation; and, consequently,
(4) failure to allege material dates in the petition.

Filomena cabling, petitioner, vs. Rodrigo dangcalan,


respondent.

G.r. no. 187696, june 15, 2016,

It Is No Longer Good Law That All Cases For Recovery Of Possession Or


Accion Publiciana Lie With The RTC, Regardless Of The Value Of The
Property

It is no longer good law that all cases for recovery of possession or accion
publiciana lie with the RTC, regardless of the value of the property.

As early as 2001, this Court had already declared that all cases involving title to or
possession of real property with an assessed value of less than P20,000, if outside
Metro Manila, fall under the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court. 2 This
pronouncement was based on Republic Act No. 7691, 3 which was approved by
Congress on 25 March 1994.

Jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property or


interest therein, as set forth in Sections 19 (2) and 33 (3) of Batas Pambansa
Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 129,4 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691
Neptune metal scrap recycling, inc., petitioner, vs. Manila
electric company and the people of the philippines,
respondents.

G.R. No. 204222, July 04, 2016

The Allowance Or Disallowance Of A Motion For Intervention Is Within


The Sound Discretion Of The Court

Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, who is not originally impleaded in a


proceeding, becomes a litigant for purposes of protecting his or her right or interest
that may be affected by the proceedings. Intervention is not an absolute right but
may be granted by the court when the movant shows facts which satisfy the
requirements of the statute authorizing intervention. The allowance or disallowance
of a motion to intervene is within the sound discretion of the court.

Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules provides that a court may allow intervention (a) if
the movant has legal interest or is otherwise qualified, and (b) if the intervention
will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of the original parties
and if the intervenors rights may not be protected in a separate proceeding. 4 Both
requirements must concur.

Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules requires a movant to file the motion for intervention
before the RTCs rendition of judgment and to attach a pleading-in-
intervention.5 The court may allow intervention after rendition of judgment if the
movant is an indispensable party.
Spouses augusto and nora navarro, petitioners, vs. Rural bank
of tarlac, inc., respondent.

G.R. No. 180060, July 13, 2016

Summary Judgment Is Not Proper Where The Defendant Presented


Defenses Tendering Factual Issues Which Call For The Presentation Of
Evidence

Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, clearly mandates the outright dismissal of
appeals made under Rule 41 thereof, if they only raise pure questions of law. 1 The
pertinent provision of Rule 50 reads as follows:

SECTION 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. An appeal


under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising
only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being
reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by
petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be
dismissed.

An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be


transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed
outright. (Emphases supplied)

There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented or an evaluation of the truth or falsity of
the facts admitted.2 Here, the doubt revolves around the correct application of law
and jurisprudence on a certain set of facts or circumstances. 3 The test for
ascertaining whether a question is one of law is to determine if the appellate court
can resolve the issues without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. 4 Where there is
no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn
from these facts are correct is considered a question of law. 5 Conversely, there is a
question of fact when doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged information or facts; the credibility of the witnesses; or the relevance of
surrounding circumstances and their relationship to each other.

Philip yu, petitioner, vs. Viveca lim yu, respondent.

G.R. No. 200072, June 20, 2016

Where Service Is Obtained By Publication, The Entire Proceeding


Should Be Closely Scrutinized By The Courts And A Strict Compliance
With Every Condition Of Law Should Be Exacted

It is the duty of the court to require the fullest compliance with all the requirements
of the statute permitting service by publication. Where service is obtained by
publication, the entire proceeding should be closely scrutinized by the courts and a
strict compliance with every condition of law should be exacted. Otherwise great
abuses may occur, and the rights of persons and property may be made to depend
upon the elastic conscience of interested parties rather than the enlightened
judgment of the court or judge.

