LIST OF CASES

CIVIL PROCEDURE
JURISDICTION......................................................2
RULE 1..................................................................3
RULE 2..................................................................3
RULE 3..................................................................3
RULE 4..................................................................4
RULE 6..................................................................4
RULE 7..................................................................4
RULE 8..................................................................4
RULE 9 .................................................................4
RULE 10................................................................4
RULE 12................................................................5
RULE 13................................................................5
RULE 14................................................................5
RULE 15................................................................5
RULE 16................................................................5
RULE 17................................................................5
RULE 18................................................................6
RULE 19................................................................6
RULE 21................................................................6
RULE 22................................................................6
RULE 23................................................................6
RULE 26................................................................6
RULE 29................................................................6
RULE 30................................................................6
RULE 34................................................................6
RULE 35................................................................6
RULE 36................................................................6
RULE 37................................................................7
RULE 38................................................................7
RULE 39................................................................7
RULE 41................................................................8
RULE 42................................................................8
RULE 44................................................................8
RULE 45................................................................8
RULE 47................................................................9
RULE 51................................................................9
SUMMARY PROCEDURE.....................................9
RULE 57................................................................9
RULE 58..............................................................10
RULE 59..............................................................10
RULE 60..............................................................10
1 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
JURISDICTION
Incapabe !" pec#n$ar% est$mat$!n
1. Ortigas v. Herrera 120 S 89
An action for specific performance is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
2. Coioso v. Coioso !91 S !2"
Where issue of ownership and possession of land is joined
with the issues of annulment of sale and reconveyance
which are incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction
is with the RTC.
!. R#sse$$ v. Vesti$ !0% S &!8
Action to annul a document is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
%. RCPI v. CA !8' S '&
A complaint for breach of contract of lease is incapable
of pecuniary estimation.
". Ra()#*+o v. CA 21! S %"&
An action to compel the removal of unauthorized
installation of glasses is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Nat#re !" act$!n !" part$t$!n
'. Ro,#e v. IAC
There are principal issues in an action for partition! "#$
whether the plaintiff is a co%owner and "$ how the
property is to be divided.
&. V+a +e Da--o* v. CA
There are phases in an action for partition! "#$ whether
co%ownership e&ists and "$ a decision confirming the
subdivision.
Rea act$!n
8. O#a*o v. P.TT !8% S "89
'urisdiction is based on assessed value in an action for
recovery of ownership and possession of real property
with damages( )ection #*"+$ applies to other cases(
)ection #*"+$ and ,,"#$ e&cludes damages in determining
jurisdiction when they are merely incidental.
J#r$s&$ct$!n $n t'e a(ar& !" &ama)es
9. Ag#sti* v. /a0a$a* 1!" S !%01 Rule -
The appellate court may only award a counterclaim
within the jurisdiction of the court of origin
10. 2a0e+a v. CA 1&' S %%01 Rule -
The counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the
court.
11. Vita$3.o4o* v. CA1 ..R. 5o. 101%281 A#g#st "1 1992
The CA has jurisdiction, in a special civil action of
mandamus, to ta.e cognizance of the matter of damages
sought to be recovered from the defendant.
*'at c!nst$t#tes &eman&
12. So$ive* v. Fast-or)s1 ..R. 5o. 1!90!11 O0to6er 181
200%.
/amages are e&cluded in determining jurisdiction when
they are merely incidental to the action
1!. I*iego v. P#rga*a* %8" S !9%
Actions for damages based on 0uasi%delict are actions
that are capable of pecuniary estimation. The claim for
all .inds of damages, whether arising from the same or
different causes of action, is the basis of determining the
jurisdiction of courts.
1%. 2e*+o4a v. Soria*o "2% S 2'0
)ame with 1niego
1". Sa*te v. C$arava$ '1! S !!!
The totality rule applies to a complaint for damages
based on oral defamation where there are no actual
damages.
J#r$s&$ct$!n b% est!ppe
1'. Ti7a) v. Si6o*g8a*o(
A party is barred by laches from raising the 0uestion of
jurisdiction #2 years after the judgment was rendered.
1&. Ca$i)$i) v. Ra)ire4
The general rule is that lac. of jurisdiction of a court may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The ruling in
Tijam is the e&ception, thus, it was not applied.
18. So$ive* v. Fast-or)s1 s#ra 5o. 12
'urisdiction cannot be assailed for the first in a motion
for reconsideration on the ground of estoppel.
19. 2etro)e+ia v. Pastori*
The operation of the principle of estoppel on the 0uestion
of jurisdiction depends upon whether the lower court
actually had jurisdiction or not.
20. Fig#eroa v. Peo$e
Applying the general rule, the accused is in no way
estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the
RTC, considering that he raised the lac. thereof in his
appeal before the appellate court.
N+RC
21. Pesi v. .a$3$a*g 201 S '9"
The labor arbiter has no jurisdiction over a complaint for
damages for malicious prosecution.
22. Pesi v. 2arti*e4 112 S "&9
The labor arbiter has jurisdiction over money claims
arising out of employer%employee relationship.
2!. Pri)ero v. IAC 1"' S %!"
The labor arbiter has jurisdiction over damages the
employee may suffer because of an illegal dismissal.
2%. A6e7aro* v. CA 208 S 899
)ame with 3al%lang
+an& re)$strat$!n cases
2". Asso0iatio* o- /atists v. First /atist 1"2 S !9! #*+er
se0ro +is0#sse+ i* assi*g
2'. Averia v. Cag#ioa 1%' S %"99 #*+er se0ro +is0#sse+ i*
assi*g
,+UR-
2&. Pi$ar Dev:t v. Vi$$ar1 "0" SCRA '1&
Regular courts have jurisdiction over unlawful detainer
case filed by subdivision owner.
28. Ca+i)as v. Carrio* "'& SCRA 101
Regular courts have jurisdiction over a complaint filed by
an ordinary seller of property.
.ATARUN/AN/ PA0-ARAN/AY
29. 2orata v. .o 12" S %%%
Conciliation re0uired in cases cognizable by 4TC and
RTC1
!0. V+a De /orro)eo v. Pogo( 12' S 21&
5atarung pambarangay applies only to individuals1
!1. .egare v. CA 1&& S %&1
Where there are several respondents and the government
is only one of them, confrontation should still be
underta.en1
!2. Ag6a(a*i v. /e$e* 1%" SCRA '!"
6roperties located in the same barangay but parties are
from different cities.
!!. .a$#6a v. La#reta 1"& S '2&
There is no judicial recourse for failure to repudiate an
amicable settlement.
Appearance $n pers!n
!%. Le+es)a v. CA 211 S &"!
7arangay conciliation re0uires personal confrontation.
!". Ra)os v. CA 1&% S '90
8ffect of failure to appear by the complainant
!'. Sa* 2ig#e$ v. P#*+ogar 1&! S &0%
8ffect of failure to appear by the defendant
2 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
*'en t! ra$se n!nre"erra
!&. Ro(a$es v. IAC 12& S %&1
Raising the defense of lac. of conciliation on appeal
constitutes waiver1
!8. Fer*a*+e4 v. 2i$ita*te 1'1 S '9"
Raising of the issue of lac. of conciliation after the filing
of answer constitutes waiver1
!9. A6a$os v. CA 19' S "&'
Where the address in the complaint was changed without
objection by the adverse party, the new address will be
considered in determining the need for barangay
conciliation.
