1 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY.

LEYNES

I. General Concepts Procedural rules under the Rules of Court are not laws: they do not
Sections 1-4, 6, Rule 1 originate from the legislature but by the Supreme Court pursuant to its
RULE 1 General Provisions rule-making powers under the Constitution.
Section 1. Title of the Rules. These Rule shall be known and cited as
the Rules of Court. (1)Section 2. In what courts applicable. These Application of the ROC
Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the 1. civil action - one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
Supreme Court. (n) protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
Section 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the procedure 2. criminal action one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act
to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings. or omission punishable by law
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the 3. special proceeding a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a status, a rights, or a particular fact
wrong, (1a, R2)
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by Rules shall not apply to:
the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules a. election cases
prescribed for a special civil action. (n) b. land registration cases
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for c. cadastral cases
an act or omission punishable by law. (n) d. naturalization cases
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish e. insolvency proceedings
a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2)
Section 4. In what case not applicable. These Rules shall not apply to Not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure:
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency a. COMELEC
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy b. Board of Medicine
or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. c. NLRC
(R143a) d. other non-judicial proceedings / administrative bodies
Section 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and Courts of record those which keep a written account of its proceedings;
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (2a) all PH courts, including inferior courts, are courts of record (RA 2163)

Sections 1-2, Rule 5 A. Jurisdiction

RULE 5 Uniform Procedure In Trial Courts
Section 1. Uniform procedure. The procedure in the Municipal Trial Hasegawa et al. v. Kitamura, G.R. 149177, 23 November 2007
Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) [jurisdiction and choice of law are two different concepts]
where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either SUMMARY: RTC Lipa took cognizance of a civil case for specific
of said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary performance and damages filed by herein respondent for Nippons
Procedure. (n) improper pre-termination of his Independent Contractor Agreement. The
Section 2. Meaning of terms. The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as petitioners moved to dismiss the said petition on the ground that the trial
used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial court had no jurisdiction over the case because the parties are Japanese
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. nationals who entered into a contract in Japan.
(1a) DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is
conferred by the sovereign authority. It is given only by law and in the
Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and manner prescribed by law. It is further determined by the allegations of the
obligations created by substantive law by providing a procedural system complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of
for obtaining redress for the violation of rights and violations of duties, and the claims asserted.
by laying out rules as to how suits are filed, tried, and decided upon the
courts. Figueroa v. People, G.R. 147406, 14 July 2008
[lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding,
even on appeal]
2 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

DOCTRINE: Delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the SUMMARY: Francisco I. Chavez filed an information for libel before the RTC
defense of estoppel by laches unless it further appears that the party, of Manila against Rafael Bakias and Francisco I. Chavez claiming that they
knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of published libelous statements in Smart File which is a magazine of general
the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he circulation in Manila. Bakias questioned the sufficiency of the information
cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due since it failed to state that the article was published first in Manila.
to loss of DOCTRINE: Article 360 of the RPC as amended by Republic Act. No. 4363
evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes. requires that the criminal action for libel be filed before the Court of First
IMPORTANT NOTE: In this case, petitioner invoked the ruling in Tiham v. Instance where the article was first published. The information merely
Sibonghanoy in which, the court held that a party may be barred from stated that the article was published in Smart File which is a magazine of
questioning a courts jurisdiction after being invoked to secure affirmative general circulation in Manila but it failed to establish that the article was
relief against its opponent. However, it must be noted that the ruling in actually first published in Manila .
that case is an exception rather than a general rule. In that case, the party
invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after fifteen years and at a stage Springfield v. RTC Judge, G.R. 142626, 06 February 2007
when the proceedings had already been elevated to the CA. In this case, [doctrine of non-interference]
the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction SUMMARY: A land in Cagayan de Oro was being developed into a
of the RTC considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before subdivision when DAR issued a notice placing the lot under Comprehensive
the appellate court. Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. DARAB Provincial Adjudicator declared the
lot residential and not suitable for agriculture. The DAR Regional Director
Ruby Shelter v. Hon. Formaran, G.R. 175914, 10 February 2009 issued an appeal, which the Provincial Adjudicator disallowed for being pro
[payment of the full amount of docket fee is mandatory and forma and frivolous. Hence, the DAR Regional Director filed a petition for
jurisdictional] relief from judgment of the DARAB Decision. The DARAB granted this
SUMMARY: RSB obtained a loan from private respondents, secured by real petition and ordered petitioners to pay the farmer-beneficiaries. Hence,
estate mortage over five parcels of land. After executing a Memorandum of petitioners filed with the RTC a petition for annulment of the DARAB
Agreement granting extension for the payment of the loan, Deeds of Decision and all its subsequent proceedings. RTC dismissed the case for
Absolute Sale over said parcels of land were executed by the parties. When lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners filed with the CA a special civil action for
Ruby Shelter failed to pay the loans within the given extended period, Tan certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of writ
and Obiedo presented the Deeds of Absolute Sale to the Office of the of preliminary injunction and/or TRO, alleging that RTC committed grave
Register of Deeds and were able to obtain TCTs over the parcels of land in abuse of discretion. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling that
their names. Ruby Shelters sued Tan and Obiedo before the RTC for the RTC does not have jurisdiction to annul the DARAB Decision because it
declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages. Tan filed an Omnibus is a co-equal body. Hence, the petition to SC. The issue is whether the RTC
Motion arguing that Ruby Shelter had failed to pay the correct amount of has jurisdiction to annul final judgment of DARAB. The SC declared that RTC
docket fees, thus the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the action. The has no jurisdiction to annul final judgment of DARAB because RTCs
SC ultimately held that Tan was correct in that the action was not one that authority to annul final judgments only pertains to those rendered by
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Payment of additional docket fees inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies of equal ranking with such inferior
was ordered. courts. Since DARAB is a co-equal body with the RTC, its decisions are
DOCTRINE: The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the beyond the RTC's control.
payment of the prescribed docket fee. A real action is one in which the DOCTRINE: Pursuant to the policy of judicial stability, the doctrine of non-
plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property. In such an action, the fair interference between concurrent and coordinate courts should be regarded
market value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value as highly important in the administration of justice whereby the judgment
thereof, shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or
computing the fees. Even though the Court exempts individuals, as vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
indigent or pauper litigants, from paying docket fees, it has never extended
such an exemption to a corporate entity. Sta. Ana v. Carpo, G.R. 164340, 28 November 2008
[doctrine of primary jurisdiction]
Chavez v. CA, G.R. 125813, 06 February 2007 SUMMARY: A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
[the venue for libel cases shall be on the place where it is first of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA)
published] Decision dated March 5, 2004 which reversed and set aside the Decision of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated June
3 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

