Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Remedial Law 2
Provisional Remedy (Rule 57-61)
AIRRS JORDAN
A-Preliminary Attachment
I-Preliminary Injunction
R- Receivership
R- Replevin
S- Support Pendete Lite
*Provisional Remedy is temporary in nature and
it cannot stand alone.
- Dependent on a principal action
- If there is no principal action, provisional
remedy shall cease
Example: The Doctrine in Bristol Meyers
- The Bond was filed for the preliminary
injuction but the principal action was
already dismissed therefore the
provisional remedy shall also cease.
Principal Action:
Preliminary Attachment- Recovery of either
real or personal property
Preliminary Injunction- The Principal action is
inherent under this rule.
Receivership- It shall serve as the principal
action, the provisional remedy is the
appointment of a receiver.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Replevin- It shall serve as the provisional
remedy while the principal action shall be the
recovery of possession of personal property.
- It also pertains to immediate recovery
possession of personal property
Support Pende Lite- The Principal Action is
support
*When a party avails of Provisional Remedy,
there is no need for Barangay Conciliation
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over Provisional
Remedies?
A: The court which has jurisdiction over the
principal action shall also have jurisdiction over
the provisional remedy. (RTC or MTC)
Exception: Support Pende lite- Action Incapable
of Pecuniary Estimation- RTC
Exception to the Exception: When a party
joined support towards another action and it is
cognizable by the MTC hence there is no need
to file two separate action
Example: A party filed a criminal case of
seduction (Cognizable by MTC) and
simultaneously filed support
Q: What are the requirements in provisional
remedies?
A: (A) Affidavit and (B) Bond
Exception: Support Pendente Lite- Only Verified
Complaint
Q: Can there be a claim for damages for a
provisional remedy?
Page 1
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
A: YES, it is provided under Rule 57 Sec 20-
Claim for damages on account of improper
irregular or excessive attachment
Exception: Support Pendete Lite- Restitution or
Reimbursement
Rule 57- Preliminary Attachment
Section 1- Ground upon which attachment may
issue
- (i)Kinds of Action
o (a) In an action for the recovery
of a specified amount of money
or damages, other than moral
and exemplary, on a cause of
action arising from law,
contract, quasi-contract, delict
or quasi-delict against a party
who is about to depart from the
Philippines with intent to
defraud his creditors;
o (b) In an action for money or
property embezzled or
fraudulently misapplied or
converted to his own use by a
public officer, or an officer of a
corporation, or an attorney,
factor, broker, agent, or clerk,
in the course of his
employment as such, or by any
other person in a fiduciary
capacity, or for a willful
violation of duty;
o (c) In an action to recover the
possession of property unjustly
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
or fraudulently taken, detained
or converted, when the
property, or any part thereof,
has been concealed, removed,
or disposed of to prevent its
being found or taken by the
applicant or an authorized
person;
- (ii) Kinds of Adverse Party
o (d) In an action against a party
who has been guilty of a fraud
in contracting the debt or
incurring the obligation upon
which the action is brought, or
in the performance thereof;
o (e) In an action against a party
who has removed or disposed
of his property, or is about to
do so, with intent to defraud his
creditors; or
o (f) In an action against a party
who does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, or on
whom summons may be served
by publication.
Period: At the commencement of the action or
at any time before entry of judgment
Jurisdiction: It will depend on the principal
action but generally RTC
Brondial: An unwritten purpose is to force the
adverse party to come in to the negotiating
table.
Page 2
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-When a property is attached, it shall become
custodia legis or custody of the law.
Principal Purpose: The written Purpose is to
“Secure the Satisfaction of favorable judgment”
-If a party that attaches a property obtain a
favorable judgment, he can proceed
immediately to the sale of it or sale on
attachment.
-Under the jurisdiction over the res, if the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant,
a party should acquire jurisdiction over the
thing or property. The limitation provided by
law is that a party cannot go beyond the res.
Two basic requirement required:
- Affidavit - Bond
Section 3- Affidavit & Bond
An order of attachment shall be granted only
when it appears by the affidavit of the
applicant, or of some other person who
personally knows the facts, that a sufficient
cause of action exists, that the case is one of
those mentioned in section 1 hereof, that there
is no other sufficient security for the claim
sought to be enforced by the action, and that
the amount due to the applicant, or the value of
the property the possession of which he is
entitled to recover, is as much as the sum for
which the order is granted above all legal
counterclaims. The affidavit, and the bond
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
required by the next succeeding section, must
be duly filed with the court before the order
issues.
Requirements:
- Valid Cause of Action or Principal Action
- Valid Ground Sec 1 (a) to (f)
- No Security
- The amount due or value of the
property sought to be recovered must
be equal to the sum prayed for in the
order less other counter-claim
*There is no limitation in the attachment of the
property as long as the order prayed for must
be equal to the claim.
Bond (Do not confuse with counter-bond)
-The applicant shall put up this toward the court
that has jurisdiction.
-It must be duly accredited otherwise the
preliminary attachment shall be null & void.
Case: Torres vs Satsatin
Doctrine: The bond must be duly accredited by
the Supreme Court otherwise the preliminary
attachment shall be null & void.
Facts: The Torres siblings wanted to sold a
property through an agent which is Mr.
Satsatin. In return, Mr. Satsatin sold the real
property that was given to him for Php 35
million but he refused to give the entire sold
property to Torres siblings. The latter wanted to
recover the amount and the applied for
preliminary attachment. Torres siblings posted
Page 3
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
a bond, but Mr. Satsatin questioned it since
Preliminary Attachment is issued before the
action. The court denied the motion but
granted post of the counter-bond.
Issue: WON the posting of the bond in this case
is proper?
Held: NO – The posting of the bond is incorrect
since it is not duly accredited by the Supreme
Court. From the facts given, it was shown that
the bonding company that issued the bond to
secure the judgment of Preliminary Attachment
was only accredited in Makati, Pasay and Pasig
but it was not accredited in Dasmarinas, Cavite
where the principal action is tried. In this case
the issuance of the Preliminary Attachment is
null and void.
Case Doctrine: Mangila vs Court of Appeals
Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of the
writ of preliminary attachment was wrong on
the ground that there was no earnest effort of
serving the summons. The Supreme Court used
“SEC 5- The requirement of prior service of
summons shall not apply where the summons
could not be served personally or by substituted
diligent efforts”. The sheriff should exert effort
to serve the summons to Mangila before she
left for Guam.
Q: What are the stages of preliminary
attachment?
A: (1) Order of granting the issuance, (2)
Issuance of writ and (3) Order of
implementation
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
*In the first two-the court is not required to
have jurisdiction but in the last- court should
have issued a summons.
Q: What are the ways to lift a preliminary
attachment?
A: Posting of counter bond/cash deposit or
Filing of a motion assailing the propriety and
regularity of the issuance.
Section 5- The means to lift is through cash
deposit
Section `12- The means to lift is through cash
deposit/ counterbond and the writ has already
issued and implemented
Section 13- The mode to discharge is through a
motion assailing or questioning the propriety/
regularity of its issuance
Case: Chuidian vs Sandiganbayan
Doctrine: When the ground of the principal
action and writ are the same, a party cannot
discharge the writ of PA pursuant to Section 13.
Facts: Vicente Chuidian was one of the cronies
during the Marcos Regime and he was able to
secure a loan from a government bank in
millions of dollar, to be used in the Philippines.
Chuidian instead invested such money in Silicon
Valley, Californian since there is the growth of
Information technology in the early 1980’s. The
bank ran after him for the purpose of payment
and filed a case against before the court of San
Mateo, California which ended up in a
compromise agreement. After the EDSA
Revolution, Cory Aquino created Ill-gotten
wealth act for the purpose of recovery of such
Page 4
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

ill-gotten wealth coming from the Marcos and sum not less than the value of the property
its cronies. The government sought to attach levied upon. In case of disagreement as to such
the Letters of Credit of Chuidian in California value, the same shall be decided by the court
USA. The writ of preliminary attachment was issuing the writ of attachment. No claim for
implemented when he arrived in the country. damages for the taking or keeping of the
property may be enforced against the bond
Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan abused its
unless the action therefor is filed within one
discretion for the denial of Chuidian’s motion?
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the
Held: NO – The Supreme Court ruled that When filing of the bond.
the ground for the cause of action in the same
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages for
as for the application of preliminary
the taking or keeping of such property to any
attachment, a party cannot discharge the writ
such third-party claimant, if such bond shall be
through a mere motion otherwise you will also
filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent
resolve the principal action through motion. In
such claimant or any third person from
this case, the principal action is for the recovery
vindicating his claim to the property, or prevent
of letters of credit and the ground for the
the attaching party from claiming damages
discharge of the writ is under fraud. If the court
against a third-party claimant who filed a
will release the preliminary attachment through
frivolous or plainly spurious claim, in the same
a motion, the court is also resolving the
or a separate action.
principal action. The proper remedy is Sec 12 or
posting a counter bond. When the writ of attachment is issued in favor
of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer
Section 14. Proceedings where property
duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall
claimed by third person. — If the property
not be required, and in case the sheriff is sued
attached is claimed by any person other than
for damages as a result of the attachment, he
the party against whom attachment had been
shall be represented by the Solicitor General,
issued or his agent, and such person makes an
and if held liable therefor, the actual damages
affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the
possession thereof, stating the grounds of such
National Treasurer out of the funds to be
right or title, and serves such affidavit upon the
appropriated for the purpose.
sheriff while the latter has possession of the
attached property, and a copy thereof upon the Q: Can a party attach a property that belongs to
attaching party, the sheriff shall not be bound the estate?
to keep the property under attachment, unless
A: NO, a party cannot attach the property
the attaching party or his agent, on demand of
belonging to the estate but he can attach his
the sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the
court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 5
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
interest over the estate since the property is in
custodia legis.
Q: When a party discharge the writ under Sec
12, can he still apply under Sec 13?
A: Yes, a party is now seeking to recover the
bond he put up (i) Bond- coming from a
Bonding Company and the party is only paying
the premium (ii) Cash Deposit- Payment of cash
directly to the court.
Section 20. Claim for damages on account of
improper, irregular or excessive attachment. —
An application for damages on account of
improper, irregular or excessive attachment
must be filed before the trial or before appeal is
perfected or before the judgment becomes
executory, with due notice to the attaching
party and his surety or sureties setting forth the
facts showing his right to damages and the
amount thereof. Such damages may be
awarded only after proper hearing and shall be
included in the judgment on the main case.
If the judgment of the appellate court be
favorable to the party against whom the
attachment was issued he must claim damages
sustained during the pendency of the appeal by
filing an application in the appellate court, with
notice to the party in whose favor the
attachment was issued or his surety or sureties,
before the judgment of the appellate court
becomes executory. The appellate court may
allow the application to be heard and decided
by the trial court.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the
party against whom the attachment was issued
from recovering in the same action the
damages awarded to him from any property of
the attaching party not exempt from execution
should the bond or deposit given by the latter
be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award.
-When a party is granted of preliminary
attachment does not automatically mean that
he will get a favorable judgment.
Cases:
ALFREDO C. LIM, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
TITO S. LAZARO AND CARMEN T.
LAZARO,Respondents.G.R. No. 185734, July 03,
2013
Facts:
On August 22, 2005, Lim, Jr. filed a
complaint for sum of money with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment
before the RTC, seeking to recover from
respondents-spouses Tito S. Lazaro and Carmen
T. Lazaro (Sps. Lazaro) the sum of
P2,160,000.00, which represented the amounts
stated in several dishonored checks issued by
the latter to the former, as well as interests,
attorney’s fees, and costs. The RTC granted the
writ of preliminary attachment application and
upon the posting of the required P2,160,000.00
bond, issued the corresponding writ on October
14, 2005.
On September 22, 2006, the parties entered
into a Compromise Agreement whereby Sps.
Lazaro agreed to pay Lim, Jr. the amount of
Page 6
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
P2,351,064.80 on an installment basis, following
a schedule of payments covering the period
from September 2006 until October 2013,
under the following terms, among others: (a)
that should the financial condition of Sps.
Lazaro improve, the monthly installments shall
be increased in order to hasten the full payment
of the entire obligation; and (b) that Sps.
Lazaro’s failure to pay any installment due or
the dishonor of any of the postdated checks
delivered in payment thereof shall make the
whole obligation immediately due and
demandable.
Sps. Lazaro filed an Omnibus Motion, seeking to
lift the writ of preliminary attachment
annotated on the subject TCTs, which the RTC
granted on March 29, 2007. It ruled that a writ
of preliminary attachment is a mere provisional
or ancillary remedy, resorted to by a litigant to
protect and preserve certain rights and
interests pending final judgment. Considering
that the case had already been considered
closed and terminated by the rendition of the
January 5, 2007 Amended Decision on the basis
of the September 22, 2006 compromise
agreement, the writ of preliminary attachment
should be lifted and quashed.
Issue: WON the preliminary attachment was
properly lifted?
Held:
By its nature, preliminary attachment, under
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an
ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake
but to enable the attaching party to realize
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
upon the relief sought and expected to be
granted in the main or principal action; it is a
measure auxiliary or incidental to the main
action. As such, it is available during its
pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant
to preserve and protect certain rights and
interests during the interim, awaiting the
ultimate effects of a final judgment in the case.
In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57
are silent on the length of time within which an
attachment lien shall continue to subsist after
the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence
dictates that the said lien continues until the
debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution
issued on the judgment or until the judgment
is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or
vacated in the same manner provided by law.
Records indicate that while the parties have
entered into a compromise agreement which
had already been approved by the RTC in its
January 5, 2007 Amended Decision, the
obligations thereunder have yet to be fully
complied with – particularly, the payment of
the total compromise amount of P2,351,064.80.
Hence, given that the foregoing debt remains
unpaid, the attachment of Sps. Lazaro’s
properties should have continued to subsist.
The Court holds that the writ of preliminary
attachment subject of this case should be
restored and its annotation revived in the
subject TCTs, re-vesting unto Lim, Jr. his
preferential lien over the properties covered by
the same as it were before the cancellation of
the said writ. Lest it be misunderstood, the lien
or security obtained by an attachment even
Page 7
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
before judgment, is in the nature of a vested
interest which affords specific security for the
satisfaction of the debt put in suit.
LETICIA P. LIGON, Petitioner, v. THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI CITY
AND ITS PRESIDING JUDGE, JUDGE REYNALDO
M. LAIGO, SHERIFF IV LUCITO V. ALEJO, ATTY.
SILVERIO GARING, MR. LEONARDO J. TING,
AND MR. BENITO G. TECHICO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014
Facts:
On November 20, 2002, petitioner Leticia P.
Ligon (Ligon) filed an amended complaint
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 101 (Quezon City RTC) for collection of
sum of money and damages, rescission of
contract, and nullification of title with prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment, docketed as Civil Case No. Q–10–
48145 (Quezon City Case), against Sps. Baladjay,
a certain Olivia Marasigan (Marasigan), Polished
Arrow Holdings, Inc. (Polished Arrow), and its
incorporators, namely, Spouses Julius Gonzalo
and Charaine Doreece Anne Fuentebella (Sps.
Fuentebella), Ma. Linda Mendoza (Mendoza),
Barbara C. Clavo (Clavo), Bayani E. Arit, Jr. (Arit,
Jr.), and Peter M. Kairuz (Kairuz), as well as the
latter’s spouses (individual defendants).
In her complaint, Ligon alleged, inter alia, that
Rosario Baladjay (Rosario) enticed her to extend
a short–term loan in the amount of
P3,000,000.00, payable in a month’s time and
secured by an Allied Bank post–dated check for
the same amount.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
On February 18, 2003, a similar complaint for
collection of sum of money, damages, and
cancellation of title with prayer for issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment was lodged
before the Makati City RTC, docketed as Civil
Case No. 03–186 (Makati City Case), by Spouses
Cecilia and Gil Vicente (Sps. Vicente) against
Sps. Baladjay, Polished Arrow, and other
corporations. In that case, it was established
that Sps. Baladjay solicited millions of pesos in
investments from Sps. Vicente using conduit
companies that were controlled by Rosario, as
President and Chairperson. During the
proceedings therein, a writ of preliminary
attachment also against the subject property
was issued and annotated on the dorsal
portion of TCT No. 9273 on March 12, 2003.
On September 25, 2008, the March 26, 2008
Decision of the Quezon City RTC became final
and executory. However, when Ligon sought its
execution, she discovered that the December 3,
2002 attachment annotation had been deleted
from TCT No. 9273 when the subject property
was sold by way of public auction on September
9, 2005 to the highest bidder, respondent Ting,
for the amount of P9,000,000.00 during the
execution proceedings in the Makati City Case,
as evidenced by the Officer’s Final Deed of
Sale dated October 27, 2006 (Officer’s Final
Deed of Sale) issued by Sheriff Alejo. Atty.
Garing manifested before the Makati City RTC
that it submitted the matter en consulta to the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) as he was
uncertain whether the annotations on TCT No.
9273 should be carried over to TCT No. 8502.
Page 8
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
In a Decision dated October 30, 2009, the CA
dismissed Ligon’s certiorari petition, finding that
the Makati City RTC did not gravely abuse its
discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders, adding
further that the same was tantamount to a
collateral attack against the titles of both Ting
and Techico, which is prohibited under Section
48 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529.
Issue: WON Makati City Judge erred in its
issuance of Preliminary Attachment
HELD:
YES- Attachment is defined as a provisional
remedy by which the property of an adverse
party is taken into legal custody, either at the
commencement of an action or at any time
thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of
any judgment that may be recovered by the
plaintiff or any proper party. Case law instructs
that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and,
hence, is against the particular property,
enforceable against the whole world.
Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a
specific lien on the attached property which
nothing can subsequently destroy except the
very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself.
Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the
property attached is an indebted thing and a
virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner’s
debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid,
or sale is had under execution issued on the
judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or
the attachment discharged or vacated in some
manner provided by law. Thus, a prior
registration of an attachment lien creates a
preference, such that when an attachment has
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser
thereof subsequent to the attachment takes the
property subject to the said attachment.
in order to secure the satisfaction of a favorable
judgment in the Quezon City Case, applied for
and was eventually able to secure a writ of
preliminary attachment over the subject
property on November 25, 2002, which was
later annotated on the dorsal portion of TCT No.
9273 in the name of Polished Arrow on
December 3, 2002. Notwithstanding the
subsequent cancellation of TCT No. 9273 due to
the Makati City RTC’s December 9, 2004
Decision rescinding the transfer of the subject
property from Sps. Baladjay to Polished Arrow
upon a finding that the same was made in fraud
of creditors, Ligon’s attachment lien over the
subject property continued to subsist since the
attachment she had earlier secured binds the
property itself, and, hence, continues until the
judgment debt of Sps. Baladjay to Ligon as
adjudged in the Quezon City Case is satisfied, or
the attachment discharged or vacated in some
manner provided by law.
Alejandro Ng Wee vs Tankiansee, G.R. No.
171124, Feb 13, 2008
Facts:
Sometime in February 2000, petitioner received
disturbing news on Wincorps financial condition
prompting him to inquire about and investigate
Page 9
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

the companys operations and transactions with 2001, the RTC, in an Omnibus Order, denied all
its borrowers. He then discovered that the the motions for the discharge of the
company extended a loan equal to his total attachment. The defendants, including
money placement to a corporation [Power respondent herein, filed their respective
Merge] with a subscribed capital of motions for reconsideration but the trial court
only P37.5M. This credit facility originated from denied the same on October 14, 2002.
another loan of about P1.5B extended by
On September 30, 2004, respondent filed
Wincorp to another corporation [Hottick
before the trial court another Motion to
Holdings]. When the latter defaulted in its
Discharge Attachment, re-pleading the grounds
obligation, Wincorp instituted a case against it
he raised in his first motion but raising the
and its surety. Settlement was, however,
following additional grounds: (1) that he was
reached in which Hotticks president, Luis Juan L.
not present in Wincorps board meetings
Virata (Virata), assumed the obligation of the
approving the questionable transactions; and
surety.
(2) that he could not have connived with
Wincorp and the other defendants because he
and Pearlbank Securities, Inc., in which he is a
Under the scheme agreed upon by Wincorp and
major stockholder, filed cases against the
Hotticks president, petitioners money
company as they were also victimized by its
placements were transferred without his
fraudulent schemes.
knowledge and consent to the loan account of
Power Merge through an agreement that Issue: WON there was irregularity in the
virtually freed the latter of any liability. issuance of writ of preliminary attachment?
Allegedly, through the false representations of
Held:
Wincorp and its officers and directors,
petitioner was enticed to roll over his A writ of attachment can only be granted on
placements so that Wincorp could loan the concrete and specific grounds and not on
same to Virata/Power Merge. general averments quoting perfunctorily the
words of the Rules. Connivance cannot also be
On October 26, 2000, on the basis of the
based on mere association but must be
allegations in the complaint and the October 12,
particularly alleged and established as a fact.
2000 Affidavit of petitioner, the trial court
Respondent further contends that the trial
ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary
court, in resolving the Motion to Discharge
attachment against the properties not exempt
Attachment, need not actually delve into the
from execution of all the defendants in the civil
merits of the case. All that the court has to
case subject, among others, to petitioners filing
examine are the allegations in the complaint
of a P50M-bond. The writ was, consequently,
and the supporting affidavit. Petitioner cannot
issued on November 6, 2000. On October 23,

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 10
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
also rely on the decisions of the appellate court
in CA-G.R. SP No. 74610 and this Court in G.R.
No. 162928 to support his claim because
respondent is not a party to the said cases.
For a writ of attachment to issue under this
rule, the applicant must sufficiently show the
factual circumstances of the alleged fraud
because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred
from the debtors mere non-payment of the
debt or failure to comply with his obligation.
“To sustain an attachment on this ground, it
must be shown that the debtor in contracting
the debt or incurring the obligation intended to
defraud the creditor. The fraud must relate to
the execution of the agreement and must have
been the reason which induced the other party
into giving consent which he would not have
otherwise given. To constitute a ground for
attachment in Section 1 (d), Rule 57 of the Rules
of Court, fraud should be committed upon
contracting the obligation sued upon. A debt is
fraudulently contracted if at the time of
contracting it the debtor has a preconceived
plan or intention not to pay, as it is in this case.
Fraud is a state of mind and need not be proved
by direct evidence but may be inferred from the
circumstances attendant in each case.”
The affidavit, being the foundation of the
writ, must contain such particulars as to how
the fraud imputed to respondent was
committed for the court to decide whether or
not to issue the writ. Absent any statement of
other factual circumstances to show that
respondent, at the time of contracting the
obligation, had a preconceived plan or intention
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
not to pay, or without any showing of how
respondent committed the alleged fraud, the
general averment in the affidavit that
respondent is an officer and director of Wincorp
who allegedly connived with the other
defendants to commit a fraud, is insufficient to
support the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment.
Phil-Air Conditioning Center vs RCJ Lines and
Rolando Abadilla, Jr., G.R. No. 193821,
November 23, 2015
Facts:
On various dates between March 5, 1990, and
August 29, 1990, petitioner Phil-Air sold to
respondent RCJ Lines four Carrier Paris 240 air
conditioning units for buses (units). The units
included compressors, condensers,
evaporators, switches, wiring, circuit boards,
brackets, and fittings.
Phil-Air allegedly performed regular
maintenance checks on the units pursuant to
the one-year warranty on parts and labor. RCJ
Lines issued three post-dated checks in favor of
Phil-Air to partly cover the unpaid balance.
All the post-dated checks were dishonored
when Phil-Air subsequently presented them for
payment. Check No. 479759 was returned
because it was drawn against insufficient funds,
while Check Nos. 479760 and 479761 were
returned because payments were stopped.
Page 11
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Issue: WON Phil-Air should reimburse RCJ Lines

for the counter-bond premium and its alleged
Before presenting the third check for payment,
unrealized profits
Phil-Air sent a demand letter to Rolando
Abadilla, Sr. asking him to fund the post-dated Held:
checks. In view of the failure of RCJ Lines to pay
A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional
the balance despite demand, Phil-Air filed on
remedy issued by the court where an action is
April 1, 1998 the complaint for sum of money
pending to be levied upon the property or
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
properties of the defendant. The property is
preliminary attachment.
held by the sheriff as security for the
satisfaction of whatever judgment that might
be secured by the attaching party against the
In its answer with compulsory counterclaim, RCJ
defendant.
Lines admitted that it purchased the units in the
total amount of P1,240,000.00 and that it had
only paid P400,000.00. It refused to pay the
The grant of the writ is conditioned not only on
balance because Phil-Air allegedly breached its
the finding of the court that there exists a valid
warranty.
ground for its issuance. The Rules also require
the applicant to post a bond.

