(1) GR 13300

Facts:
Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana Esguerra were registered owners of a parcel ofland.
Upon the death of Graciana in 1951, Graciano, together with his six children, enteredinto an
extrajudicial settlement of Graciana's estate adjudicating and dividing amongthemselves the
mentioned real property. In 1980, Graciano married herein petitioner Patricia Natcher. During
their marriage, Graciano sold the land to his wife. Graciano died leaving his second wife Patricia
and his six children by his first marriage. he private respondents filed a civil case against the
petitioner before RTC Manila.
Issue:
WON RTC has jurisdiction
Held:
The Court answered in the negative. The court ruled that an action for reconveyance and
annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the
estate of a deceased person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake
of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of specific
rules as provided for in the Rules of Court

(2) GR 169454
Facts:
Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante, now both deceased, were the registered owners
of a parcel of land.In 1919, a private deed of donation propter nuptias was executed by spouses
Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante in favor of Marcelino Doronio and the latter’s wife  on the
subject property which was occupied by both parties for several decades. Petitioners now claim
ownership of the land in view of the private deed of donation. Petitioners filed before RTC a
petition For the Registration of a Private Deed of Donation.RTC ruled in favor of petitioner heirs
of Marcelino Doronio. CA reversed RTC. Hence, this petition with petitioners contending that
the RTC no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Issue:
Can the respondents be bound by the decision in the petition even if they were not made
parties in the said case.
Held:
Petitioners cannot use the finality of the RTC decision as a shield against the verification of the
validity of the deed of donation. In other words, it is a case for declaratory relief under Rule 64
(now Rule 63) of the Rules of Court. Suits to quiet title are technically not suits in rem nor are
they, strictly speaking in personam, but being against the person in respect of the res, these
proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. The judgments in such proceedings is conclusive
only between the parties. Thus, respondents are not bound by the decision.
(3) GR 162956
Facts:
Petitioners claim to be the lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes who co-owned the subject parcel
ofland located in Talisay, Cebu, with Anacleto Cabrera. On the other hand respondents, claim to
be theheirs of Anacleto Cabrera, as husband and daughter of Anacleto's daughter. On June 19,
1999, petitioners sold to Spouses Fernandez also theirco-respondents in this case. Alleging that
the documents are fraudulent and fictitious, the respondents filed a complaint forannulment or
nullification of the aforementioned documents and for damages. They likewise prayedfor the
"repartition and resubdivision" of the subject property.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents have to institute a special proceeding to determine theirstatus
as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera before they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the
affidavitsof Anacleto Cabrera and Dionisia Reyes.
Held:
Yes, the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the
proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property.
Court held that it would be superfluous to still subject the estate to administration proceedings
since a determination of the parties' status as heirs could be achieved in the ordinary civil case
filed because it appeared from the records of the case that the only property left by the
decedent was the subject matter of the case and that the parties have already presented
evidence to establish their right as heirs of the decedent.

(4) GR 174975
Facts:
Luisa Kho Montañer, a Roman Catholic, married Alejandro Montañer, Sr.. Alejandro died.
Petitioners herein are their 3 children. Liling Disnagcopan et. al. who then are muslims, filed a
complaint for the judicial partition of properties before Shariah Court. Petitioner filed an
Answer with Motion to Dismiss for failure to pay correct amount of docket fees. Shariah Court
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction since Alejandro is not a muslim. MR was granted
and continuation of trial was ordered. Hence, petitioners sought recourse to SC.
Issue:
WON Sharia District Court lack jurisdiction over petitioners who are Roman Catholics and Non-
Muslims.
Held:
NO. Jurisdiction depends upon the averment in the complaint and not in the answer or motion
to dismiss. The determination of the nature of an action or proceeding is controlled by the
averment and character of the relief sought in the complaint or petition. In this case, although
private respondents designated the pleading filed before the shariah Court as a complaint for
judicial partition of properties, it is a petition for the issuance of letters of administration,
settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent.
(5) GR 39120
Facts:
Petitioner filed against private respondent with the CFI Leyte a civil action for damages arising
from alleged slanderous remarks uttered by the latter. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. Respondent Judge Rosal granted
without prejudice the motion to dismiss. MR denied for lack of merit. Petitioner appeals.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON Judge Rosal committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to dismiss on the
ground that the complaint states no cause of action.
Held:
YES. On its face then, the complaint states a sufficient cause of action and the respondent Judge
committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to dismiss. Compounding such
abuse is his deliberate failure to give the reason for the dismissal without prejudice. The
complaint in question alleges what petitioner suffered a consequence of the alleged
defamatory remarks and has quantified the same. If by the quantum of evidence required civil
cases he could prove the alleged remarks and extent of his damages, he is entitled to the relief
prayed for.