Indeed, due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be
notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests. 27 When defendants are
deprived of such opportunity to duly participate in, and even be informed of, the
proceedings, due to a deceitful scheme employed by the prevailing litigant, as in
this case, there exists a violation of their due process rights. Any judgment issued in
violation thereof necessarily suffers a fatal infirmity for courts, as guardians of
constitutional rights cannot be expected to deny persons their due process rights
while at the same time be considered as acting within their jurisdiction. 28 This
Court, therefore, deems as proper the annulment of the Batangas courts judgment
issued without proper service of summons.
HAMBRE J. MOHAMMAD, PETITIONER, VS. GRACE BELGADO-SAQUETON,
IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR IV, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XVI, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 193584, July 12, 2016

The Doctrine Of Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies, Which Is A


Cornerstone Of Our Judicial system, Impels The Court To Allow
Administrative Agencies To Carry Out Their Functions And Discharge
Their Responsibilities Within The Specialized Areas Of Their Respective
Competencies

We have recognized the CSC as the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil
service.10 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which is a
cornerstone of our judicial system, 11 impels Us to allow administrative agencies to
carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized
areas of their respective competencies. 12 We refrain from the overarching use of
judicial power in matters of policy infused with administrative character. 13 Hence,
the doctrine has been set aside only for exceptional circumstances.

Petitioner pleads for a liberal construction of the rules owing to the nature of the
case as one of first impression involving a position in the ARMM vis-a-vis the
application of CSC rules.14 His plea has been mooted, however, by the promulgation
of Buena, in which We highlighted Section 4, Art. XVI of the Organic Act for the
ARMM which states that until the Regional Assembly shall have enacted a civil
service law, the civil service eligibilities required by the central government or
national government for appointments to public positions shall likewise be required
for appointments to government positions in the Regional Government.
IN RE: A.M. NO. 04-7-373-RTC [REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT
CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI,
CEBU] AND A.M. NO. 04-7-374-RTC [VIOLATION OF JUDGE ILDEFONSO
SUERTE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 36-2004 DATED MARCH 3, 2004],
PROSECUTOR MARY ANN T. CASTRO-ROA, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 9871, June 29, 2016

There Is No Distinction As To Whether The Transgression Is Committed


In A Lawyers Private Life Or in His Professional Capacity, For a Lawyer
May Not Divide His Personality As An Attorney At One Time And A Mere
Citizen At Another

Castro-Roa cannot insist that she filed the Second Petition as a mother and not as a
lawyer. On this, we have reminded lawyers time and again that the practice of law is
a privilege burdened with conditions. In Mendoza v. Deciembre,25 we ruled that a
lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts
which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable
opinion of the public. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in a lawyers private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may
not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another.26

She may be acting as a mother seeking a peaceful family life for her children, but
this does not excuse her from compliance with the rules of the profession that she
has chosen for herself to support her family. The profession of law exacts the
highest standards from its members and adherence to the rigid standards of mental
fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with
the rules of legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of
good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. 27 These
principles remain applicable to Castro-Roa in whatever capacity she filed the two
petitions.
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER. VS. PHILIPPINE RABBIT
BUS LINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 205951, July 04, 2016

An Ejectment Case Is Not Limited To Lease Agreements Or Deprivations


Of Possession By Force, Intimidation, Threat, Strategy, Or Stealth. It Is
As Well An Available Remedy Against One Who Withholds Possession
After The Expiration Or Termination Of His Right Of Possession Under
An Express Or Implied Contract, Such As A Contract To Sell

It must have escaped the attention of the MTCC, the RTC, and the CA that an
ejectment case is not limited to lease agreements or deprivations of possession by
force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. It is as well available against one
who withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right of
possession under an express or implied contract, such as a contract to sell. Under
Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules, a x x x vendor, vendee, or other person
against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the
expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract,
express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper
Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or
depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the
restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. In such cases, it
is sufficient to allege in the plaintiffs complaint that

1. The defendant originally had lawful possession of the property, either by


virtue of a contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

2. Eventually, the defendants possession of the property became illegal or


unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to defendant of the expiration or the
termination of the defendants right of possession;

3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and


deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and

4. Within one year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,


the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. 1
ROSA PAMARAN, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, THROUGH THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE, ROSEMARY P. BERNABE, PETITIONERS, VS. BANK OF
COMMERCE, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 205753, July 04, 2016