App$cat$!n t! ab!r cases
%0. 2o*to(a v. Es0a(o 1&1 S %%!
Amicable settlements before the lupon do not apply in
labor cases1
De"$n$t$!n !" t'e term res$&ence
%1. /e7er v. CA 1'9 SCRA "''
Residence means actual residence and membership in the
barangay1
E2ec#t$!n
%2. Vi+a$ v. Es0#eta De0e)6er 101 200!
The rec.oning period of the - months within which
e&ecution of the amicable settlement is allowed before the
punong barangay is the date when the obligation in the
settlement is due and demandable.
RU+E 1
1. Ca6rera vs Te7a*o 8 S "%2;;;
Civil action is instituted upon filing of the complaint and
payment of doc.et fees.
D!c3et 4ees
2. 2a*08ester vs CA 1%9 S "'2
Where an action involves damages, doc.et fees shall be
assessed considering such damages which must be stated
in the body and prayer of the pleading.
!. S#* I*s#ra*0e vs As#*0io* Fe6 1! 1989
)ame with 4anchester but the court became liberal
because of the showed willingness of the plaintiff to pay
the doc.et fees.
%. A(a$a Cor vs. 2a+a(ag vs 181 S '89
The additional filing which shall constitute a lien on
judgment refers to damages arising after the filing of the
complaint.
". Ho+ges vs CA 18% S 28'
Where lawyers as plaintiffs failed to pay the doc.et fees
'. Sa$ie*tes vs CA 19% S 2!"
1n an action for recovery of possession of land with
damages, jurisdiction is ac0uired over the action
involving the real property where only the doc.et fees for
the damages were not paid.
&. 2aers<3Ta6a0a$era vs. CA 18& S '%' ;;;
Where the lac. of jurisdiction because of nonpayment of
filing fees was after the adverse decision of the CA, the
payment of filing fees shall constitute a lien on the
judgment.
8. Orig Deve$o)e*t vs CA 202 S &"! ;;;
The plaintiff must ascertain, in the estimation, the sums
he wants and the sums re0uired to determine the amount
of doc.et fees.
9. I*t:$ I*+#stria$ 2g)t. vs CA 20" S "09 ;;;
/oc.et fees must still be paid although the claim for
damages is not the principal action.
.$n&s !" Act$!ns
10. C8i*g v. CA 181 S 9
Action for reconveyance and cancellation of title is an
action in personam1
11. Pa+era*ga v. /#isa* 22' S &8'1 Rule 9
:enue is determined by determining whether the action is
personal or real.
RU+E 2
Ca#se !" act$!n
1. De .#4)a* vs CA 192 S "0&
A case where the elements of a cause of action were
satisfied
Sp$tt$n) a s$n)e ca#se !" act$!n
2. /a08ra08 vs E*0ara*ga$ '8 P 28&
The non%payment of a promissory note secured by R84 is
a single cause of action, thus, creditor may elect either a
personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose.
!. I*+#stria$ vs Aosto$ 1&& S "21
)ame with 7achrach
%. /a(a*g vs CA 1%8 S 91
Claim for ownership of land and claim for income
thereon arise from a single cause of action which cannot
be split.
". Stro*g vs Rei+e 22 P 191 Rule *
An action to recover possession of shares of stoc. should
include claim for dividends.
J!$n&er !" ca#ses !" act$!n
'. F$ores vs 2a$$are3P8i$$is 1%% S !&& ;;;
&. I*s#ra*0e vs =ar*er 21 S &'2
RU+E 3
4!re$)n C!rp!rat$!n
1. Ha*g L#*g /a*< v. Sa#$og 201 S
A foreign corporation not doing business in the
6hilippines has legal capacity to sue.
2. Co*verse R#66er v. U*iversa$ R#66er1%& S 1"%
A foreign corporation not doing business in the
6hilippines has a legal right to maintain an action in the
6hilippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants
thereof from organizing a corporation therein bearing the
same name as the foreign corporation.
!. Co))issio*er o- C#sto) v. >2> 182 S "91
;nly foreign corporations can avail of the isolated
transaction rule.
Pers!na$t% b% est!ppe
%. 2erri$$ vs CA 211 S 82%
". C8ia*g >ai S8e< vs CA 1&2 S !89
S!e pr!pr$et!rs'$p
'. ?#asi*g v. 2e*+o4a vs 11" S &8!
Part$es $n $nterest
&. Ra$$a vs. Ra$$a199 S %9
8. I6o*i$$a vs Provi*0e 210 S 12'
VSC Co))er0ia$ vs CA !9% S &%
Representat$5es as part$es
9. T#aso* vs /o$a*os 9" P 10'
Sp!#ses as part$es
10. Li) vs Dee 102 P 11&1
0$n!r !r $nc!mpetent pers!ns
11. Re(es vs %' P '"8
! | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
12. 5#*a$ vs CA 221 S 2' ;;;
1!. Ro6$es vs CA 8! S 180 ;;;
1%. Corte4 vs Avi$$a 101 S 20"
1". Servi0e@i+e Se0ia$ist vs CA 2"1 S 1& ;;;
Cass S#$t
1'. 2i*a vs Pa0so* 8 S &&% ;;;
1&. /or$asas vs Po$isti0o %& P !%" ;;;
18. Dae$ vs Teves 1!' S 19' ;;;
19. Case*as vs Rosa$es 19 S %'2 ;;;
20. /arra)e+a vs. /ar6ara P8i$ 90 P &181 Rule #* ;;;
21. V+a De$aCr#4 vs CA 88 S '9& ;;;
22. V+a De Ha6erer vs CA 10% S "!" ;;;
2!. La@as vs CA 1%' S 1&2 ;;;
2%. Heir Regoso vs 211 S !%8 ;;;
Deat' !" a part%
2". Di4o* vs CA 210 S 10&
2'. Tori7os vs CA '& S !9% CRI2PRO
2&. Peo$e vs Se*+a(+iego 89 S 120 CRI2PRO
Trans"er !" $nterest
28. ?o0so* vs CA 18! S 189
In&$)ent Part%
29. A0ar vs Rosa$ 19 S '2"
N!t$ce t! t'e S!$c$t!r /enera
!0. Re#6$i0 vs Po$o 89 S 8!
!1. Re#6$i0 vs Partisa$a 118 S !1&
RU+E 6
Rea Act$!n
1. Fort#*e 2otors vs CA 1&8 S '&%
2. Torres vs T#a4o* 12 S &%
!. Pa+era*ga v. /#issa*1 s#ra R#$e 1
The action is a real action because while it does e&plicitly
pray for recovery of possession, such is the necessary
conse0uence thereof.
%. Li4ares vs Ca$#ag % S &%'
". Her*a*+e4 vs. D/P &1 S 290
Pers!na Act$!n
'. Ra()o*+ vs CA1 1'' S "0
&. Es#erte vs CA 19! S "%1
0ean$n) !" t'e (!r& pr$nc$pa
8. 2ar0os3Ara*eta v. CA "'! S %11 Rule #< ;;;
A)reement !" part$es !n 5en#e
9. Po$(tra+e vs /$a*0o O0t !1 19'9
10. Caati vs O0a)o 11! S &9%
11. U*i)asters vs CA 2'& S &"9
On t'e e2c#s$5$t% !" 5en#e $n c!ntracts !" a&'es$!n
12. Hoe08st P8i$ vs Torres 8! S 29&
1!. S@eet Li*e vs Teves 8! S !'1
1%. P8i$ii*e Te$e0o) v. Te0so* %28 S !&8 ;;;
1". Da0o(0o( vs IAC 19" S '%1
RU+E 7
C!#nterca$m
1. Ag#sti* v. /a0a$a*1 s#ra ?#ris+i0tio*
2. 2a0e+a v. CA1 s#ra ?#ris+i0tio*
1. Ca$o vs A7aA 22 S 99&
A compulsory counterclaim not within the jurisdiction of
the court may be filed separately.