RCJ Lines averred that the units did not

sufficiently cool the buses despite repeated
Section 4 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil
repairs. Phil-Air purportedly represented that
Procedure (Rules) provides that “the party
the units were in accord with RCJ Lines’ cooling
applying for the order must…give a bond
requirements as shown in Phil-Air’s price
executed to the adverse party in the amount
quotation. The price quotation provided that
fixed by the court in its order granting the
full payment should be made upon the units’
issuance of the writ, conditioned that the latter
complete installation. Complete installation,
will pay all the costs that may be adjudged to
according to RCJ Lines, is equivalent to being in
the adverse party and all damages that he may
operational condition.
sustain by reason of the attachment, if the
court shall finally adjudge that the applicant
was not entitled thereto.”
RCJ Lines claimed that it was also entitled to be
reimbursed for costs and damages occasioned
by the enforcement of the writ of attachment.
The enforcement of the writ notwithstanding,
the party whose property is attached is
afforded relief to have the attachment lifted.

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 12
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
There are various modes of discharging an
attachment under Rule 57, viz.:
(1) by depositing cash or posting a counter-
bond under Section 12;
(2) by proving that the attachment bond was
improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or
that the bond is insufficient under Section 13;
(3) by showing that the attachment is excessive
under Section 13; and (4) by claiming that the
property is exempt from execution under
Section 2.
RCJ Lines availed of the first mode by posting a
counter-bond.
Under the first mode, the court will order the
discharge of the attachment after (1) the
movant makes a cash deposit or posts a
counterbond and (2) the court hears the motion
to discharge the attachment with due notice to
the adverse party.
The amount of the cash deposit or counter-
bond must be equal to that fixed by the court in
the order of attachment, exclusive of costs. The
cash deposit or counter-bond shall secure the
payment of any judgment that the attaching
party may recover in the action.
The discharge under Section 12 takes effect
upon posting of a counter-bond or depositing
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
cash, and after hearing to determine the
sufficiency of the cash deposit or counter-bond.
On the other hand, the discharge under Section
13 takes effect only upon showing that the
plaintiff’s attachment bond was improperly or
irregularly issued, or that the bond is
insufficient. The discharge of the attachment
under Section 13 must be made only after
hearing.
As discussed above, it is patent that under the
Rules, the attachment bond answers for all
damages incurred by the party against whom
the attachment was issued. Thus, Phil-Air
cannot be held directly liable for the costs
adjudged to and the damages sustained by RCJ
Lines because of the attachment. Section 4 of
Rule 57 positively lays down the rule that the
attachment bond will pay “all the costs which
may be adjudged to the adverse party and all
damages which he may sustain by reason of
the attachment, if the court shall finally
adjudge that the applicant was not entitled
thereto.”
The RTC, instead of declaring Phil-Air liable for
the alleged unrealized profits and counter-bond
premium, should have ordered the execution of
the judgment award on the attachment bond.
To impose direct liability to Phil-Air would
defeat the purpose of the attachment bond,
which was not dissolved despite the lifting of
the writ of preliminary attachment.
Page 13
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
The order to refund the counter-bond premium
is likewise erroneous. The premium payment
may be deemed a cost incurred by RCJ Lines to
lift the attachment. Such cost may be charged
against the attachment bond.
Rule 58- Preliminary Injunction
Principal Action- Injunction
Provisional Remedy- Injunction
Sec 1- Definition
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at
any stage of an action or proceeding prior to
the judgment or final order, requiring a party or
a court, agency or a person to refrain from a
particular act or acts. It may also require the
performance of a particular act or acts, in which
case it shall be known as a preliminary
mandatory injunction.
Sec 2- Who may grant the Preliminary
Injunction
A preliminary injunction may be granted by the
court where the action or proceeding is
pending. If the action or proceeding is pending
in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme
Court, it may be issued by said court or any
member thereof.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction to grant
Preliminary Injunction?
A: Only Cognizable by the Regional Trial Court
(Original & Exclusive)
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Exception: Joinder of Action- If a party cause of
action with injunction it will depend to which
court has jurisdiction
-If injunction is filed with the Supreme Court, it
is not solely filed in that court but with another
cause of action
Kinds:
Mandatory- It seeks to return to the status quo
and is applicable to continuing acts. (Ibabalik sa
dati)
Prohibitory- It seeks to maintain the status quo
or no disturbance. (Walang gagalawin)
GR: Preliminary Injunction cannot be granted
without notice and hearing
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
-The court can grant such TRO ex-parte
Kinds:
72 hrs TRO- It takes effect upon issuance of an
order
20 day TRO- It takes effect upon receipt of the
party
-The court is not precluded in setting for a
summary hearing in the issuance of TRO
- The grant of TRO is discretionary upon the
judge who will issue it.
-If a court grants a 72 hour TRO and the party
would like to extend it, the court shall only
grant an extension of 17 more days and it shall
begin to run from the receipt of the order
granting the TRO.
Page 14
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Period for TRO:
Sandiganbayan/Court of Appeals- 60 days
Supreme Court—Upon further notice
Not Covered of TRO
-Infrastructure project of the government
-Prosecution of criminal offense
-Labor Cases
-Execution of judgment as a matter of right
Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary
injunction.
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or
in requiring the performance of an act or acts
either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-
performance of the act or acts complained of
during the litigation would probably work
injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is
doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is
procuring or suffering to be done some act or
acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or
proceeding, and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.
Section 8. Judgment to include damages
against party and sureties. — At the trial, the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
amount of damages to be awarded to either
party, upon the bond of the adverse party, shall
be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under
the same procedure prescribed in section 20 of
Rule 57.
Cases:
TERESITA V. IDOLOR, petitioner, vs. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. GUMERSINDO DE
GUZMAN and ILUMINADA DE GUZMAN and
HON. PRUDENCIO CASTILLO, JR., Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch 220, Quezon
City, respondents., [G.R. No. 141853. February
7, 2001]
Facts:
On March 21, 1994, to secure a loan of
P520,000.00, petitioner Teresita Idolor
executed in favor of private respondent
Gumersindo De Guzman a Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage with right of extra-judicial
foreclosure upon failure to redeem the
mortgage on or before September 20,
1994. The object of said mortgage is a 200-
square meter property with improvements
located at 66 Ilocos Sur Street, Barangay Ramon
Magsaysay, Quezon City covered by TCT No.
25659. On September 21, 1996, private
respondent Iluminada de Guzman, wife of
Gumersindo de Guzman, filed a complaint
against petitioner Idolor before the Office of the
Barangay Captain of Barangay Ramon
Magsaysay, Quezon City, which resulted in a
Kasunduang Pag-aayos which agreement is
quoted in full.
Page 15
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
On May 23, 1997, the mortgaged property was
sold in a public auction to respondent
Gumersindo, as the highest bidder and
consequently, the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale
was registered with the Registry of Deeds of
Quezon City on June 23, 1997.
On June 25, 1998, petitioner filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220,
a complaint for annulment of Sheriffs
Certificate of Sale with prayer for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a
writ of preliminary injunction against private
respondents, Deputy Sheriffs Marino Cachero
and Rodolfo Lescano and the Registry of Deeds
of Quezon City alleging among others alleged
irregularity and lack of notice in the extra-
judicial foreclosure proceedings subject of
the real estate mortgage. In the meantime, a
temporary restraining order was issued by the
trial court.
On July 28, 1998, the trial court issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining private
respondents, the Deputy Sheriffs and the
Registry of Deeds of Quezon City from causing
the issuance of a final deed of sale and
consolidation of ownership of the subject
property in favor of the De Guzman spouses.
The trial court denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the de Guzman
spouses.
On September 28, 1999, the respondent court
granted the petition and annulled the assailed
writ of preliminary injunction. Teresita Idolor
filed her motion for reconsideration which was
denied in a resolution dated February 4, 2000.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Issue: WON the Injunction filed by Idolor is
proper on the ground that he has still a right
over the property
Held:
Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at
protecting substantive rights and interests.
Before an injunction can be issued, it is
essential that the following requisites be
present: 1) there must be a right in esse or the
existence of a right to be protected; 2) the act
against which the injunction is to be directed is
a violation of such right. The existence of a right
violated, is a prerequisite to the granting of an
injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect
contingent or future rights. Failure to establish
either the existence of a clear and positive right
which should be judicially protected through
the writ of injunction or that the defendant has
committed or has attempted to commit any act
which has endangered or tends to endanger the
existence of said right, is a sufficient ground for
denying the injunction. It is to be resorted to
only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid
injurious consequences which cannot be
remedied under any standard of compensation.
In the instant case, we agree with the
respondent Court that petitioner has no more
proprietary right to speak of over the foreclosed
property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ
of injunction. It appears that the mortgaged
property was sold in a public auction to private
respondent Gumersindo on May 23, 1997 and
the sheriffs certificate of sale was registered
with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City on
June 23, 1997. Petitioner had one year from the
Page 16
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
registration of the sheriffs sale to redeem the
property but she failed to exercise her right on
or before June 23, 1998, thus spouses de
Guzman are now entitled to a conveyance and
possession of the foreclosed property.
RIMEO S. GUSTILO, complainant, vs. HON.
RICARDO S. REAL, SR., Presiding Judge, 2nd
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Victorias-
Manapla, Negros Occidental, respondent.,
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250. February 28, 2001
Facts:
In a verified complaintdated June 15, 1997,
Rimeo S. Gustilo charged respondent Judge
Ricardo S. Real, Sr., of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Victorias-Manapla, Negros Occidental
with gross misconduct, gross incompetence,
gross ignorance of the law, and violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act relative to
Civil Case No. 703-M entitled Weddy C. Libo-on
v. Rimeo S. Gustilo, et al. for recounting of
ballots of Precinct Nos. 27 and 27-A, Barangay
Punta Mesa, Manapla, Negros Occidental.
Complainant avers that he was a candidate
for punong barangay of Barangay Punta Mesa,
Manapla, Negros Occidental in the May 12,
1997 elections. His lone opponent was Weddy
C. Libo-on, then the incumbent punong
barangay and the representative of the
Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) to
the Sangguniang Bayan of Manapla and
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Negros
Occidental. Both complainant and Libo-on
garnered eight hundred nineteen (819) votes
during the elections, resulting in a tie.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
On May 20, 1997, his opponent filed an election
protest case, docketed as Civil Case No. 703-M,
before the MCTC of Victorias-Manapla, Negros
Occidental. Libo-on sought the recounting of
ballots in two precincts, preliminary prohibitory
injunction, and damages. On May 29, 1997,
respondent judge issued a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and annulled the
proclamation of complainant as the duly
elected punong barangay of Punta Mesa,
Manapla.
On May 30, 1997, complainant took his oath of
office as punong barangay. That same day, he
also filed a petition for certiorari before the
Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Negros
Occidental, Branch 69. On June 5, 1997, the RTC
lifted the TRO issued by respondent and
declared as null and void the order nullifying
complainants proclamation as duly
elected punong barangay.
Issue: WON Judge Real erred in his issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order
Held:
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-
95 provides: 2. The application for a TRO shall
be acted upon only after all parties are heard in
a summary hearing conducted within twenty-
four (24) hours after the records are
transmitted to the branch selected by raffle.
The records shall be transmitted immediately
after raffle.
The foregoing clearly show that whenever an
application for a TRO is filed, the court may act
on the application only after all parties have
Page 17
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
been notified and heard in a summary hearing.
In other words, a summary hearing may not be
dispensed with. In the instant case, respondent
admits that he issued the injunctive writ sought
on May 29, 1997 after receiving the applicants
evidence ex parte. His failure to abide by
Administrative Circular No. 20-95 in issuing the
first TRO is grave abuse of authority,
misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the
proper administration of justice.
A judge is expected to know the jurisdictional
boundaries of courts and quasi-judicial bodies
like the COMELEC as mapped out by the
Constitution and statutes and to act only within
said limits. A judge who wantonly arrogates
unto himself the authority and power vested in
other agencies not only acts in oppressive
disregard of the basic requirements of due
process, but also creates chaos and contributes
to confusion in the administration of justice.
Respondent, in transgressing the jurisdictional
demarcation lines between his court and the
COMELEC, clearly failed to realize the position
that his court occupies in the interrelation and
operation of the countrys justice system. He
displayed a marked ignorance of basic laws and
principles.
Lagrosas vs Bristol-Myers Squib (Phil), G.R. No.
168637 and G.R. No. 170684, September 12,
2008
Doctrine: The bond which was posted has no
more legal basis considering that the principal
action was already dismissed
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Facts:
Michael J. Lagrosas was employed by Bristol-
Myers Squibb (Phil.), Inc./Mead Johnson Phil.
from January 6, 1997 until March 23, 2000 as
Territory Manager in its Medical Sales Force
Division. On February 4, 2000, Ma. Dulcinea S.
Lim, also a Territory Manager and Lagrosas
former girlfriend, attended a district meeting of
territory managers at
McDonalds Alabang Town Center. After the
meeting, she dined out with her friends. She left
her car at McDonalds and rode with Cesar R.
Menquito, Jr. When they returned to
McDonalds, Lim saw Lagrosas car parked beside
her car. Lim told Menquito not to stop his car
but Lagrosas followed them and slammed
Menquitos car thrice. Menquito and Lim
alighted from the car. Lagrosas approached
them and hit Menquito with a metal steering
wheel lock. When Lim tried to intervene,
Lagrosas accidentally hit her head.
Upon learning of the incident, Bristol-Myers
required Lagrosas to explain in writing why he
should not be dismissed for assaulting a co-
employee outside of business hours. While the
offense is not covered by the Code of Discipline
for Territory Managers, the Code states that
other infractions not provided for herein shall
be penalized in the most appropriate manner at
the discretion of management.
On March 23, 2000, Bristol-Myers dismissed
Lagrosas effective immediately. Lagrosas then
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-
payment of vacation and sick leave benefits,
13th month pay, attorney’s fees, damages and
Page 18
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

fair market value of his Team Share Stock Issue: WON the Court of Appeals erred in
Option Grant. disallowing the discharge and release of the
injunction cash bond
On February 28, 2002, Labor Arbiter Renaldo O.
Hernandez rendered a Decision declaring the Held:
dismissal illegal. He noted that while Lagrosas
A preliminary injunction may be granted only
committed a misconduct, it was not connected
when, among other things, the applicant, not
with his work. On appeal, the National Labor
explicitly exempted, files with the court where
Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the
the action or proceeding is pending,
Decision of Labor Arbiter Hernandez in its
a bond executed to the party or person
Decision dated September 24, 2002. It held that
enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court,
Lagrosas was validly dismissed for serious
to the effect that the applicant will pay such
misconduct in hitting his co-employee and
party or person all damages which he may
another person with a metal steering wheel
sustain by reason of the injunction or
lock. The gravity and seriousness of his
temporary restraining order if the court should
misconduct is clear from the fact that he
finally decide that the applicant was not
deliberately waited for Lim and Menquito to
entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite
return to McDonalds.
bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be
Bristol-Myers moved to quash the writ of issued.
execution contending that it timely filed a
The injunction bond is intended as a security for
petition for certiorari with the Court of
damages in case it is finally decided that the
Appeals. The appellate court gave due course to
injunction ought not to have been granted. Its
Bristol-Myers petition and issued a temporary
principal purpose is to protect the enjoined
restraining order (TRO) enjoining the
party against loss or damage by reason of the
enforcement of the writ of execution and
injunction, and the bond is usually conditioned
notices of garnishment. Upon the expiration of
accordingly.
the TRO, the appellate court issued a writ of
preliminary injunction dated September 17, By its Decision dated January 28, 2005, the
2004. appellate court disposed of the case by granting
Bristol-Myers petition and reinstating the
Bristol-Myers moved to release the TRO cash
Decision dated September 24, 2002of the NLRC
bond and injunction cash bond in view of the
which dismissed the complaint for dismissal. It
Decision dated January 28, 2005. On August 12,
also ordered the discharge of the TRO cash
2005, the appellate court denied the motion as
bond and injunction cash bond. Thus, both
premature since the decision is not yet final and
conditions of the writ of preliminary injunction
executory due to Lagrosas appeal to this Court.
were satisfied.