Personal Actions Include Those Filed For Recovery Of Personal Property,


Or For Enforcement Of Contract Or Recovery Of Damages For Its
Breach, Or For The Recovery Of Damages For Injury Committed To A
Person Or Property

Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 2 thereof, defines a real
action as one affecting title to or possession of real property or interest therein;
and, all other actions are personal actions. A real action must be filed in the proper
court which has jurisdiction over the subject real property, while a personal action
may be filed where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or if the defendant is a non-
resident, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. Personal actions
include those filed for recovery of personal property, or for enforcement of contract
or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for injury
committed to a person or property.11

SPOUSES ABELARDO VALARAO AND FRANCISCA VALARAO,


PETITIONERS, VS. MSC AND COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 185331, June 08, 2016

Under The Doctrine Of Finality Of Judgment Or Immutability Of


Judgment, A Decision That Has Acquired Finality Becomes Immutable
And Unalterable, And May No Longer Be Modified In Any Respect, Even
If The Modification Is Meant To Correct Erroneous Conclusions Of Fact
And Law, And Whether It Be Made By The Court That Rendered It Or By
The Highest Court Of The Land
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision
that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer
be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or
by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must
immediately be struck down.6

The doctrine admits of certain exceptions, which are usually applied to serve
substantial justice, particularly in the following instances: (1) the correction of
clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to
any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the
finality of the decision, rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. 7 None of
these circumstances attends the present case.

STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. PAMANA ISLAND


RESORT HOTEL AND MARINA CLUB, INC., RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 174838, June 01, 2016

Time And Again, Courts Have Emphasized That A Writ Of Execution


Must Conform Substantially To Every Essential Particular Of The
Judgment Promulgated. An Execution That Is Not In Harmony With The
Judgment Is Bereft Of Validity

Clearly, the RTCs issuances contravened a settled principle affecting execution of


judgments. Time and again, courts have emphasized that a writ of execution must
conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. An
execution that is not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity. This applies
because once a judgment becomes final and executory, all that remains is the
execution of the decision which is a matter of right. The prevailing party is entitled
to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is the trial courts ministerial duty. 4

While exceptions to the rule on immutability of final judgments are applied in some
cases, these are limited to the following instances: (1) the correction of clerical
errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tuncentries which cause no prejudice to any party;
and (3) void judgments5 ] None of these exceptions attend Strongholds case.

BENJAMIN H. CABAEZ, PETITIONER, VS. MARIE JOSEPHINE CORDERO


SOLANO A.K.A. MA. JOSEPHINE S. CABAEZ, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 200180, June 06, 2016

Before The Trial Court Can Alter The Description Of The Civil Status Of
A Person In A Transfer Certificate Of Title, It Must Require Evidence Of
And Determine That Partys Civil Status

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. NOEL B. PILI, MEDEL


I. LIRIO, RODERICK B. JAMON, VICTORINO A. MACHICA, RONNIE C.
VALORIA, VIRGILIO M. FLORES, RENATO C. PALMA, ANGELITO V.
GUINTO, RAMIRO M. FELICIANO, ENRIQUE L. CIUBAL, ELMER P.
TABIGAN, VENANCIO T. MADRIA, MAXIMO M. VITANGCOL, RODOLFO L.
PAGUIO, ARNEL F. MAGSALIN, JULIANA N. DOLOR, NOEL C. CRUZ,
SANDY C. JARILLA, BERTITO I. SERVIDAD, ALAN R. CORPUZ, ROBERT D.
PABLO, ROBERT H. MONTEREY, HENRY L. LIAO, ROLANDO C. CEBANICO,
VELIENTE S. FANTASTICO, MA. EMILIAN S. CRUZ, EDGARDO G.
GAMBAYAN, GERARDO M. RUMBAWA, DANTE D. PALOMARA, MA.
TERESA B. DE LOS REYES, JOSE ALLAN S. PACIFICO, RESTITUTO R.
MALAPO, EARL G. PONGCO, LUCILO C. DEL MONTE, RUEL F.
MAGBALANA, MARLYN V. VILLANUEVA, JUDITH C. BANEZ, GERMAN N.
DE LUNA, FREDERICK B. DEL CORRO, CLODUALDO B. PASIOLAN,
ROLANDO I. NAVARRO, AND PACIANO J. VILLANUEVA,* RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 202047, June 08, 2016