2. 5avarro v. /e$$o 102 P 1019
!. .o7o vs .o(a$a !" S ""&
%. /a$$e0er vs /er*ar+o 18 S 291
RU+E 8
Cert$"$cat$!n a)a$nst "!r#m s'!pp$n)
1. Sa*to To)as U*iversit( Hosita$ vs S#r$a 29% S !"2
2. Lo,#ias vs O)6#+s)a* !!8 S '2
!. 2e+serv I*0. Ari$ "1 2010;;; Certi-i0atio* 6(
0ororatio*
%. Esirit# v. Petro* 5ov. 2%1 2009;;; =8ere o*e is o<
". Sa* 2ig#e$ Cor. v. A6a$$a %'1 S !92 ;;; =8ere o*e is
o<
RU+E 9
Aternat$5e ca#ses !" act$!n !r &e"enses
1. .at08a$ia* vs Pavi$i* ' S "09
2. Heirs o- 2ar,#e4 vs Va$e*0ia 99 P &%0
+an)#a)e $n t'e pea&$n)
!. T#)a*g v. /a#tista ;;;
Act$!nabe &!c#ment
%. /o#g8 vs. Ca*tiveros %0 P 209 ;;;
". Hi66er+ vs R8o+e !2 P %&' ;;;
'. I)eria$ TeAti$e vs CA 18! S "8%
&. Tori6io vs /i+i* 1!% S 1'2 A0tio*a$ +o0#)e*t o-
+e-e*+a*t
8. Ce*tra$ S#ret( vs Ho+ges L328'!! O* @aiver
9. ?a6a$+e vs P5/ & S &91 O* @aiver
10. I*vest)e*t vs Co)tro*i0s 192 S &2" ;;;
Spec$"$c &en$a
11. Caito$ 2otors v. Ba6#t L3281%01 Rule ,9
,
rd
mode of specific denial does not apply where the fact
as to which want of .nowledge is asserted is so plainly
and necessarily within the defendant=s .nowledge that his
averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue.
12. .a$o-a vs 5ee /o* Si*g 22 S %8 ;;;
RU+E :
De"enses n!t pea&e&
1. Stro*g v. Rei+e1 s#ra R#$e 2
2. Ferrer vs Eri0ta 8% S &0"
!. .ar0ia vs 2at8is 100 S 2"1
%. C8#a La)<o vs Dioso 9& P 821
De"a#t
". Cavi$i vs F$ore*+o 1!' S 208 ;;;
'. Pas0#a vs F$ore*+o 1!' S 208 ;;;
&. P8i$ /ritis8 vs De$os A*ge$es '! S "1 ;;;
8. 2a$a*g(ao* vs S#*ga 208 S %!' ;;;
9. Fi$i*vest vs CA 182 S ''% ;;;
10. Sa6$as v. Sa6$as1 ?#$( 0!1 200& ;;;
RU+E 10
1. Re)i*gto* vs CA !82 S %99 ;;;
2. 5g vs Ss. So0o !82 S 2%! ;;;
!. 2ar0os3Ara*eta v. CA1 s#ra R#$e % ;;;
%. C#iro*a v. A$e7o;;; O0to6er 2001 #*$a@-#$ +etai*er a*+
-or0i6$e e*tr(
4!rma Amen&ment
". S#er C$ea* vs CA 2"8 S 1'" ;;;
% | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Amen&ment as a matter !" r$)'t
'. .oti0o vs Le(te 1!' S 218
&. Rosario vs Cara*+a*g 9' P 8%"
8. Co*te08 vs CA 211 S '92
Amen&ment t! c!n"!rm t! !r a#t'!r$;e presentat$!n !"
e5$&ence
9. Rogers vs Di0< & S 10!!
E""ect !" Amen&ment
10. 2agasi vs Ra)o$ete 11" S 19!
Dea%
11. Ler)a vs Re(es 10! P 102&
12. .#$a*g vs 5a+a(ag 21% S !""
4!rma Amen&ment
1!. C#(#ga* vs Di4o* L3208 ;;;
RU+E 12
1. Ag0a*as vs. 2er0a+o
2. Sa*tos v. Li@a ;;;
RU+E 13
1. So$ars E*tertai*)e*t ;;;
2. /e*g#et vs 5LRC 209 S "%
!. A$i)oos vs CA L32&!!1
%. 2ag*o vs CA 1"2 S """
". A+a)so* vs A+a)so* 1&9 S 2&8 ;;;
'. Via0r#4 v. Este*4o " S "'0;;;
&. Sai+a v. Ara*+o*i$$a %8 S 19 ;;;
8. Ara)6#ro vs CA 101 S 1%' ;;;
9. Patri0io vs Leviste 1&2 S &&% ;;;
10. Sa*tos v. CA 29" S 1"0;;;
RU+E 16
Ser5$ce !" s#mm!ns ($t' t'e amen&e& c!mpa$nt
1. De Dios v. CA 212 S "19
-% ('!m ser5e&
2. /e$$o v. U6o 11& S 91
S#bst$t#te& ser5$ce
!. A*g Pi*g v. CA !10 S 1"'
%. /PI v. Eva*ge$ista ;;;
". >eister v. 5avarro && S 209
'. Areva$o v. C#i$ata* 11' S &00
&. Ve*t#ra*4a v. CA 1"' S !0"
8. Sa*+ova$ v. HRET ;;; +o0tri*e reiterate+ i* t8is 0ase
9. Pa$#@aga* v. >i*g 1&2 S '0
10. /#s#ego v. CA 1"1 S !&'
Ser5$ce #p!n $nc!mpetents
11. I))a0#$ata v. 5avarro 1%' S "
Ser5$ce #p!n &!mest$c pr$5ate <#r$&$ca ent$t%
12. Far Cor. v. Fra*0is0o 1%' S 19&
1!. 2aa v. CA ;;;
1%. .o$+e* Co#*tr( v. Sa*var 21% S 29"
1". E/ V$$arosa v. /e*ito !12 S '"
Ser5$ce #p!n &e"en&ant ('!se $&ent$t% !r ('ereab!#ts are
#n3n!(n
1'. Citi4e*s: S#ret( v. 2e$e*0io3Herrera !8 S !'9
1&. 2ag+a$e*a v. 5ieto 12" S &"8
E2traterr$t!r$a ser5$ce
18. Dia$ Cor. v. Soria*o 1'1 S &!&
19. /a*0o +e /rasi$ v. CA !!! S "%"
20. Cariaga v. 2a$a(a 1%! S %%1
21. Va$)o*te v. CA 2"2 S 92
22. Ro)#a$+e43Li0aros v. Li0aros ;;;
Res$&ents temp!rar$% !#t !" t'e t'e P'$$pp$nes
2!. 2o*ta$6a* v. 2aAi)o 22 S 10&0 ;;;
2%. HS/C v. Cata$a* %%0 S %99 ;;;
2". 2i*#08er v. CA 21% S 2%2 ;;;
=!#ntar% appearance
2'. /#s#ego v. CA1 s#ra 5o. 10
RU+E 1>
1. 2o(a v. /arto* &' P 8!1
>otice and hearing of motion for e&tension are not
necessary.