24, 1998 and reinstated the Decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform [hierarchy of courts]
Adjudicator (PARAD) of Laguna dated October 12, 1993 SUMMARY: FUCC failed to get the Contract for Upgrading San Fernando
DOCTRINE: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from Airport Phase I. Thereafter, FUCC filed a protest against the decision of the
resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in SBAC to award the contract to SCCI. FUCC filed a petition for certiorari in
an administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform cases, the SC assailing the decision and praying for an issuance of a TRO on PPMC
jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more and SBACs decision. The SC ruled that FUCC violated the doctrine of
specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board judicial hierarchy.
(DARAB). DOCTRINE: Thus, we affirm the judicial policy that this Court will not
entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the redress desired
1. 1987 Constitution cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify the resort to the extraordinary remedy of
Garcillano v. House, G.R. 170338, 23 December 2008 a writ of certiorari.
[moot and academic issues]
SUMMARY: The 14th Congress sought to continue the legislative inquiries First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA, G.R. 110571, 10 March 1994
made by the previous Congress regarding the Hello Garci scandal. [appellate jurisdiction]
Garcillano, the COMELEC Commissioner and subject of these tapes, sought SUMMARY: BOI granted First Lepanto Ceramicss application to amend its
to prohibit these tapes from being played; the Supreme Court, however, registered product from glazed floor tiles to ceramic tiles. Mariwasa
dismissed his petition on the ground that the issue he is raising is moot then filed a petition for review with respondent Court of Appeals pursuant
and academic. to SC Circular 1-91. CA temporarily retrained BOI from implementing its
DOCTRINE: The power of judicial review by the Supreme Court does not decision. Petitioner, through a Motion to Dismiss Petition, then argued that
extend to resolving issues which are already moot and academic. CA does not have appellate jurisdiction over BOIs decision, as it is
exclusively vested with the Supreme Court pursuant to EO 226. The Court
Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. 147097, 05 June 2009 held that Circular 1-91 actually repealed EO 226 insofar as the venue of
[the doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial appeals from decisions of BOI are concerned.
precedence] DOCTRINE: The right to appeal from decisions or final orders of quasi-
SUMMARY: Lazatin et al filed a petition for certiorari praying that the judicial agencies like BOI as granted by EO 226 remains. Circular 1-91
Ombudsmans disapproval of the Office of the Prosecutors (OSP) simply transferred the venue of appeals to respondent Court of Appeals.
Resolution, recommending the dismissal of the criminal cases filed against
herein petitioners, be reversed and set aside. Sarah Ampong v. CSC, G.R. 167916, 26 August 2008
DOCTRINE: Under the Constitution, Congress was not proscribed from [jurisdiction of SC over court personnel]
legislating the grant of additional powers to the Ombudsman or placing the SUMMARY: Sarah Ampong and Evelyn Decir were charged for Dishonesty,
OSP under the Office of the Ombudsman. Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Certiorari is a remedy meant to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors Service. Ampong took the Civil Service exam on behalf of Decir. Ampong
of judgment. admitted to the acts. The CSC found them guilty and removed them from
service. Ampong questioned the jurisdiction of CSC and claims that only
Ferdinand Cruz v. Priscilla Mijares et al., G.R. 154464, 11 September the Supreme Court can decide on the issue.
2008 DOCTRINE: The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is given
[hierarchy of courts] exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and judicial personnel.
SUMMARY: The petitioner, a fourth year law student, directly filed to the Only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnels
SC this petition when he was denied appearance as party litigant. compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. Administrative jurisdiction
DOCTRINE: Considering, however, that this case involves the over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of
interpretation of Section 34, Rule 138 and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the
the Court takes cognizance of herein petition. Nonetheless, the petitioner is judiciary.
cautioned not to continue his practice of filing directly before this Court
petitions under Rule 65 when the issue raised can be resolved with 2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
dispatch by the Court of Appeals. AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
First United v. Poro Point, G.R. 178799, 19 January 2009
4 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

CGP Transport v. PCI Leasing, G.R. 164547, 28 March 2007 DETERMINATION OF THE NATURE OF ACTION AND WHICH COURT
[questions of facts & law fall within the jurisdiction of the CA] HAS THE ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME
SUMMARY: CGP defaulted payment so there was foreclosure on their real 1. The material allegations of the complaint
estate properties. PCI filed a writ of possession for the said properties 2. Type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff
which was granted by RTC. CGP filed an MR saying that there is a writ of 3. The law in effect when the action is filed
injunction in another case so writ of possession should be nullified which 4. Irrespective of WON the plaintiff is entitled to some or all of the claims
RTC granted. PCI elevated the case to SC but is then referred to CA and asserted therein / defense given
said that the nullification of writ of possession is improper. CGP is
questioning CAs act of giving due course to the certiorari of PCI when it Lu v. Lu Ym. G.R. 153690, 26 August 2008
raised question of facts. [payment of docket fees]
DOCTRINE: Cases where an appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or SUMMARY: This is a consolidation of three petitions filed before the SC
both fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA. involving a sale of shares in LLDC. Lu raised for the first time in a motion
for reconsideration before the CA, the issue of incorrect docket fees paid by
ABS-CBN v. WINS, G.R. 169332, 11 February 2008 the adverse party (David) in the original complaint before the RTC. The SC
SUMMARY: Petitioner and respondent entered into a licensing agreement. ruled in favor of David et al.
A dispute arose and petitioner filed in the CA a petition for review under DOCTRINE: A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court or , in alternative, a petition for review payment of the prescribed fees. However, there are instances when failure
certiorari under Rule 65 of the same rules, with application for TRO and to pay the correct docket fees is not fatal. These include when the case is
writ of preliminary injunction. incapable of pecuniary estimation, when the party is in good faith, when
DOCTRINE: Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and the mistake is made by the clerk of court. If there is a deficiency, the same
not alternative or successive. may instead be considered a lien on the judgment that may thereafter be
ADDITIONAL NOTES: Alternative petition is not a proper appeal; A rendered.
voluntary arbitrator is a quasi-judicial instrumentality (which receives ADDITIONAL NOTES: In this case, the issue on non-payment of docket
evidence and rule based on the evidence) wherein the CA has exclusive fees was belatedly raised before the CA in their MR; The mistake of the
appellate jurisdiction. Clerk of Court cannot be imputed over the defendant. If any, the non-
payment can be considered as a lien on the judgment that may thereafter
Bokingo v. CA, G.R. 161739, 04 May 2006 be rendered.
[jurisdiction of RTC]
RULING: The claim of the respondent was rooted from the fact that the RCP v. CA, G.R. 136109, 01 August 2002
petitioners unjustly prevented the conduct of the said survey. Hence, the [jurisdiction of RTC]
Complaint for Injunction filed by the respondents where the principal relief SUMMARY: Manuel Dulawon filed with the RTC of Tabuk, Kalinga a
sought is to enjoin permanently the illegal acts of the defendants therein, complaint for breach of contract of lease with damages against the RCPI.
including petitioner Bokingo, of preventing the survey of the land subject RCPI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
matter of the case. It should be noted that in determining whether an contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the
action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary complaint is basically one for collection of unpaid rentals in the sum of
estimation, the nature of the principal action, or remedy sought must first 84,000 which does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of 100,000 for
be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the RTC.
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over DOCTRINE: In this particular case, the allegations of the complaint show
the action will depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the that the cause of action is breach of contract. It is settled that a breach of
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, contract is a cause of actions either for specific performance or rescission
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the of contracts. Since the action is one of specific performance is one which is
principal relief sought, the action is one where the subject of litigation may incapable of pecuniary estimation, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case as
not be estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by provided for by BP. 129.
Regional Trial Courts. As gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief
sought by the respondents in their complaint is for the court a quo to issue Ruby Shelter v. Hon. Formaran, supra
an injunction against petitioner Bokingo and his representatives to
permanently enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject land. Encarnacion v. Amigo, G.R. 169793, 15 September 2006
[Jurisdiction of RTC over accion publiciana]
5 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