When The Court Has Once Laid Down A Principle Of Law As Applicable
To A Certain State Of Facts, It Will Adhere To That Principle, And Apply It
To All Future Cases, Where Facts Are Substantially The Same,
Regardless Of Whether The Parties And Property Are The Same

Accordingly, we find that the application of the doctrine of stare decisis is in order.
The doctrine ofstare decisis et non quieta movere means to adhere to precedents,
and not to unsettle things which are established. 10 Under this doctrine, when this
Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts,
it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the
same.11

The basic facts in this petition are the same as those in the case of LRTA v.
Mendoza.12 Thus, we find that LRTA is solidarity liable for the monetary claims of
respondents, in light of this Courts findings in said case. It is the duty of the Court
to apply the previous ruling in LRTA v. Mendoza13 in accordance with the doctrine
of stare decisis. Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving
exactly the same point at issue, as in the present case, should be decided in the
same manner.14
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK PETITIONER, VS. SPS. VICTORIANO &
JOVITA FARICIA RIVERA, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 189577, April 20, 2016

The Court Has Consistently Held That There Is A Difference Between


Failure To State A Cause Of Action, And Lack Of Cause Of Action. These
Legal Concepts Are Distinct And Separate From Each Other

We have consistently held that there is a difference between failure to state a cause
of action, and lack of cause of action. These legal concepts are distinct and separate
from each other.

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure defines a cause of action as
the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Its elements are as
follows:

1) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created;

2) An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate


such right; and

3) Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief.

MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DIANA P.


ALIBUDBUD, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 209011, April 20, 2016


Replevin Is An Action Whereby The Owner Or Person Entitled To
Repossession Of Goods Or Chattels May Recover Those Goods Or
Chattels From One Who Has Wrongfully Distrained Or Taken, Or Who
Wrongfully detains Such Goods Or Chattels. It Is Designed To Permit
One Having Right To Possession To Recover Property In Specie From
One Who Has Wrongfully Taken Or Detained The Property

Replevin is an action whereby the owner or person entitled to repossession of


goods or chattels may recover those goods or chattels from one who has wrongfully
distrained or taken, or who wrongfully detains such goods or chattels. It is designed
to permit one having right to possession to recover property in specie from one who
has wrongfully taken or detained the property. The term may refer either to the
action itself, for the recovery of personalty, or to the provisional remedy
traditionally associated with it, by which possession of the property may be
obtained by the plaintiff and retained during the pendency of the action. 2

RAQUEL G. KHO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND


VERONICA B. KHO, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 187462, June 01, 2016

To Be Considered Void On The Ground Of Absence Of A Marriage


License, The Law Requires That The Absence Of Such Marriage License
Must Be Apparent On The Marriage Contract, Or At The Very Least,
Supported By A Certification From The Local Civil Registrar That No
Such Marriage License Was Issued To The Parties

From these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on the ground of
absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage
license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported
by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was
issued to the parties.22
Indeed, all the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was
conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the
absence of a valid marriage license.23 As cited above, Article 80(3) of the Civil Code
clearly provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the
beginning, except marriages of exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79 of the
same Code. As earlier stated, petitioners and respondents marriage cannot be
characterized as among the exceptions.

TAN SIOK KUAN AND PUTE CHING, PETITIONERS, VS. FELICISIMO BOY
HO, RODOLFO C. RETURTA, VICENTE M. SALAS, AND LOLITA MALONZO,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 175085, June 01, 2016

It Would Not Only Be Rightly Inconvenient, But Also Manifestly Unjust,


That A Man Should Be Bound By The Acts Of Mere Unauthorized
Strangers; And If A Party Ought Not To Be Bound By The Acts Of
Strangers, Neither Ought Their Acts Or Conduct Be Used As Evidence
Against Him.

(O)n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are binding
upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations.
Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man
should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought
not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be
used as evidence against him.