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 19
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Jenosa vs Delariarte, 630 SCRA
Doctrine: A party should come to court with
clean hands including the application for a writ
of preliminary injunction
Facts:
On 22 November 2002, some students of the
University, among them petitioners Nio Carlo
Jenosa, Patrick Canto, Cyndy Apalisok, Clint
Eduard Vargas, and Nonell Gregory Duro
(petitioner students), were caught engaging in
hazing outside the school premises. The hazing
incident was entered into the blotter of the
Iloilo City Police.
During the 28 November 2002 meeting, the
parties agreed that, instead of the possibility of
being charged and found guilty of hazing, the
students who participated in the hazing incident
as initiators, including petitioner students,
would just transfer to another school, while
those who participated as neophytes would be
suspended for one month. The parents of the
apprehended students, including petitioners,
affixed their signatures to the minutes of the
meeting to signify their conformity.
On 10 December 2002, petitioner parents also
wrote a letter to Mrs. Ida B. Endonila, School
Division Superintendent, Department of
Education (DepEd), Iloilo City, seeking her
intervention and prayed that petitioner
students be allowed to take the home study
program instead of transferring to another
school. The DepEd asked the University to
comment on the letter.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
On 3 January 2003, petitioners filed a complaint
for injunction and damages with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, Iloilo City (trial court)
docketed as Civil Case No. 03-27460. Petitioners
assailed the Principals decision to order the
immediate transfer of petitioner students as a
violation of their right to due process because
the COSD was not convened. On 5 February
2003, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary
injunction and directed respondents to admit
petitioner students during the pendency of the
case.
The Court of Appeals granted respondents
petition and ordered the trial court to dismiss
Civil Case Nos. 03-27460 and 03-27646 for lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter because
of petitioners failure to exhaust administrative
remedies or for being premature. According to
the Court of Appeals, petitioners should have
waited for the action of the DepEd or of the
University President before resorting to judicial
action.
Issue: WON the writ of preliminary injunction is
improperly issued
Held:
Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he
who must apply for it must come with equity or
with clean hands. This is so because among the
maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity
must do equity, and (2) he who comes into
equity must come with clean hands. The latter
is a frequently stated maxim which is also
expressed in the principle that he who has done
inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a
Page 20
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity
on the ground that his conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent,
or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.
Petitioners, having reneged on their agreement
without any justifiable reason, come to court
with unclean hands. This Court may deny a
litigant relief if his conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest as to the
controversy in issue.
SOLID BUILDERS, INC. and MEDINA FOODS
INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioners,
vs. CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R. No. 179665
April 3, 2013
Facts:
During the period from September 4, 1992 to
March 27, 1996, China Banking Corporation
(CBC) granted several loans to Solid Builders,
Inc. (SBI), which amounted to ₱139,999,234.34,
exclusive of interests and other charges. To
secure the loans, Medina Foods Industries, Inc.
(MFII) executed in CBC’s favor several surety
agreements and contracts of real estate
mortgage over parcels of land in the Loyola
Grand Villas in Quezon City and New Cubao
Central in Cainta, Rizal.
In a letter dated March 20, 2000 addressed to
CBC, SBI requested the restructuring of its
loans, a reduction of interests and penalties and
the implementation of a dacion en pago of the
New Cubao Central property.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
On October 5, 2000, claiming that the interests,
penalties and charges imposed by CBC were
iniquitous and unconscionable and to enjoin
CBC from initiating foreclosure proceedings, SBI
and MFII filed a Complaint "To Compel
Execution of Contract and for Performance and
Damages, With Prayer for Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining
Order" in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig
City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
68105 and assigned to Branch 264. After
hearing the parties, the trial court issued an
Order dated December 14, 2000 granting the
application of SBI and MFII for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court
held that SBI and MFII were able to sufficiently
comply with the requisites for the issuance of
an injunctive writ:
It is well-settled that to be entitled to an
injunctive writ, a party must show that: (1) the
invasion of right sought to be protected is
material and substantial; (2) the right of
complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3)
there is an urgent and paramount necessity for
the writ to prevent serious damage.
The Court of Appeals found that, on its face, the
trial court’s Order dated December 14, 2000
granting the application of SBI and MFII for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction had
no basis as there were no findings of fact or law
which would indicate the existence of any of
the requisites for the grant of an injunctive writ.
Issue: WON the issuance of writ of preliminary
injunction is proper?
Page 21
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Held:
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at
any stage of an action prior to judgment of final
order, requiring a party, court, agency, or
person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It
is a preservative remedy to ensure the
protection of a party’s substantive rights or
interests pending the final judgment in the
principal action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies
upon the existence of a claimed emergency or
extraordinary situation which should be
avoided for otherwise, the outcome of a
litigation would be useless as far as the party
applying for the writ is concerned.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary event which must be granted only
in the face of actual and existing substantial
rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance
of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is
to determine whether the requisites necessary
for the grant of an injunction are present in the
case before it. In this connection, a writ of
preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the
status quo ante, upon the applicant’s showing
of two important requisite conditions, namely:
(1) the right to be protected exists prima facie,
and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are
violative of that right. It must be proven that
the violation sought to be prevented would
cause an irreparable injury.
No legal justification for the Honorable Court of
Appeals to lift/dissolve the injunction issued by
the trial court, otherwise, respondent bank – on
the basis of this illegal imposition of interest –
can already foreclose the properties of
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
petitioners and render the whole case (sans
trial on the merits) moot and academic. Second,
even the Order dated December 14, 2000 of the
trial court, which granted the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,
recognizes that the parties still have to be heard
on the alleged lack of "fairness of the increase
in interests and penalties" during the trial on
the merits.
It was likewise shown that plaintiffs SBI and
MFII had the clear right and urgency to ask for
injunction because of the issue of validity of the
increase in the amount of the loan obligation.
SPOUSES SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y.
PLAZA, Petitioners,
vs. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA, ELEODORA VDA. DE
MARTINEZ AND VICKY SAYSON
GOLOSENO, Respondents. G.R. No. 172909,
March 5, 2014
Facts:
On September 14, 1999, Vidal’s son and
daughter-in-law, the petitioners, filed a
Complaint for Injunction, Damages, Attorney’s
Fees with Prayer for the Issuance of the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order against the respondents and
the City Government of Butuan. They prayed
that the respondents be enjoined from
unlawfully and illegally threatening to take
possession of the subject property. According to
the petitioners, they acquired the land from
Virginia Tuazon in 1997; Tuazon was the sole
bidder and winner in a tax delinquency sale
Page 22
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
conducted by the City of Butuan on December
27, 1996.
In its December 14, 1999 order, the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 5,
reconsidered its earlier order, denied the prayer
for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and
ordered that the possession and occupation of
the land be returned to the respondents. The
RTC found that the auction sale was tainted
with irregularity as the bidder was a
government employee disqualified in
accordance with Section 89 of the Local
Government Code of 1991.
In its October 24, 2005 decision, the CA
affirmed the RTC’s ruling, found the petitioners
guilty of forum shopping, dismissed the case,
and referred the case to the Court and to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation and institution of the appropriate
administrative action.
Issue: WON petitioners failed to show clear and
unmistakable rights to be protectedby the writ;
the present action has been rendered moot and
academic by the dismissal of the main action
Held:
As the lower courts correctly found, Tuazon had
no ownership to confer to the petitioners
despite the latter’s reimbursement of Tuazon’s
purchase expenses. Because they were never
owners of the property, the petitioners failed to
establish entitlement to the writ of preliminary
injunction. "[T]o be entitled to an injunctive
writ, the right to be protected and the violation
against that right must be shown. A writ of
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
preliminary injunction may be issued only upon
clear showing of an actual existing right to be
protected during the pendency of the principal
action. When the complainant’s right or title is
doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear
legal right and, therefore, the issuance of
injunctive relief is not proper.
Upon the dismissal of the main case by the RTC
on August 8, 2013, the question of issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction has become
moot and academic.
Novecio vs Lim, 754 SCRA 111
Facts:
Respondents Maria Carmen J. Tuazon and
Manuel V. Nieto, represented by their attorney-
in-fact, Lope Durotan , filed complaints for
forcible entry with damages against petitioners
Saturnino Novecio, Gavino Novecio, Anastacio
Golez.
The petitioners, on the other hand, contended
that they have already been in possession of
the land for more than two years when the
complaints were filed. They maintained that
they have planted the land with corn, durian,
coconut, mango, jackfruit, rambutan, etc. for
their livelihood. They also alleged that they
were harassed by some men armed with
shotguns and pistols on February 12, 2004.
The MTC found that the respondents anchored
their alleged prior possession on the fact that
they have applied title for the land as shown by
a certification authorizing land survey. Other
than this, the respondents had no evidence of
their actual and physical possession of the land.
Page 23
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
The MTC also found that they were not even
residents of the place and never personally
appeared in court during trial.
The RTC held that the MTC ignored some pieces
of evidence, warranting the reversal of the
decision.
The RTC ruled that the MTC should have given
credence to the certification issued by the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources - Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (DENR-CENRO)
showing that the land in litigation is the subject
of an application for title and claim by the
respondents.
This Court, acting on the petitioners' prayer,
issued a TRO on October 18, 2010, enjoining the
RTC from executing its decision. The TRO
remains effective until this day. Finally, it
appears that the CA has yet to issue a decision
on the Petition for Review.
Issue: WON CA abused its discretion when it
denied the petition for preliminary injunction
Held:
A preliminary injunction is proper when the
plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the
relief sought and has substantial interest in the
right sought to be defended. As this Court has
previously ruled, "while the existence of the
right need not be conclusively established, it
must be clear."
A writ of preliminary injunction is generally
based solely on initial or incomplete evidence.
Such evidence need only be a sampling
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
intended merely to give the court an evidence
of justification for a preliminary injunction
pending the decision on the merits of the case,
and is not conclusive of the principal action
which has yet to be decided. In a prayer for
preliminary injunction, the plaintiff is not
required to submit conclusive and complete
evidence. He is only required to show that he
has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed
for in his complaint.
The petitioners have adequately shown their
entitlement to a preliminary injunction. First,
the relief demanded consists in restraining the
execution of the RTC decision ordering their
ejectment from the disputed land. Second, their
ejectment from the land from which they derive
their source of livelihood would work injustice
to the petitioners. Finally, the execution of the
RTC decision is probably in violation of the
rights of the petitioners, tending to render the
MTC judgment dismissing the forcible entry
cases ineffectual.
Rule 59- Receivership
Receivership is the principal action, the
provisional remedy is the appointment of a
receiver which is cognizable by the MTC or RTC.
Section 1. Appointment of receiver. — Upon a
verified application, one or more receivers of
the property subject of the action or proceeding
may be appointed by the court where the
action is pending or by the Court of Appeals or
by the Supreme Court, or a member thereof, in
the following cases:
Page 24
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
(a) When it appears from the verified
application, and such other proof as the court
may require, that the party applying for the
appointment of a receiver has an interest in the
property or fund which is the subject of the
action or proceeding, and that such property or
fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or
materially injured unless a receiver be
appointed to administer and preserve it;
(b) When it appears in an action by the
mortgagee for the foreclosure of a mortgage
that the property is in danger of being wasted
or dissipated or materially injured, and that its
value is probably insufficient to discharge the
mortgage debt, or that the parties have so
stipulated in the contract of mortgage;
(c) After judgment, to preserve the property
during the pendency of an appeal, or to dispose
of it according to the judgment, or to aid
execution when the execution has been
returned unsatisfied or the judgment obligor
refuses to apply his property in satisfaction of
the judgment, or otherwise to carry the
judgment into effect;
(d) Whenever in other cases it appears that the
appointment of a receiver is the most
convenient and feasible means of preserving,
administering, or disposing of the property in
litigation.
During the pendency of an appeal, the appellate
court may allow an application for the
appointment of a receiver to be filed in and
decided by the court of origin and the receiver
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
appointed to be subject to the control of said
court.
PAD- Preservation, Administration &
Disposition
Q: Why is there a need for the appointment of a
receiver?
A: In order to preserve the property, administer
such property or proper disposal of such
property.
*Receivership has the longest time frame to file
an application
Receivership- At the commencement of the
action or even after execution
Preliminary Attachment- At the
commencement of the action or before entry of
judgment
Preliminary Injunction- At the commencement
of the action or before final judgment
Replevin- Any time before the defendant files
his answer
Support Pendte Lite- It vary depending on the
circumstances surrounding it
Q: Who may be appointed as a receiver?
A: Not necessarily the applicant since it is not a
guaranty that he will be appointed by the court.
The court is not bound and it has the discretion
to which he shall appoint.
-The applicant for the appointment of a receiver
is required to post a BOND.
Page 25
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Reason: By mere application, damage may same; to make transfers; to pay outstanding
occur over the property. debts; to divide the money and other property
that shall remain among the persons legally
Example: BDO is placed under liquidator
entitled to receive the same; and generally to
ship/receivership, when a depositor applies for
do such acts respecting the property as the
receivership he should post a bond in order to
court may authorize. However, funds in the
protect the interest of BDO
hands of a receiver may be invested only by
-By applying for a receivership, a bond is order of the court upon the written consent of
necessary and once appointed by the court as a all the parties to the action.
receiver, he is required to post another bond.
No action may be filed by or against a receiver
(Double the amount principle)
without leave of the court which appointed
Section 2. Bond on appointment of receiver. — him.
Before issuing the order appointing a receiver
Section 8. Termination of
the court shall require the applicant to file a
receivership; compensation of receiver. —
bond executed to the party against whom the
Whenever the court, motu proprio or on motion
application is presented, in an amount to be
of either party, shall determine that the
fixed by the court, to the effect that the
necessity for a receiver no longer exists, it shall,
applicant will pay such party all damages he
after due notice to all interested parties and
may sustain by reason of the appointment of
hearing, settle the accounts of the receiver,
such receiver in case the applicant shall have
direct the delivery of the funds and other
procured such appointment without sufficient
property in his possession to the person
cause; and the court may, in its discretion, at
adjudged to be entitled to receive them and
any time after the appointment, require an
order the discharge of the receiver from further
additional bond as further security for such
duty as such. The court shall allow the receiver
damages.
such reasonable compensation as the
Section 6. General powers of receiver. — circumstances of the case warrant, to be taxed
Subject to the control of the court in which the as costs against the defeated party, or
action or proceeding is pending a receiver shall apportioned, as justice requires.
have the power to bring and defend, in such
-When the property is in the possession of
capacity, actions in his own name; to take and
another, receivership is not the proper remedy.
keep possession of the property in controversy;
to receive rents; to collect debts due to himself Case Doctrine: Koruga vs Arcenas
as receiver or to the fund, property, estate,
The jurisdiction in action for receivership and
person, or corporation of which he is the
financial institution shall be under the
receiver; to compound for and compromise the
Monetary Board of the Central Bank in

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 26
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
accordance with Revised Central Bank Law. In
other entities, an action for receivership shall
be under the regular courts.
Case: Sps Larrobis vs Phil Veterans Bank
Facts: Sps Larrobis secured a loan from Phil
Veterans Bank, at one point during the
pendency of the loan. PVB was placed under
receivership, the bank was later on
rehabilitated, the management found that Sps.
Larrobis is not yet paid with their loan. PVB
foreclosed the property, Sps Larrobis put up the
defense of prescription since they filed the case
after 14 years which is beyond the 10 year
period. PVB argued that they undergo
receivership therefore the prescriptive period
was stalled.
Issue: WON prescription shall run against PVB
that is placed under receivership
Held: YES- One of the duties & responsibilities
of a receiver is to collect debts in order to
rehabilitate such bank. The prescriptive period
therefore shall not be stalled. When banks are
placed in a receivership, they are only
prohibited to conduct business banking
transaction. When PNB failed to file an action
against Sps, Larrobis, they already slept on their
rights.
Case: Chavez vs Court of Appeals
Facts: One lawyer who is residing in Manila but
has a plenty of properties in Bicol. His agent is
not remitting the money coming from the
property. She filed civil/criminal cases against
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
his agent, she also filed for the appointment of
a receiver.
Issue: WON the application for receivership is
valid?
Held: No- The appointment of a receiver in this
case is not proper since the property is intact
and it is not materially lost therefore there is no
ground for such appointment
Case: Tantano vs Espina-Caboverde 702 SCRA
Facts:
Petitioners files a complaint of annulment of
the Deed of Sale purportedly transferring lots
from their parents Maximo and Dominalda.
During the pendency of the case the parties
executed a Partial Settlement Agreement (PSA)
where they fixed the sharing of the
uncontroverted properties among themselves,
in particular, the adverted additional eight (8)
parcels of land including their respective
products and improvements. Under the PSA,
Dominalda’s daughter, Josephine, shall be
appointed as Administrator. The PSA provided
that Dominalda shall be entitled to receive a
share of one-half (1/2) of the net income
derived from the uncontroverted properties.
The PSA also provided that Josephine shall have
special authority, among others, to provide for
the medicine of her mother.
Both Annabelle Saldia and Jesus Tan then took
their respective oaths of office and filed a
motion to fix and approve bond which was
Page 27
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
approved by the trial court over petitioners’
opposition.
Petitioners harp on the fact that the court a quo
failed to require Dominalda to post a bond prior
to the issuance of the order appointing a
receiver, in violation of Section 2, Rule 59 of the
Rules of court
Respondents insist that where there is sufficient
cause to appoint a receiver, there is no need for
an applicant’s bond because under Sec. 2 of
Rule 59, the very purpose of the bond is to
answer for all damages that may be sustained
by a party by reason of the appointment of a
receiver in case the applicant shall have
procured such appointment without sufficient
cause.
Issue:
WON posting bond is required in receivership?
Held:
Sec. 2 of Rule 59 is very clear in that before
issuing the order appointing a receiver the court
shall require the applicant to file a bond
executed to the party against whom the
application is presented. The use of the word
"shall" denotes its mandatory nature; thus, the
consent of the other party, or as in this case,
the consent of petitioners, is of no moment.
Hence, the filing of an applicant’s bond is
required at all times. On the other hand, the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
requirement of a receiver’s bond rests upon the
discretion of the court. Sec. 2 of Rule 59 clearly
states that the court may, in its discretion, at
any time after the appointment, require an
additional bond as further security for such
damages.
Rule 60- Replevin
Section 1. Application. — A party praying for
the recovery of possession of personal property
may, at the commencement of the action or at
any time before answer, apply for an order for
the delivery of such property to him, in the
manner hereinafter provided.
Principal Action is for the recovery of
possession of personal property and the
Provisional Remedy is Replevin
Purpose: Immediate recovery of possession of
personal property and not applicable in real
property.
Example: Car (Vios)
-When a person bought a car, the seller will ask
you to sign a document pertaining to Chattel
Mortgage that has a clause ”The Company can
judicially or extra-judicially foreclose/retrieve it
upon failure to pay the necessary payment”.
The mortgage in an action for the foreclosure
can file a replevin.
Time Period: At the commencement of an
action or before the defendant files his answer
-Once the answer is submitted to the court,
issues shall be joined and the court should hear
both sides. Upon the issuance of the writ, it
shall be forwarded to the sheriff and he can
Page 28
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
recover it anywhere within the Philippines. (No
jurisdictional limitation)
Requirements: -Bond -Affidavit
-The bond should be twice the value of the
property.
Example: Juan bought a car for P 1 million
pesos, the seller seek to recover such property
by posting twice the value of the car.
-The bond mentioned is not a cash deposit but
rather a SURETY BOND
-The applicant shall only pay the premium of
the bond (3%-15%)
-The bond shall be twice the value of the
property
First Value- It answers for the value of the
property
Second Value- It answers for the damages of
the property
Section 2. Affidavit and bond. — The applicant
must show by his own affidavit or that of some
other person who personally knows the facts:
(a) That the applicant is the owner of the
property claimed, particularly describing it, or is
entitled to the possession thereof;
(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by
the adverse party, alleging the cause of
detention thereof according to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief ;
(c) That the property has not been distrained or
taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to
law, or seized under a writ of execution or
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed
under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is
exempt from such seizure or custody; and
(d) The actual market value of the property.
Section 4. Duty of the sheriff. — Upon receiving
such order, the sheriff must serve a copy
thereof on the adverse party, together with a
copy of the application, affidavit and bond, and
must forthwith take the property, if it be in the
possession of the adverse party, or his agent,
and retain it in his custody. If the property or
any part thereof be concealed in a building or
enclosure, the sheriff must demand its delivery,
and if it be not delivered, he must cause the
building or enclosure to be broken open and
take the property into his possession. After the
sheriff has take possession of the property as
herein provided, he must keep it in a secure
place and shall be responsible for its delivery to
the party entitled thereto upon receiving his
fees and necessary expenses for taking and
keeping the same.
-When the sheriff takes possession of the
personal property, he has the obligation to keep
it for 5 days. (Mandatory Provision)
-He cannot give the property to the applicant
before the expiration of 5 days otherwise he
can be made liable for administratively.
Purpose: -To determine the sufficiency of the
bond posted.
-To await of the possibility of posting of
counter-bond/ re-delivery bond.
Page 29
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Section 7. Proceedings where property claimed
by third person. — If the property taken is
claimed by any person other than the party
against whom the writ of replevin had been
issued or his agent, and such person makes an
affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the
possession thereof, stating the grounds
therefor, and serves such affidavit upon the
sheriff while the latter has possession of the
property and a copy thereof upon the applicant,
the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the
property under replevin or deliver it to the
applicant unless the applicant or his agent, on
demand of said sheriff, shall file a bond
approved by the court to indemnify the third-
party claimant in a sum not less than the value
of the property under replevin as provided in
section 2 hereof. In case of disagreement as to
such value, the court shall determine the same.
No claim for damages for the taking or keeping,
of the property may be enforced against the
bond unless the action therefor is filed within
one hundred twenty (120) days from the date
of the filing of the bond.
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages, for
the taking or keeping of such property, to any
such third-party claimant if such bond shall be
filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent
such claimant or any third person from
vindicating his claim to the property, or prevent
the applicant from claiming damages against a
third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or
plainly spurious claim, in the same or a separate
action.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
When the writ of replevin is issued in favor of
the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer
duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall
not be required, and in case the sheriff is sued
for damages as a result of the replevin, he shall
be represented by the Solicitor General, and if
held liable therefor, the actual damages
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the
National Treasurer out of the funds to be
appropriated for the purpose.
-The bond is for the benefit of the sheriff
-The sheriff will ask the applicant to post a bond
equivalent to the value of the property
THRICE THE VALUE DOCTRINE
Q: What are the remedy for frivolous claim?
A: File for damage in the same case or separate
action:
Same Case- if the court has jurisdiction
Separate Action- If the court has no jurisiction
Section 9. Judgment. — After trial of the issues
the court shall determine who has the right of
possession to and the value of the property and
shall render judgment in the alternative for the
delivery thereof to the party entitled to the
same, or for its value in case delivery cannot be
made, and also for such damages as either
party may prove, with costs.
Navarro vs Escobido Doctrine
“Demand is not necessary in a writ of replevin
since it destroy the very essence or purpose of
replevin”
Page 30
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Hao vs Andres Doctrine
“Sheriff has the obligation to safe keep the
property for 5 days. “ The sheriff immediately
released the property even prior to the 5 day
period. The writ of replevin indicated was 20
cars but it turned out that only 9 was in his
possession and the 3 cars were lost under his
custody.
Case: Orosa vs Court of Appeals
Doctrine: A party cannot recover the value of
the car if he already received the value of the
car.
Facts:
On December 6, 1984, private respondent FCP
Credit Corporation filed a complaint for replevin
and damages in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila against petitioner Jose S. Orosa and one
John Doe to recover possession of a 1983 Ford
Laser 1.5 Sedan with Motor and Serial No.
SUNKBT-14584. The complaint alleged that on
September 28, 1983, petitioner purchased the
subject motor vehicle on installment from
Fiesta Motor Sales Corporation. He executed
and delivered to Fiesta Motor Sales Corp. a
promissory note in the sum of P133,824.00
payable in monthly installments. To secure
payment, petitioner executed a chattel
mortgage over the subject motor vehicle in
favor of Fiesta Motor Sales Corp. On September
28, 1983, Fiesta Motor Sales assigned the
promissory note and chattel mortgage to
private respondent FCP Credit Corporation. The
complaint further alleged that petitioner failed
to pay part of the installment which fell due on
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
July 28, 1984 as well as three (3) consecutive
installments which fell due on August 28,
September 28, and October 28, 1984.
The trial court ruled that private respondent
FCP had no reason to file the present action
since petitioner already paid the installments
for the months of July to November 1984,
which are the sole bases of the complaint. The
lower court declared that private respondent
was not entitled to the writ of replevin, and was
liable to petitioner for actual damages under
the replevin bond it filed.
Issue: WON Mr Orosa can recover the value of
the car and of the property simultaneously?
Held:
NO- Mr. Orosa cannot recover the value of the
car if he already received the car since it will
produce unjust enrichment.
Case: Smart Communication vs Astorga
Facts:
Astorga was hired by Smart Communication as a
manager and she was given a car plan. She
failed the re-evaluation by Smart and as a result
she was to different location. Astorga did not
follow order and as a result she was dismissed
from Smart on the ground of insubordination.
She filed a case towards the NLRC and during
the pendency of the case, Smart demand to
return the car but Astorga refused. Smart filed a
writ of replevin for the recovery of the car,
Astorga filed a Motion to dismiss on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction but it was denied the RTC.
CA reversed the ruling of the RTC since the
Page 31
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
cause of action arises from an employer-
employee relationship therefore RTC has no
jurisdiction.
Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the writ of
replevin
Held: The car involved in this case under did not
fall under employer-employee relationship but
rather for creditor-debtor relationship
therefore it is cognizable by regular courts.
The RTC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over the
suit and acted well within its discretion in
denying Astorgas motion to dismiss. SMARTs
demand for payment of the market value of the
car or, in the alternative, the surrender of the
car, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It involves
the relationship of debtor and creditor rather
than employee-employer relations. As such, the
dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the
regular courts.
Sps Agner vs BPI Family Savings Bank G.R. No.
182963, June 3, 2013
Facts:
On February 15, 2001, petitioners spouses Deo
Agner and Maricon Agner executed a
Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor
of Citimotors, Inc. The contract provides, among
others, that: for receiving the amount of
Php834, 768.00, petitioners shall pay Php
17,391.00 every 15th day of each succeeding
month until fully paid; the loan is secured by a
2001 Mitsubishi Adventure Super Sport; and an
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
interest of 6% per month shall be imposed for
failure to pay each installment on or before the
stated due date. For failure to pay four
successive installments from May 15, 2002 to
August 15, 2002, respondent, through counsel,
sent to petitioners a demand letter dated
August 29, 2002, declaring the entire obligation
as due and demandable and requiring to pay
Php576,664.04, or surrender the mortgaged
vehicle immediately upon receiving the letter.
A writ of replevin was issued. Despite this, the
subject vehicle was not seized. Trial on the
merits ensued. On August 11, 2005, the Manila
RTC Br. 33 ruled for the respondent and
ordered petitioners to jointly and severally pay
the amount of Php576,664.04 plus interest at
the rate of 72% per annum from August 20,
2002 until fully paid, and the costs of suit.
Petitioners appealed the decision to the Court
of Appeals (CA), but the CA affirmed the lower
court’s decision and, subsequently, denied the
motion for reconsideration;
Issue: WON the writ of replevin is properly
issued
Held:
Records bear that both verbal and written
demands were in fact made by respondent
prior to the institution of the case against
petitioners. Even assuming, for argument’s
sake, that no demand letter was sent by
respondent, there is really no need for it
because petitioners legally waived the necessity
of notice or demand in the Promissory Note
with Chattel Mortgage, which they voluntarily
Page 32
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
and knowingly signed in favor of respondent’s
predecessor-in-interest.
Further, the Court even ruled in Navarro v.
Escobido that prior demand is not a condition
precedent to an action for a writ of replevin,
since there is nothing in Section 2, Rule 60 of
the Rules of Court that requires the applicant to
make a demand on the possessor of the
property before an action for a writ of replevin
could be filed.
Rule 61- Support PendeLite
Principal Action: Support
Provisional Remedy: Support Pende Lite
Jurisdiction
RTC- Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
Exception:
-In Criminal Cases, when the civil aspect is
deemed instituted
*In support of Minor- Family Court
Legal Age- RTC
Q: What is the venue of such action?
A: Residence of the plaintiff/ defendant
Requirement:
 Verified application
*Support does not need an affidavit & bond
*When an order granting support pende lite is
issued by the court, it is an interlocutory order
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-The only interlocutory order subject for
execution
- A judgment or order for support pendent lite
never becomes final
- Res Judicata is not applicable
Section 1. Application. — At the
commencement of the proper action or
proceeding, or at any time prior to the
judgment or final order, a verified application
for support pendente lite may be filed by any
party stating the grounds for the claim and the
financial conditions of both parties, and
accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other
authentic documents in support thereof.
Section 2. Comment. — A copy of the
application and all supporting documents shall
be served upon the adverse party, who shall
have five (5) days to comment thereon unless a
different period is fixed by the court upon his
motion. The comment shall be verified and
shall be accompanied by affidavits, depositions
or other authentic documents in support
thereof.
Periods:
5 days- Comment to the application
3 days- Set the application of support for
hearing
Situation:
 “Maria Clara and Jose” Love Story
 Maria Clara is working as an entertainer
in a videoke bar while Jose is a grab
driver. They have a sexual relationship
Page 33
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

for 1 year and as a result a child was
born out of wedlock named Mario.
Situation # 1: Maria Clara filed a case of support
along with a writ of support pendete lite
towards the RTC of Quezon City
- The rule proves that within a period of
5 days, the adverse party is mandated
to file a comment. (Rule 61, Sec 2). If
the adverse party failed to file a
comment within the reglementary
period, the court shall render a
decision/order on the application for
support pendete lite.
- The court shall issue an order directing
Jose to give support pendete lite
Situation #2: After 1 year of trial, 100k was
already given as support pendete lite by Jose.
RTC of Quezon City rendered a decision on the
principal action dismissing the case.
Q: What is the remedy for Jose?
A: There should be Restitution, Maria Clara is
obliged to return the 100k plus interest
Reimbursement- If a third person is giving
support in lieu of the adverse party, the party is
obliged to return the 100k
-It shall be in a separate action since the third
person is not a party to the principal action and
the court has no jurisdiction over such party.
Situation# 3- The court rendered a decision on
the principal action that Jose should give 5k
support to Maria Clara.
-The 5k judgment for support never becomes
final since Maria Clara or Jose can come to court
to change the amount.
*If there is an increase or decrease in the
amount of support, a person through motion
can file it the same court and docket number.
- In the determination for amending the
amount of support, two criteria must be
established:
- Capacity of the person giving support
- Necessity of the person to be supported
Case: People vs Manahan 315 SCRA