SUMMARY: Encarnacion owns lots, which the respondent has also been exercise of judicial review. Second, the question must be ripe for
occupying. Since respondent didnt want to leave the premises, petitioner adjudication. Third, the person challenging the validity of the act must
filed a complaint for ejectment, damages with injunction and prayer for have standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must
restraining order with the Municipal Trial Court. MTC ruled in favor of have been raised at the earliest opportunity; and lastly, the issue of
petitioner and ordered respondent to vacate the premises, pay rent and constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case (Integrated Bar of
attorneys fees to petitioner. On appeal, RTC dismissed the case on the the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 [2000]). Indisputably, the present
ground that since the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case, the RTC case was primarily instituted for collection and damages. However, a
acquired no appellate jurisdiction thereof. Petitioner filed a petition before perusal of the complaint also reveals that the instant action is founded on
the CA, which promulgated the assailed Decision remanding the case to the claim that the levy imposed was an unlawful and unconstitutional
the RTC. Hence the present petition. The main issue is whether or not the special assessment. Consequently, the requisite that the constitutionality
CA erred in holding that the proper action in this case is accion publiciana of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case is present, making it
and not unlawful detainer as determined by the allegations in the proper for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of LOI 1465.
complaint filed by petitioner. The SC ruled that the CA committed no error
in holding that the proper action in this case is accion publiciana; and in Badillo v. CA, G.R. 131903, 26 June 2008
ordering the remand of the case to the RTC of Cauayan, Isabela for further [HLURB]
proceedings. Since the dispossession of petitioners lots to respondent SUMMARY: Numerous lot owners filed a petition to the regular courts
have lasted for 6 years, the proper action is accion publiciana, which seeking to declare void the sale of a subdivision lot to which their lots are
should be brought before the RTC. adjoined. The regular courts, however, dismissed the petition because the
DOCTRINES: What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has exclusive jurisdiction
the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. on all cases regarding issues on real estate.
Accion publiciana or the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of DOCTRINE: The HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real
possession should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the estate business and adjudicate all issues regarding the same. In the
dispossession has lasted for more than one year. present case, petitioners are enforcing their statutory and contractual
rights against the subdivision owners. This is a specific performance case
KINDS OF ACTION IN RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY which falls under the HLURB's exclusive jurisdiction.
1. Accion interdictal forcible entry or unlawful detainer not lasted for ADDITIONAL NOTES: the Court ruled that when an administrative agency
more than one year (possession de facto) is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject
2. Accion publiciana plenary action for the recovery of the real right of matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its
possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when the jurisdiction.
dispossession has lasted for more than one year (legal possession)
3. Accion reinvindicatoria recovery of ownership must be brought in the Quasi-judicial function - exercised by administrative agencies as an
proper RTC incident of the principal power entrusted to them of regulating activities
*Material element in determination is the length of time falling under their expertise.

Planters Products v. Fertiphil, G.R. 166006, 14 March 2008 Reyes v. RTC, G.R. 165744, 11 August 2008
[doctrine of operative fact] [RTC as a special commercial court]
SUMMARY: Planters Product Inc (PPI) banks on the doctrine of operative SUMMARY: This case is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set
fact, which provides that an unconstitutional law has an effect before being aside CA decision affirming the RTC, which denied petitioner Oscars Motion
declared unconstitutional. PPI wants to retain the levies paid under LOI No. to Declare Complaint as Nuisance or Harassment.
1465 even if it is subsequently declared to be unconstitutional. DOCTRINE: Not every allegation of fraud done in a corporate setting or
RULING: As a rule, where the controversy can be settled on other grounds, perpetrated by corporate officers will bring the case within the special
the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law (Lim v. Pacquing, commercial courts jurisdiction. To fall within this jurisdiction, there must be
240 SCRA 649 [1995]). The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on sufficient nexus showing that the corporations nature, structure, or powers
constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of political were used to facilitate the fraudulent device or scheme.
departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the ADDITIONAL NOTES: The determination of title or ownership over the
contrary. However, the courts are not precluded from exercising such subject shares may be conclusively settled by the probate court as a
power when the following requisites are obtaining in a controversy before question of collation or advancement.
it: First, there must be before the court an actual case calling for the
6 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Russel v. Vestil, G.R. 119347, 17 March 1999 Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and it is only the Provincial Agrarian
[jurisdiction of RTC; incapable of pecuniary estimation] Reform Adjudication Board which has original and exclusive jurisdiction to
SUMMARY. A complaint is filed before the RTC that is incapable of entertain any action as per Section 50, Rep. Act No. 6657
pecuniary estimation. DOCTRINE: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691,
DOCTRINE. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible
property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration entry and unlawful detainer. The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
of nullity of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction governs the remedial aspects of such suits.
over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by
the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, Bunyi v. Factor, G.R. 172547, 30 June 2009
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims [jurisdictional requirements for forcible entry]
asserted therein. SUMMARY: Fe and Gloria owns a compound. Gloria is married to Ruben.
Gloria died. Fe then becomes the administrator of the property. Fe allowed
Vda De Barrera et al. v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, G.R. 174346, 12 Ruben to live in the rest house in the compound because he is sick. Ruben
September 2008 married Precy Bunyi, a tenant in the said compound. Ruben died. Precy
[accion publiciana is based on the assessed value] Bunyi forcibly took possession of the rest house. Fe filed a case of forcible
SUMMARY: Since 1935, respondents have lived in the subject land until entry which was granted. Precy asserts that she has a better right over Fe.
October 1, 1996, when petitioners forcibly took possession of the land. The DOCTRINE: In ejectment cases, the only issue for resolution is who is
respondents sought relief from the RTC to recover the land. The petitioners entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved
contended that the land was a part of a property legally sold to them and independent of any claim of ownership set forth by the party-litigants. To
questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC to handle the case. The SC ruled that be considered in possession, one need not have actual or physical
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case by virtue of the amendments occupation of every square inch of the property at all times
introduced by RA 7691 expanding the jurisdiction of the first level courts.
DOCTRINE: RA 7691 amended Batas Pambansa No. 129, expanding the De la Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. 133882, 05 September 2006
jurisdiction of the first level courts. Likewise, the lack of jurisdiction is one [jurisdictional requirements for unlawful detainer]
of the excepted grounds where the courts may dismiss a claim or case SUMMARY: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the
despite it not being raised in the answer or motion to dismiss. Court of Appeals affirming, on a petition for review, the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, which in turn reversed on appeal the
Ouano v. PGTT, G.R. 134230, 07 July 2002 decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac, Tarlac for unlawful detainer.
SUMMARY: PGTT filed with the RTC a verified complaint against petition This case originated from a claim of ownership over a parcel of land which
for Recovery of Ownership and Possession of Real Property and was decided in favor of defendant.
Damagaes since PGTT suffered in the amount of Php 100,000.00. Ouano DOCTRINE: What determines nature of an action as well as which court or
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the MTC, and body has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the
not the RTC has jurisdiction over it since the assessed value is only Php character of the relief sought, whether or not plaintiff is entitled to any and
2,910, as indicated in the latest tax declaration, citing BP 129. It was all of the reliefs prayed for. The jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over the
subsequently dismissed by respondent judge. The Court held that RTC nature of the action cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up
indeed committed grave abuse of discretion, since MTC has jurisdiction for in the court or upon a motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of
said case. jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on defendant. Once jurisdiction is
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction for actions involving ownership and possession of vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation. Respondents
real property is determined by the assessed value of the property, not the were merely trustees.
market value.

