CIVIL PROCEDURE

Course Outline
1. Introduction
1.1. Courts and their jurisdiction
La Naval Drug Corp v CA 236 S 78

Atwel v Concepcion Progressive Asso Inc GR 169370 April 14, 2008

Figueroa v People GR 147406 July 14, 2008

1.2. How jurisdiction is obtained and exercised:

over persons
over subject matter
over res
1.3. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc v Seludo Jr 671 S 78

2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions

2.1. Must be based on a cause of action
What is cause of action

Belle Corporation v De Leon-Banks 681 S 351

No splitting of cause of action

Read: City of Bacolod v San Miguel, 29 S 819

Jalandoni v Martir-Guanzon, 102 P 859

Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action

Test of single cause of action

Read: Joseph v Bautista, 170 S 540

2.2. Parties to civil actions

Who are parties in interest
Competency of parties

 Indispensable and necessary parties

o Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc 665 S 367
Joinder and misjoinder of parties
Death of party
consequence of death of party
o Sarsaba vs Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410
o Gonzales vs Pagcor 429 SCRA 533, 540
what counsel should do on death of party
2.3. Venue of actions
Real and personal actions

Read: United Overseas Bank Phils. V Rosemoore Mining & Development

Corp. 518 S 123 (2007)

Actions against non-residents

Agreement on venue
2.4. Commencement of actions
How and when deemed commenced

Read: Magaspi v Ramolete, 115 S 193

Manchester Dev Corp v CA, 149 S 562

Sun Insurance v Asuncion, 170 S 274

Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso Jr versus CA, GR No.

116121, July 18, 2011
When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case?
Effect of underpayment of docket fees
Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within
reglementary period
but in several cases, both CA and SC have caused the dismissal of
cases for non-payment of docket fees.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts

3.1. Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts
3.2. Pleadings in general
Kinds of pleadings

 Formal requirements of pleadings

Parts of a pleading
Verification when required
Formal, not jurisdictional

Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)

Verification by Counsel

In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Schwani Inc. 575 S 535

(2008)
Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory pleadings
Definition of Forum Shopping

Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Compnay Inc.

et.al v Valdez GR No. 150107 28Jan2008
Negros Slashers v Teng 666 S 629
Counsel cannot sign certification; exception

Digital Microwave Corp. v CA GR 128550

16Mar2000
Guy v Court of Appeals GR 163707, September
15, 2006
Sy Chin v Court of Appeals GR 136233, November
23, 2000
Co-owner or Co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or coparties
Cavila v Heirs of Clarita Cavile 400 S 255 (2003)

Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification

against non-forum shopping requirement
Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. v Piglas Kamao
561 S 569 (2008)
Median Container Corp. v Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Co. 561 S 622 (2008)
Substantial requirements of pleadings
Sufficiency of allegations
Ultimate facts only

Remitere v Yulo 16 S 251

Philippine Stock Exchange v Manila Banking

Corp. 559 S 352 (2008)
Tests of sufficiency of complaint:
Can judgment be rendered if admitted?

 Always reckon against grounds for dismissal

Is bill of particulars applicable?

Read Philippine Bank of Communications v Trazo

500 S 242 (2006)
Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading
Not susceptible to summary judgment
Does not amount to confession of judgment
MUST tender an issue

Must specifically deny material allegations lest

they be deemed admitted
Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either
in motion to dismiss or answer, else waived
Alternative causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even
if inconsistent with each other
Purpose of rule is to allow for complete
adjudication of any controversy

Counterclaims
Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims
Test to determine nature of counterclaim

Read: Namarco v Federation of United Namarco

Distributors Inc., 49 S 238
Bungcayao Sr v Fort Ilocandia 618 S 381

Calibre Traders Inc v Bayer Philippines 633 S 34

3.3. Effect of failure to plead

Order of default
by motion only, court cannot motu proprio declare party in default
Consequences of order of default
judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for
need for presentation of evidence
Rationale for order of default
3.4. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings
Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed
No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of action
set out in original pleading
4

 Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion for

summary judgment or even motion for judgment on the pleadings
which are not considered responsive pleading
Rule when some but not all defendants filed responsive pleading
When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to
therule that the cause of action is not substantially changed or the theory
altered
Planters Development Bank v LZK Holdings & Development
Co. 456 S 366
Young v Sy 503 S 151 (2006)
Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented during trial is
allowed:
when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the consent of
the parties
when, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will
befall the objecting party
Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right

Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989)

Effect of amended pleadings

supersedes original pleading
as a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need
to be offered in evidence.
Read Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94
3.5. Responsive pleadings
What is responsive pleading
Answer Judicial admissions binding on party

Read Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007)

Answer Judicial admissions NOT binding on party

Read Gardner v CA 131 S 585

Bill of particulars, motion to dismiss interrupt period to file responsive

pleading
Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be set up in responsive
pleading. However, it may be set up anytime thereafter (but before
judgment) if omitted through oversight, inadvertence or excusable
negligence
Remedies of party declared in default

o Otero v Tan 678 S 583

3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers
Service on counsel is mandatory unless otherwise ordered by court
Improper service is ineffectual and does not bind party

Read: Cabili v Badelles, 6 S 190

Service of pleadings and court papers (other than judgments, final orders and
resolutions) may be done by substituted service if personal service and
service by mail not successful
Service of judgments, final orders and resolutions must be personal or by
registered mail only (or by publication where summons is served by
publication)
Service must be on counsel as service on party not permitted
Where final order or judgment not served on party or lawyer, said
judgment cannot become final or executory.
3.7. Summons
Rules on service is strictly construed, hence:
For actions in personam
against residents, service must be personal first then
substituted if unsuccessful or publication if whereabouts
unknown or temporarily outside the country
against non-residents, only personal service within the state
can confer jurisdiction over the defendant
For actions in rem or quasi in rem
against residents, same as above
against non-residents, personal service outside the country,
with leave of court, or publication with leave of court
For actions against domestic juridical persons, service only on those
enumerated in the statute is allowed
For actions against foreign juridical entity, service must be on
resident agent, government regulator, or any of officers, agents
within the country
Venturanza v CA 156 S 305

Samartino v Raon 383 S 664

Valmonte v CA 252 S 92

Asiavest v CA 296 S 539

Philam Gen vs Breva 442 S 217

BPI v Santiago 519 S 389

3.8. Dismissal of action

Grounds
lack of jurisdiction over person

Read Amigo v CA, 253 S 382

lack of jurisdiction over subject matter

Read La Naval v CA, 236 S 78

Ilocos Sur Electric v NLRC 241 S 36

Andaya v Abadia 228 S 705

Republic v Bantigue Point Development Corp 668 S

158

pendentia litis

Read Andersons Group v CA. 266 S 423

Ramos v Peralta, 203 S 412

Yap v Chua 672 S 411

res judicata

Read Vda de Cruzo v Cariaga, 174 S 330

Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Chavez 618 S 559

no cause of action

Read San Lorenzo v CA, 288 S 115

Calalang v IAC, 194 S 514

Perpetual v Fajardo, 233 S 720

City of Cebu v CA, 258 S 175

Remedy in case of granting/denial of motion to dismiss

Order denying motion to dismiss is interlocutory, hence proper
remedy is to appeal after a decision has been rendered
Read: Indiana Aerospace University v Commission On
Higher Education, 356 S 367
Bangko Silangan v CA, 360 S 322

Yutingco v CA, 386 S 85

Order granting motion to dismiss disposes of the case hence, appeal

under Rule 41 is applicable.
3.9. Pre-trial

 Definition

Anson Trade Center v Pacific Banking, GR No. 179999 17 Mar 2009

Interlining Corp. v Philippine Trust Co. 428 S 583 (2002)

Setting for Pre-Trial

Espiritu v Lazaro, GR. No.181020 20 Nov 2009

Polanco v Cruz, GR. No. 182426 13 Feb 2009

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

Failure to have Pre-trial

Madrid v Spouses Mapoy, GR. 150887 14 Aug 2009

Failure of defendant to appear

Will result in plaintiff presenting his evidence ex parte and for the
court to render judgment thereon.
This is dissimilar to default from failure to plead where the sanction is
for the court to render judgment based on the complaint
Summary judgment or judgment on pleadings possible if facts are
discovered in pre-trial to warrant such action
Effect of Pre-trial Order

General Rule: Binding on all parties, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

Exception: Read Heirs of Reyes v CA, 519 S 250 (2007)

3.10. Discovery
4. Is it always to a party?
Differentiate taking form use?
Taking limitations are available; 1) done in good faith, 2) relevant
3) must not annoy/oppress
Not for taking but for the use
The use subject to no limitations compared to taking
Remedy of a party
*relevant and not privileged
Use of deposition:
Right to take is different from the right to use:

 Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders,

to disgorge private information to adverse party
Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the
knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties; obtain admissions from
adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents, objects and property.
What are discoverable?
Limitations on discoverability
Modes of discovery
Deposition (Rule 22, Rule 24)
function
when may be availed of
Pajarilla v CA 570 S 347 (2008)
de bene esse (pending action)
perpetuam rei memoriam (prior to action)
who do you depose
Interrogatories to parties
effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
Requests for admission

Sime Darby Employees Association v NLRC 510 S 204

Production and inspection of things

Examination of persons

Read Republic v Sandiganbayan, 204 S 212 (taking of depositions

other than the use of deposition) taking of deposition may help
prepare in his case;
Why take depositon of a witness not your own: (impeach testimony of
witness) locked in testimony ; to know how to prepare or adjust ;
hedge against opposing party
Is adverse party required to appear in the depositon? not required
but required is you furnish a copy; Reason: adverse party may be
notified or can send written interrogatories; not all depositions will be
used in court;

can not oppose the ground on the validity of the use of deposition;
may raise argument on deposition; may assail propriety of deposition
Can you oppose taking of deposition? before the court allows it?
Yes. Not on the ground of relevancy and privilege but on the taking
itself? dont confuse with use nor taking; YOU CANT CONTEST
ONLY IF INTENDED ON THE USE OF DEPOSITION. TAKING
PROBLEM ON RELEVANCY AND PRIVILEGE
What can adverse party do?
*Interrogatories (Rule 25) similar to use of Rule 23 and difference is
Rule 23 there is intervention of an officer
Who do you serve written interrogatories? adverse party same
manner as depositions
Request for admission:
Purpose: truth or falsity of a fact: how will you not it is not a written
interrogatories?
*never be the title but on what it really is

2 grounds:

Dasmarinas Garments v Reyes 225 S 622

Ayala Land vs Tagle 466 S 521

Hyatt Industrial v Ley Construction GR 147143 Mar 10, 2006

Sime Darby v CA 510 S 204

Security Bank v CA 323 S 330

Solidbank v Gateway GR 164805 April 30, 2008

Proceeds of gateway to be collected by Solidbank. Solidbank
requested for production of certain documents. Request was
very general.

10

The court ruled it must be specific to determine particular

documents and to prevent fishing.
Is fishing illegal?
not allowed because request was too general. Must be
specific
desire of moving party

Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)

Contempt
Strike out pleadings
Disallow substantiate pleadings
Judgment base on default
Deposition of every witness you present: No. Only those who fear will not be available for
not available in court. Those who will not be available. inavailibility, death of a witness
*Depositon not conducted in the court; no ruling to be conducted
Deposing officer can not make an objection or ruling: court who will resolve; only when
that deposition is used.
Purposes:
1) depose witness who will not live long enough
2) depose not only your witness the other partys witnesses for early settlement
3) depose influential witness

4.1. Trial
Order of trial
Reverse trial when complaint is admitted

Read Yu v Magpayo 44 S 163

Reverse trial also in criminal cases

4.2. Consolidation
Purpose: if consolidation proper, mandatory? if involving the same parties,
same questions
Consolidation vs Litis Pendentia (same issue, same party, same cause of action)

11

 not the same

*
Test is common questions of fact or of law

Active v CA, 181 S 774

Properties were disclosed

Case 1: Writ of Possession over properties issue of writ of possession
Case 2: Petition to invalidate foreclosure
*CONSOLIDATION was not granted
Why consolidate?
How does it differ with litis pendentia?
Common question of fact: Validity of foreclosure
If invalid then writ of possession becomes ministerial

Superlines v Victor, 124 S 939

Steel Corporation of the Philippines v Equitable PCI Bank 635 S

403
Deutsche Bank AG vs Court of Appeals 667 S 82

Producers Bank of the Philippines v Excelsa Industries 669 S 470

consolidation of civil and criminal cases

consolidation of cases on appeal
4.3. Demurrer to Evidence
Concept of demurrer
Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence

Nepomuceno v Comelec, 126 S 472

4.4. Judgment on the pleadings

Generally applicable when there is no tender of issue
Denial in answer may not amount to tender of issue

Manufacturers v Diversified, 173 S 357

Pacific Rehouse Corporation v EIB Securities 633 S 214

12

4.5. Summary Judgments

Distinguished from judgment on the pleadings

Vergara v Suelto 156 S 753

Diman v Alumbres, 299 S 459

How motion for summary judgment is considered

Hearing on motion is only for determining whether issues are genuine
or not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings
motion is proven through affidavits, depositions and admissions
submitted by movant
Propriety of summary judgment