In the present case, petitioners failed to establish that the defendants 7 alleged
implied admission of a lessor-lessee relationship falls under the exceptions to the
principle of res inter alios acta as to make such admission binding upon
respondents. Although defendants and respondents were all defendants in the
complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners, it is very clear that defendants
and respondents espoused different defenses. Contrary to defendants position,
respondents, as early as the filing of their response to petitioners demand letter,
firmly and consistently denied the existence of any lease contract between them
and petitioners over the subject land.

LEVI STRAUSS & CO., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR,


IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 206779, April 20, 2016

The General Rule Is That A Second Motion For Extension Is Not


Granted, Except When the Court of Appeals Finds A Compelling Reason
To Grant The Extension

The rule is clear that an appeal to the CA must be filed within a period of fifteen (15)
days. While an extension of fifteen (15) days and a further extension of another
fifteen (15) days may be requested, the second extension may be granted at the
CAs discretion and only for the most compelling reason.

Motions for extensions are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound
discretion of the court, and lawyers should never presume that their motions for
extensions or postponement will be granted or that they will be granted the length
of time they pray for.1 Further, the general rule is that a second motion for
extension is not granted, except when the CA finds a compelling reason to grant the
extension.2

HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA. CHARINA ROSE


ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA
ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR., AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA,
PETITIONERS, VS. ROSARIO KALAW, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 204314, April 06, 2016


The Assessed Value Of The Disputed Lot Is Immaterial For Purposes Of
The RTCs Appellate Jurisdiction

It is true that under the prevailing law, as discussed above, in actions involving title
to or possession of real property or any interest therein, there is a need to allege
the assessed value of the real property subject of the action, or the interest therein,
for purposes of determining which court (MeTC/MTC/MCTC or RTC) has jurisdiction
over the action. However, it must be clarified that this requirement applies only if
these courts are in the exercise of their original jurisdiction. 2 In the present case,
the RTC was exercising its appellate, not original, jurisdiction when it took
cognizance of Arriendas appeal and Section 22 of B.R Blg. 129 does not provide any
amount or value of the subject property which would limit the RTCs exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by first level courts. Clearly then, in the
instant case, contrary to the ruling of the CA, the assessed value of the disputed lot
is immaterial for purposes of the RTCs appellate jurisdiction. 3 Indeed, all cases
decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount
involved.4 Hence, the CA erred in nullifying the RTC decision for lack of jurisdiction.

TUNG HUI CHUNG AND TONG HONG CHUNG, PETITIONERS, VS. SHIH
CHIU HUANG A.K.A. JAMES SHIH, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 170679, March 09, 2016

The Remedy Under Rule 47 Is To Be Availed Of Only If The Ordinary


Remedies Of New Trial, Appeal, Petition For Relief Or Other Appropriate
Remedies Are No Longer Available Through No Fault Of The Petitioner

if the ground of the respondent to assail the judgment based on the compromise
agreement was extrinsic fraud, his action should be brought under Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court. Under Section 2 of Rule 47, the original action for annulment
may be based only on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, but extrinsic fraud, to be
valid ground, should not have been availed of, or could not have been availed of in
a motion for new trial or petition for relief. If the ground relied up is extrinsic fraud,
the action must be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; if
the ground is lack of jurisdiction, the action must be brought before it is barred by
laches or estoppels.9 Regardless of the ground for the action, the remedy under
Rule 47 is to be availed of only if the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition
for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of
the petitioner.10 Ostensibly, the respondent could have availed himself of the
petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Hence, his
failure to resort to such remedy precluded him from availing himself of the remedy
to annul the judgment based on the compromise agreement.

In Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals,11 the Court has discoursed
on the nature of the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 in the
following manner:

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature


that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the
judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a
court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being
exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties
aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus
instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores or
disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.