3. Republic Act No. 9282

Octavio v. Perovano, G.R. 172400, 23 June 2009 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
[accion interdictal; MTC jurisdiction] (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH
SUMMARY: Enrico Perovano filed a complaint for forcible entry against SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR
Octavio et. al. before the MTCC. Zosimo Octavio in their answer claims that THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS
the land was voluntarily offered for sale by Perovanos mother. They also AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX
claim that the landholding is within the coverage of the Comprehensive APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
7 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

DOCTRINE: Under R.A> 8249 the Sandigabayan is vested with original

CJH Dev. Corp v. BIR, G.R. 172457, 24 December 2008 jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. no. 1379
RULING: A court decision cannot be a proper subject of a petition for and Chapter II, Sect 2 Title VII Book II of the RPC .
declaratory relief. The requisites for a petition for declaratory relief to
prosper are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy
must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party 5. Republic Act No. 8369
seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; AN ACT ESTABLISHING FAMILY COURTS, GRANTING THEM EXCLUSIVE
and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination. CJH ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CHILD AND FAMILY CASES, AMENDING BATAS
alleges that CA No. 5520 has already been repealed by the Rules of Court; PAMBANSA BILANG 129,AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ACT OF
thus, the remedy of declaratory relief against the assessment made by the 1980, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
BOC is proper. It cited the commentaries of Moran allegedly to the effect
that declaratory relief lies against assessments made by the BIR and BOC. Madrinan v. Madrinan, G.R. 159374, 12 July 2007
However, as a substantive law that has not been repealed by another SUMMARY: When the Madrian spouses separated, the husband took their
statute, CA No. 55 is still in effect and holds sway. Precisely, it has removed three sons with him to Albay and then to Laguna. After a failed compromise
from the courts jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief involving at the Lupong Tagapamayapa, the wife (respondent) filed a petition for
tax assessments. The Court cannot repeal, modify or alter an act of the habeas corpus of their three sons in the CA. Husband (petitioner)
Legislature. Moreover, the proper subject matter of a declaratory relief is a questioned the jurisdiction of the CA claiming that family courts have
deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or the construction or exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas
validity of statute or ordinance.23 CJH hinges its petition on the demand corpus filed by respondent. CA took cognizance of the petition. Petitioner
letter or assessment sent to it by the BOC. However, it is really not the moved for reconsideration of the CA decision but it was denied. Hence, this
demand letter, which is the subject matter of the petition. recourse. The issue is whether the CA has jurisdiction over petitions for
habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors. The SC ruled that CA
Adamson v. CA, G.R. 120935/124557, 21 May 2009 has jurisdiction since there is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its
SUMMARY: A deficiency tax assessment was issued against petitioners jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors.
relating to their payment of capital gains tax and VAT on their sale of DOCTRINE: Family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
shares of stock and parcels of land. The issue is WON CIR has jurisdiction. Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the
The court held in the negative, since CIR did not issue a prior assessment custody of minors is at issue.
of tax liability.
DOCTRINE: While the laws governing the CTA have expanded the Yu v. Yu, G.R. 164915, 10 March 2006
jurisdiction of the Court, they did not change the jurisdiction of the CTA to DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction of the subject matter of a particular case is
entertain an appeal only from a final decision of the Commissioner, or in something more than the general power conferred by law upon a court to
cases of inaction within the prescribed period. Since in the cases at bar, take cognizance of cases of the general class to which the particular case
the Commissioner has not issued an assessment of the tax liability of the belongs. It is not enough that a court has power in abstract to try and
Petitioners, the CTA has no jurisdiction. decide the class litigations [sic] to which a case belongs; it is necessary
that said power be properly invoked, or called into activity, by the filing of
a petition, or complaint or other appropriate pleading.
4. Republic Act No. 8249
AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, 6. Republic Act No. 8799
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Reyes v. RTC, supra
GSIS v. CA, G.R. 183905/184275, 16 April 2009
Garcia v. SB, G.R. 165835, 22 June 2005 Sps. Yu v. Sps. Yukayguan, G.R. 177549, 18 June 2009
SUMMARY: Major General Carlos F. Garcia was charged with violation of Koruga v. Arcenas, G.R. 168332/16903, 19 June 2009
R.A. 1379. A civil case was subsequently filed before the Sandiganbayan Hi-Yield Realty v. CA, G.R. 168863, 23 June 2009
for the forfeiture of unexplained wealth under R.A. 1379. Garcia questioned
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and claimed that the Sandiganbayan 7. Republic Act No. 7160
has no jurisdiction over civil cases and that the proper forum is the
Regional Trial Court. Leo Wee v. George de Castro et al., G.R. 176405, 20 August 2008
8 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Aquino v. Aure, G.R. 153567, 18 February 2008.

Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. 179922, 16 December 2008
Estreller v. Ysmael, G.R. 170264, 13 March 2009
B. Rules on Summary Procedure Rimbunan Hijau Group of Co. v. Oriental Wood, G.R. 1522288, 23
September 2005 Van Zuiden v. GTVL Manufacturing, 523 SCRA 233
Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola, G.R. 156809, 04 March 2009 Deutsche v. CA, G.R. 152318, 16 April 2009
Terana v. Sagun, G.R. 152131, 29 April 2009 Ramos v. Ramos, G.R. 144294, 11 March 2003
Tiu v. CA, G.R. 162370, 21 April 2009
1. Spouses, Minors, Incompetents
C. Small Claims Court Sections 4-5, Rule 3
SC A.M. 08-8-7-SC
2. Multiple Parties

II. Ordinary Civil Actions a. Compulsory

Section 7, Rule 3
Makati Ins v. Reyes et al., G.R. 167403, 06 August 2008
Rural Bank of Seven Lakes v. Dan, G.R. 174109, 24 December 2008 Robert De Galicia v. Mercado, G.R. 146744, 06 March 2006
Aneco v. Landez, G.R. 165952, 28 July 2008 Lagunilla v. Velasco, G.R. 169276, 16 June 2009
Regner v. Logarta, G.R. 168747, 19 October 2007
A. Commencement
Section 5, Rule 1 b. Necessary
Section 2, Rule 20 Section 8, Rule 3
Relucio v. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578
B. Cause of Action in General AutoCorp v. Intra Strata, G.R. 166662, 27 June 2008
Sections 1-3, Rule 2
i. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties
Ceroferr v. CA, G.R. No. 139539, 05 February 2002 Section 9, Rule 3
Camarines Sur Electric v. Aquino, G.R. 167691, 23 September 2008
Phil Crop v. CA, G.R. 169558, 29 September 2008 c. Permissive
BF Corp v. MIAA, G.R. 164517, 30 June 2008 Section 6, Rule 3
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, G.R. 141309, 23 December2008.
ii. Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties
1. Splitting Section 11, Rule 3
Section 4, Rule 2
Cabutihan v. Landcenter, 383 SCRA 353
BPI Family v. De Cosolluella, G.R. 167724, 27 June 2006 Chua v. Torres, G.R. 151900, 30 August 2005

2. Joinder iii. Unwilling Co-plaintif

Section 5, Rule 2 Section 10, Rule 3

UCPB v. Sps. Beluso, G.R. 159912, 17 August 2007 iv. Bringing New Parties
Terana v. Sagun, supra Section 12, Rule 6

3. Misjoinder d. Class Suit

Section 6, Rule 2 Section 12, Rule 3

C. Parties in General 3. Defective Parties

Sections 1-3, Rule 3 a. Alternative Defendants
9 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Section 13, Rule 3 a. Pleadings