*In support pendete lite, there is no damages Doctrine:”Compulsory Acknowledgment of a

but only restitution child if there is legal impediment is not
necessary in support”
Restitution vs Reimbursement

Restitution- The person liable to provide for

support pendete lite which is not proven
through judgment shall be entitled to return the
amount given along with the interest.
-It shall be filed within the court
Facts:
- On January 5, 1995, Manuel
Manahan committed his lustful
desire against Terisita a 16 year old

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 34
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
minor. The crime resulted into
pregnancy. When the parents
learned of such incident, they
jreported it to the local police.
- The Trial court of Dagupan
convicted Manahan for the crime of
rape.
Issue: WON Manahan is liable for support even
if he did not acknowledge the child.
Held:
YES- In the decision of the trial court, it provides
that persons guilty of rape shall also be
sentenced to acknowledge the offspring unless
the law should prevent him to do so is
erroneous.
-Compulsory acknowledgment of a child is not
proper there being a legal impediment in doing
so.
-Married men are not forced to recognize a
child out of wedlock. The purpose is to preserve
the sanctity of the family.
Case: De Asis vs CA 303 SCRA
Doctrine: “An action for support can never be
under the principle of res judicata”
Facts:
- Vircel Andres, the legal guardian of Glen
de Asis brought an action for
maintenance & support of Camil de
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Asis. Defandant-De Asis is the father of
the minor.
- During the proceeding of the trial, both
the plaintiff & defendant filed a motion
to dismiss provided that the latter shall
not pursue his counter-claim.
- On September 7, 1995, another
complaint for support was filed by
Vircel de Andres against Manuel de
Asis. Defendant moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of res judicata
but it was denied by the trial court.
- On certiorari, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the denial of the motion to
dismiss filed by defendant de Asis.
Issue: WON Support can be a subject of res
judicata
Held:
NO- The right to receive support cannot be
renounced nor it can be transmitted to third
persons.
-Filiation and/or support must be judicially
established and it is for the court to declare its
existence and absence.
-The right of support cannot be waived or
transferred and future support cannot be a
subject of future compromise there the present
action for support can be brought
notwithstanding the fact the previous case was
dismissed.
Lim vs Lim 604 SCRA
Page 35
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Doctrine: “Grandparents shall be liable to their
grandchildren in case their parents cannot
provide for sufficient support.”
Facts:
- Cheryl Lim married Edward Lim, they
had three three (3) children and they
resided at the house of the petitioner-
grandparents.
- Cheryl Lim abandoned their residence
in Forbes Park bringing the children
after she discovered the illicit affairs of
his husband Edward towards the in-
house midwife.
- Cheryl sued the petitioners in the RTC
of Makati City for support.
- RTC of Makati rendered a decision
ordering Edward and petitioners to
jointly provide for Php 40,000 monthly
support while the husband shall
shoulder the remaining balance.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court on the ground
the parents and their legitimate
children are obliged to mutually
support each other and this obligation
extends to the grandchildren.
Issue: WON petitioner-grandparents are liable
for support
Held:
YES- Obligation to provide support arising from
parental authority ends upon the emancipation
of the child. This obligation to provide for legal
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
support passes on to ascendants not only upon
default of the parents but also or the latter
inability to provide for support.
-This obligation imposed by law is only limited
to relatives by blood. Cheryl’s right to receive
support is only towards Edward since they are
legally married.
Case: Lim-Lua vs Lim 697 SCRA
Doctrine: “Supreme Court laid down the factors
in determining the amount of provisional
support”
Facts:
- Susan Lim-Lua filed an action for the
declaration of nullity of her marriage
with Danito Lua. In her prayer, she
alleged for support pendete lite in the
amount of Php 500,000 monthly
support.
- The trial court rendered a decision that
Danilo shall only be liable for the
amount of Php 250,000.
- On appeal, CA reversed the decision of
the RTC on the ground that the amount
is excessive and there is no proof of
such.
Issue: WON the expenses already incurred by
the respondent may be deducted from the total
amount of support?
Held:
Page 36
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
No- The amount of support which those related
by marriage and family relations shall be in
proportion to the resources or means of the
giver and to the needs of the receipient
-The court may motu proprio or upon verified
application of any of the parties, temporary
grant support pendete lite prior to the
judgment. The court is tasked to determin the
kind and amount of evidence which may be
enable to resolve the application.
-Factors in determining the amount of support:
(a) financial resources of the custodial & non-
custodial parent, (b) physical and emotional
health of the child has been accustomed and (4)
non- monetary contribution that the parents
will make.
Case: Salas vs Matusalem 705 SCRA 560
Doctrine: “Support can only be granted only if
paternity or filiation is established by clear and
convincing evidence”
Facts:
- Annabelle Matrusalem filed a complaint for
support and damages against Narciso Salas
towards RTC of Cabanatuan City.
-Matusalem claimed tha Salas is the father of
Christian Paulo who was born on December 28,
1994. Salas allegedly rented an apartment for
the benefit of Matusalem and shouldered all
the necessary expenses for the birth of the
child.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Matusalem prayed for support pendete lite
which was granted by the Trial Court.
-RTC rendered a decision in favor of Matusalem
and ordering for the monthly support. CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue: WON Salas is liable to give support to
Matusalem
Held:
No- Illegitimate filiation can be established
through record of birth appearing in the civil
registrar or final judgment or admission of
legitimate filiation in a public or private
instrument.
-Matusalem failed to establish the filiation
between Salas and Christian Paulo through clear
and convincing evidence.
- An order of recognition and support may
create an unwholesome situation to the lives of
the parties therefore it can only be issued by
clear and convincing evidence.
Case: Gotardo vs Buling 678 SCRA
Doctrine: “The amount of support is variable
therefore res judicata is not applicable”
Facts:
Page 37
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Buling filed a complaint with the RTC of
Southern Leyte for compulsory recognition and
support pendete lite against Gotardo.
-Petitioner Gotardo and Buling started their
intimate sexual relation with Buling in their
boarding house. As a result of this action, Buling
got pregnant.
- During the pendency of the action, RTC
granted the Php 2,000 monthly support. In its
decision, it dismissed the action for insufficiency
of evidence to prove filiation.
-CA reversed the decision of the RTC and
ordered a grant of Php 2,000 monthly support.
Issue: WON the Court of Appeals erred in its
decision to recognize and provide for support.
Held:
NO – Buling established a prima facie evidence
that Gotardo is the putative father of Glifze
through the testimony that she had been
sexually involved with only one man.
-Support follow as a matter of right, parents are
obliged to support his/her children whether
legitimate or illigitmate.
- The amount of support is variable and for this
reason no final judgment on the amount of is
made as the amount shall be in proportion to
the resources, means of the giver and
necessities of the recipient.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Case: Del Socorro vs Van Wilsem 744 SCRA 516
Doctrine: “If the foreign law, judgment or
contract is contrary to sound and established
policy, it shall be applied in this jurisdiction”
Facts:
- Del Socorro and Van Wilsem contracted
a marriage in The Netherlands on
September 25, 1990.
- Their marriage ended by virtue of a
Divorcee decree applied by Van Wilsem
in his country (The Netherlands). He
however promised that he will give
support to their child but later on did
not materialize.
- Del Socorro filed a criminal complaint
for VAWC but it was dismissed by the
Trial Court. She later on filed a civil
action for support.
- Van Wilsem argued that under the
Dutch law, he is not obliged to give
support since his marriage with Del
Socorro is already divorced.
Issue: WON Van Wilsem is obliged to give
support even if his national law does not
provide for it.
Held:
YES- When the foreign law, judgment is
contrary to the sound policy, morals, it shall not
be applied in this country.
-Even if the laws of The Netherlands neither
enforce parental obligation to support his child,
such obligation is still enforceable in the
Page 38
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Philippines because it would be a great injustice Rule 62- Interpleader

to the child to be denied of such support.
Section 1. When interpleader proper. —
Whenever conflicting claims upon the same
subject matter are or may be made against a
person who claims no interest whatever in the
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION (Rule 62-71) subject matter, or an interest which in whole
or in part is not disputed by the claimants, he
Rule 62- Interpleader may bring an action against the conflicting
claimants to compel them to interplead and
Rule 63- Declaratory Relief and Similar
litigate their several claims among themselves.
Remedies
Requisites:
Rule 64- Judgment, Final Order Coming from
COA, COMELEC and CSC - There should be more than one
Rule 65- Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus defendant
- Conflicting claim over the subject
Rule 66- Quo Warranto matter
- Plaintiff has no legal interest
Rule 67- Expropriation
*There can be no interpleader if there is only
Rule 68- Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
one defendant.
Rule 69- Partition
Interpleader vs Intervention
Rule 70- Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry
Rule19- Intervention
Rule 71- Contempt
- Ordinary Civil Action
- The person who intervene must have
Q: Why are they called Special Civil Actions? interest over the subject matter
- It should be filed any time before the
A: In cases filed under SCA, the rules provides rendition of final judgment
for its particular rules to be applied. If there is a
conflict between the regular rules and sca, the Rule 62- Interpleader
latter shall prevail.
- Special Civil Action
- The interpleader must have no interest
over the subject matter
-Only when there is no particular application of - It should be filed during the complaint
the rule, the regular civil action will supplement
the SCA. Subject Matter:

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 39
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
- Real Property
- Personal Property
- Performance of specific
action/obligation
GR: The jurisdiction of the court shall depend
on the value of the property over which persons
have.
XPN: Performance of a specific action-
Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation- RTC
Real Property- In all civil actions which involve
the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions
in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00).
Personal Property- In all other cases in which
the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the property
in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in
Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of
the abovementioned items exceeds Two
Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
Example: Abel found a wallet along the corridor
of Arellano and there are three claimants
(X,Y,Z). A can file an action for interpleader
since there are 3 defendants.
-This kind of action should be filed with the MTC
based on the value of the property.
Example 2: If the subject matter of interpleader
is a bank deposit. The saving account no.
123456789 and there are three individual
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
(A,B,C) are claiming interest over the bank
deposit.
A- The account number belongs to my
father (deceased) and based on his will
it belongs to me.
B- The account was already donated to me
(Deed of Donation)
C- I have the authority to withdraw based
on a letter
Remedy: File an action for interpleader in the
RTC since it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Section 2. Order. — Upon the filing of the
complaint, the court shall issue an order
requiring the conflicting claimants to
interplead with one another. If the interests of
justice so require, the court may direct in such
order that the subject matter be paid or
delivered to the court.
Section 3. Summons. — Summons shall be
served upon the conflicting claimants, together
with a copy of the complaint and order.
Section 4. Motion to dismiss. — Within the
time for filing an answer, each claimant may file
a motion to dismiss on the ground of
impropriety of the interpleader action or on
other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16.
The period to file the answer shall be tolled and
if the motion is denied, the movant may file his
answer within the remaining period, but which
shall not be less than five (5) days in any event,
reckoned from notice of denial.
(Fresh 5 day period shall be applicable)
Grounds:
Page 40
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Impropriety of the interpleader
-Grounds under Rule 16 of the ROC
Section 7. Docket and other lawful fees, costs
and litigation expenses as liens. — The docket
and other lawful fees paid by the party who
filed a complaint under this Rule, as well as the
costs and litigation expenses, shall constitute a
lien or change upon the subject matter of the
action, unless the court shall order otherwise.
Case: Eternal Gardens vs IAC 165 SCRA
Doctrine: “The subject matter of an
interpleader should be deposited in court”
Facts:
-Eternal Gardens and Mission Realty
executed a Land Development
Agreement whereby the later will
introduce and construct a Memorial lot
over the property of Mission.
-Out of the proceeds from the sale,
Eternal Garden shall be liable for 60%
and 40% will go to Mission. Maysila
Estate asserted claim of ownership over
the land.
-Eternal Garden filed a complaint for
interpleader, Mission during the course
of the proceeding filed a motion that
the amount due must be judicially
deposit.
-The motion filed by Mission was
denied.
Issue: WON the amount involved in this case
should be placed under judicial deposit
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
YES –The essence of interpleader aside from
disavowal of interest in the property in litigation
is also the deposit of property or funds in court.
-The need for deposit in question has been
established not applicable in the lower courts,
Court of Appeals but also in the Supreme Court
where such deposit is required.
Case: Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs
Won & Tan 70 SCRA
Doctrine: “Interpleader is considered as
compulsory”
Facts:
- Mr Won claims ownership of its
membership fee certificate 201 by
virtue of the decision rendered by CFI of
Manila.
- Mr. Tan also claim ownership over the
certificate 201 based on a deed of
assignment given by “Swan, Culbertson
and Fritz”.
- Wack Wack filed an interpleader
towards the CFI of Manila, Mr. Won
filed a motion to dismiss based on res
judicata since the court already
rendered a decision as to the ownership
of such certificate.
Issue: WON the MTD filed by Mr. WON should
prosper as to the determination of ownership
Held:
YES- An action for interpleader is a remedy
whereby a person who was personal property in
his possession belonging to different claimants
Page 41
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
in which he has no interest over the subject
matter.
-Wack Wack is now estopped since it is already
a party to the previous case of WON in which a
court order was issued.
-Interpleader is late if a stakeholder defends a
suit filed by one of the adverse claimants and it
is allowed to proceed to final judgment, he
cannot later on have part on the litigation.
Case: Pasricha vs Don Luis Dizon Realty 548
SCRA
Facts:
- Don Luis Realty and Pasricha entered
into a lease contract of apartment units
in Ermita, Manila.
- Pasricha failed to pay the rentals of the
leased unit despite repeated demands,
Don Luis filed an ejectment case before
the MTC of Manila. Pascricha contend
that he is clueless as to whom he should
made the payment.
- MTC dismissed the complaint for
ejectment but it was overturned by the
RTC.
Issue: WON Pasricha should file an action for
interpleader to determine who shall be entitled
to the payment
Held:
YES- The defense of Pasricha is untenable in
order to escape the payment of rentals.
-An action for interpleader is proper when the
lessee does not know to whom payment of
rentals should be made due to conflicting
claims.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Pasricha is also entitled to judicial consignation
where it shall be made by depositing the thing
due at the disposal of judicial authority.
-Instead of availing of the available remedies,
petitioner refrains from making payments.
Case: Bank of Commerce vs Planters
Development Bank 681 SCRA
Doctrine: “Interpleader is also applicable in
Cross-claim or Third-Party Complaint”
Facts:
- RCBC owned two sets of Central Bank
Bill (1) CB Bill was worth Php 70 million
and (2) 2 CB Bill worth Php 20 million.
The first set was sold to BOC while the
second set was sold by RCBC to PDB.
- Upon learning of the transfer involving
CB Bills, PDB requested the BSP to
record its claim but it was denied.
- PDB filed with the RTC two separate
petitions for Mandamus with Prayer of
Preliminary Injunction.
- BSP asked that an interpleader suit be
allowed among the claimants to the
subject CB Bills. BOC and PDB entered
into two separate Escrow Agreement.
Issue: WON Interpleader may be made an
alternative defense
Held:
YES- Rule 62 does not expressly authorize the
filing of a complaint in interpleader as separate
and independent. This also allows “counter-
complaint/cross-claim for interpleader” run
counter to general procedure.
Page 42
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-BSP did not initiate the interpleader suit
through an original complaint but through
answer.
Rule 63- Declaratory Relief and Similar
Remedies
Section 1. Who may file petition. —
(a) Any person interested under a deed,
will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are
affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof bring an
action in the appropriate Regional Trial
Court to determine any question of
construction or validity arising, and for
a declaration of his rights or duties,
thereunder.
Jurisdiction – RTC
(b) An action for the reformation of an
instrument, to quiet title to real
property or remove clouds therefrom,
or to consolidate ownership under
Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be
brought under this Rule.
Jurisdiction- Depending on the
assessed value of the property
Section 2. Parties. — All persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected by
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
the declaration shall be made parties; and no
declaration shall, except as otherwise provided
in these Rules, prejudice the rights of persons
not parties to the action.
Section 6. Conversion into ordinary action. — If
before the final termination of the case, a
breach or violation of an instrument or a
statute, executive order or regulation,
ordinance, or any other governmental
regulation should take place, the action may
thereupon be converted into an ordinary
action, and the parties shall be allowed to file
such pleadings as may be necessary or proper.
Case:
Almeda vs Bathala Marketing, GR No. 150806,
January 28, 2008
Doctrine: “6 requisites for declaratory relief”
Facts:
- Bathala Marketing renewed its Contract of
Lease with Potenciano Almeda. He agree to
lease a portion of their property located in
Makati City.
-Based on the provision of their contract,
Almeda is informing Bathala Marketing about
the increase in the monthly rendtal due to
extra-ordinary inflation rate in the country.
-Bathala opposed the demand and later on filed
for an action for declaratory relief for the
correction of condition 6&7 of the contract. The
trial court denied their claim for increase in
rental.
Page 43
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Doctrine: “Rule 63 par (1) is cognizable by RTC

while par (2) shall depend on the assessed value
Issue: WON the action for declaratory relief is of the land”
proper
Facts:
Held:
- Malana, et,al filed before the RTC their
YES- 1) the subject matter of the controversy complaint for Reinvindication, Quieting of Title
must be a deed, will, contract or other written
and Damages.
instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance; 2) the terms of said -RTC issued an order dismissing the complaint
documents and the validity thereof are doubtful on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It found
and require judicial construction; 3) there must that the subject property has a value less than
have been no breach of the documents in Php 20,000 therefore it is cognizable by MTC.
question; 4) there must be an actual justiciable
controversy or the ripening seeds of one
between persons whose interests are adverse; Issue: WON the judge erred in its decision of
5) the issue must be ripe for judicial dismissing the complaint
determination; and 6) adequate relief is not
available through other means or other forms Held:
of action or proceeding. It is beyond cavil that
NO- RTC correctly made a distinction between
the foregoing requisites are present in the
first & second paragraph.
instant case, except that petitioners insist that
respondent was already in breach of the -The first paragraph shall be brought before the
contract when the petition was filed. RTC while in the second paragraph for action for
the reformation of interest, action to quiet title
- The Court is disposed to entertain the instant
and action to consolidate ownership must be
declaratory relief action instead of dismissing it,
read together with the Judiciary Act wherein
notwithstanding the pendency of the
jurisdiction shall depend on the assessed value
ejectment/rescission case before the trial court.
of the land.
The resolution of the present petition would
write finis to the parties dispute, as it would
settle once and for all the question of the
proper interpretation of the two contractual -In this case, the assessed value of the land is
stipulations subject of this controversy. only Php 410 which clearly cognizable by the
MTC.