(6) GR 170750
Facts:
Heirs of Tomas Dolleton et. al filed before the RTC separate complaints for Quieting of Title
and/or Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Preliminary Injunction/ Restraining Order
and Damages against respondent which was then consolidated. The complaints were similarly
worded and contained substantiallu identical allegations. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss
and opposition to the TRO on grounds of presctription, laches, lack of cause of action and res
judicata. Rtc granted the motion to dismiss. CA denied the appeal and affirmed RTC stating that
the properties were indefeasible because they were registered under Torrens System and such
action had already prescribed. Hence, this petition
Issue:
WON RTC properly granted the motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action
Held:
NO. Respondents mistakenly construe the allegations in petitioners complaint. What the
petitioners alleged is that while the subject properties were not covered by respondents
certificate of title, nevertheless respondents forcibly evicted petitioners therefrom. Hence, they
have cause of action to question the possession and registration of such property.

(7) Gr 171365
Facts:
Manaloto et. al were the lessors of a residentiol house which was leased to veloso for monthly
rental. Despite demands, the later failed to pay rentals which prompter manaloto to file a case
of unlawful detainer. Veloso denied and alleged an advance payment. MTC ordered velasco to
vacate. Veloso appealed. While appeal is pending, he filed a complaint of breach of contract
and damages to RTC. Manaloto filed a motion to dismiss on the ground the velasco has no
cause of action. RTC dismissed Manaloto's complaint. CA affirmed the dismissal with
modification. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON the first cause of action be dismiss
Held:
NO. WHen the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of action, such fact
can be determined only from the facts alleged in the complaint and from no other, and the
court cannot consider other matters aliunde.

(8) GR 152272
Facts:
Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc., together with individual residents of Juana
Complex I and other neighboring subdivisions instituted a complaint for damages, in its own
behalf and as a class suit representing the regular commuters and motorists of Juana Complex
I , against Fil-Estate Land, Inc. The complaint alleged that they were deprive of the use of La Paz
Road which cause damage prejudice, inconvinience and injury. JCHA prayed for the immediate
issuance of TRO and WPI to enjoin Fil-Estate.RTC issued TRO and conducted several hearings. Fil
Estate filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state cause of action and improperly filed a class
suit. CA annulled the WPI but upheld the motion to dismiss.
Issue:
WON the complaint state a cause of action
Held:
YES. The Court finds the allegations in the complaint sufficient to establish a cause of action.
JCHA, et al.’s averments in the complaint show a demandable right over La Paz Road. Fil Estate
violated the right of JHCA whey they excavated the road which prevents commuters from using.

(9) GR 121534
Facts:
Private Respondent Anita U. Lorenzana is the lessee of a government property. After the
building on said land was destroyed by fire, Petitioner Juan M. Casil and private respondent
entered into a written agreement authorizing the former to develop and administer the
property.They also agreed that rentals from the tenants would be divided equally between
them. Private respondent allegedly found that the tenants, except for one or two, had been
paying their rentals on time, but that petitioner was not properly remitting her share
thereon.Petitioner then filed a complaint against private respondent for Breach of Contract and
Damages. However, before submitting her answer, private respondent filed her own separate
complaint against petitioner for Rescission of Contract, Accounting and Damages. The Court of
Appeals subsequently dismissed the petition for certiorari, thereby affirming the trial courts
denial of the said motion. Hence, this recourse.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is Litis Pendentia in this case.
Held:
The court sustained the petitioner. In this light, there is identity of subject matter and of causes
of action, for the same evidence presented in the First Case will necessarily be presented in the
Second Case, and the judgment sought in the Second Case will either duplicate or contradict
any judgment in the First Case. It is beyond dispute, therefore, that a judgment in the First Case
will constitute res adjudicata to bar the Second Case.