2. Ta* v. Di)a(#ga " S &12
!. Ba v. CA 11" S 10%
%. A4a7ar v. CA 1%" S !!!8
". Cor#s v. Cor#s 1%8 S 21
'. /PI v. Far East 2o$asses Cor. 198 SCRA '89
&. Fi$ii*as v. 2agsi*o 1"& S %'9
RU+E 17
1. La 5ava$ Dr#g v. CA 2!' S &8 ;;;
+$s Pen&ens
2. Ar0eo v. O$iveros 1!% S !09
!. Ra)os v. Pera$ta 20! S %12
%. Vi0tro*i0s v. RTC 21& S 1& ;;;
". Ra)os vs E6ar$e 182 S 2%" ;;;
'. S#*ta( vs Ag#i$#4 209 S "00 ;;;
&. Pas0#a vs F$ore*+o 1!' S 208 ;;;
Res <#&$cata
8. Lee /#* Ti*g vs A$igae* &' S %1' ;;;
9. E*ri,#e4 vs /o($es 22' S ''' ;;;
10. 5HA vs A$)e+a "2" S !8! ;;;
N! ca#se !" act$!n
11. Li) vs +e$os Sa*tos 8 S &98 ;;;
12. Ta* v. CA 29" S 2%& ;;;
1!. Ta* v. Dire0tor o- Forestr( O0to6er 2&1 198! ;;;
E""ect !" &$sm$ssa
1%. Cr#4 vs Caraos "21 S "101 Rule #? ;;;
RU+E 18
D$sm$ssa #p!n n!t$ce b% pa$nt$""
1. .o vs Cr#4 1&2 S 2%& ;;;
D$sm$ssa #p!n m!t$!n !" pa$nt$""
2. /A Fi*a*0e vs R#-i*o Co 22% S 1'! ;;;
!. O$()ia vs CA 180 S !"! ;;;
4a$#re t! present e5$&ence $n c'$e"
%. ?a$over vs Btoriaga 80 S 200 ;;;
". Cr#4 vs Caraos s#ra1 R#$e 1' t8e 0o#rt +i+ *ot +is0#ss
t8e +is)issa$ 6ase+ o* r#$e 1&
4a$#re t! pr!sec#te act$!n "!r an #nreas!nabe en)t' !"
t$me
" | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
'. Re#6$i0 P$a*ters /a*< vs 2o$i*a 1'' S !9 ;;;
4a$#re t! c!mp% ($t' an% !r&er !" t'e c!#rt
&. 2i*a vs Pa0so*1 s#ra R#$e !
8. /arra)e+a vs. /ar6ara 1 s#ra R#$e !
9. .#a*4o* vs 2aa & S %"& ;;;
RU+E 19
1. Fo#*ti*g E+ v. CA ;;; +i <o )a8a*a
Counsel as representative must have a special power of
attorney.
RU+E 1:
1. Orosa v. 2igri*o 218 S !11
The seller can not intervene because it had already
parted with the property.
2. Or+o*e4 v. .#sti$o 192 S %'9
8&ception! The final dismissal of the main action carries
with it the intervention.
!. 2etro6a*< v. RTC 189 S 820 ;;;
3eneral Rule! The dismissal of the main action does not
carry with it the intervention suit.
RU+E 21
1. Peo$e v. 2o*te7o 21 S &22
The rule that a witness is not bound to heed a subpoena if
he resides certain .ilometers from his residence to the
place of trial applies solely to civil cases.
2. Lie6e*o@ v. P8i$. Vegeta6$e Oi$ Co. !9 P '0
@uashing a subpoena duces tecum on the ground of
irrelevancy of documents
RU+E 22
1. L#4 v. 5atio*a$ A)*est( Co))issio* ..R. 5o. 1"9&081
Sete)6er 2%1 200%
A motion for e&tension of time to file a pleading is
counted from the e&piration of the period regardless of
the fact that said due date is a )aturday, )unday or legal
holiday.
RU+E 23
1. De Loe4 vs 2a0ere*o 9" P &"! ;;;
The trial court=s refusal to grant the deposition on the
ground that it will deprive the court to e&amine the
demeanor of the witness is not proper because the ta.ing
of a deposition does not follow the person becomes a
witness, the party is still fishing for evidence.
2. Vera* vs CA 1"& S %!8 ;;;
There must be proof of notice of service that a deposition
will be ta.en.
!. Re#6$i0 vs E$ea*o O0t 1" 1991 ;;;
'urisdiction over the defendant is not necessary to ta.e
deposition.
%. Re#6$i0 v. Sa*+iga*6a(a* 20% S 212 ;;;
4ahaba to
RU+E 27
1. U( C8iao vs De$a Ra)a Stea)s8i ' S '9 ;;;
When a motion to dismiss was filed instead of an answer,
there could still be a re0uest for admission.
2. /a(vie@ Hote$ vs >er D Co L3282!& ;;;
An admission is in the nature of an evidence and its effect
may be availed of by any party.
RU+E 2:
1. ?aravata vs >aro$#s ?#*e 21 200& ;;;
7efore one may be declared in default, it is necessary that
there is an order to compel an answer and a refusal
thereto.
RU+E 30
1. B# v. 2aa(o 1%% S 1'0
When the defendant admits the allegations in the
complaint and pleads affirmative defenses, there will be a
reversal of the order of trial.
RU+E 36
1. Caito$ 2otors v. Ba6#t1 s#ra R#$e 8
Where there is no specific denial, the court may render
judgment upon the pleadings.
2. Ae$ario v. C8ave4 ! S 22'
Where the defendant pleaded an e&cuse instead of a
defense, judgment on the pleadings is proper.
!. Fa$0asa*tos v. Ho@ S#( C8i*g 91 P %"'
When the plaintiff files a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, the material allegations in the defendant=s
answer are deemed admitted.
RU+E 3>
1. P5/ v. P8i$ii*e Leat8er Co. 10" S %00
There is no genuine issue when the defendant admits the
debt e&cept as to the amount.
2. Ur)a*eta v. 2a*4a*o % S '10
1n an action where plaintiff claims ownership over a land,
there is no genuine issue where the defendant does not
claim to be the owner and admitted that he is a tenant.
!. Vergara v. S#e$to 1"' S &"!
There is no genuine issue where the issues are sham,
characterized by bad faith.
%. .a$i0ia v. Po$o 1&9 S !&1
A summary judgment filed by the defendant
RU+E 37
1. Co*so$i+ate+ v. CA 189 S %!!
A decision may no longer be promulgated after the
ponente has vacated his office.
2. Peo$e v. CFI C#e4o* 22& S %"&
Contrary to Consolidated Case, a decision penned by a
judge whose temporary detail to a vacant branch where
the case was tried has e&pired may be promulgated
because he is still an incumbent judge of the same court,
albeit assigned to a different branch.
!. =or$+ 2a08i*e v. IAC 192 S %"9
'udicial compromise has the effect of res judicata,
generally not appealable, and cannot be modified e&cept
with the consent of the parties or when there is vitiated
consent.
%. S#are4 v. CA 19! S 18&
A decision rendered without e&pressing the facts and the
law on which it is based is void and thus, will not
constitute res judicata to another action.