Sps Sabitsana vs Muertegui, GR No. 181359,

Malana vs Tappa, GR No. 181303, September August 5, 2013
17, 2009

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 44
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Doctrine: “All cases of Declaratory Relief shall
be cognizable by RTC”
Facts:
- Alberto Garcia execute a Deed of Sale in favor
Muertegui over a 7, 500 sq meter over a
property in Biliran. The father of Juanito and his
brother took possession of it.
- Garcia sold the lot to Atty. Sabitsana through a
deed of absolute sale.
- Juanito filed an action for quieting of title
against Sabitsana towards the Regional Trial
Court. A decision was made in favor of Juanito
by the trial court and it was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case
Held:
YES- RTC has jurisdiction over the suit for
quieting of title. It is clear that an action for
quieting of title may be instituted with the RTC
regardless of the assessed value.
-If the action is for declaratory relief, it shall be
cognizable by the RTC.
Republic vs Orbecido
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Facts:
-Orbecido married Lady Myros in Ozamis City.
The wife went to the United States along with
their son.
-Lady Myros obtained a US Citizenship and later
on their son Kristoffer told Orbecido that her
wife already obtained a divorcee decree in
the United States.
-Orbecido filed a petition for authority to re-
marry and for declaratory relief for the
application of Art 26 par 2 of the FC
Issue: WON the petition for declaratory relief
shall prosper
Held:
YES- The requisites for declaratory relief are (a)
justiciable controversy, (b) controversy
must be between person whose interest
are adverse, (c) party has legal interest and (d)
ripe for judicial determination.
-The issue raised by Orbecido is already ripe for
judicial determination in order to answer
the valdity of his second marriage.
Anti- Terrorism Council vs Southern
Hemisphere, GR No. 178552
Facts:
-There are six petitions challenging the
constitutionality of RA 9372 or the Human
SecurityAct of 2007.
Page 45
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Issue: WON RA 9372 is constitutional in nature
based on the allegations made by the
petitioners
Held:
YES- The petition for certiorari does not lie
against the respondent who does not exercise
judicial or quasi-judicial function.
-The Supreme Court gave the four requisites for
judicial review: (a) there must be an actual case
or controversy, (b) the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity, (c) the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity and (d) the issue of
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the
case.
-In this case, petitioners have not presented any
personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy since none of the faces any charge
of RA 9372.
-The obscure allegations of sporadic
surveillance and being tagged as communist
front in no way approximate credible threat of
prosecution.
- The allegations and issues were not valid to
held RA 9372 as unconstitutional.
Republic vs Harry Roque 706 SCRA
Facts:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
- Harry Roque et. Al filed a petition for
declaratory relief before the RTC
challenging the constitutionality of RA
9372 or Anti- Human Security Act for
being void for vagueness violating the
right to privacy of communication.
- On Oct 5, 2010, SC released a decision
in the Southern Hemisphere case
dismissing its petition.
- RTC held that the respondent has legal
standing to assail the petition for
declaratory relief.
Issue: WON RTC gravely abused it discretion
when it denied the subject motion to dismiss
Held:
YES- The requisites for an action of declaratory
relief: (a) subject matter of deed, will, contract
or other written instrument, (b) the terms of
such document require judicial construction, (c)
no breach of the document in question, (d)
justiciable controversy, (e) ripe for judicial
determination and (f) adequate relief is not
available.
-Based on the Southern Hemisphere Case, there
was no imminent danger/threat towards the
petitioner. Without any justiciable controversy,
the petition have become pleas for declaratory
relief over the Court has no original jurisdiction.
Absent the requisites (d),(e) and (f), the petition
should be dismissed.
Dept. of Finance vs De la Cruz Jr., 768 SCRA 73
Facts:
- There was an issuance of E.O 140 on
Sept 2, 2013 which created the Customs
Page 46
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Policy research in the Department of
Finance. In the said Executive Order,
the CPRO shall be responsible for
reviewing the customs administration
policies, rules & procedure.
- Respondent filed an action for
declaratory relief with application for
TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction
before the RTC of Manila and Judge
Dela Cruz granted such petition.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition before the Supreme
Court.
Issue: RTC has jurisdiction over the case
Held:
YES- Respondents alleged that CPO 189-2013
was issued to beat the deadline of the
COMELEC’s ban on personnel movement due to
the scheduled brgy. Election.
-The issue took the case beyond the scope of
the CSC’s jurisdiction because the matter is no
longer limited to personnel action therefore
RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
RULE 64- REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL
ORDER OR RESOLUTION OF COMELEC AND
COA
-Any Decision, Final Order, Resolution of the
COA and COMELEC, it shall be assailed by Rule
64 towards the Supreme Court and it is only
through certiorari under Rule 65.
Rule 64 vs Rule 65
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Rule 64
- The petition shall be filed within thirty (30)
days from notice of the judgment or final order
or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing
of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of
said judgment or final order or resolution, if
allowed under the procedural rules of the
Commission concerned, shall interrupt the
period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the
aggrieved party may file the petition within the
remaining period, but which shall not be less
than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from
notice of denial.
-Filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration of said judgment or resolution
shall interrupt the period therein.
Rule 65
-The petition shall be filed not later than sixty
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order
or resolution.
-Motion for Reconsideration is mandatory and
the 60 days period shall be counted from the
notice of denial
*the Fresh Period shall not be applicable in Rule
12, 16, 62 and 64
Case: Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy
vs COMELEC 716 SCRA 340
Facts:
Page 47
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-On November 7, 2012, Comelec En Banc
promulgated a Resolution cancelling the
Certificate of Recognition based on three
grounds: (a) ANAD does not represent the
marginalized sector, (b) No actual showing of
nominees and (c) it failed to submit its
statement of contribution and expenditure
Issue: WON COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in promulgating the assailed decision
Held:
NO- ANAD was already afforded of summary
hearing during which Mr. Balang answered
questions from COMELEC.
-Compliance with Sec 8 of RA 7941 is essential
as it as a safeguard against arbitrariness.
-The factual finding of administrative bodies will
not be disturbed by the courts of justice except
when there is no evidence or substantial
evidence in support of such finding.
-The COMELEC may motu proprio cancel, after
due notice and hearing, the registration of any
party list if it violates or fails to comply with law,
rules, or regulation relating to election.
RULE 65- CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND
MANDAMUS
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
Section 2. Petition for prohibition. — When the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person, whether exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,
are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings
in the action or matter specified therein, or
otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying
that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time
Page 48
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

to be specified by the court, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by
the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of
the respondent.
6 Issues under Rule 65
Officer- Herbosa (SEC) Judges of the trial courts
3. What are the grounds?
Certiorari- Lack of jurisdiction, Excess of
jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction

1. Who are the petitioners? Prohibition- Lack of jurisdiction, Excess of

jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion
2. Who are the respondents? amounting to lack of jurisdiction

3. What are the grounds? Mandamus- Neglect in the performance of duty

enjoined by law and exclusion of a person from
4. What functions did the respondent an office or franchise
performed?
Q: What kind of jurisdiction?
5. What is the common condition?
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter
6. What is the prayer?
-Jurisdictional estoppel only applies to subject
matter (Boston Equity vs CA)

1. Who are the petitioners? Q: What is excess of jurisdiction?

A: Aggrieved Party- A party was aggrieved by A: Over stepping the authority or going beyond
the actuation of the respondent. the authority

2. Who are the respondents? Example:

A: Certiorari- Tribunal, Board, Officer Judge X of MTC rendered a penalty of reclusion

temporal in a case of qualified seduction. The
Prohibition- Tribunal, Board, Officer, judge exceeded his authority since he can only
Corporation and Natural Person impose penalty below 6 years.

Mandamus- Tribunal, Board, Officer, Q: What is grave abuse of discretion amounting

Corporation and Natural Person to lack of jurisdiction?

Tribunal- Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial A: It amounts to gross violation of the rule.
Court (Whimsical, Capricious, Arbitrary and Despotic)

Board- Energy Regulatory Board, SEC Whimsical and Capricious- No Basis at all

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 49
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Arbitrary and Despotic- Out of passion or
emotion
Mandamus
-Neglect in performance of duty enjoined by
law
-Exclusion of a person from an office or
franchise
Example: Mayor Erap Estrada removed the city
engineer and in his place is his niece
Q: What are the remedies available to the city
engineer?
A: He can file a mandamus and quo warranto
against Mayor Erap and his niece. The usurper
in this problem is the niece and the cause of
action is quo warranto while for Mayor Erap
who cause the usurpation shall be mandamus.
-A party can join its cause of action quo
warranto & mandamus simultaneously.
4. What are the functions of the respondents?
Certiorari- It must be discretionary
Prohibition- It must be discretionary or
ministerial
Mandamus- Ministerial function
Discretionary- When a party or officer is given
an option or choice in the performance of duty.
Example: Granting a motion for extension of
appeal
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Ministerial- When a party or officer has no
option or choice in the performance of duty.
Example: Motion for Execution as a matter of
right
-The motion shall only determine if the
judgment is already executory
Case: Tuason vs RD of Caloocan City
Facts:
-Mr Tuason is a retired public school teacher
wherein his retirement pay was used to buy a
property in Kalookan. During the time of Martial
Law, President Marcos enacted a Presidential
Decree which invalidate all of the land titles
situated in Kalookan and was given to the
members of PSG. After the Edsa Revolution,
Tuason filed a petition for certiorari asking for
the nullification of the Presidential Decree.
Issue: WON the petition for certiorari shall
apply to Marcos that exercise executive
function
Held: YES- The petition for certiorari is proper to
question the Presidential Decree since Marcos
is a usurper of judicial function. The cancellation
of existing titles belongs to the judiciary and not
the executive department. Only judicial courts
can nullify such titles.
Judicial Courts- RTC, MTC, Sandiganbayan, CTA
and Court of Appeals
Quasi-judicial- it may fall under executive or
legislative department
Example: HLURB, SEC, Energy Regulatory Board
Page 50
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
5. What is the common condition in certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus?
A: - There should be no appeal, or any other
plain, adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
-No appeal, No Motion for Reconsideration or
No New Trial
-Certiorari and Appeal are mutually exclusive
Remington Doctrine: Certiorari and Appeal can
be availed of in one case since they are directed
to different acts/ orders.
Example
A vs X/Y- Civil Case
X and Y filed a motion to dismiss but it was
subsequently denied. The denial for an order of
MTD is an interlocutory order. X filed a petition
for certiorari towards the appellate court
against the interlocutory order. In the course of
the proceeding final judgment was rendered by
the court a quo therefore it has a legal remedy
of appeal.
If A files a case against X and a Motion to
Dismiss was filed
Granted – It is considered as Final Order and
the remedy is APPEAL.
Denied – It is considered as Interlocutory Order
therefore the remedy is Certiorari.
Blake filed a case against DeAndre in the
amount of Php 275,000 towards the RTC and
judgment was rendered in favor Blake.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Q: Can DeAndre use petition for certiorari as a
remedy in the decision rendered by the court
that has no jurisdiction over the case?
A: NO, since DeAndre has the remedy of Appeal
in the final judgment rendered by such court
even if it has no jurisdiction over the case.
6. What is the prayer?
Certiorari- To nullify the proceeding, judgment,
order rendered by a judicial or quasi- judicial
Prohibition-To cease/desist from doing
something
Mandamus- To do or perform a particular act
enjoined by law
*When a criminal information is already filed in
court, it shall exercise absolute discretion over
it. (Crespo vs Mogul)
-Every Motion filed in court, the court has the
discretion whether to grant or deny it and it
cannot be subjected to Mandamus.
Case Doctrine: Social Justice System vs
Atienza- Based on the ordinance enacted by the
City Council of Manila, it is ministerial to
relocate them based on the prevailing
ordinance due to imminent threat.
Prohibition vs Preliminary Injunction
Prohibition Preliminary Injunction
Grounds: Grounds:
Lack of jurisdiction Valid Cause of Action
Excess of jurisdiction Violation of Right
Page 51
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Grave abuse of Cause irreparable
discretion damage
Nature: Nature:
Special Civil Action Ordinary Civil
Case: UP Board of Regents vs Judge Ligot-Telan
Facts: Nadal (law student) applied for a
scholarship in UP Law but it was later on
discovered that there is misrepresentation. He
was expelled by the UP Board but he applied for
reconsideration in which downgraded the
penalty to Honorable dismissal. Nadal filed an
injunction, certiorari, prohibition/mandamus
against UP Board for his reinstatement in which
Judge Ligot-Telan granting its petition.
Issue: WON Mandamus shall be applicable in
this case?
Held:
NO- Mandamus is not applicable since UP
exercise a valid academic freedom. SC
reiterated the doctrine in Arellano vs Cui that
school has an academic freedom to whom they
will accept in their institution. UP has therefore
the discretion in this case that the court should
respect therefore Mandamus shall not prosper.
Common Provision (Sec 4-9)
-Number of Copies of the petition:
Supreme Court- 5 copies
Court of Appeals- 3 copies
-Parties should observe efficient paper rule
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
*When a party filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus, the court will not
issue summons to the respondents.
Q: How will the court acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the respondent?
A: The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the
respondent which can either be a tribunal,
board, officer, corporation or natural person in
which the petition should be valid in form and
substance. The court shall issue an order for the
respondent to file comment or opposition to
the petition.
-Upon receipt of the order to file
comment/opposition, that is the time the court
acquires jurisdiction over the respondent.
-For Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, no
need to set for hearing of the petition.
Q: Can the court dismiss the petition through a
minute resolution?
A: Yes it can be dismissed on the grounds of (a)
patently without merit and (b) filed manifestly
to incur delay
Q: Should the court acquire jurisdiction over the
petition after it was dismissed?
A: YES
-If the respondent already filed their
comment/opposition to the petition, the court
can already resolve it based on the papers
submitted to them since issues are already
joined.
-The court still has the discretion if they will
need corresponding additional paper, oral
argument or memorandum.
Page 52
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Q: What is the remedy of a party in a decision Case: AL Ang Network, Inc vs Mondejar 714
of certiorari of Court of Appeals? SCRA 1/28/14

A: The remedy shall be Rule 45- Petition for

review on certiorari towards the Supreme Court
based on pure questions of law. Facts:

Q: Is it possible to file a certiorari on a decision

for certiorari?
A: YES, Certiorari is under the concurrent
jurisdiction of RTC, CA and SC provided that the
three grounds are available.
-A.L Ang Network filed a small claims complaint
before the MTC against Sps. Mondejar for the
amount of Php 23, 111.71 for unpaid waterbill.

-The court shall be a nominal party in a petition

for certiorari, prohibition & mandamus
-The court in this case is not a real party in
interest.
-Even if the court is a principal party in his
petition, the private respondent should also be
included.
-MTC rendered a decision in favor A.L Ang
Network ordering the Sps. Mondejar to pay.
-RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari finding
it was only filed to circumvent the rules of small
claims that it is not non-appelable.

Example:
Issue: WON the petition for certiorari is
RTC- A (Plaintiff) vs XYZ (defendant)
erroneously filed
CA- XYZ (Petitioner) vs Judge K of RTC Manila &
A (Respondents)
Held:
SC- XYZ (Petitioner) vs Judge K of RTC Manila &
A (Respondents)

-The judge of court is prohibited to participate NO- In Small Claims Cases, the decision shall be
in the proceeding. final and executory. The court ruled that
certiorari may only be invoked when there is no
-The private respondent shall be the one to file
appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy
their comment/opposition.
in the course of law.
CASES:

Rule 65- Certiorari

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 53
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
- A petition for certiorari is an original action
designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction
and not of judgment.
-Considering that Small Claims are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of MTC, MTCC, petition for
certiorari assailing its disposition should be filed
with the RTC exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
Case: People vs Hon. Castaneda Jr. 712 SCRA
12/11/2013
Facts:
-On November 5, 2011, Garcia and Vestidas Jr
were charged in the City of Manila for
unlawfully and fradulently import into the port
of Manila 858 cartons of Anti-Virus Kaspersky.
- On January 15, 2013, Garcia and Vestidas, Jr.
filed their Omnibus Motion to File Demurrer to
Evidence with Leave of Court to Cancel Hearing
Scheduled on January 21, 2013,whichwas
grantedby the CTA. Thereafter, they filed
theDemurrer to Evidence, dated January 13,
2012, claimingthat the prosecution failed to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: WON CTA abused its discretion in
dismissing the criminal case
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
NO- A petition for certiorari should be instituted
within a 60-day period from notice of judgment,
order or resolution. The 60 day period is
inextendible to avoid unreasonable delay that
would violate constitutional right.
-A judgment of acquittal in criminal case may be
assailed in a petition for certiorari, it must be
shown that there was grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or
denial of due process.
-The resolution issued by the CTA is in
accordance with the rules of evidence and
jurisprudence.
Case: Maglalang vs PAGCOR, 712 SCRA
12/11/2013
Facts:
- Mark Magalalang was a teller at Casino Filipino
in Angeles City, Pampanga. On December 13,
2008, an incident happened wherein he and
customer Cecilia had a heated argument.
Page 54
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Magalalang received a Memorandum from
PAGCOR informing him that he was charged
with discourtesy towards a customer. He
received a penalty of 30-day suspension. He
filed a motion of appeal but it was denied by
the board.
-Magalalang filed a petition for certiorari
towards CA but it was denied on the ground of
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Issue: WON the CA erred in its decision to
dismiss the certiorari
Held:
YES- Under the doctrine of exhaustion of admin
remedies, a party should availd first of
administrative process before going to court
intervention with the exception that no admin
review is provided by law
-Decision of administrative or quasi-admin
agencies which are declared by law final and
unappelable are subject to judicial review if
they fail the test of arbitrariness or grave abuse
of discretion.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-One cannot file petition for certiorari where
appeal is available even if the ground availed of
is grave abuse discretion.
-The dismissal of the petition for certiorari on
the basis of non-exhausation of admin remedies
should be set aside.
Case: UP Board of Regents vs Judge Ligot-Telan
and Ramon Nadal 227 SCRA
Doctrine: “A university has an academic
freedom and court cannot interfere with it”
Facts:
-Ramon Nadal applied for a STFAP or
scholarship since he was enrolled in the college
of Law in UP.
-The Scholarship office found discrepancy in the
STFAP application of Nadal. SDP rendered a
decision against Nadal which is expulsion from
the University.
-Nadal appealed this decision to the BOR and it
was reduced to Honorable dismissal.
Page 55
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Nadal filed with the RTC of QC a petition for
Mandamus and TRO against UP to admit him to
school. Judge Ligot-Telan granted the petition
and ordered UP to accept Nadal.
Issue: WON Judge Ligot-Telan abused her
discretion in granting the petition of Nadal
Held:
YES- The judge abused its discretion when it
disregarded the issue of academic freedom
which provides ample justification for the
impostion of disciplinary sanction.
-By issuing a writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Mandamus, it premptorily curtailed the
academic freedom.
Case: Sps Tuason vs Register of Deeds,
Caloocan City, 157 SCRA
Facts:
-Sps Tuason were retired public school
teachers. The bought a land located in Caloocan
City.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-One day the discovered that they are no longer
owner of the parcel of lots since Pres. Marcos
through PD 293 cancelled all the titles
belonging to occupants in Caloocan and was
transferred to the members of PSG.
-After the EDSA Revolution, Sps Tuason filed a
petition for certiorari towards the Supreme
Court assailing the validity of such PD.
Issue: WON the petition for certiorari can be
applied to question the Presidential Decree
issued by President Marcos
Held:
YES- A petition for certiorari may be issue to
nullify a judicial or quasi-judicial act.
- The Presidential Decree may be struck down
by the writ of certiorari because it is done by an
officer in the performance of a judicial function.
- The acts of nullifying the title were completely
alien to the executive acts since it is a judicial
function therefore petition for certiorari is the
proper remedy.
Page 56
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Province of Leyte vs Energy Development 760
SCRA 149
Facts:
- In 2006 & 2007, the Province of Leyte issued 4
franchise tax assessment against EDC.
- Province of Leyte issued another tax
assessment on 2008 against EDC. EDC filed a
Preliminary Injunction with a prayer for
assessing or collecting franchise tax but it was
denied by the RTC.
- CA denied the petition for certiorari filed by
the Province of Leyte due to failure to provide
proof of service.
Issue: WON CA erred in dismissing the petition
for certiorari
Held:
YES- In a petition for certiorari, there is a need
for the Court of Appeals to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the parties before in can
resolve the merits.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
- In order for the Court of Appeals to acquire
jurisdiction over the respondent: (a) service of
the order or resolution indicating the CA's initial
action or voluntary submission of the
respondent to the jurisdiction of CA.
- The petition for shall indicate the material
dates showing the notice of judgment, final
order or resolution was received and a Motion
for New Trial and Motion for Reconsideration
was filed and when notice of denial was
received.
-Failure of the petitioner to comply with the
requirements shall be a ground for the dismissal
of the petition.
Rule 65- Prohibition
Case: Vivas vs Monetary Board of BSP, 703
SCRA 8/7/2013
Facts:
-Rural Bank of Faire was a registered bank in
Cagayan Valley. Vivas and his principals
acquired the controlling interest over RBFI.
-BSP issued a certificate of authority to RFBI for
another 50 years. Monetary Board issued a
Page 57
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
resolution placing RBFI under prompt corrective
action. Vivas moved for a reconsideration of
such resolution.
-Monetary Board issued a resolution placing
ECBI under receivership. Vivas filed a petition
for prohibition on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion in prohibiting to continue its
business.
Issue: WON the petition for prohibition is
proper
Held:
NO- Prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking
that a judgment be rendered which would
direct the defendant from continuing with the
commission of an act.
-The petitioner did not observe hierarchy of
courts since prohibition can be filed with the
RTC, CA or SC exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
-SC also ruled that this case is not of
transcendental importance since it did not
involve any public interest issue.
Case: Corales vs Republic 703 SCRA 8/27/2013
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Facts:
-Corales was the duly elected Mayor of
Nagcarlan, Laguna from 1998 to 2004 and he
appointed Dr. Angeles to the position of
Municipal Administrator. The Sangguniang
Bayan disapproved the resolution on the
ground of nepotism.
-Petitioner Corales filed a petition for
prohibition against Andal and Sangguniang
Bayan to desist from collecting reimbursement
from the advances paid.
-OSG on behalf of Andal filed a Motion to
Dismiss but it was denied by the RTC however
CA reversed such decision.
Issue: WON the petition for prohibition filed by
Corales is premature
Held:
YES- Prohibition being a preventive remedy to
seek a judgment ordering the defendant to
desist from continuing the commission of an act
provided that there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
course of law.
Page 58
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Petitioners have all the remedies available to
them at the admin level but they failed to
exhaust the same and instead sought judicial
intervention. Before a party may seek the
intervention of court, he should avail of all the
administrative process.
Case: Tan vs Court of Appeals, 524 SCRA
Doctrine: “Writ of Prohibition shall issue to cure
errors of jurisdiction”
Facts:
-James Kind charged Roderick Go, et, al with
violation of BP 22 and estafa.
-Sps Go proposed to Mr. King a business
transaction wherein they would borrow cash
from the latter in exchange of Roderick Go’s
postdated check.
-King filed a criminal complaint in the fiscal’s
office and prosecutor Montero found probable
cause to file an information in court.
-Petitioner filed a TRO before the Court of
Appeals to restrain from proceeding the case
but it was dismissed.
Issue: WON the remedy of prohibition is proper
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
NO- The writ of prohibition is a remedy to
prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of
legal authority. The writ shall not lie to correct
errors of judgment but only errors of
jurisdiction.
-There was no evidence on record to support
petitioners claim that they were forced
arraigned. Absent proof of force or intimidation,
the trial judge enjoys the presumption of
regularity.
Rule 65- Mandamus
Case: Hipos Jr. vs Judge Bay, 581 SCRA
3/17/2009
Facts:
-On December 15, 2003, two information for
the crime of rape and acts of lasciviousness
were filed against Hipos towards the Family
Court.
-Private Complainants filed a motion for re-
investigation for the proper determination of
probable cause.
Issue: WON the writ of mandamus is the proper
remedy to compel Judge Bay to dismiss the case
Page 59
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Held:
No- Mandamus is an extraordinary writ
commanding to do an act required to be done,
when the respondent unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which law specifically
enjoins.
-Mandamus lies only to compel an officer to
perform a ministerial act and not discretionary.
Mandamus is never available to direct the
exercise of judgment or discretion in a
particular way or reversal of an action already
taken.
-It was held in Crespo vs Mogul that once a
criminal complaint or information is filed in
court, any disposition or dismissal of the
case/accused rest with the jurisdiction or
discretion of the trial court.
Case: Sanchez vs Lastimosa 534 SCRA 9/25/07
Doctrine: “The PNP absorption is not a
ministerial act by the office”
Facts:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Petitioner a constable was discharged from the
service for allegedly losing his firearm while
Meteoro were also discharged for being absent
without leave.
-Napolcom issued a resolution considering as
absorbed into police force those who had been
discharged by virtue of pending criminal or
administrative case. Petitioner Sanchez and
Meteoro are on the list.
-Without any action from the PNP chief,
petitioner filed a petition for Mandumus in
which the RTC granted. The petition contains
that the PNP chief is mandated to accept them
back to service. The decision of the RTC was
reversed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue: WON the cause of action filed by Sanchez
and Metoro should be granted
Held:
NO-Mandamus is employed only to compel the
performance, when refused of a ministerial but
not to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary.
-The writ can only be issued when the
applicants legal right to the performance of a
particular act sought to be compelled is clear
and complete.
-The PNP Chief's issuance of the orders for
absorption of herein petitioners is not
compellable by mandamus since it does not
involve a ministerial duty.
Page 60
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Case: Social Justice System vs Mayor Atienza,
517 SCRA 3/07/2007
Facts:
-On November 2001, the Sangguiniang
Panglungsod ng Maynila enacted an ordinance
on which the land in Pandacan shall be
reclassified from industrial to commercial and
directed the oil operators to cease and desist its
operation.
-The City of Manila and DOE entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding that will
provide a better safety related measures.
-Social Justice filed a petition for Mandamus
against Mayor Atienza to implement such
ordinance.
Issue: WON the petitioner has the legal duty to
enforce such ordinance
Held:
YES- Mandamus can filed when ay tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or natural person
neglects the performance of an act which the
law enjoins.
-The principal function of Mandamus is to
command and expedite and in this case the
petitioners who are interested in the execution
of the laws shall be considered as real party in
interest.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-The objective of the ordinance is to protect the
residence of Manila from possible terrorist
attack and Mayor Atienza should implement
such ordinance immediately.
Case: Villanueva vs JBC, 755 SCRA 182
Doctrine: “Selection of nominees for judicial
vacancy is discretionary”
Facts:
- Villanuevas was appointed as the Presiding
Judge of MTC in Compostela Valley. After 1 year
of office as MTC judge, he applied for the
vacant position of RTC Judge in Tagum City.
-JBC informed that Villanueva is not included in
the short list of applicants since he did not
possess the 5 year prescribed for being an RTC
judge.
-He filed a petition for certiorari to prevent the
JBC from perfoming its function of selection and
mandamus to include his name in the short list.
Issue: WON Villanueva has a cause of action to
file a petition for certiorari and mandamus in
this case
Held:
NO- The petition for certiorari and prohibition
can only be applied to correct errors of
Page 61
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
jurisdiction committed by tribunal, board,
officer, corporation and natural person. JBC
does not fall within the scope of those
mentioned.
-Mandamus cannot be availed by Villanueva in
assailing the policy of JBC. It shall not apply
when such instrumentality is exercising
discretionary function and the process of
judicial position is discretionary and not
ministerial.
Case: Funa vs Manila Economic and Cultural
Office 715 SCRA
Facts:
-Dennis Funa sent a letter to Commission on
Audt requesting for a copy of the latest financial
and audit report for the purpose of his right to
information towards matters of public concern.
-Commissioner Narank revelead that MECO was
not among the agencies audited by any
Corporate Sector.
-Funa filed the instant petition for mandamus.
He impleaded COA and MECO.
-COA on argue that the petition already become
moot and academic since chairperson Tan
directed a team of auditors to account of
MECO.
Issue: WON the petition for Mandamus may be
denied on ground of moot & academic
Held:
NO- The Court should decide the case otherwise
moot & academic subject to the following
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
exceptions: (a) grave violation of the
Constitution, (b) exceptional character of the
situation, (c) constitutional issue requires
formulation of controlling principle and (d)
capable of repetition.
-An allegation as serious as a violation of a
constitutional or legal duty, coupled with the
pressing public interest in the resolution of all
related issues, prompts this Court to pursue a
definitive ruling thereon, if not for the proper
guidance of the government or agency
concerned, then for the formulation of
controlling principles for the education of the
bench, bar and the public in general.
-Another issue is concerned with the petition is
non-observance of the principle of hierarchy of
courts. The COA assails the filing of the instant
mandamus petition directly with this Court,
when such petition could have very well been
presented, at the first instance, before the
Court of Appeals or any Regional Trial Court.
The COA claims that the petitioner was not able
to provide compelling reasons to justify a direct
resort to the Supreme Court. In view of the
transcendental importance of the issues raised
in the mandamus, petition, as earlier
mentioned, this Court waives this last
procedural issue in favor of a resolution on the
merits.
Rule 66- Quo Warranto
Literal Meaning- “What Authority a person is
occupying an office or franchise”
Page 62
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Section 1. Action by Government against
individuals. — An action for the usurpation of a
public office, position or franchise may be
commenced by a verified petition brought in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines
against:
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or
unlawfully holds or exercises a public office,
position or franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act
which, by the provision of law, constitutes a
ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
(c) An association which acts as a corporation
within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority so to
act.
- It is a proceeding assailing the authority or by
what authority a person is occupying a position.
-The subject matter is a public office.
Case Doctrine: Calleja vs Panday- The Quo
Warranto is dismissed because is settled is the
rule that it shall only be applicable to public
offices.
Q: What kind of public office shall quo warranto
apply?
A: It shall be applicable only to appointive office
since an elected office is governed by the
Omnibus Election Code.
Case: Aratea vs COMELEC 683 SCRA
Facts:
-Lonzanida and Antipolo were candidates for
Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales in the 2010
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
election. Dra Rodolfo filed a petition towards
the COMELEC to disqualify Lonzanida on the
ground that he already served 4 consecutive
terms.
- Comelec 2nd division rendered a decision
cancelling the COC fo Lonzanida. During the
pendency of the action, Lonzanida and Aratea
won respectively.
-Comelec en banc issued a resolution
disqualifying Lonzanida.
Issue: WON Aratea the 2nd placer can assume
public office in lieu of the disqualified winner
Held:
YES- Lonzanida lacks eligibility under the
present constitution and statutory provision
since he hold public office for 4 consecutive
terms.
-In the quo warranto petition, the ground to
oust an elected official are ineligibility and
disloyalty to the Republic. While quo warranto
and cancellation share the same ineligibility
grounds as they from the grounds cited. Under
the election code, the disqualification for
elective office are misrepresented in the COC
while under the rules it must ineligibility and
disloyalty to the Republic and must be initiated
within 10 days after proclamation.
Case: Lokin Jr vs COMELEC, 621 SCRA
Facts:
Page 63
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-CIBAC was a registered group under the party
list system. Bro Eddie Villanueva, the president
of CIBAC listed 5 nominees from which the
representatives would be choosen and Lokin
was the 2nd nominee.
-CIBAC filed an ammended list of nominees
wherein Lokin et,al were dropped.
-CIBAC won in the party list and gained 2 seats
in the congress. COMELEC en banc proclaimed
Cruz-Gonzales as the 2nd official nominee.
-Lokin Jr filed a petition for mandamus to
compel COMELEC to declare him as the 2nd
nominee.
Issue: WON Quo Warranto under the Rule 66 is
applicable in a election protest
Held:
NO- Election protest is strictly between
defeated and winning candidate based on the
grounds of electoral frauds and irregularity.
-Neither does an action for quo warranto will lie
since considering that the case does not involve
the ineligibility and disloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales
to the Republic of the Philippines or some other
cause of disqualification of her.
Q: What instrumentality of the government can
file a case of quo warranto?
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
A: The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor
may, with the permission of the court in which
the action is to be commenced, bring such an
action at the request and upon the relation of
another person; but in such case the officer
bringing it may first require an indemnity for
the expenses and costs of the action in an
amount approved by and to be deposited in the
court by the person at whose request and upon
whose relation the same is brought. (Rule 66
Sec 3)
Q: What is the issue of quo-warranto in an
election code?
A: The ineligibility of the public officer to hold
office under the election code but in Rule 66 it
pertains to disqualification of public officer.
-When a person usurps a public office, he is
subject to Quo Warranto. He shall be ousted
from office and the one who has claim to that
office must be reinstated.
Q: Which court shall have jurisdiction over a
petition of quo warranto?
A: Concurrent jurisdiction of RTC, CA and SC.
Q: What shall be the venue in a petition for quo
warranto?
A: An action under the preceding six sections
can be brought only in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area
where the respondent or any of the
respondents resides, but when the Solicitor
General commences the action, it may be
Page 64
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
brought in a Regional Trial Court in the City of
Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the
Supreme Court. (Rule 66, Sec 7)
Exception: A private individual can commence
an action for quo warranto provided he has a
claim to the public office.
Q: Can a Third party who does not have a claim
to the public office file an action for quo
warranto?
A: YES, He is called as “Relator”
-A third party complainant who has no claim to
the public office but can initiate a petition for
quo warranto.
-The OSG will help to facilitate the action.
Case: Mendoza vs Allas, 302 SCRA
Facts:
-Mendoza filed a petition for quo warranto
against Allas who was appointed by Former
President Ramos while he was assigned in
Cagayan de Oro.
-The trial court ruled in favor of Mendoza and
ordered Allas to be ousted from office.
-Allas appelead the decision towards the Court
of Appeals, during its pendency Allas was
promoted as the Deputy Commissioner
therefore he filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Mendoza filed a Motion for execution with
court a quo but it was denied since Allas is no
longer holding public office.
Issue: WON a petition for quo warranto can be
applied against the new person occupying the
public position
Held:
NO- A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding
to determine the right of a person to the use of
exercise of a franchise or public office and to
oust its enjoyment.
-A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the
respondent's successor in office even though
such successor may trace his title to the same.
-A quo warranto is never directed against an
office but against the person to determine if he
is constitutionally and legally authorized to
perform such act.
Section 11. Limitations. — Nothing contained in
this Rule shall be construed to authorize an
action against a public officer or employee for
his ouster from office unless the same be
commenced within one (1) year after the cause
of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to
hold such office or position, arose, nor to
authorize an action for damages in accordance
with the provisions of the next preceding
section unless the same be commenced within
one (1) year after the entry of the judgment
establishing the petitioner's right to the office in
question.
Damages: Prescriptive Period
For petition: 1 year from the accrual of the
action
Page 65
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
For damages: 1 year from the entry of
judgment
-Damages shall be filed in a separate action
CASES
Case: Calleja vs Panday 483 SCRA
Doctrine: “Quo Warranto is applicable only to
usurpation of public office”
Facts:
- Panday filed a petition for with the RTC of
Camarines Sur for quo warranto with damages.
- Panday alleged that from 1985 up to the filing
of the petition with court that they were
members of the board of directors of St. John
Hospital.
-On May 2005, Callega et.,al, who were
incorporators and stockholders of the
corporation forcibly and with aid of armed men
usurped the power in such institution.
- The trial court granted the petition filed by
Panday.
Issue: WON the petition for quo warranto is the
proper remedy in a usurpation of power in a
private corporation
Held:
NO- Quo Warranto is limited only against
person who usurps a public office,
position/franchise, public officer who forfeit
their office.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-An action for quo warranto is not applicable in
usurpation of power under a private
corporation since it is only limited to persons
who usurp public office/corporation.
Case: De Castro vs Carlos 696 SCRA 4/16/2013
Facts:
- PGMA appointed Emmanuel De Castro as
AGMO of MMDA and it was affirmed by the
member of Metro Manila Council.
-During the change of administration, De Castro
was reassigned to the legal and legislative
affairs office and his service vehicle was
withdrawn.
- De Castro demanded payment of his salary
and reinstatement towards the Office of the
President.
-President Aquino appointed Emerson Carlos as
the new AGMO of MMDA that prompted De
Castro to file an action for quo warranto to the
Supreme Court.
Issue: WON the petition for quo warranto is
proper for his reinstatement
Held:
NO- A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding
to determine the rights of a person to use or
exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the
holder from the enjoyment thereof. When the
action is filed by a private person in his own
name, he must prove that he is entitle to the
position.
Page 66
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Considering that De Castro is appointed by
PGMA whose term already ended, his term of
office also already ended.
-The person suing must show that he has a clear
right to the office but in this case it already
cease to exist.
Case: Velasco vs Speaker Belmonte 779 SCRA
81
Facts:
-Velasco and Reyes were candidates for the
position of Representative of Marinduque.
Joseph Tan filed a petition to the COMELEC to
disqualify Reyes.
-Comelec grant the petition and cancelled the
COC of Reyes but in the election she won for
the position of congress representative. The
Comelec En Banc affirmed the decision of the
division.
-Velasco filed a petition for Mandamus towards
Speaker Belmonte to administer the oath in his
favor.
Issue: WON the petition filed by Velasco is
proper
Held:
YES- A petition for quo-warranto is a proceeding
to determine the right of a person to the use or
exercise of a franchise or office. The
action/petition is the enforcement of clear legal
duties and not to try disputed title therefore it
is not quo warranto.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Petition for Mandamus is proper in this case in
this case since the taking of oath of office is no
longer discretion since there was already a
judgment rendered by COMELEC that Reyes is
disqualified to hold office.
Rule 67- Expropriation
Inherent Rights of the State
-Eminent Domain
-Police Power
-Power of Taxation
Constitutional basis: “No property shall be
taken without payment of just compensation”
Eminent Domain
Basis: Regalian Doctrine- All lands belong to the
state and he who claims otherwise has the
burden of proof
Substantive Law: CA 141  PD 1521
Q: To what does the property refer in this
provision?
A: Real or Personal Property can be subject of
expropriation.
-Personal Properties shall be governed by
special laws.
Example: Ill-Gotten Wealth Law or Anti Money
Laundering Act
Page 67
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
*The property provided in the Constitution is
not limited to real property but also includes
Personal.
Q: What is the concept of “Taking”?
A: It is not limited to actual seizure or custody.
There is already “taking” when there is
diminution of usefulness. If
utilization/usefulness of the property is gone,
there is actual taking therefore he is entitled to
compensation.
Case: National Power Corporation vs CA, 436
SCRA
Facts:
-NPC is created to generate geothermal,
hydroelectric power while Antonio Pobre is an
owner of 68,969 sq meter land located in Tiwi,
Albay. Pobre began developing the property as
a resort subdivision which he named as Tiwi Hot
Spring Resort.
-On 1977, NPC filed its expropriation case to
acquire an 8,311 sq meter of the property. In
1979, NPC filed its 2nd expropriation case for
5,554 sq meters.
-NPC filed a motion to dismiss to the 2nd case
sunce they already found an alternative site for
such project. RTC rendered a decision in favor
of Pobre and it was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Issue: WON Pobre is entitled to just
compensation for the entire property sought to
be expropriated
Held:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
YES- under the ROC, it provides that there is no
requirement of filing of an answer or summary
judgment in expropriation case. Under this
case, there is no such thing as the matter of
right to dismiss since the landowner has already
suffered damage upon actual taking of the
property.
-The dismissal of expropriation case restores
the expropriated land but when possession of
land cannot be turned over because it is neither
convenient nor feasible, the only remedy is to
pay just compensation and for this case the
property is no longer feasible for use or
occupancy.
MIA CASE
Manila International Airport expropriated
several properties located within the airport
area. The adjacent owners of the properties
also demand for compensation since they are
owners of poultry farm and their chicken or
ducks cannot produce eggs.
Ruling: There was already a taking of the
property even if the adjacent lot was not
covered of expropriation because its business
or livelihood of the owners situated already
diminished therefore they are entitled to just
compensation.
*The taking of the property has the purpose of
public use
PUBLIC USE- It is not necessary beneficial to the
entire public/community. Even only a portion of
the membership in the community will be
benefited, it can be a subject of expropriation.
Page 68
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
As long as the common good is promoted it
shall be for public use.
Example: Pink urinals constructed by former
MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando.
Formula for Just Compensation:
JC (Just Compensation) = FMV (Fair Market
Value) + Consequential Damages –
Consequential benefit which should not be
more than the damages
FMV- Fair Market Value= The price where the
buyer is willing to buy and the seller is willing to
sell.
Q: Can you apply the FMV strictly in the
payment of just compensation?
A: No, The owner shall be prejudiced of such
since the determination belongs to the
government.
-Upon filing of the complaint, the government
can immediately takeover provided they will
pay deposit equivalent to the assessed value of
the land- AMMENDED
“The term deposit is already amended”-
BRONDIAL
Q: What is the current value of judicial deposit
for taking immediate takeover?
A: It must be 15% of the zonal valuation of the
property.
Zonal Value- Price declared per assessment of
the BIR
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Case Doctrine: Asia Emerging Dragon vs DOTC
- Before the government can take
over/possession of the property, the have to
pay 100% of the zonal valuation for judicial
deposit. It shall only be applicable towards
infrastructure projects.
Example of Infrastructure Project: MRT/LRT
Line Extension
Note: A party cannot expropriate a government
property
Q: What if it is a government property but with
individuals residing, can you still proceed with
the expropriation?
A; YES, Since based from Rule 67 Sec 1, all
person owning or claiming to own or occupying
any part thereof.
Q: What is the jurisdiction of expropriation
case?
A: RTC- An action incapable of pecuniary
estimation
Q: Who can be the plaintiff in an action for
expropriation?
A: The government can only be the plaintiff
under the exercise of eminent domain.
-The Local Government Code also grant that
power to government owned and controlled
corp.
Q: Can a Barangay council expropriate a
property?
Page 69
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
A: NO. It must be with the concurrence of
Sangguniang panglungsod or pangbayan.
Q: What controls the power of GOCC?
A: It will be their charter that will control their
power to expropriate.
Expropriation vs Reclamation
Expropriation- Property shall be taken for
public purpose provided that there is a payment
of just compensation.
Reclamation- It is a mode of acquiring title over
the property
Procedure in Court
A) The court will issue an order of
condemnation
- This order is a final order and the
remedy shall be record on appeal which
is 30 days from notice.
B) Determination of Just Compensation
- The Court is mandated to appoint 3
Commissioners that will determine just
compensation. 1-Plaintiff 1-Defendant
1- Judicial Court
- The members of the commission are
entitled to accept evidence and hear
testimonies.
- The Commission shall not issue a
judgment but only a report
- The report shall not be conclusive upon
the court
*Determination of Just Compensation is always
a judicial determination and it can never be a
legislative or executive function.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Bar Problem: Can Congress pass a law
expropriating certain portion of UST in Espana
to be paid through exchange or barter with
another 1 hectare property located in Calamba,
Laguna. The objective to build a statue of
Arsenio Lacson.
Suggested Answer: NO, Since the
determination of just compensation is always a
judicial function.
Case: City of Manila vs Serrano 359 SCRA
Doctrine: “The government should deposit an
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the
property”
Facts:
-On December 21, 1993, the City Council of
Manila enacted an ordinance authorizing the
expropriation of certain properties located in
Tondo.
-One of the properties sought to be
expropriated was derived from TCT issued in
the name of Feliza de Guia. It was later on
transferred to Lee Kuan Hui.
-The trial court issued an order directing the
City of Manila to deposit the amount of Php
1,825,421.00 equivalent to the assessed value
of the property. Serrano filed a petition for
certiorari that the land sought to be
expropriated are exempt from expropriation
but it was denied by the Court of Appeals.
Issue: WON the property sought complied with
the procedure of expropriation
Held:
Page 70
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
NO- The plaintiff shall have the right to take or
enter upon the possession of the real property
if he deposited with the authorized government
depository an amount equivalent to the
assessed value of the property. If personal
property, its value shall be ascertained and the
amount deposited shall be fixed by the court.
-A writ of execution may only be issued by a
court upon the filing of a complaint sufficient in
form and substance and upon deposit made by
the government.
Case: Republic vs Andaya, 524 SCRA
Facts:
-Andaya is the registered owner of two parcels
of land situated in Butuan City. These properties
are subject to an easement for public highway,
irrigation and aqueducts.
-The Republic instituted an action before the
RTC of Butuan City to enforce the easement of
right of way. Board of Commissioner rendered a
finding that the Easement would diminish the
value of the property.
-RTC rendered a decision that the plaintiff is
legally entitled to inherent right of
expropriation. CA imposed a 6% interest in the
consequential damage from the writ of
possession.
Issue: WON the Republic is liable for just
compensation in enforcing the legal easement
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
YES- A legal easement should be granted to the
Republic since based on the title contained the
reservation that the land is covered by LRA
which can be subjected to right of way not
exceeding 60 meters.
-The exercise of eminent domain occurs not
only when the government actually deprives
the owner of his property of its ordinary use but
also when there is a practical destruction or
material impairment.
-Andaya is entitled to payment of just
compensation which is neither more or less
than the monetary value of the land.
Case: NPC vs YCLA Sugar Developmet Corp 712
SCRA 550
Facts:
- In order to complete its Calapan-Mamburao
Island Grind Project. It shall construct a
transmission line that would traverse several
private properties.
-NPC filed a complaint for expropriation with
RTC against YCLA. It sought the expropriation of
the parcels of land owned by the defendants.
-RTC rendered a decision directing NPC to pay
Php 5 million representing the value of the land.
It was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue: WON the RTC and CA correctly arrived at
the amount of just compensation
Page 71
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Held:
YES- Just Compensation is the full and fair
market value of the property taken from its
owner by the expropriator.
-It shall also be ascertained as of the time of the
taking which is during the expropriation
proceeding.
-The amount of just compensation could only
be attained by a reliable and actual data. A
Commissioner's report of land shall be
considered as evidence in the determination of
just compensation.
-The trial court may accept or reject the report
submitted by the commissioner.
Case: Limkaichong vs LBP, 799 SCRA 139
Facts:
- Limkaichong was the registered owner of an
agricultural lands located in Negros Oriental.
DARAB sent to her notice for the land valuation
and acquisition.
-Limkaichong filed in the RTC of Dumaguete City
a complaint for the fixing of just compensation.
-RTC sitting as Special Agricultural Court
dismissed the complaint on the ground that it
should be filed within 15 days from notice of
assailed order.
Issue: WON there was grave abuse of discretion
in dismissing the complaint
Held:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
YES- LBP is tasked with the responsibility of
determining the value of the land placed under
land reform and for its just compensation.
-Basis of the just compensation for property
under expropriation should either by the
assessment from the government or sworn
valuation by the owner.
-The determination of just compensation is
always a judicial determination.
RULE 68- FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE
MORTGAGE
Sec 1- Complaint in action for foreclosure
-Date and due execution of the mortgage
-Name and residence of the mortgagor
-Description of the mortgaged property
-Statement of the date of the note
-Names and residence of all persons having or
claiming an interest in the property
Two Types
- Judicial (Rule 68)
- Extra-judicial (Act 4118)
Applicability: When there is a mortgage of real
property and always anchored on a loan.
Q: Who are the parties in a real estate
mortgage?
A: *Mortgagee- Plaintiff *Mortgagor-
Defendant
Page 72
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Last Par of Sec 1: The names and residences of
all persons having or claiming an interest in the
property subordinate in right to that of the
holder of the mortgage, all of whom shall be
made defendants in the action.
-They shall be considered as necessary party,
one to whom there can be no complete
determination of the case.
-Without impleading all persons whose rights
are subordinate to that of the mortgagor, there
can be no complete determination of the case.
Q: Who are the necessary and indispensable
party in an action for foreclosure of real estate
mortgage?
A: The Owners of the property- Indispensable
Persons having a subordinate right- Necessary
Party.
Q: Is the Mortgagor equivalent to the owner of
the property?
A: Not necessarily since the owner can only give
his consent to effect such mortgage.
Q: How about the possessor of the property?
A: It will depend if his rights are subordinate to
that of the holder.
Junior Encumbrances- Where the property
subsequent to the mortgage.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Considered to be necessary party in the action
of foreclosure
If the Property is already foreclosed, it is already
sold- WRONG IMPRESSION
Section 2. Judgment on foreclosure for
payment or sale- If upon the trial in such action
the court shall find the facts set forth in the
complaint to be true, it shall ascertain the
amount due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage
debt or obligation, including interest and other
charges as approved by the court, and costs,
and shall render judgment for the sum so found
due and order that the same be paid to the
court or to the judgment obligee within a
period of not less than ninety (90) days nor
more than one hundred twenty (120) days
from the entry of judgment, and that in default
of such payment the property shall be sold at
public auction to satisfy the judgment.
-It pertains to judgment to pay
Time Frame: The same be paid to the court or
to the judgment oblige within a period of not
less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from
the entry of judgment.
-Default of such payment, the property shall be
sold at a public auction.
Equity of Redemption- Period of not less than
90 days nor more than 120 days from the entry
of judgment to pay the amount of mortgage
debt.
Page 73
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Right of Redemption- The 1 year period to
redeem the property counted from the
registration of the certificate of sale.
-The judgment obligor can redeem the property
along with the redemptioner
*If there is non-compliance of payment during
the period of equity of redemption, the
property can now be sold at the public auction.
Q: Who are the buyers of the property in the
auction sale?
A: Usually the mortgagee
-The foreclosure sale must be confirmed by the
court ORDER OF CONFIRMATION and without
such confirmation, the equity shall not be cut.
-If a party appeals such judgment, the period
for equity of redemption shall not run.
Section 6 Deficiency Judgment- If upon the sale
of any real property as provided in the next
preceding section there be a balance due to the
plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale,
the court, upon motion, shall render judgment
against the defendant for any such balance for
which, by the record of the case, he may be
personally liable to the plaintiff, upon which
execution may issue immediately if the balance
is all due at the time of the rendition of the
judgment; otherwise; the plaintiff shall be
entitled to execution at such time as the
balance remaining becomes due under the
terms of the original contract, which time shall
be stated in the judgment.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-It is only through a motion filed in court.
-When the sale of the property and the amount
is less than the judgment obligation. A party
shall file a motion in the court a quo for
deficiency judgment.
-Once the deficiency judgment is granted, a
party shall proceed using the remedies available
in Rule 39 (Sec 31,32 & 34)
Q: What will happen if the property mortgaged
is greater than the judgment obligation?
A: It will return to the judgment obligor the
excess amount of the property but if there are
junior encumbrances, it shall be given to them.
Q: is there a necessity of demand in real estate
mortgage?
A: No need for a demand in foreclosure of real
estate.
Case Doctrine: Goldenway vs Equitable PCI
Bank: The notice is not necessary in extra-
judicial foreclosure.
Q: How do you file an application for extra-
judicial foreclosure of real mortgage?
A: A party can file an application towards the
Branch Clerk of Court.
Q: Is there a right of redemption in extra-
judicial foreclosure?
A: It will depend on the contract between the
parties.
Page 74
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Q:What is the period in extra-judicial NO- CA erred in ruling this case that failure of
foreclosure? Manila Banking Corp to personal notice
constitutes breach of contract.
A: It will depend on the nature of the contract
between the contract. -Personal Notice to the mortgagor in extra-
judicial foreclosure is not necessary but only
Writ of Possession- Not a separate action, it is requires the posting of the notice of sale in
only filed through a Motion and Summary three public places and the publication of that
Hearing is necessary. notice in a newspaper of general circulation.