(10) GR 18398
Facts:
Respondent Edna Lindo obtained a loan from Petitioner Arturo Flores amounting to P400,000
and secured it with a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. The mortgage covered property in the
name of Edna and her husband, co-respondent Enrico Lindo, Jr. Edna likewise signed a
Promissory Note and the Deed for herself and for Enrico as his attorney-in-fact. She issued
three checks as partial loan payments, all of which were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Flores therefore filed a complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage with damages. The RTC ruled
that petitioner was not entitled to judicial foreclosure as the Deed was without consent and
authority of Edna’s husband. Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money and damages. The
respondents alleged that Enrico was not a party to the loan because it was contracted by Edna
without Enrico’s signature. The RTC ruled that res judicata will not apply. The Court of Appeals
set aside the RTC ruling. Hence this petition.
Issue:
WON there remains an available remedy for petitioner
Held:
YES. Court ruled that a mortgage-creditor may institute against the mortgage-debtor either a
personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. The Court ruled that the
remedies are alternative and not cumulative and held that the filing of a criminal action for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was in effect a collection suit or a suit for the recovery of
the mortgage-debt.

(11) GR 223785
Facts:
Lessor Javellanas filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against lessee Lajave invoking
theexpiration of the lease contract. During the pendency of such case, Javellanas filed a
complaint for collection ofsum of money against Lajave to recover deficiency in rentals prior to
the demand made by Javellanas for Lajaveto vacate. The MeTC dismissed the complaint for
collection of sum of money as it would violate the rule on splittingof cause of action. The RTC
affirmed. The CA reversed.
Issue:
WON the complaint for collection of sum of money violated the rule on forum shopping
Held:
NO. However, in determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the
mostimportant factor to consider is whether the elements of litis pendentia concur. A perusal
of the records shows that the second and third requirements are lacking. While thecomplaints
appear to involve the the same parties and properties, we find, however, no identityof causes
of action. In the unlawful detainer cases filed by Agustin, in view of Lajave's failure tovacate the
subject properties and non-payment of rentals, his cause of action stemmed from theprejudice
he suffered due to the loss of possession of his properties and the damages incurredafter the
dispossession.
(12) GR 155736
Facts:
Spouses Danilo and Cristina Decena were the owners of a house and lot in Parañaque City. The
petitioners and the respondents, the Spouses Pedro and Valeria Piquero, executed a
Memorandum of Agreement in which the former sold the property to the latter. The vendees
forthwith took possession of the property. Petitioners filed a Complaint against the
respondents with the RTC Malolos, Bulacan, for the annulment of the sale/MOA, recovery of
possession and damages. The petitioners alleged therein that, they did not transfer the
property to and in the names of the respondents as vendees because the first two checks
drawn and issued by them in payment for the purchase price of the property were dishonored
Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not venue was properly laid
Held:
After due consideration of the foregoing, we find and so rule that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court does not apply. This is so because the petitioners, as plaintiffs in the court a quo,
had only one cause of action against the respondents, namely, the breach of the MOA. As such,
the action should have been filed in the proper court where the property is located, namely, in
Parañaque City, conformably with Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. Since the petitioners,
who were residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in the said RTC, venue was
improperly laid; hence, the trial court acted conformably with Section 1(c), Rule 16 of the Rules
of Court when it ordered the dismissal of the complaint.

(13) GR 147417
Facts:
Petioner spouses and Aviso filed three causes of action. Thus, the first cause of action was for
enforcement of contract to sell entered into between the spouses and Aviso and Zecson, the
second was for annulment or rescission of two contracts of mortgage entered into between the
spouses and Aviso and Hermano, while the last one was for damages against all the mentioned
defendants. A joinder was made on these causes of action and a civil case for Enforcement of
Contract and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
and/or Preliminary Injunction against Zescon Land, Inc. and/or its President Zenie Sales-
Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele and against respondent herein Antonio Hermano was filed
before the RTC. Hermano also filed a “Motion with Leave to Dismiss the Complaint or Ordered
Severed for Separate Trial" which was granted by the trial court on the ground that there was a
misjoinder in the causes of action. The CA dismissed the petition "for having been filed beyond
the reglementary period. Hence this petition.
Issue:
WON the trial court erred in dropping Hermano in the civil action and ruling that there was a
misjoinder in the causes of action.
Held:
Yes. The statutory intent behind the provisions on joinder of causes of action is to encourage
joinder of actions which could reasonably be said to involve kindred rights and wrongs,
although the courts have not succeeded in giving a standard definition of the terms used or in
developing a rule of universal application.It can be deduced from the averments made in the
complaint that there are questions of fact and law common to both Zecson Land, Inc. and
Hermano arising from a series of transaction over the same properties.