Section 3, Rule 19
b. Unknown Identity/Name of Defendant
Section 14, Rule 3 b. Answer
Section 4, Rule 19
c. Entity Without Juridical Personality
Section 15, Rule 3 D. Venue
Sections 1-4, Rule 4
d. Death of a Party
Uniwide v. Cruz, G.R. 171456, 09 August 2007
i. Duty of Counsel Infante v. Aran Builders, G.R. 156594, 24 August 2007
Section 16, Rule 3 Irene Marcos-Araneta v. CA, G.R. 154096, 22 August 2008
Philbanking v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413
Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, G.R. 160347, 29 November 2006 Spouses Lantin v. Judge Lantion, G.R. 160053, 28 August 2006
Judge Sumaljag v. Literato, G.R. 149787, 18 June 2008
Domingo v. Landicho, G.R. 170015, 29 August 2007
Napre v. Barbarona, G.R. 160426, 31 January 2008 PROCEDURE FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

ii. Death/Separation of a Public Officer E. Pleadings in General

Section 17, Rule 3 Section 1, Rule 6

iii. Money Claims 1. Kinds

Section 20, Rule 3 Section 2, Rule 6

e. Incompetency/Incapacity a. Complaint
Section 18, Rule 3 Section 3, Rule 6

f. Transfer of Interest b. Answer

Section 19, Rule 3 Section 4, Rule 6
Rosete v. Lim, G.R. 136051, 08 June 2006
g. Indigent
Section 21, Rule 3 i. Defense
Sps. Algura v. LGU, G.R. 150135, 30 October 2006 Section 5, Rule 6

4. Solicitor General c. Counter Claim

Section 22, Rule 3 Section 6, Rule 6

5. Intervention ii. Compulsory

Sections 1-2, Rule 19 Section 7, Rule 6

Nordic Asia v. CA, 403 SCRA 390 Financial Builders v. FPA, 338 SCRA 346
Pinlac v. CA, 410 SCRA 419 Reillo v. San Jose, G.R. 166393, 18 June 2009
Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. 166429, 01 February 2006 Banco de Oro v. CA, G.R. 160354, 25 August 2005; 19 December 2007
Salandanan v. Sps. Mendoza, G.R. 160280, 13 March 2009
Office Ombudsman v. Samaniego, G.R. 175573, 11 September 2008 d. Cross Claim
GSIS v. Nocom, G.R. 175989, 04 February 2008 Section 8, Rule 6
Asias Emerging Dragon v. DOTC, G.R. 169914, 24 March 2008
Torres v. CA, 49 SCRA 67
10 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

e. Counter-Counter Claim/Counter-Cross Claim Far East Marble v. CA, G.R. 94093, 10 August 1993
Section 9, Rule 6 Reyes v. RTC, supra

f. Reply a. Alternative Causes of Action/Defenses

Section 10, Rule 6 Section 2, Rule 8

g. Third-Party Complaint b. Condition Precedent

Section 11, Rule 6 Section 3, Rule 8

Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. CA, 458 SCRA c. Capacity

750 Section 4, Rule 8
Sy Tiong Shion v. Sy Chin, G.R. 174168/179438, 30 March 2009
d. Fraud, Mistake, Condition of Mind
h. Answer to Third Party Complaint Section 5, Rule 8
Section 13, Rule 6
e. Judgment
2. Parts Section 6, Rule 8
Sps. Munsalud v. NHA, G.R. 167181, 23 December 2008
f. Action/Defense Based on Documents
a. Caption Section 7, Rule 8
Section 1, Rule 7
i. Contest Document
b. Body Section 8, Rule 8
Section 2, Rule 7 Casent Realty v. Philbanking, G.R. 150731, 14 September 2007
Malayan v. Regis Brokerage, G.R. 172156, 23 November 2007
c. Signature/Address
Section 3, Rule 7 g. Official Document/Act
Section 9, Rule 8
Republic v. Kenrich Dev. Do., G.R. 149576, 08 August 2006
h. Specific Denial
d. Verification Section 10, Rule 8
Section 4, Rule 7
i. Failure to Specifically Deny
e. Certification Against Forum Shopping Section 11, Rule 8
Section 5, Rule 7
Filipinas Textile v. CA, 415 SCRA 635
Chinese Young Mens Christian Association v. Remington, G.R. Warner Barnes v. Reyes, 103 Phil 602
159422, 28 March 2008 Gaza et al. v. Lim, G.R. 126863, 16 January 2003
Young v. Keng Seng, 398 SCRA 629
Madara v. Porillo, G.R. 172449, 20 August 2008 i. Striking Out
Kaunlaran v. Uy, G.R. 154974, 04 February 2008 Section 12, Rule 8
Sps. Valmonte v. Alcala, G.R. 168667, 23 July 2008
Heirs of Luzuriaga v. Republic, G.R. 168848, 30 June 2009 F. Amended Pleadings
PP v. De Grano, G.R. 167710, 05 June 2009 Section 1, Rule 10

3. Allegations PPA v. Gothong and Aboitiz, G.R. 158401, 28 January 2008

Section 1, Rule 8 Quirao v. Quirao, 414 SCRA 430
11 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, G.R. 148361, 29 November 2005 b. Defendant Foreign Private Juridical Entity
Irene Marcos-Araneta et al. v. CA, supra Section 2, Rule 11

1. Kinds c. Counter Claim/Cross Claim

Section 4, Rule 11
a. Formal
Section 4, Rule 10 d. Third Party Complaint
Section 5, Rule 11
b. Conform to Evidence
Section 5, Rule 10 e. Amended Compliant
Section 3, Rule 11
Cagungun v. Planters Dev. Bank, G.R. 158674, 17 October 2005
f. Supplemental Complaint
2. Filing Section 7, Rule 11
Section 7, Rule 10
2. Reply
a. Matter of Right Section 6, Rule 11
Section 2, Rule 10
3. Counter Claim/Cross Claim
b. Leave of Court a. Existing
Section 3, Rule 10 Section 8, Rule 11
3. Efect
Section 8, Rule 10 b. Subsequent
Section 9, Rule 11
G. Supplemental Pleadings
Section 6, Rule 10 c. Omitted
Section 10, Rule 11
H. Bill of Particulars
Sections 1-2, 6, Rule 12 4. Extension
Section 11, Rule 11
Bantillo v. IAC, G.R. 75311, 18 October 1988
Republic v. SB and Marcos, G.R. 148154, 17 December 2007 J. Filing
Sections 1-2, Rule 13
1. Compliance
Section 3, Rule 12 1. Manner
2. Effect of Non-Compliance Section 3, Rule 13
Section 4, Rule 12
3. Period to File Responsible Pleadings 2. Primary Mode
Section 5, Rule 12 Section 11, Rule 13

I. When to File Responsive Pleading Maceda, et al. v. Macatangay, supra

Alarilla v. Ocampo, 417 SCRA 601 3. Papers Required

Section 4, Rule 13
1. Answer
a. Complaint 4. Proof
Section 1, Rule 11 Section 12, Rule 13
12 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