". .ri*e* v. Co*so$a0io* " S &22
A decision does not have to include all the evidence
adduced but only those necessary to support the
' | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
controverted matters.
'. Fa6#$ar v. CA 119 S !29
A decision which has become final could no longer be
modified.
&. Pa7arito v. Se*eris 8& S 2&"
The subsidiary liability of the employer may be enforced
in the same criminal case where the award was made.
RU+E 38
Ne(% &$sc!5ere& e5$&ence
1. T#)a*g v. CA 1&2 S !28
;n the re0uisites of newly discovered evidence
2. /a$a)i+e v. CA 90 S +i <o to )a8a*a ;;;
/ue diligence is that standard of a good father of a family
Pr! "!rma m!t$!n
!. 2ari<i*a Va$$e( v. 2"1 S 8& ;;;
6roforma does not mean repeating, repleadingA
E""ect !" ne( tr$a
%. Davi+ v. Fer*a*+e4 '289'
When a new trial is granted, the previous judgment,
including conse0uential effects, shall become void.
RU+E 39
4ra#& as )r!#n&
1. Asia* S#ret( v. Is$a*+ Stee$ 118 S 2!!
Braud must be e&trinsic to be a ground for relief from
judgment.
2. De)etrio# v. CA 2!8 S 1"8
Cse of false affidavit of loss constitutes intrinsic fraud(
annulment of judgment on the ground of lac. of
jurisdiction.
!. A*#ra* v. A,#i*o !8 P 29 rea+ t8is 6#t 0a*:t #*+ersta*+
itEEE
A""$&a5$t !" mer$t
%. A*g La) v. Rosi$$osa 8' P %%& ;;; *ot *e0essar( @8ere
6ase+ o* $a0< o- 7#ris+i0tio*
Annulment of judgment for lac. of jurisdiction may be
filed even after the periods provided for the filing of
petition for relief from judgment.
Nat#re !" pet$t$!n "!r re$e"
". Fra*0is0o v. P#*o 108 S %2&
4otion for new trial and petition for relief are e&clusive
of each other.
'. Fa7ar+o v. /a(o*a L38!1%
A petition for certiorari and mandamus bars a petition for
relief from judgment.
In ('at c!#rt pet$t$!n "!r re$e" ma% be a5a$e&
&. 2esi*a v. 2eer !8! S '2&
A petition for relief is not available as a remedy against
the judgment of the CA.
8. .or+#$a* v. .or+#$a* ! S 20";;;
There is no recital of facts constituting BA48, thus, it
was dismissed.
9. S#4ara v. Ca$#ag;;;
A petition for relief filed before judgment became final
and there was no affidavit of merit
RU+E 3:
Sect$!n 1
Pa7arito v. Se*eris1 s#ra R#$e !'
The subsidiary liability of the employer may be enforced
in the same criminal case where the award was made.
1. L#*a v. IAC 1!& S &
8&ecution of a final and e&ecutory judgment may be
stayed when there had been a change in the situation of
the parties which ma.es such e&ecution ine0uitable( child
who threatened to .ill herself if she will be returned to her
parents.
2. Ta*a+a v. CA 1!9 S %19
Ratification of e&ecution of final judgment
Sect$!n 2
!. Asso0iate+ /a*< v. .o*o*g 1"2 S %&0
%. O*g v. CA %0! S !8
". Va$e*0ia vs CA 18% S "'1
'. E*gi*eeri*g Co*str#0tio* v. 5APOCOR 1'! S 9
&. /or7a v. CA 19' S 8%&
8. Dire0tor o- La*+s vs Re(es '8 S 1&&
>o e&ecution pending appeal in land registration cases
9. D( v. CA 19" S "8"
>otice before e&ecution of judgment
Sect$!n 6
10. Ro,#e v. De$ .a+o 9" P &2!
Application of Dunless otherwise ordered by the trial
courtE( the judgment of the trial court dissolved the writ
of preliminary injunction, but pending appeal, it ordered
the suspension of the dissolution.
Sect$!n >
11. Ara*+a vs CA 18' S %"'
Sect$!n 7
12. Davi+ vs E7er0ito &1 S %8% ;;;
1!. 5ao0or vs CA 21! S 1!! ;;;
1%. Sta A*a vs 2e*$a 1 S 299% ;;;
Revival of judgment does not apply in land registration
proceedings
1". Ca*o*i4a+o vs /e*ite4 12& S '10 ;;;
'udgment for support can be enforced by mere motion
notwithstanding the lapse of 2 years
1'. P8i$ Air$i*e vs CA 181 S ""& ;;;
8ncashment of a sheriff of a chec. for his own use
Sect$!n :
1&. Sa$a4ar vs Vi$$a-$or 81 S 229 ;;;
Attachment of much more
18. /aro$a vs A6ogata$ 11% S "82 ;;;
>one&ecution by sheriff
19. A,#i*o v. A-i0ia$ ;;;
)heriff can not enter into a compromise with the judgment
debtor "Fe acceded to the judgment debtor=s re0uest to
pay at a later date$
Sect$!n 10
20. Casa*ova vs La0sa)a*a 90 S '8 ;;;
After the lapse of period allowed may demolition be made
21. Ar0a+io vs B$$aga* 1%! S 1'8 ;;;
>o need to secure special order to brea. open
Sect$!n 12
!2. 2ai P8i$ vs 5LRC 1"1 S 19'
Biling of a separate action to enforce judgment not necessary
Sect$!n 13
22. .o)e4 vs .ea$o*e 20! S %&% ;;;
When the right to e&emption from e&ecution may be invo.ed
2!. .aa vs CA 1%0 S !0% ;;;
& | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
;n salaries
2%. Pe*tago* vs .i)e*e4 192 S %92 ;;;
;n tools and implements
Sect$!n 17
2". Ara6a( I*0 vs Sa$va+or 82 S 1!8 ;;;
Biling by the ,
rd
party claimant of a separate action
!!. /a(er vs Aga*a '! S !""
Right of ,
rd
party claimant may not be ta.en up in the case
where such claims are presented, but in a separate and
independent action instituted by the claimant
Sect$!n 22
!%. Fi$ii*as 2i$$s vs Da(rit 192 S 1"8
2'. A6rogar vs IAC 1"& S "&;;;
1nvalid postponement of an auction sale
Re&empt$!n
!". Ce*as vs Sa*tos 20% S "!
;n purchaser%creditor
!'. .orose vs Sa*tos '9 S 191
!&. A*ti0a)ara vs O*g 82 S !8&
Sect$!n 33
2&. RoAas v. /#a* 1'& S %! ;;;
)uccessor in interest not holding the property adversely
because he only ac0uired the right to redeem
28. 2a$o*4o vs Soria*o 1&! S ''& ;;;
Gessees not possessing the property adversely
29. 2aria*o vs CA 1&% S "9;;;
Fusband of the judgment debtor not a stranger to the case
!0. Co)eta vs IAC 1"1 S "'! ;;;
Writ of possession is complementary to a writ of e&ecution
Sect$!n 38
!1. A$a4as vs Sa$as 1&9 S 80% ;;;
8&amination of judgment obligor who has unissued shares of
stoc.
!2. PCI/ vs CA 19! S %"2 ;;;
7an. secrecy on garnishment
!!. 5PC vs .o*o*g 1&& S !'" ;;;
/enial of debtor of judgment obligor
Sect$!n 68
!8. Lee /#* Ti*g vs A$igae*1 s#ra R#$e 1'F
;n the law of the case
Sect$!n 69
!9. Ha*g L#*g /a*< v. Sa#$og1 s#ra R#$e !