(14) GR 193978
Facts:
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III exposed anomalies in the financial management of the
MWSS, NPC and the NFA. Because of this, the Senate prompted to conduct legislative inquiries
on the matter of activities of GOCC. urging the President to order the immediate suspension of
the unusually large and excessive allowances, bonuses, incentives and other perks of members.
However, petitioner Jelbert Galicto allegedly questions the constitutionality of E.O 7 in his
capacity as a lawyer and as an employee of PhilHealth Regional Office.
Issue:
WON petitioner has locus standi
Held:
No, the SC said that petitioner cannot claim legal stance because petitioner is simply concerned
about his entitlement to future salary increases. His membership of Philippine Bar and a
PhilHealth official does not suffice to clothe his legal standing. Thus, Petitioner failed to satisfy
irreducible minimum condition to trigger the exercise of judicial power.

(15) GR 194589
Facts:
The case sprouts from a collection suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner bank prior
to the declaration of the Monetary Board that it will be placed on receivership. And during the
pendency of the case, the said declaration was made appointing P!" as the receiver of the
petitioner bank. After being placed into receivership, the respondent filed a motion for
substitution. Petitioner bank contending that the PDIC is not the real party in interest in the
instant case because it does not stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.
The substitution of the PDIC as defendant in this case is therefore not proper.
Issue:
Whether or not substitution of the PDIC as defendant or its inclusion therein as co/defendant is
contrary to law.
Held:
NO. The instant case involves a disputed claim of sum of money against a closed financial
institution. After the Monetary Board has declared that a bank is insolvent and has ordered it to
cease operations, the Board becomes the trustee of its assets for the equal benefit of all the
creditors, including depositors. The assets of the insolvent banking institution are held in trust
for the equal benefit of all creditors. As the fiduciary of the properties of a closed bank, the
PDIC may prosecute or defend the case by or against the said bank as a representative party
while the bank will remain as the real party in interest.
(16) GR 140746
Facts:
Crispin Gicale was driving the passenger jeepney owned by his mother Martina Gicale.
Alexander Buncan, on the other hand, was driving a bus owned by Pantranco North Express Inc.
Both drivers were travelling along the National Highway of Talavera. When the two vehicles
were negotiating a curve along the highway, the passenger bus overtook the jeepney. In so
doing, the passenger bus hit the left rear side of the jeepney and sped away. Standard and
Martina Gicale paid the repair. Pantranco refused to pay the reimbursement. Thus, Standard
and Martina filed a complaint for sum of money with RTC. RTC ruled in favor of Standard and
Martina. CA affirmed decision of RTC. Hence this petition.
Issue:
WON there was a misjoinder of parties in the case.
Held:
NO. In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantranco’s bus hitting the
rear side of the jeepney. There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether petitioners
are negligent. There being a single transaction common to both respondents, consequently,
they have the same cause of action against petitioners.