Case: Sps. Marquez vs Alindog 714 SCRA

Exception: When the property belong to a third
party who is not a party to the mortgage Facts:
contract.
-Anita Marquez extended a loan in the amount
Cases: of Php 500,000 to certain Benjamin Gutierrez,
he executed a deed of Real Estate Mortgage
Case: Ramirez vs Manila Banking Corp, 712 contract located in Tagaytay.
SCRA, 12/20/2013
-Gutierrez defaulted in the payment of his loan
Facts: obligation. Anita sought the extra-judicial
foreclosure. At the public auction, Anita
-Ramirez mortgaged 2 parcels of land located at
emerged as the highest bidder.
Marikina City in favor of Manila Banking Corp.
-Sps. Alindog filed a civil case for annulment of
-Manila Bankers filed a request for extra-judicial
real estate mortgage and certification of sale.
foreclosure of real estate mortgage before Atty.
RTC issued a preliminary injunction enjoining
Sanez due to the failure of Ramirez to pay his
Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the
loan.
property.
-Ramirez filed an action for the annulment of
sale and it was granted by the RTC.
Issue: WON the Trial Court erred in granting the
-CA reversed the decision since of personal
writ of preliminary injunction after the lapse of
notice of foreclosure to Ramirez is not a ground
the redemption period.
to set aside the foreclosure sale.

Issue: WON personal notice is necessary in

extra-judicial foreclosure Held:

Held:

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 75
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
YES- The purchaser in an extra-judicial
foreclosure is entitled to the possession of the
property and can demand that he be place in
possession during or after the expiration of
redemption period.
-A writ of possession in favor of the purchaser
in a foreclosure sale is ministerial towards the
RTC with the exception that a third party is
actually holding the property by adverse title or
right.
-The issuance of a writ of possession is already a
ministerial function of the RTC.
Case: Ardiente vs Provincial Sheriff, 436 SCRA
Facts:
-Sps Ardiente obtained a loan from Peninsula
Development Bank secured by a real estate
mortgage over the land. Ardiente purchased a
mini bus coming from the obtained loan. This
mini bus figured in an accident and as a result
Sps. Ardiente failed to pay the loan.
-PDB extra judicially foreclosed the mortgage
and it was sold in a public auction. Two (2) days
before the expiration of the redemption period,
Sps. Ardiente filed a complaint for the
annulment of the auction sale.
-RTC rendered a decision dismissing the sale on
the ground that strict compliance on the
publication was not complied with.
Issue: WON publication is necessary in sale of a
property in extra-judicial foreclosure of
mortgage
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
YES- Personal notice to the mortgagor in extra-
judicial foreclosure is not necessary hence not a
ground to set aside the foreclosure sale.
-Issue of lack of publication of notice cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal.
Case: LZK Holdings vs Planters Development
Bank, 714 SCRA
Facts:
-LZK Holdings obtained a Php 40 million loan
from PDB and it was secured the same with a
real estate mortgage over its land located in La
Union. The Lot was sold at public auction after
PDB extrajudicially foreclosed the property due
to LZK's failure to pay the loan.
-LZK Holdings filed before the RTC of Makati
City for annulment of extra-judicial foreclosure
of real properties. 3 days before the expiration
of LZK's redemption, RTC issued a TRO.
-RTC of Makati rendered a decision declaring as
null and void the consolidated title of PDB.
Issue: WON in a petition for issuance of writ of
possession may be dispensed when the court
already issued an order.
Held:
YES- Under the principle of conclusiveness of
judgment, the right of PDB to a writ of
possession is binding and conclusive towards
the parties.
Page 76
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-The proceeding in a petition for a writ of
possession is ex-parte and summary in nature.
It is a judicial proceeding brought for the
benefit of one party and without notice by the
court to any person adverse of interest.
Case: Goldenway Merchandising vs Equitable
PCI Banks, G.R. No. 195540 March 13, 2013
Facts:
-Goldenway executed a real estate mortgage in
favor of Equitable PCI Bank over it properties
situated in Valenzuela City. When Goldenway
failed to settle its obligation, PCI Bank extra-
judicially foreclosed the mortgage.
-The counsel of Goldenway offered to redeem
the foreclosed property but PCI Bank
mentioned that such redemption is not possible
since the certificate of sale had already been
registered.
-Goldenway filed a complaint for specific
performance and damages but it was dismissed
by the RTC.
Issue: WON PCI Bank can be compelled to sell
the foreclosed property.
Held:
NO- The Right of Redemption being statutory
must be exercised in the manner prescribed by
the statue and within the prescribed time limit.
-Under Act 3135, juridical person whose
property is being sold pursuant to an extra-
judicial foreclosure, shall have the right to
redeem the property until, but not later, the
registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
within Register of Deeds, which in no case shall
be more than 3 months per foreclosure.
Case: Robles vs Yapcinco, G.R. No. 169568,
October 22, 2014.
Facts:
-Yapcinco constituted a mortgage on the
property located in Tarlac in favor of Marcelo to
secure the performance of his obligation. When
Yapcinco failed to pay the obligation, Cruz
brought an action for judicial foreclosure.
-Apolinario Cruz donated the said property to
his grandchildren but Bernabe falsified a deed
of sale whereby he made it appear that
Yapcinco sold the property to him.
-All heirs of Yapcinco instituted an action for
annulment of TCT which Bernabe falsified, RTC
rendered a decision in favor of the heirs.
-CA reversed the decision of RTC stating that an
non-registration of its certificate of sale will
have an effect that the period of redemption
shall not begin to run.
Issue: WON the non-registration of certificate
of sale is applicable in judicial foreclosure
Held:
NO- Failure of Cruz to register the certificate of
sale was of no consequence since it is only
applicable in extra-judicial foreclosure.
-The effect of failure to obtain judicial
confirmation was only to prevent the title from
being transferred to him. Such right shall not
give rise to any right in favor of the mortgagor.
Page 77
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Judicial confirmation operated only to divest
the rights of all parties to the action and to best
their right in the purchaser subject to right of
redemption.
Case: Metrobank vs CPR Promotions and
Marketing, G.R. No. 200567, June 22, 2015
Facts:
-From Feb to Oct 2015, CPR Promotion
obtained loans from Metrobank. The loans
were covered by 15 Promissory Notes.
-To secure the loans, Sps. Reynoso executed
two deeds of real estate mortgage. They also
executed a continuing surety over the loans
they have secured.
-Upon maturity of the loans, CPR defaulted in
payment prompted Metrobank to extra-
judicially foreclosure the real estate mortgage.
-MBCTC filed a civil case to recover the
deficiency balance and the trial court ruled in
their favor. It was reversed by the Court of
Appeals.
Issue: WON CA erred in reversing the decision
of the Trial Court
Held:
NO- In extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage,
the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay
the debt, the mortgagee has the right to
recover the deficiency from the debtor.
-There can only be deficit when the proceeds of
the sale is not sufficient to cover the foreclosure
proceeding and the amount due to the creditor,
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
inclusive of penalties at the time of the
foreclosure.
Rule 69- Partition
-There should always co-ownership in order to
apply partition.
Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of
real estate. — A person having the right to
compel the partition of real estate may do so as
provided in this Rule, setting forth in his
complaint the nature and extent of his title and
an adequate description of the real estate of
which partition is demanded and joining as
defendants all other persons interested in the
property.
-A complaint shall set forth the nature and
extent of his title.
-Adequate description of the real estate of
which portion is demanded and joining of
defendants.
Sec 2- Order for partition and partition by
agreement thereunder
-If after the trial the court finds that the plaintiff
has the right thereto, it shall order the partition
of the real estate among all the parties in
interest.
-If the parties are able to agree, make the
partition among themselves by proper
instruments of conveyance and the court shall
confirm the partition.
Page 78
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-A final order decreeing partition and
accounting may be appealed by any party
aggrieved thereby.
Sec 3- Commissioner to make partition when
parties fail to agree
-The court shall appoint NOT MORE THAN 3
competent and DISINTERESTED persons as
commissioners to make the partition.
Sec 5- Assignment or sale of real estate by
commissioners
-The real estate or portion cannot be divided
without prejudice
-The court may order it assigned to one of the
parties willing to take the same, provided he
pays to the other parties such amount as the
commissioners deem equitable
Co-Ownership- When a property is owned by
two or more persons.
Case: Balus vs Balus
Facts: Mr. Balus (Father) owned a piece of land
located in Tarlac and he secured a loan from a
bank. The property was subjected into a real
estate mortgage. Mr Balus failed to pay the loan
and as a result the land was foreclosed. The
Bank was the buyer in the auction sale and the
title thereto was consolidated. The two children
of Mr. Balus entered into an extra-judicial
settlement of estate of their father and they do
not have an idea that the TCT of the lands were
already consolidated in favor of the bank. One
of the children bought back the property from
the bank and wanted full ownership of the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
property. The other sibling filed an action for
partition based on the extra-judicial settlement
of estate.
Issue: WON partition shall apply in the case and
WON there is co-ownership in the property
Ruling: In a partition case, the court should
determine if there is co-ownership over the
property. In this case, there is no more co-
ownership from the time the bank consolidated
the title.
Parts of Partition:
(a) Determination of co-ownership of the
property
(b) Accounting of the expenses for the
partition, the proceeds of such property
-The accounting must be determined by a
commissioner.
Situation:
H&W- Owned a parcel of land (1,000 sq meter)
Children: Andoy, Betty, Carla, Danilo and Eric
Procedure: if the siblings cannot agree on extra-
judicial settlement, the can file an action for
partition.
(A) When a party file a petition for
partition, the court must convience the
parties to enter into a “project of
partition” or Extra-judicial settlement of
estate
-In case of co-ownership, only one party
can file an action but if they are
Page 79
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
defendants all of them must be
impleaded.
-If the other co-owners does not want
to join the action, they shall be
considered as “unwilling plaintiff”.
(B) The trial court will assign commissioners
that will determine the accounting of the co-
owned property
-The commissioner will insist another extra-
judicial settlement of estate.
-The commissioner has the option of
assignment or Buy out of the property
-If one of the co-owners opposed the
assignment, it will be automatically
terminated.
-The commissioner has the remedy of sale
over the property and the proceeds will be
partitioned.
Section 10. Costs and expenses to be taxed and
collected. — The court shall equitably tax and
apportion between or among the parties the
costs and expenses which accrue in the action,
including the compensation of the
commissioners, having regard to the interests
of the parties, and execution may issue therefor
as in other cases.
Section 11. The judgment and its effect; copy
to be recorded in registry of deeds. — If actual
partition of property is made, the judgment
shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and
adequate description, the particular portion of
the real estate assigned to each party, and the
effect of the judgment shall be to vest in each
party to the action in severalty the portion of
the real estate assigned to him. If the whole
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
property is assigned to one of the parties upon
his paying to the others the sum or sums
ordered by the court, the judgment shall state
the fact of such payment and of the assignment
of the real estate to the party making the
payment, and the effect of the judgment shall
be to vest in the party making the payment the
whole of the real estate free from any interest
on the part of the other parties to the action. If
the property is sold and the sale confirmed by
the court, the judgment shall state the name of
the purchaser or purchasers and a definite
description of the parcels of real estate sold to
each purchaser, and the effect of the judgment
shall be to vest the real estate in the purchaser
or purchasers making the payment or
payments, free from the claims of any of the
parties to the action. A certified copy of the
judgment shall in either case be recorded in the
registry of deeds of the place in which the real
estate is situated, and the expenses of such
recording shall be taxed as part of the costs of
the action.
Cases: Felciano vs Canoza, G.R. No. 161746,
September 1, 2010
Facts:
-When Antonio Felciano died on May 30, 1930,
he left behind his only property located in
Bustos, Bulacan.
-On 1972, Leona, Maria and Pedro with the
exception of Salinas executed an extra-judicial
settlement of estate belonging to Antonio.
-Jacinto Feliciano applied for a free patent over
the land.
Page 80
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Surviving heirs of late Esteban Felciano filed a
complaint alleging that the settlement of Estate
was done without their participation & consent.
-CA reversed the decision alleging that
prescription already set in since the annulment
of extra-judicial settlement already lapsed
which is 4 years from the issuance of free
patents.
Issue: WON Extra-Judicial partition of the estate
wherein some of the compulsory heirs were
excluded can be assailed after 4 years.
Held:
NO- The prescriptive period to institute the
action to annul the deed of extra-judicial
settlement is 4 years counted from the
discovery of fraud.
-The complaint was only filed 16 years after
Jacinto was issued free patents and petitioner
have obtained constructive notice of fraud upon
the registration of Free Patent.
Case: Vda de Figuracion vs Figuracion-Gerilla,
G.R. No. 151334, February 13, 2013
Facts:
-Parties are the heirs of Leandro Figuracion who
died intestate in 1958. Subject of the dispute
are two parcels of land situated in Pangasinan.
-On 1962, Carolina executed an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication as the sole and exclusive heir of
the deceased. She also executed a deed of
absolute sale in favor of Hilaria and Felipa.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Hilaria prompted to seek the demolition of the
house of Emilia which prompted the latter to
seek partition of the lots. RTC rendered a
decision that the partition was dismissed.
-CA reversed the decision by the RTC since no
necessity to place Lot 707 under judicial admin
since Carolina sold her ½ share to Felipa and
Hilaria.
Issue: WON there is still co-ownership over the
property
Held:
YES- The first stage in an action for partition is
the settlement of co-ownership.
-Mere issuance of a certificate of title in the
name of any person does not foreclose the
possibility that the real property maybe under
co-ownership with persons not named in the
certificate.
-Co-ownership of Lot 707 is established, the
affidavit of self- adjudication did not prejudice
the share of Agripina. The deed of sale executed
by Carolina in favor of Hilaria and Felipa was
valid as to the share of Carolina in the co-
ownership.
Case: Mangahas vs Brobio, G.R. No. 183852,
October 20, 2010.
Facts:
-Pacifico died intestate and was survived by his
wife (Euforcina) 4 legitimate and 3 illegitimate
child.
Page 81
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

-The heirs of Pacifico executed a deed of extra- Accion Interdictal- Recovery of Possession de
judicial settlement of estate and respondent facto
agreed to pay Carmela of her share in the estate
but the former failed to comply. -Unlawful Detainer -Forcible Entry
-Carmela Mangahas filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer Forcible Entry
Specific Performance with Damages and the
trial court rendered a decision in her favor. Possession was lawful Possession was
-It was reversed by the Court of Appeals at the start and unlawful from the
become unlawful later start
considering that the waiver in the deed of
on.
extra-judicial may not considered as the
consideration in the Promissory Note. Demand to vacate the Demand to vacate is
property is necessary not necessary
Issue: WON an act of partition is the proper
Prescriptive Period: 1 Prescriptive Period: 1
remedy year from the last year from the last
demand entry in the property
Held:
NO- An action for partition implies that the -Upon the lapse of 1
year, it will be
property is still owned in common. Considering
converted into Accion
that the heirs had already executed a deed of Publiciana
extra-judicial and waived their shares in favor of
respondent. Grounds: Grounds:
-The properties are no longer under the state of
-Expiration of the FITTS- Fraud,
co-ownership, there is nothing more to be Contract (Written or Intimidation, Threat,
partitioned as ownership land already merged Oral) Strategy and Stealth
into one person.
-Violation of any
term/condition in the
contract

-Tolerance
Rule 70- Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry

3 Kinds of Action for Recovery of Real Property

-In Ejectment case, the rent control law
Accion Reinvindicatoria- Recovery of
provides for other grounds of assignment.
Ownership
Example:
Accion Publiciana- Recovery of Plenary
Possession -Assignment of lease or subleasing rights