!%. 2i7ares v. Ra*a+a1 ..R. 5o. 1!912"1 Ari$ 121 200" ;;;
/oc.et fees not based on the amount of the award in the
foreign judgment because such can no longer be litigated
RU+E 61
Sect$!n 1
1. LP/S v. A)i$a1 ..R. 5o. 1%&%%!1 Fe6r#ar( 111 2008
An order denying a motion for issuance of a TR; is an
interlocutory order, thus, no appeal may be ta.en.
2. /a*aga v. 2a7a+#0o*1 ..R. 5o. 1%90"11 ?#*e !01 200'
1mproper or irregular e&ecution of a judgment is
appealable.
Sect$!n 3
!. 5e(es v. CA1 ..R. 5o. 1%1"2%1 Sete)6er 1%1 200"
Bresh period rule! A party who filed a motion for new
trial or reconsideration has a fresh period of #2 days
within which to file the notice of appeal counted from
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or
motion for reconsideration.
%. P5/ v. CA "%8 S ""& ;;;
8ffect of perfecting an appeal( notice of appeal cannot be
withdrawn to revive the jurisdiction of the court
O" a part$c#ar matter
%0. 2ira*+a vs CA1 ..R. 5o. L3!!00&1 ?#*e 181 19&' ;;;
La*+)ar<
Appeas $n t'e 4am$% C!#rt
%1. Re#6$i0 v. CA %"8 S 200 ;;;
%2. Re#6$i0 v. /er)#+e43Levi*o %%9 S "1;;;
0#t$pe Appeas
%!. /rio*es v. He*so*3Cr#4 ..R. 5o. 1"91!0 ;;;
Appeas !n e2pr!pr$at$!n cases
%%. 2ari*+#,#e 2i*i*g v. CA "'& S %8! ;;;
Per$!& t! Appea
%". PCI Leasi*g a*+ Fi*a*0e v. 2i$a* '1& S 2"8 ;;;
*r!n) 0!&e !" Appea
%'. A/S3C/5 /roa+0asti*g Cor. v. =or$+ I*tera0tive ..R.
5o. 1'9!!21 Fe6r#ar( 111 2008 ;;;
Appeas $n nat#ra$;at$!n
%&. I* Re9 S8e@a< A. >es@a*i v. Re#6$i0 ..R. 5o. 1"!98'1
?#*e 81 200& ;;;
RU+E 62
1. /er*ar+o v. Peo$e ..R. 5o. 1''9801 Ari$ %1 200&
6etitioner filed a motion for ,<%day e&tension to file
petition for review( the CA may grant an additional
period of #2 days only, another #2 days for most
compelling reason.
Appeas a)a$nst t'e &ec$s$!n !" t'e RTC seat$n) as an
a)rar$an c!#rt
%8. L/P v. De Leo* !99 S !&';;;
%9. L/P v. Ro+rig#e4 ..R. 5o. 1%88921 2a( '1 2010;;;
"0. L/P v. CA ..R. 5o. 190''01 Ari$ 111 2011 ;;;
RU+E 66
Sect$!n 13 C!ntents !" appeant?s br$e"
1. Estate o- V+a. De Vi$$egas v. .a6o(a1 ..R. 5o.
1%!00'?#$( 1%1 200'
Bailure to comply with the re0uirements of )ec. #, "a$,
"c$ and "d$ is a ground for dismissal under )ection #"f$ of
Rule 2<
Sect$!n 1> @#est$!ns t'at ma% be ra$se& !n appea
2. De$ Rosario v. /o*ga1 ..R. 5o. 1!'!081 ?a*#ar( 2!1 2001
Raising issues for the first time on appeal( e&ceptions
RU+E 6>
C#estio* o- -a0t or $a@
1. So#t8er* 5egros Dev:t /a*< vs. CA 2!! S %'0
The 0uestion of improper venue is a 0uestion of law.
2. Cai*a vs. Peo$e 21! S !09
The 0uestion of whether there is a preponderance of evidence
is a 0uestion of fact.
!. Vi0torias v. IAC ;;;
The determination of whether the court has jurisdiction is a
0uestion of law. "Cnder the present law, no longer appealable
because it is dismissal without prejudice$
8 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
%. >8o v. Ca)a08o 20% S 1"0
The trial court cannot disallow an appeal on the ground that
involves purely 0uestion of law.
". L$ore* v. C8ie- I*se0tor 2!! S Aii
Appeal from decisions of RTCs on pure 0uestions of law to the
)C may only be made by petition for review not notice of
appeal.
'. RCA2 vs CA ..R. 5o. 111!281 ?#$( " 199'
&. Ses6re*o v. CA 2%0 S '0'
8. 2a*i$a /a( C$#6 vs. CA ..R. 5o. 11001"1 ?#$( 11 199"
Appea "r!m &ec$s$!ns !" t'e Omb#&sman
9. Fa6ia* v. Desierto1 ..R. 5o. 129&%2. Sete)6er 1'1
1998
Appeals from decisions of the ;ffice of the ;mbudsman
in administrative disciplinary cases should be ta.en to the
Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 9,, not a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 92.
10. Ca6rera v. Lai+1 ..R. 5o. 1290981 De0e)6er '1 200'
The remedy from resolutions of the ;mbudsman in
preliminary investigations of criminal cases is a petition
for certiorari under Rule -2, not a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 92.
11. La*ti*g v. O)6#+s)a*1 ..R. 5o. 1%1%2'1 2a( '1 200"
8&cept in administrative cases, only the )upreme Court
has the appellate authority in decisions of the
;mbudsman in criminal cases.
RU+E 68
1. Fragi*a$ v. Heirs o- ParaGa$
2. Pa+#a v. CA
'udgment rendered by a 0uasi%judicial body may not be
annulled under Rule 9?.
!. Peo$e v. /ita*ga
Rule 9? does not apply to criminal cases.
%. .ra*+e- v. UP
Rule 9? does not pertain to the nullification of the decision of
the CA.
". A$a6a* v. CA
Bailure to ta.e the remedies at law deprives a party to the
remedy under Rule 9?
'. Case *eAt ti)e
There can be an annulment of judgment of the RTC acting a
land registration court
RU+E >1
1. Da+i4o* v. /er*a+as "88 S '&8 ;;;
The reversal of judgment on appeal may only affect parties in
the appeal case and will not inure to the benefit of those who
did not appeal. 8&ception! Where the judgment is inseparable,
the reversal of one is a reversal to all even if the others did not
appeal.
"e.g., surety appealed but not the principal, judgment in favor
of the former will benefit the latter$
2. /or$o*ga* v. /#e*ave*t#ra Fe6r#ar( 2&1 200' ;;;
Cpon death, lawyer%client relationship ceases, thus appealed
filed where the petitioner has died is a mere scrap of paper.
De$ Rosario v. /o*ga1 s#ra R#$e %1
;n )ection +
Co*so$i+ate+ /a*< v. CA1 s#ra R#$e !'