(17) GR 176709
Facts:
Petitioner Fort Bonifacio Development Corp is a corporation registered under Philippine laws
and isengaged in the business of real estate development. Petitioner entered into trade
contract with Maxco wherein Maxco would undertake the structural and partial architectural
package of the BRCP1. Later, petitioner accused Maxco of delay in completion of its work and
sent a letter of termination. Subsequently, Maxco was sued by its creditor, including
respondents for debts unrelated to BRCP1. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction and argued it is the CIAC and not the regular courts have jurisdiction.
Issue:
WON RTC has jurisdiction
Held:
YES. An examination of the allegations in Fong’s complaint reveals that his cause of action
springs not from a violation of the provisions of the Trade Contract, but from the assignment of
Maxco’s retention money to him and failure of petitioner to turn over the retention money.
While it is true that respondent, as the assignee of the receivables of Maxco from petitioner
under the Trade Contract, merely stepped into the shoes of Maxco. However, the right of
Maxco to the retention money from petitioner under the trade contract is not even in dispute
in Civil Case No. 06-0200-CFM. Respondent raises as an issue before the RTC is the petitioner’s
alleged unjustified preference to the claims of the other creditors of Maxco over the retention
money.
(18) GR 189846
Facts:
With 519,997 shares of stock as reflected in Stock Certificate Nos. 004-014, herein respondent
Gilbert G. Guy (Gilbert) practically owned almost 80 percent of the 650,000 subscribed capital
stock of GoodGold Realty & Development Corporation. Gilbert is the son of spouses Francisco
and Simny. Simny, one of the petitioners, however, alleged that it was she and her husband
who established GoodGold, putting the bulk of its shares under Gilbert's name. In September
2004, or five years after the redistribution of GoodGold's shares of stock, Gilbert filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a Complaint against his mother, Simny, and his sisters,
Geraldine, Grace, and Gladys Gilbert, however, withdrew the complaint, after the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) submitted a report to the RTC of Manila authenticating Gilbert's
signature in the endorsed certificates. The present controversy arose, when in 2008, three
years after the complaint with the RTC of Manila was withdrawn, Gilbert again filed a
complaint, this time, with the RTC of Mandaluyong, captioned as "Intra- Corporate Controversy.
Issue:
Whether Francisco and GoodGold are indispensable party which Gilbert should have impleaded
as defendant in his complaint?
Held:
Suits by stockholders or members of a corporation based on wrongful or fraudulent acts of
directors or other persons may be classified into individual suits, class suits, and derivative suits.
The absence of an indispensable party in a case renders all subsequent actions of the court null
and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present. It bears emphasis that this controversy started with Gilbert's complaint filed with the
RTC of Mandaluyong City in his capacity as stockholder, director and Vice-President of
GoodGold. It bears emphasis that Gilbert, while suing as a stockholder against his co-
stockholders, should have also impleaded GoodGold as defendant. The trial court, acting as a
special commercial court, cannot settle the issues with finality without impleading GoodGold as
defendant. Like Francisco, and for the same reasons, GoodGold is an indispensable party which
Gilbert should have impleaded as defendant in his complaint.

(19) 128412
Facts:
Respondent. David is the registered owner of two (2) parcels of land located in Cavite covered
by TCTs. In 1989, petitioner Rexlon entered into an agreement with respondent David for the
purchase of the said 2 parcels of land as evidenced by an “Absolute Deed of Sale”. David filed
with the RTC of Cavite City a petition for the issuance of owner’s duplicate copies of his 2 TCTs
to replace the owner’s duplicate copies which were allegedly lost. Consequently, a notice of
hearing was issued by the RTC. The initial hearing proceeded ex-parte inasmuch as nobody
appeared to oppose the same. On March 1, 1994, the RTC granted the owner’s duplicate
copies. Petitioner Rexlon then filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the said Decision of
the trial court on the ground that respondent David allegedly employed fraud and deception.
The CA dismissed said Petition, hence this petition for review of the CA decision.

Issue:
WON the RTC has jurisdiction over this case
Held:
NO. Pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 47 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the grounds
to annul a judgment of a lower court are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. As there is no
proof to support actual loss of the said owner’s duplicate copies of said certificates of title, the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction and the new titles issued in replacement thereof are void.

(20) A.M. No. 88-1-646-0

Facts:
On January 4, 1988 a complaint for damages amounting to more than one and a half billion
pesos was filed in the name and behalf of the relatives or heirs of the victims of "the worst sea
disaster in history:" the sinking of the vessel Doña Paz caused by its collision with another
vessel. The complaint characterized the action thereby instituted as a "class suit",prosecuted by
the twenty-seven (27) named plaintiffs in their behalf. Together with the complaint, the
plaintiffs filed a "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE AS PAUPER LITIGANT." By Order dated
January 4, 1988, the motion was granted by Judge Chingcuangco in his capacity as Executive
Judge only in so far as said seven (7) plaintiffs were concerned, but not as regards the case. The
defendants, Sulpicio Lines, Inc., et al., in their own comment, point out that there were only
1,493 passengers on board the Doña Paz at the time of the tragedy, not 4,000. Hence, this
petition.
Issue:
WON the rule governing class suit applies in the proceedings at bar
Held:
NO. What is contemplated, as will be noted, is that (a) the subject matter in controversy is of
common or general interest to many persons, and (b) those persons are so numerous as to
make it impracticable to bring them all before the court. Illustrative of the rule is a so-called
derivative suit brought in behalf of numerous stockholders of a corporation to perpetually
enjoin or nullify what is claimed to be a breach of trust or an ultra vires act of the company's
board of directors. In such a suit, there is one, single right of action pertaining to numerous
stockholders, not multiple rights belonging separately to several, distinct persons.