Natalia v Vallez, 173 S 536

Grand Farms v CA, 193 S 748

Movant may be either party

4.6. Judgments
Requirements
written and signed by judge
must contain findings of facts and law applied
must contain a dispositive portion
filed with the clerk of court
rendition reckoned from filing with clerk
must be served on parties
may be amended before finality upon motion or motu proprio
entry upon finality
entry determines prescriptive periods
final judgment not subject to amendment
separability of judgments

4.7. Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)

New Trial or Reconsideration
FAMEN
Fraud as a ground must be extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is intrinsic
when done by a party during trial (use of forged documents

13

etc), extrinsic when employed outside the court (concealing a

witness or colluding with a party)
accident and mistake as ground must be based on wellengendered belief ordinary prudence could not guard against
excusable negligence as ground will depend on circumstances
Newly discovered evidence
must be material and not discoverable during trial

Banco Filipino v Campos 63 S 180

Motion for reconsideration

NT distinguished from reconsideration
grounds
results when granted
remedy when denied (appeal from the judgment)
Relief from judgment
not available for lost remedy

Tuazon v CA, 256 S 158

available only versus final judgment

distinguished from NT or reconsideration
grounds
when/how invoked
result when granted
remedy when denied (no more appeal)
Annulment of Judgment (not same court, not same case)
Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v Court of Appeals 681 S
580

4.8. Execution of judgments

Only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution
Final judgment versus final and executory judgment

Investment v CA 147 S 334

Test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court to do with
respect to the merits of the case?
Execution a matter of right when judgment final and executory, but only
upon motion
judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e., when no appeal has
been taken within the period provided by law
14

 enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it

becomes final, subject to certain exceptions
execution before finality of judgment, only upon good reasons

BF Corp v Edsa Shangrila, 294 S 109

discretionary executions, when stayed

City of Manila v CA, 72 S 98

Valencia v CA, 184 S 561

execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the

nature of the judgment, i.e. recovery of property v money judgments
5. APPEALS
5.1. Nature of appeal as a remedy
guard against judgments of unskilled and unfair judges
prevention as much as correction of mistakes
not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost
Dacuital v LM Engineering Corporation 629 S 702
5.2. Who may appeal

5.3. What are appealable

what are final judgments
when does a judgment or order become final
final judgments vs judgments that are final and executory
what are not appealable and why are they not?
test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case

5.4. Modes of appeal

ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment)
MTC to RTC
RTC to CA
no extension of period to file notice of appeal
interrupted by motion for NT or recon
if NT or recon denied, fresh period to appeal

15

 Neypes vs CA GR 141524 Sept 14, 2005

payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal
petition for review (by filing petition with CA under rule 42)
second level of review
review of judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA
not a matter of right; discretionary on part of CA

Ong v Tating. 149 SCRA 265

appeal by certiorari (filing petition with SC)

appeal to the SC
from RTC on questions of law only (Rule 41)

UMC v Velasco 98 S 545

may be remanded to CA if involving questionof

fact (rule 56, sec 6), not dismissed
from final order or resolution of CA or SB (rule 45) but
only on questions of law
appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, sec 6)

Cheesman v IAC, 193 S 93

Sumbingco v CA, 155 S 24

What is a question of law?

See Macawiwili and Land Bank cases below

petition for review on certiorari vs petition for certiorari

New York Marine v CA, 249 S 416

Ybanez v CA, 253 S 540

Rule on appeals summarized
Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt Co v CA 297 S 602
Land Bank of the Philippines v Ramos 685 S 540
5.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal
May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by court?
duty of court when notice of appeal filed
dilatory appeals
5.6. Improper appeals
to CA from RTC on questions of law
to SC via notice of appeal
16

 to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in appellate

jurisdiction
the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be
allowed
(Exception is when appeal to SC on questions of law and fact in which
case, the case will be remanded to CA)

6. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
6.1. Preliminary Attachment
Kinds of attachment
preliminary
garnishment
levy on execution
At what stage is preliminary attachment granted?
grounds for attachment exclusive
may be granted ex parte