;n )ection *
SU00ARY PROCEDURE
1. Co)6ate v. Sa* ?ose 1!" S '9!
Theft is not covered by the Rule on )ummary 6rocedure(
trial is re0uired before judgment
2. Heirs O$ivas v. F$ore*ti*o 1'1 S !9!
>oncompliance with the re0uirement of conducting a
preliminary conference
!. Lasa0a v. CA 21" S 1&
The defendant may not be declared in default where an
answer was filed
%. /a(#6a( v. CA 22% S ""&
Bailure to give the parties an opportunity to submit
affidavits is a violation of the Rule on )ummary
6rocedure
RU+E >8
1. Sievert v. CA 1'8 S '92
The writ of preliminary attachment cannot bind the
defendant without service of summons.
2. Davao Lig8t v. CA 20% S !%!
The writ of preliminary attachment may be issued even
before ac0uisition of jurisdiction.
!. U( v. CA 21" S 8"9
%. 2ira*+a v. CA1 ..R. 5o. 800!01 O0to6er 2'1 1989
;ld rule! Braud under #"d$ refers only to dolo causante.
". Sa$as v. A+i$ 90 S 122
'. Cario v. 2a0a+aeg 9 S "2
&. Ca$+ero* v. IAC 1"" S "!1
8. /e*ite4 v. IAC 1"% S 1%1
9. D.P. L#6 Oi$ v. 5i0o$as 191 S %2!
10. Sa*tos v. A,#i*o 20" S 12&
11. Per$a v. Ra)o$ete 20! A %8&
12. O$i6 v. Pastora$ 188 S '92
Sec 16
1!. U( vs CA 191 S 2&"
1%. Tra+ers Ro(a$ /a*< vs. IAC1!! S 1%1
Sec 20
1". Pio*eer I*s#ra*0e vs. Ho*ta*gas &8 S %%&
1'. Co*so$i+ate+ /a*< vs. IAC 1"! S 2!!
"1. Sa*tos vs R#stia 90 P !'0
"2. Lee Li* vs CDS Agro 121 S &2"
1&. To@ers Ass#ra*0e vs. Orora)a 80 S 2'2
"!. Rivera vs Ta$avera 2 S 2&2
"%. 2o6i$ Oi$ 22" S %8'
"". 2ori$$o vs CA
"'. 5e(es vs CA 1%1"2%
"&. S#)a@a( vs Ur6a* /a*< 1%2"!%
"8. Ha6a$#(as vs S(
"9. La0sa)a*a vs IAC
'0. .o0ota*o vs. .o0ota*o 1!'81%
'1. /or$o*ga* vs /#e*ave*t#ra 1'&2!%
'2. Fa6ia* vs Desierto
'!. >es@a*i vs. Re#6$i01"!98'
'%. /a#tista vs CA 1%!!&"
9 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
'". A$a6a* vs CA 1"'021
''. Vi$$egas vs. .a6o(a 1%!00'
'&. /er*ar+o vs Peo$e 1''980
RU+E >9
-P 12: Sect$!n 21 A1B
1. Dire0tor o- t8e /#rea# o- Te$e0o))#*i0atio*s vs.
A$igae* !! SCRA !'8 H 19&0I ;;;
The acts relative to the establishment of a local telephone
system by petitioners were being done within the territorial
boundaries of the province or district of respondent Court,
and so said Court had jurisdiction to restrain them by
injunction. 1t does not matter that some of the respondents in
the trial court, against whom the injunction order was issued,
had their official residence outside the territorial jurisdiction
of the trial court.
2. .o*4a$es vs. Se0retar( o- P#6$i0 =or<s ..R. 5o. L3
219881 Sete)6er !01 19''1 18 SCRA 29';;
The only 0uestion raised was whether the Court of Birst
1nstance of /avao had jurisdiction to entertain a case the
main purpose of which was to prevent the enforcement of a
decision of the )ecretary of 6ublic Wor.s who was in 4anila
this Court held that, inasmuch as the acts sought to be
restrained were to be performed within the territorial
boundaries of the province of /avao, the Court of Birst
1nstance of /avao had jurisdiction to hear and decide the
case, and to issue the necessary injunction order.
!. Li)7a v. A*i)as ..R. 5o. L3"!!!%. ?a*#ar( 1&1 198"
;;;
RTC of 4anila has jurisdiction because 66A holds office in
4anila.
%. Dag#a* E$e0tri0 Cororatio* vs. PaGo1 9" SCRA '9!
H1980I ;;;
". De0a*o v. E+# ..R. 5o. L3!00&0. A#g#st 291 1980 ;;;
1t is true that the order of dismissal was issued by respondent
8du, but it was to be implemented in /agupan City
'. O$o*gao v. 5PC ..R. 5o. L32%912. Ari$ 91 198& ;;;
PD 1919
&. .ar0ia v. /#rgos ..R. 5o. 12%1!0. ?#*e 291 1998 ;;;
RA 8228
8. A$$ie+ Do)e0, v. Vi$$o* ..R. 5o. 1"'2'%. Sete)6er
!01 200% ;;;
9. /ases Co*versio* a*+ Deve$o)e*t A#t8orit( v. U( ..R.
5o. 1%%0'2. 5ove)6er 21 200' ;;;
The action is for a final injunction, thus, the RTC has
jurisdiction. What is disallowed is the issuance of a TR; or a
preliminary injunction.
RA 9:8>
10. DFA v. Fa$0o* ..R. 5o. 1&''"&. Sete)6er 11 2010 ;;;
RU+E >:
1. E$ar+e v. E*ri,#e4 ;;;
The trial court erred in appointing a receiver when title is in
issue and there is no showing that the property or fund is in
danger of being lost.
2. Ce*tra$ S#ret( v. A$to Ass#ra*0e ;;;
Receivership of property not a subject of the litigation may be
allowed under Rule ,* )ection 9#
RU+E 70
1. 2a08i*eries E*gi*eeri*g S#$ies v. CA 9' P8i$ ;;;
1f a personal property is embedded or attached to a real
property its nature is converted to a real property such that it
is no longer subject of replevin.
2. /a08ra08 2otors v. ;;;
!. Case v. H#go ;;;
)ubstantial compliance of furnishing plaintiff copy of the
counterbond
%. ?ago v. CA ;;;
Right to reject of the plaintiff
". Stro*g8o$+ Ass#ra*0e v. CA ;;;
;n )ection < of Rule 2?
'. Sag#a( v. CA ;;;
&. Ti$so* v. CA;;
10 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
Cases t8at @ere i* t8e $ist 6#t *ot +is0#sse+
?#ris+i0tio*
'8. TIPAIT vs. HO5. REBES1 ..R. 5o. &01&%. Fe6r#ar( 91
199!
'9. E*erio vs A$a)a( '% S 1%2
&0. S#are4 vs CA 18' S !!9
&1. Tra+e U*io*s vs Cos0o$$#e$a 1%0 S !02
&2. /#$ao vs CA 21" S !21
&!. Lo4o* vs 5LRC !10 S 1
&%. ARJA.A vs. COPIAS1 ..R. 5o. 1"2%0%. 2ar08 281
200! HDARA/I
&". 5otre Da)e vs 2a$$are 19& S 18&
&'. 2a*ga$i(ag v H. Cat#6ig3Pastora$ K %&% S 1"!