5. Notice of Lis Pendens 2. Compulsory Counter Claim/Cross Claim

Section 14, Rule 13 Section 2, Rule 9
3. Default
Sps. Vicente v. Avera, G.R. 169970, 20 June 2009 Section 3, Rule 9
Santos v. PNOC, G.R. 170943, 23 September 2008
K. Service Monzon v. Sps. Relova, G.R. 171827, 17 September 2008
Sections 1 2, Rule 13 Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. 174414, 14 March 2008
Gajudo v. Traders Royal, G.R. 151098, 21 March 2006
1. Modes
Section 5, Rule 13 M. Summons in General
Sections 1-5, Rule 14
a. Personal
Section 6, Rule 13 Gomez v. CA, G.R. 127692, 10 March 2004
San Pedro v. Ong, G.R. 17758, 17 October 2008
b. Mail Sps. Belen v. Chavez, supra
Section 7, Rule 13
1. Kinds
Andy Quelnan v. VHF Phil, G.R. 138500, 16 September 2005 a. Personal
Section 6, Rule 14
c. Substituted b. Substituted
Section 8, Rule 13 Section 7, Rule 14
Guiguinto Credit Coop v. Torres, G.R. 170926, 15 September 2006
GCP Many Transport v. Principe, G.R. 141484, 11 November Guanzon v. Arrandoza, G.R. 155392, 06 December 2006
2005 Potenciano v. Barnes, G.R. 159421, 20 August 2008
Robinson v. Miralles, G.R. 163584, 12 December 2006
2. Primary Mode Mangila v. CA, 387 SCRA 162
Section 11, Rule 13 Mason v. CA, 413 SCRA 303
Millenium v. Tani, G.R. 131724, 28 February 2000
Maceda, et al. v. Macatangay, G.R. 164947, 31 January 2006 c. Entity Without Juridical Personality
Section 8, Rule 14
3. Papers Required d. Prisoners
Section 4, Rule 13 Section 9, Rule 14
e. Minors/Incompetents
4. Judgments, Final Orders, Resolutions Section 10, Rule 14
Section 9, Rule 13 f. Domestic Private Juridical Entity
Section 11, Rule 14
Sps. Belen v. Hon. Chaves, G.R. 175334, 26 March 2008 BPI v. Spouses Santiago, 28 March 2007
Paramount v. Ordonez, G.R. 175109, 06 August 2008
5. Completion g. Foreign Private Juridical Entity
Section 10, Rule 13 Section 12, Rule 14
h. Public Corporations
6. Proof Section 13, Rule 14
Section 13, Rule 13 i. Unknown Identity/Whereabouts
Section 14, Rule 14
L. Failure to Plead j. Extraterritorial
Section 15, Rule 14
1. Defenses/Objections Montefalcon et al. v. Vasquez, G.R. 165016, 17 June 2008
Section 1, Rule 9
13 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd v. Dakila Trading, G.R. 172242, 14 Lasquite v. Victory Hills, G.R. 175375, 23 June 2009
August 2007 Raytheon Intl v. Rouzie, G.R. 162894, 26 February 2008
k. Residents Temporarily Out of the Philippines Malicdem v. Flores, G.R. 151001, 08 September 2006
Section 16, Rule 14 a. Affirmative Defense
PCIB v. Alejandro, G.R. 175587, 21 September 2007 Section 6, Rule 16
2. Leave of Court 2. Time To Plead
Section 17, Rule 14 Section 4, Rule 16
3. Proof 3. Hearing
Sections 18-19, Rule 14 Section 2, Rule 16
4. Voluntary Appearance 4. Resolution
Section 20, Rule 14 Section 3, Rule 16
5. Efect
N. Motions Section 5, Rule 16
Sections 1-3, 9-10, Rule 15
1. Hearing P. Demurer
Section 4, Rule 15 Section 1, Rule 33
a. Notice Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Sps. Del Rosario, G.R. 138739, 06 July
Section 5, Rule 15 2000
KKK Foundation Inc. v. Hon. Bargas, et al., G.R. 163785, 27 December Heirs of Santioque v. Heirs of Calma, G.R. 160832, 27 October 2006
2007 Casent Realty v. Philbanking, supra
Camarines Corp. v. Aquino, G.R. 167691, 23 September 2008
b. Service Q. Dismissal of Actions
Section 6, Rule 15
Romulo et al. v. Peralta, G.R. 165665, 31 January 2007 Pinga v. Santiago, G.R. 170354, 30 June 2006
c. Motion Day Malayan Insurance v. Ipil Intl, G.R. 141860, 30 August 2006
Section 7, Rule 15 Filinvest v. CA, G.R. 142439, 06 December 2006
Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. 167471, 05 February 2007 RN Dev. V. A.I.I., G.R. 166104, 26 June 2008
2. Omnibus Motion Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd v. Dakila Trading, supra
Section 8, Rule 15 Heirs of Gaudiane v. CA, G.R. 119879, 11 March 2004
Cruz v. CA, supra
Dael v. Sps. Beltran, G.R. 156470, 30 April 2008
O. Motion to Dismiss
1. Grounds 1. Notice
Section 1, Rule 16 Section 1, Rule 17
DAR v. Hon. Abdulwahid, G.R. 163285, 27 February 2008 2. Motion
Republic v. Glasgow, G.R. 170281, 18 January 2008 Section 2, Rule 17
Equitable PCIB v. CA, G.R. 143556, 16 March 2004 3. Fault
Goodyear Phil v. Sy, G.R. 154554, 09 November 2005 Section 3, Rule 17
Aldemita v. Heirs of Silva, G.R. 166403, 02 November 2006 4. Counter Claim/Cross Claim/Third Party Complaint
PDI v. Alameda, G.R. 160604, 28 March 2008 Section 4, Rule 17
Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. 181132, 05 June 2009 Mendoza v. Paule, G.R. 175885, 31 February 2009
Rural Bank of Calinog v. CA, G.R. 146519, 08 July 2005
Bayot v. CA, G.R. 155635, 27 November 2008 R. Computation of Time
Mid Pasig Land Dev. v. CA, 413 SCRA 204 Section 1, Rule 22
Intramuros Administration v. Contacto, 402 SCRA 581
Francisco v. Co, G.R. 151339, 31 January 2006 De Las Alas v. CA, 83 SCRA 200
Cruz v. CA, G.R. 164797, 13 February 2006
Heirs of Dolletion v. Fil-estate, G.R. 170750, 07 April 2009 1.Interruption
14 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Section 2, Rule 22 Section 4, Rule 18

a. Failure
S. Modes of Discovery Section 5, Rule 18
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 Saguid v. CA, 403 SCRA 678
3. Pre-Trial Brief
1. Kinds Section 6, Rule 18
a. Depositions Pending Action 4. Record
Rule 23 Section 7, Rule 18
Pfeger Dulay v. Dulay, G.R. 158857, 11 November 2005 5. Calendar
Jowel Sales v. Sabino, G.R. 133154, 09 December 2005 Section 1, Rule 20
San Luis v. Rojas, G.R. 159127, 03 March 2008
Dasmarinas v. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622
U. Trial
b. Before Action/Pending Appeal 1. Notice
Rule 24 Section 1, Rule 30
Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Ley Construction, G.R. No. 2. Adjournments/Postponements
147143, 10 March 2006 Section 2, Rule 30
c. Interrogatories a. Absence of Evidence
Rule 25 Section 3, Rule 30
d. Request For Admissions b. Illness of Party/Counsel
Rule 26 Section 4, Rule 30
DBP v. CA, G.R. 153034, 20 September 2005 3. Order
Po v. CA, 164 SCRA 668 Section 5, Rule 30
Briboneria v. CA, 216 SCRA 616 4. Statement of Facts
Section 6, Rule 30
e. Production/Inspection of Doc/Things 5. Statement of Judge
Rule 27 Section 7, Rule 30
Solidbank v. Gateway, G.R. 164805, 30 April 2008 6. Suspension
f. Physical/Mental Examination Section 8, Rule 30
Rule 28 7. Receipt of Evidence
Section 9, Rule 30
2. Refusal to Comply 8. Consolidation
Rule 29 Section 1, Rule 31
Republic v. Vda De Neri, G.R. 139588, 04 March 2004
Spouses Calo v. Spouses Tan, G.R. 151266, 29 November 2005 Republic v. CA, 403 SCRA 403
Phil. Savings Bank v. Maalac, 457 SCRA 203
Teston v. DBP, G.R. 144374, 11 November 2005
T. Pre-trial
AM No. 03-1-09SC 9. Severance
Section 1-2, Rule 18 Section 2, Rule 31
10. By Commissioner
Blesterbos v. CA, 411 SCRA 396 Rule 32
Advance Textile Mills v. Tan, G.R. 154040, 28 July 2005 Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty, G.R. 123346, 14 December 2007
Anatalia Ramos v. Dominga Dizon, G.R. 137247, 07 August 2006