ROGER ALLEN BIGLER, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


AND LINDA SUSAN PATRICIA E. BARRETO, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 210972, March 19, 2016


Questions Of Fact Are Not Reviewable, Absent Any Of The Exceptions
Recognized By Case Law

It must be stressed that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
covers only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable, 1 absent any of
the exceptions recognized by case law. 2 This rule is rooted on the doctrine that
findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by
an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can
otherwise affect the results of the case, those findings should not be
ignored.3 Hence, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness
committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court, 4 as in this case.

FRANCIS C. CERVANTES, PETITIONER, VS. CITY SERVICE CORPORATION


AND VALENTIN PRIETO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016

When A Party Is Represented By Counsel Of Record, Service Of Orders


And Notices Must Be Made Upon Said Attorney; And Notice To The
Client And To Any Other Lawyer, Not The Counsel Of Record, Is Not
Notice In Law

The rule is

where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record,


all notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of record; and
service of the courts order upon any person other than the counsel of record is not
legally effective and binding upon the party, nor may it start the corresponding
reglementary period for the subsequent procedural steps that may be taken by the
attorney. Notice should be made upon the counsel of record at his exact given
address, to which notice of all kinds emanating from the court should be sent in the
absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address.

When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices


must be made upon said attorney; and notice to the client and to any other lawyer,
not the counsel of record, is not notice in law. 2

NELSON TEIDO Y SILVESTRE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE


PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 211642, March 09, 2016

Questions Pertaining To The Credibility Of A Witness Are Factual In


Nature And Are, Generally, Outside The Ambit Of The Supreme Courts
Appellate Jurisdiction

It is immediately observable that the arguments reiterated in the petition essentially


involve the RTCs assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the prosecutions
principal witness, Guinto, and its ruling that the same satisfactorily repudiates his
denial and alibi.

Questions pertaining to the credibility of a witness are factual in nature and are,
generally, outside the ambit of the Courts appellate jurisdiction. It is a settled rule
that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise
only questions of law. A question that invites a review of the factual findings of the
lower tribunals or bodies is beyond the scope of this Courts power of review and
generally justifies the dismissal of the petition. 1

Republic vs Jose Sarenogon


GR 199194 Feb 10, 2016
RTC Decision on Summary Proceeding for Declaration of
Presumptive Death Reviewable Only via Rule 65

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the RTCs
decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death.

Under Article 247 of the Family Code, the RTCs decision on a petition pursuant to
Article 41 of the Family Code is immediately final and executory. Thus, the CA has
no jurisdiction to entertain a notice of appeal pertaining to such judgment.
However, an aggrieved party may file a certiorari under Rule 65 to question abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the CA
in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. From the decision of the CA,
the aggrieved party may elevate the matter to SC via a petition for review under
Rule 45.

Concorde Condominium vs Baculio


GR 203678 Feb 17, 2016

RTC Designated as a Special Commercial Court is Still a


Court of General Jurisdiction

The designation of the said branch as a Special Commercial Court by no means


diminished its power as a court of general jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of
all nature, whether civil, criminal or special proceedings. The matter of whether the
RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do
with the question of jurisdiction.

The petition for injunction with damages is clearly an ordinary civil case. As a court
of general jurisdiction, the RTC branch still has jurisdiction over the subject matter
thereof.

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ELIZABETH


MANALASTAS AND BEA CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 196140, January 27, 2016


The valuation of the land for purposes of determining just
compensation should not include the inflation rate of the Philippine
Peso.

In other words, the just compensation due to the landowners amounts to an


effective forbearance on the part of the Statea proper subject of interest
computed from the time the property was taken until the full amount of
just compensation is paidin order to eradicate the issue of the constant
variability of the value of the currency over time. In the Courts own words:

The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interests on the
zonal value of the property to he computed from the time petitioner instituted
condemnation proceedings and look the property in September 1969. This
allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property
as of the time of the taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at
12% per annum should help eliminate the issue of the constant fl net
nation and inflation of the value of the currency over time x x x.2

The foregoing clearly dictates that valuation of the land for purposes of determining
just compensation should not include the inflation rate of the Philippine Peso
because the delay in payment of the price of expropriated land is sufficiently
recompensed through payment of interest on the market value of the land as of the
time of taking from the landowner.

You might also like