&&. Par0o* v. CA
&8. ALL.E2EI5E vs. 2/TC1 ..R. 5o. 1"929'. Fe6r#ar(
101 200'
&9. De$a Cr#4 vs CA %%2 S %92
80. ?ave$$a*a vs ?#+ge RTC %%! S %9&
81. Sa*+ova$ vs Ca*e6a 190 S &&
82. Osea vs. A)6rosio
8!. /PI vs. ALS1 ..R. 5o. 1"1821. Ari$ 1%1 200%
8%. RoAas vs. CA %!9 P8i$ 9'' H2002I
R#$e 2
8". A#re$io vs CA 19' S '&%
R#$e %
8'. Ta0a( vs Tag#) o$+ r#$e o* 7#ris+i0tio* o- RTC i*vo$vi*g
rea$ roert(L +o0<et -ees
R#$e '
8&. Far Easter* 2ar6$e vs CA 22" S 2%"
88. De$os Sa*tos vs. Provi*0ia$ S8eri-- '% P 19! +e)#rrerL
a#t8orit( to or+er a)e*+)e*t
89. Ca(eta*o vs Ceg#erra 1! S &!
90. I*t:$ Co*tai*er vs CA 21% S %"'
R#$e &
91. C8ave4 v. Sa*+iga*6a(a* 19! S 282
92. /#$a0a* vs Tor0i*o 1!% S 2"2
9!. Heirs 2asa*g(a v. 2asa*g(a 189 S 2!% servi0e o-
7#+g)e*t i* 0ase o- +eat8 o- 0o#*se$
9%. Estoesta vs CA 191 S !0! $ai*ti-- -i$e+ a )otio* @it8o#t
t8e assista*0e o- 0o#*se$
9". Corte4 vs CA 8! S 91 servi0e o- *oti0e to 0o#*se$ @8o
@as *ot roer$( s#6stit#te+
9'. ?#rei+i*i vs CA 8! S 91 attor*e(:s -ees
9&. /R Se6astia* vs CA 20' S 28 -ai$#re o- 0o#*se$ to -i$e
ae$$a*t:s 6rie-
98. .#tierre4 vs A6i$a 111 S '"8 +e-a)ator( re)ar<s i* t8e
a*s@er *ot rivi$ege+ 0o).
99. Peo$e vs A,#i*o 18 S """ a$$ege+ +e-a)ator( re)ar<s i*
t8e re$( rivi$ege+
100.Te$a* vs CA 202 S "!" rig8t to aea$ *ot $ost @8ere
$a@(er is -a<e
101.Ara)6#$o vs CA 22' S "89
102.A$i*s#g vs RTC "8 22" S ""!
10!.Re#6$i0 vs CA 201 S 1
10%.Do0e*a vs Laes#ra !"" S '"8
10".Orti4 vs CA 299 S &08
10'.Far Easter* vs CA 29& S !0
10&.Ortigas vs Ve$as0o 2!% S %""
R#$e 8
108.Ss. Do*ato vs CA 21& S 19'
R#$e 9
109.Dire0tor La*+ vs CA 209 S %"&
110. 2eta$s E*gi*eeri*g vs CA 20! S 2&!
111. /A Fi*a*0e vs Co 22% S 1'!
112. 2a*ge$e* vs CA 21" S 2!0
R#$e 10
11!. 5APOCOR vs CA 11! S ""'
11%. Legasi vs .ero*i)o &' S 1&%
11". A4*ar III vs /er*a+ 1'1 S 2&'
R#$e 1%
11'. S#))it Tra+i*g vs Ave*+a*o 12% S %!%
11&. AT2 Tr#0<i*g vs. /#e*0a)i*o
118. Pa0i-i0 2i0ro*esio* Li*e vs De$ Rosario 9! P 2!
119. Ta$sa) E*terrises vs /#$i#ag Tra*sit !10 S 1"'
120.Sa*tos vs CA 29" S 1%&
121.Vie@)aster Co*str#0tio* vs. 2a*i#$it !2' S 821
R#$e 1'
122.P5/ vs Hio$ito 1! S 20
12!./or7e vs CFI 88 S "&'
12%.Co*ti*e*ta$ vs CA 18% S &28
R#$e 1&
12".2e$ito* vs CA 21' S %8"
R#$e 18
12'.Taro)a vs Sa(o '& S "08
12&.C8a* vs A6a(a 90 S '1
128..o$$oo vs CA 212 S %98
129.Fi$Oi$ vs 1'0 S 1!!
1!0.?#*g0o vs CA 1&9 S 21!
R#$e 2!
1!1.Das)ari*as .ar)e*ts vs Re(es 22" S '22
R#$e 2"
1!2.Da(o vs Co)e$e0 92"%2
R#$e 2'
1!!./ri6o*eria vs CA 101'82
1!%.PCSFC Fi*a*0ia$ Cor. vs CA
1!". Estate Li) C8i*g vs /a0a$a* 2ar08 1% 200&
R#$e 29
1!'.Co vs IAC
R#$e !0
1!&.?a$over vs Horriaga
1!8.Cosi,#ie* vs 188 S '19
R#$e !'
1!9.2as0o*a v. P/ 5egros &9 S !99 7#st rea+ +a@
1%0.Fi$i*vest vs CA 22' S 2"&
1%1.Pe*gso* vs IAC 1!0 S 289
1%2.Partosa vs CA 21' S '92
R#$e !&
1%!.Va$+es v. ?#go &% P %9
1%%.Dai* vs Dio*a$+o 209 S !8
1%".Ha6a$#(as vs 1!8 S %'
1%'.Re6#$+e$a vs IAC 1"" S "20
R#$e !8
1%&.Peo$e v. Pare7a 189 S 1%!
1%8.Ar0i$$a 1!8 S "'0
1%9.Le(te 1"2 S %9'
1"0.Te6#r0io 1'1 S "8!
1"1.2ateo 19' S 280
R#$e !9
2otio* to Dis)iss Pre$i)i*ar( 8eari*g
1"2.A6ra8a*o vs Sa$as
1"!.Ta* vs CA Set 22 1998
Re,#est -or A+)issio*
11 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r
1"%.Co*0rete vs 2'' S 88
1"".Do,#e vs Ca ?#$( 2 2002
1"'./ri*o*eria vs
S#))ar( ?#+g)e*t
1"&.Asia* vs PCI/ Ari$ 2" 200'
1"8.Estate Li) C8i*g vs /a0a$a* 2ar08 1% 200&
Re$ie- ?#+ge)e*t
1"9..#ia* vs CA "10 S "'8
Se0 '
1'0.L#4o* S#ret( vs E(a 1"1 S '"2
Se0 10
1'1.Bo#*g vs. 2o)6$a* 20" S !!
Se0 1'
1'2.Es0orvi$a vs. CA 1&9 S 108
1'!.S( vs. Ha6a0o*3.ar(6$as 228 S '%%
1'%.Co*so$i+ate+ /a*< vs. CA 19! S 1"8
Se0 2&
1'".Re+e)tio*
=rit o- Possessio*
1''.Pas0#a vs Si)eo* 1'1 S 1
Res ?#+i0ata
1'&.Tiro vs CA 8" S ""%
1'8.2a+riga$ " S 9%!
A+)i* Res ?#+i0ata
1'9.D#$a( vs 2i*ister o- 5at#ra$ Reso#r0es 218 S "'2
1&0.5HA re-er a6ove
1&1.Ca(eta*o +e /or7a vs. CAR &8 S %8"
1&2.Pa7arito vs I*eris 8& S 2&"
1&!.Re#6$i0 S#ret( vs IAC 1"2 S !09
1&%.V+a +e 2e+i*a vs IAC 20& S 2'9
1&".Fi$i*vest vs IAC 20& S 2'9
12 | P a g e J P E AY 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 1 s t S e m e s t e r