1. Notice V. Subpoena
Section 3, Rule 18 Sections 1-3, 5, Rule 21
2. Appearance Macaspac v. Flores, AM No. P-05-2072, 13 August 2008
15 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

1. Quashal Miranda v. CA, 71 SCRA 295

Section 4, Rule 21 De Leon v. CA, G.R. 138884, 06 June 2002
2. Service Republic v. Nolasco, 457 SCRA 400
Section 6, Rule 21 v. Entity Without Juridical Personality
3. Appearance Section 6, Rule 26
Sections 7-8, Rule 21 b. Entry
4. Contempt Section 2, Rule 36
Section 9, Rule 21
5. Exceptions
Section 10, Rule 21 X. New Trial/Reconsideration
Bernadez v. Francia, 398 SCRA 488
Capuz v. CA, 233 SCRA 471
W. Judgment Libudan v. Gil, 45 SCRA 17
1. Judgment on the Pleadings Delos Santos v. Elizalde, G.R. 143490, 02 February 2007
Section 1, Rule 34
Manufacturers Bank v. Diversified, 173 SCRA 357 1. Grounds
Tan v. De La Vega, G.R. 168809, 10 March 2006 Section 1, Rule 37
Mongao v. Pryce Properties, G.R. 156474, 16 August 2005 2. Contents
Sps. Ong v. Roban Lending, G.R. 172592, 09 July 2008 Section 2, Rule 37
Reillo v. San Jose, G.R. 166393, 18 June 2009 3. Action/Resolution
2. Summary Judgments Sections 3-4, Rule 37
Sections 1-2, Rule 35 a. Effect
Nocom v. Camerino, G.R. 182984, 10 February 2009 Section 6, Rule 37
NPC v. Vda de Capon, G.R. 175176, 17 October 2008 4. Partial
Evangelista v. Mercator Finance, 409 SCRA 410 Section 7, Rule 37
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190 a. Effect
Bitanga v. Pyramid, G.R. 173526, 28 August 2008 Section 8, Rule 37
Phil Countryside v. Toring, G.R. 157862, 16 April 2009 5. Denial
Monterey Foods Corp. v. Eserjose, 410 SCRA 627 Section 9, Rule 37
Asian Construction v. PCI Bank, G.R. 153827, 25 August 2006 6. Second Motion
Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. 179922, 16 December 2008 Section 5, Rule 37
a. Motion/Proceedings Sps. Balanoba v. Madriaga, G.R. 160109, 22 November 2005
Sections 3-4, Rule 35
b. Affidavits
Section 5, Rule 35 Y. Relief from Judgment
i. Bad Faith Sections 1-3, Rule 38
Section 6, Rule 35 Spouses Que v. CA, G.R. 150739, 18 August 2005
3. Judgment/Final Orders/Entry Monzon v. Sps. Relova, supra
Section 1, Rule 36 Sps. Mesina v. Meer, G.R. 146845, 02 July 2002
Velarde v. SJS, G.R. 159357, 28 April 2004 Land Bank v. Natividad, 458 SCRA 441
Obra v. Badua et al., G.R. 149125, 09 August 2007 Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. 174414, 14 March 2008
a. Kinds Redena v. CA, G.R. 146611, 06 February 2007
ii. Several Parties De La Cruz v. Quiazon, G.R. 171961, 28 November 2008
Section 3, Rule 36
iii. Several Judgments 1. Order
Section 4, Rule 36 Section 4, Rule 38
iv. Separate Judgments 2. Preliminary Injunction
Section 5, Rule 36 Section 5, Rule 38
16 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

3. After Answer 2. Examination of Party

Section 6, Rule 38 Section 10, Rule 57
4. Denial of Appeal Set Aside 3. Sale Before Entry of Judgment
Section 7, Rule 38 Section 11, Rule 57
4. Discharge
Sections 12-13, Rule 57
Z. Execution/Satisfaction of Judgments 5. Third Person claim
Rule 39 Section 14, Rule 57
Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Heir of Manuel Abella, G.R. 143510, 23 6. Judgment
November 2005 Sections 15-20, Rule 57
Perez v. CA, G.R. 157616, 22 July 2005
Heirs of Igmedio Maglaque v. CA, 524 SCRA 234 B. Preliminary Injunction
PCGG et al. v. SB and Officers, G.R. 124772, 14 August 2007 Sections 1-2, 4, 9, Rule 58
DBP v. La Campana, G.R. 137694, 17 January 2005 Sections 1-7, Rule 57
Cayana v. CA, G.R. 125607, 18 March 2004 Filipino Metals v. Secretary of Trade and Industry, G.R. 157498, 15 July
Republic of the Phil. v. Ramon Yu, G.R. 157557, 10 March 2006 2005
Sps. Felipe v. Fil Estate, G.R. 150470, 06 August 2008 Levi Strauss v. Clinton Apparelle, G.R. 138900, 20 September 2005
Stronghold Ins. v. Felix, G.R. 148090, 28 November 2006 Duvas Corp v. Export & Industry Bank, 523 SCRA 405
JP Latex v. Hon. De Leon , G.R. 177121, 16 March 2009 Rualo v. Pitargue, G.R. 140284, 21 January 2005
Archinet Intl v. Becco, G.R. 183753, 19 June 2009 University v. Ang Wong, G.R. 150280, 26 April 2006
Yau v. Silverio, G.R. 158848/171994, 04 February 2008 Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183
Jerome Solco v. Provido, G.R. 176533, 11 February 2008 Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. 134971, 25 March 2004
Hi Yield Realty Inc. v. C A, G.R. 138978, 12 September 2002 Borja v. Salcedo, 412 SCRA 110
Honrado v. CA, G.R. 166333, 25 November 2005 Phil. Ports Authority v. Pier 8, Arrastre, G.R. No. 147861, 18 November 2005
Cardinal v. Asset, G.R. 149696, 14 July 2006 Overseas Workers v. Chavez, 524 SCRA 451
Fermin v. Hon. Estevez, G.R. 147977, 26 March 2008 1. Grounds
Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. 166429, 01 February 2006 Sections 3,6, Rule 58
Mijares, et al. v. Hon. Judge, G.R. 139325, 12 April 2005 2. Notice
Korea Technologies v. Hon. Lerma, G.R. 143581, 07 January 2008 Section 5, Rule 58
Equitable PCI v. RCBC, G.R. 182248, 18 December 2008 3. Service
Republic v. Antonio et al, G.R. 166866, 27 March 2008 Section 7, Rule 58
4. Judgment
Section 8, Rule 58
III. Provisional Remedies
C. Receivership
A. Preliminary Attachment Sections 1-4, 6, Rule 59
Sections 1-7, Rule 57 Dolar v. Sundiam, 38 SCRA 616
PCL Industries v. CA, G.R. 147970, 31 March 2006 Vivares v. Jose Reyes, G.R. 155408, 13 February 2008
Magaling v. Peter Ong, G.R. 173333, 13 August 2008 1. Service
Professional Video v. Tesda, G.R. 155504, 26 June 2009 Section 5, Rule 59
Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. CA, 204 SCRA 343 2. Liability
Onate v. Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659 Section 7, Rule 59
Silangan Textile v. Judge, G.R. 166719, 12 March 2007 3. Termination
Security Pacific Assurance v. Hon. Judge Trial-Infante, G.R. 144740, 31 Section 8, Rule 59
August 2005 4. Judgment
Insular Savings v. CA , 460 SCRA 122 Section 9, Rule 59
1. Effect D. Replevin
Sections 8-9, Rule 57 Sections 1-4, Rule 60
17 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