Onate v Abrogar, 241 S 659

Davao Light & Water v CA, 204 S 343

Sievert v CA, 168 S 692

Carlos v Sandoval 471 S 266

Spouses Yu v Ngo Yee Te GR 155868

6.2. Preliminary Injunction

preceded by a 72-hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA)
within TRO, hearing must be conducted
may be granted at any stage of the proceeding
requirements for issuance
coordinate body may not be enjoined
may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself
Bacolod City Water District v Labayen 446 S 110
China Banking Corp v Co GR 174569
Estares v CA GR 144755
Buyco v Baraquia GR 177486 (December 21, 2009)
Heirs of the late JBL Reyes v CA 338 S 282
17

Brocka v Enrile 192 S 182

Medina v Greenfield Development GR 140228
6.3. Receivership
When is receiver appointed?
object is preservation of property subject matter of litigation
powers of a receiver
National Investment and Development Corp v Judge Aquino 163 S 153
Traders Royal Bank v IAC 273 S 521
6.4. Replevin
nature of a replevin suit
question involved is one of possession but ownership may be resolved if
raised
plaintiff (claim) and defendant (counterclaim) can petition for replevin
Yang v Valdez 177 S 141
Adoma v Gatcheco 448 S 299
Paat v CA 266 S 167
Citibank v CA 304 S 679
6.5. Support pendete lite
concept of support is that the applicant is entitled to it by reason of some
relationship (say, marital or filial) with the adverse party
judgment of support is never final, it can be amended at any time as long
as the obligation to support subsists
Arts 194, 195, 201, 202 of Family Code
Reyes v Ines-Luciano GR 48219
Lam v Chua GR 131286

7. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

7.1. Interpleader
Ocampo v Tirona GR 147812 (April 6, 2005)
18

7.2. Declaratory Relief

Tano v Socrates GR 110249 (August 14, 1997)
Martelino v NHMF Corp GR 160208 (June 30, 2008)
Velasco v Villegas GR 24153 (February 14, 1983)
7.3. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
See distinctions between certiorari as an appeal and certiorari as an
original action (supra)
writ of certiorari is territorial if issued by RTC, not if by CA
certiorari to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment
Section 19, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
Section 19, Rule on Writ of Amparo
Section 19, Rule on Habeas Data
Section 14, Rule of Procedure in Small Claims Cases
Circular 28-91
Balba v Peak Development Inc GR 148288 (August 12, 2005)
New Frontier Sugar Corp v RTC of Iloilo GR 165001 (January 31, 2007)
Camutin v Sps Potente GR 181642 (January 29, 2009)
Bugarin v Palisoc GR 157985 (December 2, 2005)
Lalicon v Vergara 276 S 518
Sps Nische v Equitable-PCI Bank GR 167434 (February 19, 2007)
David v Rivera 420 S 90
Tan v Comelec GR 73155 (July 11, 1986)
Mayuga v CA (August 30, 1996)
Kant Wong et al v PCGG GR 79484 (December 7, 1987)
Uy Kiao Eng v Nixon Lee GR 1776831 (January 15, 2010)
Matibay v Garcia (January 25, 1983)
Paloma v Mora 470 S 711

7.4. Quo Warranto

Municipality of San Narciso v Mendez 239 SCRA 11
19

Tarrosa v Singson 232 S 553

Lota v CA 2 S 715
7.5. Expropriation
determination of authority to exercise eminent domain
determination of just compensation
Republic v Gingoyan GR 166429 (December 19, 2005)
National Power Corp v Manubay Agro-Industrial GR 150936 (August 18, 2004)
Republic v CA and Heirs of Cris Santos GR 146587 (July 2, 2002)
Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v City of Pasig GR 152230
7.6. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
all parties in interest should be joined as necessary parties, i.e. mortgagor
as well as second mortgagee or attaching creditor
equity of redemption instead of right of redemption is remedy of debtor
in the same case, in case of deficiency, the court will render judgment
against debtor which may be executed immediately if debt is due upon
judgment
AM No. 99-10-05-0
Act No 3135
Limpin v IAC 166 S 88
BPI Family Savings Bank v Sps Veloso 436 S 1
7.7. Partition
Figuracion Gerilla v Vda de Figuracion GR 154322 (August 22, 2006)
7.8. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Valdes v CA GR 132426
Co v Militar 41 S 455
Unida v Urban GR 155432
Spouses Calendacion v Larano GR 158231
Montenegro v Montenegro GR 156829
7.9. Contempt
20

Ang v Castro GR 66371 (May 15, 1985)

People v Godoy 243 S 64 (March 29, 1995)

21