Servicewide Specialists v. CA, 318 SCRA 493 VI. Prohibition Review for RTC to CA
Vda De Danao v. Ginete, 395 SCRA 542 Rule 42
Smart v. Astorga, G.R. 148132, 28 January 2008 Sps Lanaria v. Planta, G.R. 172891, 22 November 2007
Rivera v. Vargas, G.R. 165895, 05 June 2009 Perez v. Falcatan, G.R. 139536, 26 September 2005
1. Return Elsie Ang v. Dr. Grageda, G.R. 166239, 08 June 2006
Sections 5, 8, Rule 60 Balgami v. CA, G.R. 131287, 09 December 2004
2. Deposition
Section 6, Rule 60 VII. Appeals from the CTA and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the CA
3. Third Person Claims Rule 43
Section 7, Rule 60 Dalton-Reyes v. CA, et al. , G.R. 149580, 16 March 2005
4. Judgment Jose Luis Angelo Orosa v. Alberto Roa, G.R. 140423, 14 July 2006
Sections 9-10, Rule 60 Villorente et al. v. Apalaya Laiya, G.R. 145013, 13 March 2005
Judy Ann Santos v. Pp, G.R. 173176, 26 August 2008
E. Support Pendente Lite Ruvivar v. Ombudsman, G.R. 165012, 16 September 2008
Section 1-4, Rule 61 Phillips Seafood v. BOI, G.R. 175787, 04 February 2009
Lam v. Chua, G.R. 131286, 18 March 2004 Basmayor v. Atencio, G.R. 160573, 19 October 2005
De Asis v. CA, 303 SCRA 176 Coca Cola v. Cabalo, G.R. 144180, 30 January 2006
1. Enforcement BE San Diego, Inc. v. Alzul, 524 SCRA 402
Section 5, Rule 61 DECS v. Cunanan, G.R. 169013, 16 December 2008
2. Criminal Cases
Section 6, Rule 61 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
3. Restitution
Section 7, Rule 61 VIII. Ordinary Appeal Cases
Rule 44
PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS De Leon v. CA, 383 SCRA 217
De Liano v. CA, 370 SCRA 349
Camposagrado v. Camposagrado, G.R. 143195, 13 September Mon v. CA, G.R. 118292, 14 April 2004
2005
Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino, G.R. No. 160258, 19 January 2005 IX. Appeal by Certiorari to the SC
Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, 399 SCRA 376 Rule 45
Victory Liner v. Malinias, 523 SCRA 279 Agote v. Lorenzo, 464 SCRA 60, 22 July 2005
De Grano v. Lacaba, G.R. 158877, 16 June 2009 BPI v. CA, G.R. 160890, 10 November 2004
CGP Transportation v. PCI Leasing, 28 March 2007
IV. Appeal from MTC to RTC Local Superior of the Servants of Charity v. Jody King Construction, G.R.
Rule 40 141715, 12 October 2005
Aggregado v. Bellosillo et al., AM MTJ-05-1600, 09 August 2005 Perez-Rosario, et al. v. CA, G.R. No. 140796, 30 June 2006
Baldillo v. Tayag, G.R. 143976, 03 April 2003 Republic v. Sta. Ana-Burgos, G.R. 163254, 01 June 2007
Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola, G.R. 156809, 04 March 2009 Selegna v. UCPB, G.R. 165662, 03 May 2006
Mejillano v. Lucillo, G.R. 154717, 19 June 2009 Tagle v. Equitable PCI, G.R. 172299, 22 April 2008
PP v. Romualdez, G.R. 166510, 13 July 2008
V. Appeal for RTC International Corporate Bank v. CA & PNB, 05 September 2006
Rule 41
Neypes v. CA, G.R. 141524, 14 September 2005 X. Original Cases
First Aqua Sugar v. BPI, G.R. 154034, 05 February 2007 Rule 46
Philexport v. Phil Infrastructures, G.R. 120384, 13 January 2004 Republic v. Carmel Dev., 377 SCRA 459
Lullete S Ko v. PNB, G.R. 169131-32, 20 January 2006 China Banking Corp. v. Padilla, G.R. 143490, 02 February 2007
Eda v. CA, G.R. No. 155251, 08 December 2004 Manotok Realty v. CLT, G.R. 123346, 14 December 2007
18 AABPAYAD | CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER ATTY. LEYNES

XI. Amendment of Judgment, Final Orders and Resolutions Rule 51

Rule 47 Crystal v. CA, 160 SCRA 79
Alma Jose v. Intra Strata, 464 SCRA 496
Dela Cruz v. Sison, G.R. 142464, 26 September 2005 XVI. Motion for Reconsideration
Ramos v. Combong, Jr., G.R. 144273, 20 October 2005 Rule 52
Alaban v. CA, G.R. 156021, 23 September 2005 Badiola v. CA, G.R. 170691, 23 April 2008
Orbeta v. Sendiong, 463 SCRA 180
Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. 145370, 04 March 2004 XVII. New-Trial
Barco v. CA, G.R. 120587, 20 January 2004 Rule 53
Lazaro v. Rural Bank, 409 SCRA 186
Republic thru APT v. G Holdings, G.R. 141241, 22 November 2005 XVIII. Internal Business
Sps. Benatiro et al. v. Heirs of Evaristo Cuyo, G.R. 161220, 30 July 2008 Rule 54
GAUF v. RTC, G.R. 139672, 14 March 2009
Grande v. UP, G.R. 148456, 15 September 2006 XIX. Publication of Judgments and Final Resolutions
Rule 55
XII. Preliminary Conference
Rule 48 PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

XIII. Oral Arguments XX. Original Cases

Rule 49 Rule 56
Ericson v. City of Pasig, G.R. 176667, 22 November 2007
XIV. Dismissal of Appeal Collantes v. CA, 517 SCRA 561
Rule 50 Land Bank v. De Leon, G.R. 143275, 20 March 2003
PNB v. Philippine Milling, 26 SCRA 712
Atlas Consolidated Mining v. CA, 201 SCRA 51
Cu Unjieng v. CA, G.R. 139596, 24 January 2006
Govt v. CA et al., G.R. 164150, 14 April 2008
Bachrach v. PPA, G.R. 159915, 12 March 2009

XV. Judgment