-Arrears in rent payment for a total of 3 months

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 82
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Legitimate need of the lessor/owner of his
property
-All cases of unlawful detainer & forcible entry
are within the jurisdiction of MTC or MTCC.
Exception: On appeal to RTC, it is no longer
governed by summary procedure but regular
procedure. (Refuga vs CA)
Q: What is the jurisdiction of Unlawful Detainer
and Forcible Entry Cases?
A: MTC or MTCC
Q: What is the venue of ejectment case?
A: Where the property is located since the
action is quasi in rem. The subject matter of the
case is real property
Cases of Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry
is governed by Summary Procedure
*No Hearing
*Periods are shorter
Section 4. Pleadings allowed.
-Complaint, compulsory counterclaim and
cross-claim
-All pleadings shall be verified
Section 6. Answers. —
Within ten (10) days from service of summons,
the defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint and serve a copy thereof on the
plaintiff. Affirmative and negative defenses not
pleaded therein shall be deemed waived,
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
except lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Cross-claims and compulsory
counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall
be considered barred. The answer to
counterclaims or cross-claims shall be served
and filed within ten (10) days from service of
the answer in which they are pleaded.
Section 8. Preliminary conference; appearance
of parties.
Not later than thirty (30) days after the last
answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall
be held. The provisions of Rule 18 on pre-trial
shall be applicable to the preliminary
conference unless inconsistent with the
provisions of this Rule.
Section 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions.
The following petitions, motions, or pleadings
shall not be allowed:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint
except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
failure to comply with section 12;
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial, or for
reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file
pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
6. Memoranda;
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory
order issued by the court;
Page 83
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
8. Motion to declare the defendant in
default;
9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply;
11. Third-party complaints;
12. Interventions.
Motion to Dismiss
Exceptions: -Lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter
-Failure to comply with brgy conciliation
regardless of the residence of the parties.
Exception to Exception: Corporation
-There is no trial in a case of unlawful detainer
& forcible entry
-Only Submission of position papers
-There is Preliminary Conference- In compliance
with (AM 07-03-09)
Meditation-Arbitration-Submission of Pre-Trial
Order-Position Paper
- If the judge would like to have clarificatory
questions, he will order to have a hearing.
*The only issue that will be resolved in an
unlawful detainer & forcible entry is possession
de facto.
Sec 16- Resolving defense of ownership
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-When the defendant raises the defense of
ownership, the question of possession cannot
be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership. It shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.
-The issue of ownership shall not be res judicata
therefore litis pendentia shall not apply.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEFS (Sec 15 & 20)
Section 15. Preliminary injunction. — The court
may grant preliminary injunction, in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 58 hereof, to
prevent the defendant from committing further
acts of dispossession against the plaintiff.
A possessor deprived of his possession through
forcible from the filing of the complaint, present
a motion in the action for forcible entry or
unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to restore
him in his possession. The court shall decide
the motion within thirty (30) days from the
filing thereof.
Section 20. Preliminary mandatory injunction
in case of appeal. — Upon motion of the
plaintiff, within ten (10) days from the
perfection of the appeal to the Regional Trial
Court, the latter may issue a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore the plaintiff in
possession if the court is satisfied that the
defendant's appeal is frivolous or dilatory or
that the appeal of the plaintiff is prima
facie meritorious.
*A judgment in unlawful detainer & forcible
entry is immediately executory.
-Appeal shall not toll the execution of the
judgment unless it is coupled by sufficient
Page 84
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
supersedes bond and regularly monthly deposit
for the use & occupancy of the premises.
-Once the records of the case is elevated
towards the RTC, there should be a monthly
deposit for the use & occupancy of the
premises.
Q: Where should a party file their notice of
appeal & posting of supersedes bond?
A: MTC
Q: Where should a party pay the regular
monthly deposit for the use & occupancy?
A: Appellate Court- RTC
Q: When should a party pay the regular
monthly deposit for the use & occupancy?
A: On or Before the 10th day of every
succeeding month.
Rationale: Under Rule 40 of ROC, the clerk of
court shall have 15 days to which to transmit
the records of the case from MTC to RTC.
Q: How much will be the regular monthly
deposit?
A: Amount based on the judgment
Example: A-lessor, B-lessee with a contract of
lease in the house which will expire on Dec
2018 with a monthly rental of Php 5,000. A
wrote a letter to B that the rental will increase
to Php 15,000.
-In ejectment case, the court shall state the
reasonable amount of rentals.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Supersedes bond- Unpaid rentals or if there are
no unpaid rentals, it shall not be necessary.
-Once the Regional Trial Court affirms the
decision of the MTC, there shall be execution of
judgment.
Remedy: File a petition for review under Rule
42.
-If a party wants to stall the execution of
judgment, he shall file a preliminary injunction
or TRO.
Case Doctrine Zacarrias vs Anacay- “In order
for tolerance to be a valid ground for unlawful
detainer, it must co-exist with possession”
-The act of tolerance must be together with the
time of possession.
Example #1: Mr A is an owner of a real property
and B is occupying the property of Mr. A. Mr. A
is tolerating the occupancy of B in his property,
his possession is co-existence with tolerance. If
Mr.A will tell B to vacate the property and the
latter refuse, Mr. A can file a case of unlawful
detainer on the ground of tolerance.
Example #2: Mr A sold the property to Mr. Y,
the latter will now be the owner. He noticed
that B is still in his property and thereafter
demanded to vacate the property. In the event
Mr. Y will file a case against B, it will not prosper
on the ground of tolerance since it is not co-
existence with possession.
Rule 70- Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry
Case: Suarez vs Emboy Jr, 718 SCRA 677
Page 85
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Facts:
-A house located in Cebu City occupied Sps.
Felix and Maribu claim that their mother
occupied the subjected land.
-On 2004, they were asked by their cousins,
heirs of Vicente to vacate the subject lot.
Respondents received a demand letter from
Suarez's counsel to vacate such land but they
did not follow such order. They filed a petition
for partition while Carmencita for unlawful
detainer.
-MTC rendered a decision in favor of
Carmencita and it was affirmed by RTC. CA
reversed the decision of the lower courts on the
ground that the case is not unlawful detainer.
Issue: WON the Court of Appeals erred in its
decision
Held:
NO
-Accion interdictal comprises two distinct
causes of action, namely, forcible entry
(detentacion) and unlawful detainer
(desahuico). In forcible entry, one is deprived of
physical possession of real property by means
of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or
stealth whereas in unlawful detainer, one
illegally withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
possession under any contract, express or
implied. The two are distinguished from each
other in that in forcible entry, the possession of
the defendant is illegal from the beginning, and
that the issue is which party has prior de facto
possession while in unlawful detainer,
possession of the defendant is originally legal
but became illegal due to the expiration or
termination of the right to possess.
-The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are
summary in nature, lies in the proper municipal
trial court or metropolitan trial court. Both
actions must be brought within one year from
the date of actual entry on the land, in case of
forcible entry, and from the date of last
demand, in case of unlawful detainer. The issue
in said cases is the right to physical possession.
-In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the
following key jurisdictional facts must be
alleged and sufficiently established: (1)initially,
possession of property by the defendant was by
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2)
eventually, such possession became illegal upon
notice by plaintiff to defendant of the
termination of the latter’s right of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in
possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4)within
one year from the last demand on defendant to
vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the
complaint for ejectment.
Page 86
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
- To give the court jurisdiction to effect the
ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the
land, it is necessary that the complaint must
sufficiently show such a statement of facts as to
bring the party clearly within the class of cases
for which the statutes provide a remedy,
without resort to parol testimony, as these
proceedings are summary in nature. In short,
the jurisdictional facts must appear on the face
of the complaint.
Atty. Alconera vs Pallanan, 714 SCRA 204
Facts:
-Pending appeal, the apellate court of RTC
rendered a decision granting the motion for
execution. Rafols called Atty. Alconera to tell
that the sheriff was about to execute the
judgment.
-There was a heated argument between Atty.
Alconera and Sheriff Pallanan since the former
mentioned that they have a pending MR
therefore the execution is improper.
Issue: WON an appeal or MR shall toll the
execution pending appeal
Held: NO- A judgment on forcible entry and
unlawful detainer shall be immediately
executory to avoid further injustice unless the
the defendant stayed the execution upon
completion of the following (a) notice of appeal,
(b) filing a supersedeas bond and (c) periodic
deposit of rental or compensation for the use &
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
occupancy of the property. Failure of the
defendant to comply is a ground for the
outright execution of the judgment.
-In this case, the bond filed did not meet the
legal requirement since the bond posted was a
property bond, not case not surety.
-Enforcement of ejectment cases requires the
sheriff to give such writ and to demand from
defendant to vacate such property.
Case: Teodoro vs Espino, 715 SCRA 435
Facts:
-A lot included in a property registered in the
name of Genaro Teodoro wherein he had 5
children.
-Petra was the daughter of Genaro only
occupied the property. In her will, she
appointed Genaro as the devisee.
-Teodoro effected the demolition of the
ancestral house since he intends to use it for
other purpose. Respondent who is living in the
subjected land erected a fence which forced
Teodoro to file forcible entry.
-Both parties raised the issue of ownership via
succession. MTC rendered a decision claiming
that Teodoro cannot be disturbed of their
possession over the property.
-RTC reversed the decision in favor of Teodoro
Teodoro.
Page 87
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Issue: WON exclusive ownership of a property
subject of an action for forcible entry should be
proven.
Held:
NO- Exclusive ownership are not among those
needed to be proved to be entitled to
possession in forcible entry.
-The elements of forcible entry: (a) force,
intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth to
deprive another of physical possession, (b)
plaintiff must allege and prove prior physical
possession, (c) physical/material possession and
(d) ejectment cases proceed independently of
claim of ownership.
Case: Ferrer vs Judge Rabaca, 632 SCRA
Facts:
- Complainant were the president of YMCA in
an ejectment against Cano. They received a
favorable judgment pending appeal they tried
to execute the judgment of MTC but it was
denied by Judge Rabaca.
Issue: WON the issuance of writ of execution
pending appeal can be granted
Held:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
YES- Execution shall issue immediately upon
motion unless an appeal has been perfected
and the defendant file a supersedeas bond and
payment of rentals, damages.
-Perfection of an appeal is not sufficient to stay
the execution of the judgment in an ejectment
case.
-In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of
appeal filed in due time and expiration of the
time to appeal.
Case: CGR Corp vs Treyes, 522 SCRA
Facts:
-Treyes allegedly forcibly and unlawfully
entered the leased properties and once inside
barracaded the entrance of the fishponds.
-CGR filed a complaint with the MTC for forcible
entry and damages with the RTC. Treyes filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
pendentia and res judicata.
-RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of
prematurity.
Issue: WON the separate complaints for forcible
entry and damages can independently
instituted
Held:
YES- The only damages that may be recovered
in an action for forcible entry is the fair rental
Page 88
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
value or reasonable compensation for the use &
occupation of the property.
-Other damages arising out of forcible
entry/unlawful detainer may be filed separatelt
and independently of the claim or restoration of
possession.
Case: Zacarias vs Anacay, 736 SCRA 508
Facts:
-A complaint for Ejectment with Damages was
filed on 2008 by Amanda Zacarias against
Victoria Anacay. MTC rendered a decision in
favor of Anacay since the complaint failed to
state the elements of unlawful detainer.
-RTC the decision of the MTC on the ground
that respondent's occupation of the property
without Zacaria's consent that it can be
converted into contract.
Issue: WON tolerance can be converted into
one of the grounds of unlawful detainer
Held:
- The complaint of Zacarias failed to allege that
the possession by the respondent being initially
legal or tolerated by the petitioner and which
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
became illegal upon termination of such lawful
possession.
-Tolerance must be present from the start of
possession sought to be recovered to as
unlawful detainer and not forcible entry.
-It is essential in unlawful detainer cases that
the plaintiff's act of tolerance must be present
from the start of possession which is sought to
be recovered.
Case: Manalang vs Bacani, 745 SCRA, January
12, 2015
Facts:
- Petitioners Ruben Manalang, Amado
Manalang, Carlos Manalang, Concepcion M.
Gonzales, Ladislao Manalang and Luis Manalang
were the co-owners of Lot No 4236 with an
area of 914 square meters of the Guagua
Cadastre, and declared for taxation purposes in
the name of Tomasa B. Garcia.
-A preliminary relocation survey conducted by
the Lands Management Section of the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) confirmed the result on the
encroachment. When the respondents refused
to vacate the encroached portion and to
surrender peaceful possession thereof despite
demands, the petitioners commenced this
action for unlawful detainer on April 21, 1997 in
the MTC of Guagua (Civil Case No. 3309), and
the case was assigned to Branch 2 of that court.
- On September 17, 1998, the MTC (Branch 2)
dismissed Civil Case No. 3309 for lack of
jurisdiction based on its finding that the action
Page 89
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
involved an essentially boundary dispute that
should be properly resolved in an accion
reivindicatoria.
-RTC reversed the MTC (Branch 2), and
remanded the case for further proceedings,
holding that because there was an apparent
withholding of possession of the property and
the action was brought within one year from
such withholding of possession the proper
action was ejectment which was within the
jurisdiction of the MTC; and that the case was
not a boundary dispute that could be resolved
in an accion reinvidicatoria, considering that it
involved a sizeable area of property and not a
mere transferring of boundary.
Issue: WON RTC has the authority to receive
additional evidence on appeal in an ejectment
case.
Held:
NO- Under Rule 70, Sec 18 of the ROC it
provides that: “The judgment or final order shall
be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial
Court which shall decide the same on the basis
of the entire record of the proceedings had in
the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the Regional Trial Court.”
-RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the
conduct of the relocation and verification
survey in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and by
hearing the testimony of the surveyor, for its
doing so was tantamount to its holding of a trial
de novo. The violation was accented by the fact
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
that the RTC ultimately decided the appeal
based on the survey and the surveyor's
testimony instead of the record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin.
-The MTC dismissed the action because it did
not have jurisdiction over the case. The
dismissal was correct. It is fundamental that the
allegations of the complaint and the character
of the relief sought by the complaint determine
the nature of the action and the court that has
jurisdiction over the action.
-To be clear, unlawful detainer is an action filed
by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person
against whom the possession of any land or
building is unlawfully withheld after the
expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession by virtue of any contract, express or
implied.To vest in the MTC the jurisdiction to
effect the ejectment from the land of the
respondents as the occupants in unlawful
detainer, therefore, the complaint should
embody such a statement of facts clearly
showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.
Case: De la Cruz vs Hermano, 754 SCRA 231
Facts:
-Respondents Antonio and Remedios Hermano
are the registered owners of a house and lot
situated in P.B. Constantino Subdivision,
Tagaytay City, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-24503. On 13 June 2002,
Antonio sued petitioner before the MTCC of
Tagaytay City, Branch 1, for ejectment and
damages.
Page 90
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-petitioner admitted the existence of TCT No. T-
24503, but she contended that the true and
actual owner of the property was Don Enciso
Benitez (Benitez). Allegedly, Antonio and his
wife, respondent Remedios Hermano, had
already sold the property to Benitez; the latter,
in turn, sold it to petitioner by virtue of a Deed
of Absolute Sale,which they executed on 1
March 2001.
-The MTCC found that Antonio had, indeed,
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the
subject property in favor of Benitez.
The RTC opined that respondents, Complaint
did not clearly show whether it was one for
forcible entry or for unlawful detainer. Because
it appeared to be an ejectment case, the MTCC
took cognizance of it. The parties subsequent
pleadings revealed, however, that the case was
actually an accion reivindicatoria.
Issue: WON the complaint sufficiently suffice
the requisites of unlawful detainer
Held:
YES- Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,
requires that in actions for forcible entry, it
must be alleged that the complainant was
deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy,
or stealth, and that the action was filed anytime
within one year from the time the unlawful
deprivation of possession took place. This
requirement implies that in those cases,
possession of the land by the defendant has
been unlawful from the beginning, as the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
possession was obtained by unlawful means.
Further, the complainant must allege and prove
prior physical possession of the property in
litigation until he or she was deprived thereof
by the defendant. The one-year period within
which to bring an action for forcible entry is
generally counted from the date of actual entry
into the land, except when entry was made
through stealth; if so, the one-year period
would be counted from the time the plaintiff
learned about it.
-The complaint subject of this case was
captioned as ejectment. From a reading of the
allegations of the subject Complaint, we find
that the action is one for forcible entry.
Petitioner alleged that he is the owner of the
property registered under TCT No. T-24503;
that the possession thereof by respondent on 1
September 2001 was pursuant to an alleged
Memorandum of Agreement between her and a
certain Don Mario Enciso, without the authority
and consent of the petitioner; and that he has
served written demands, dated 27 September
2001 and 24 October 2001, but that respondent
refused to vacate the property. According to
petitioner, the Complaint, which was filed on 13
June 2002, was filed within one year from the
occupation of the property.
-The Court agrees with the CA's findings that
the Complaint was timely filed. It is settled that
where forcible entry occurred clandestinely, the
one-year prescriptive period should be counted
from the time the person who was deprived of
possession demanded that the deficient desist
Page 91
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
from dispossession when the former learned
about it.
Case: Erorita vs Dumlao, 781 SCRA 551
Facts:
-Spouses Antonio and Ligaya Dumlao(Spouses
Dumlao)are the registered owners of a parcel of
land located at Barangay San Mariano, Roxas,
Oriental Mindoro, and covered by TCT No. T-
53000. The San Mariano Academy structures
are built on the property.
-The Spouses Dumlao agreed to allow the
petitioners to continue to operate the school on
the property. The Spouses Erorita appointed
Hernan and Susan Erorita as the San Mariano
Academy’s administrators.
-On December 16, 2002, the Spouses Dumlao
asked the petitioners to vacate the property.
Although the Spouses Erorita wanted to
comply, they could not immediately close the
school without clearance from the Department
of Education, Culture, and Sports to whom they
are accountable.
-On March 4, 2004, the Spouses Dumlao filed a
complaint for recovery of possession before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the
defendants Hernan, Susan, and the Spouses
Erorita.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-On June 4, 2007, the RTC decided in the
Spouses Dumlao’s favor. It ordered the
defendants (1) to immediately vacate the
property and turn it over to the Spouses
Dumlao, and (2) to pay accumulated rentals,
damages, and attorney’s fees. The RTC also
prohibited the defendants from accepting
enrolees to the San Mariano Academy.
-The CA ruled that the applicable law on
jurisdiction when the complaint was filed, was
Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691). This law
provides that in civil actions involving a real
property’s title or possession, jurisdiction
depends on the property’s assessed value and
location – if the assessed value exceeds fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) in Metro Manila,
and twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
outside of Metro Manila, the RTC has
jurisdiction.
Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the
complaint.
Held:
NO- Jurisdiction does not depend on the
complaint’s caption.Nor is jurisdiction changed
by the defenses in the answer; otherwise, the
defendant may easily delay a case by raising
other issues, then, claim lack of jurisdiction.
-To make a case for unlawful detainer, the
complaint must allege that: (a) initially, the
defendant lawfully possessed the property,
either by contract or by plaintiff’s tolerance; (b)
Page 92
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
the plaintiff notified the defendant that his right
of possession is terminated; (c) the defendant
remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of
its enjoyment; and (d) the plaintiff filed a
complaint within one year from the last
demand on defendant to vacate the property. A
complaint for accion publiciana or recovery of
possession of real property will not be
considered as an action for unlawful detainer if
any of these special jurisdictional facts is
omitted.
-The complaint did not state that (i) possession
was unlawfully withheld and (ii) the complaint
was filed within a year from the last demand.
Because these special jurisdictional facts for an
unlawful detainer case were lacking, we held
that the case should be accion publiciana over
which the RTC has jurisdiction
In the present case, however, the complaint
clearly contained the elements of an unlawful
detainer case. Thus, the case should have been
filed with the MTC. The RTC had no jurisdiction
over this case.
Rule 71- Contempt
Kinds:
Direct and Indirect
Section 1. Direct contempt punished
summarily. — A person guilty of misbehavior in
the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct
or interrupt the proceedings before the same,
including disrespect toward the court, offensive
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
personalities toward others, or refusal to be
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe
an affidavit or deposition when lawfully
required to do so, may be summarily adjudged
in contempt by such court and punished by a
fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or
both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of
equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not
exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment
not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a
lower court.
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished
after charge and hearing. — After a charge in
writing has been filed, and an opportunity given
to the respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court and to
be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty
of any of the following acts may be punished for
indirect contempt;
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,
including the act of a person who, after being
dispossessed or ejected from any real property
by the judgment or process of any court of
competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
induces another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing acts of
ownership or possession, or in any manner
disturbs the possession given to the person
adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference
with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under section
1 of this Rule;
Page 93
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a
court, and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person
or property in the custody of an officer by virtue
of an order or process of a court held by him.
-In Indirect Contempt Proceedings, it partakes
of criminal proceedings. Notice & Hearing is
mandatory.
Jurisdiction: Regional Trial Court
Penalties:
-Fine
-Ceisure
-Reprimand
Section 7. Punishment for indirect contempt.
— If the respondent is adjudged guilty of
indirect contempt committed against a Regional
Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher
rank, he may be punished by a fine not
exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or
both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt
committed against a lower court, he may be
punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand
pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1)
month, or both. If the contempt consists in the
violation of a writ of injunction, temporary
restraining order or status quo order, he may
also be ordered to make complete restitution to
the party injured by such violation of the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
property involved or such amount as may be
alleged and proved.
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil
actions, shall issue for the enforcement of a
judgment imposing a fine unless the court
otherwise provides. (6a)
Section 8. Imprisonment until order obeyed. —
When the contempt consists in the refusal or
omission to do an act which is yet in the power
of the respondent to perform, he may be
imprisoned by order of the court concerned
until he performs it. (7a)
Section 9. Proceeding when party released on
bail fails to answer. — When a respondent
released on bail fails to appear on the day fixed
for the hearing, the court may issue another
order of arrest or may order the bond for his
appearance to be forfeited and confiscated, or
both; and, if the bond be proceeded against,
the measure of damages shall be the extent of
the loss or injury sustained by the aggrieved
party by reason of the misconduct for which the
contempt charge was prosecuted, with the
costs of the proceedings, and such recovery
shall be for the benefit of the party injured. If
there is no aggrieved party, the bond shall be
liable and disposed of as in criminal cases.
Judgment
Section 11. Review of judgment or final
order; bond for stay. — The judgment or final
order of a court in a case of indirect contempt
may be appealed to the proper court as in
criminal cases. But execution of the judgment
or final order shall not be suspended until a
bond is filed by the person adjudged in
contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from
which the appeal is taken, conditioned that if
Page 94
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
the appeal be decided against him he will abide
by and perform the judgment or final order
Case: Yasay vs Recto 313 SCRA
Facts:
-Sec Perfecto Yasay upon request of certain
stockholders of Interport Resources issued a
TRO enjoining them from holding the scheduled
annual meeting.
-The stockholders proceeded with such meeting
presided by Manalaysay, SEC declared that the
stockholders meeting as null and void.
Manalaysay questioned the validity of the TRO
but the SEC ordered that Manalaysay and
Ricalde guilty of contempt.
Issue: WON the contempt institutred motu
proprio hold the respondents guilty of
contempt
Held:
NO- The charge of contempt partakes of the
nature of a criminal offense. Civil contempt is
the failure to do something ordered by a court
for the benefit of a party while criminal
contempt is any conduct directed against the
authority or dignity of the court. Civil contempt
are generally held to be remedial and civil in
their nature.
-SEC order directing respondent to show cause
why they should not be cited in contempt was
highly improper.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Case: Judge Espanol vs Atty. Formoso, 522
SCRA
Facts:
-On January 25, 2000, Sharcons filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 90,
Dasmariñas, Cavite a complaint for quieting of
title, docketed as Civil Case No. 2035-00.
Impleaded as defendants were spouses Mapua,
Evanswinda Morales, and the Register of Deeds
of Trece Martires City.
-Judge Dolores L. Español (petitioner), issued an
Order stating that Benito See and Marly See,
president and treasurer, respectively, of
Sharcons, and its counsel, Atty. Benjamin
Formoso, respondents, have used a spurious
certificate of title and tax declaration when it
(Sharcons) filed with the RTC its complaint for
quieting of title.
- On July 12, 2001, petitioner issued warrants of
arrest against respondents. They were confined
in the municipal jail of Dasmariñas, Cavite. That
same day, respondents filed a motion for bail
and a motion to lift the order of arrest. But they
were denied outright by petitioner.
- Court of Appeals reversed the decision of
Judge Espanol on the ground that direct
contempt of court is criminal in nature,
petitioner should have conducted a hearing.
Thus, she could have determined whether
respondents are guilty as charged.
Issue: WON Atty Formoso is guilty of direct
contempt of court for using falsified documents
Page 95
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Held: to the accused to be heard by himself and

counsel. Moreover, settled is the rule that a
NO- In this jurisdiction, it is now recognized
contempt proceeding is not a civil action, but a
that courts have the inherent power to punish
separate proceeding of a criminal nature in
for contempt on the ground that respect for
which the court exercises limited jurisdiction.
the courts guarantees the very stability of the
Thus, the modes of procedure and the rules of
judicial institution. Such stability is essential to
evidence in contempt proceedings are
the preservation of order in judicial
assimilated as far as practicable to those
proceedings, to the enforcement of judgments,
adapted to criminal prosecutions.Perforce,
orders, and mandates of the courts, and,
petitioner judge erred in declaring summarily
consequently, to the very administration of
that respondents are guilty of direct contempt
justice.
and ordering their incarceration. She should
-This Court characterized direct contempt as have conducted a hearing with notice to
one done "in the presence of or so near the respondents.
court or judge as to obstruct the administration
of justice." It is a contumacious act done facie
curiae and may be punished summarily without Case: Sison vs Judge Caoibes Jr., 429 SCRA
hearing.
Facts:
-Indirect or constructive contempt, in turn, is
-Sison an MMDA traffic officer apprehended the
one perpetrated outside of the sitting of the
son of Judge Caoibes for violation a no right
court and may include misbehavior of an
turn while the latter was driving along EDSA.
officer of a court in the performance of his
Caoibes III introduced himself as the son of
official duties or in his official transactions,
Judge Caoibes and pleaded that he is in an
disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
official judicial errand but Sison did not heed to
process, order, judgment, or command of a
the explanation of Caoibes III.
court, or injunction granted by a court or a
judge, any abuse or any unlawful interference -Judge Caoibes issued an order requiring Sison
with the process or proceedings of a court not to appear before him to explain the traffic
constituting direct contempt, or any improper inciden involving his son and to show cause on
conduct tending directly or indirectly to why he should not be cited in Contempt.
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration -Sison filed an admin case against Judge Caoibes
of justice. on the ground that indirect contempt constitute
- Following Section 3, Rule 71, a contemner may grave abuse of authority.
be punished only after a charge in writing has Issue: WON the act of MMDA officer Sison
been filed, and an opportunity has been given constitutes an offense of contempt

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 96
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Held:
NO- There is no contempt of court which
requires that the person obstructed should be
performing duty connected with judicial
function.
-Respondent Judge Caoibes was not justified to
consider the act and remarks of Sison but
displaying arrogance towards and deliberate
disregard of the usual respect and courtesy.
Case: Marantan vs Atty Jose Diokno, 716 SCRA
Facts:
-The criminal cases involve an incident which
transpired on November 7, 2005, where Anton
Cu-Unjieng (son of respondent La’O), Francis
Xavier Manzano, and Brian Anthony Dulay,
were shot and killed by police officers in front of
the AIC Gold Tower at Ortigas Center, which
incident was captured by a television crew from
UNTV 37 (Ortigas incident).
-On January 6, 2013, a shooting incident
occurred in Barangay Lumutan, Municipality of
Atimonan, Province of Quezon, where
Marantan was the ground commander in a
police-military team, which resulted in the
death of thirteen (13) men (Atimonan incident).
This encounter, according to Marantan, elicited
much negative publicity for him.
-Marantan submits that the respondents
violated the sub judice rule, making them liable
for indirect contempt under Section 3(d) of Rule
71 of the Rules of Court, for their contemptuous
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
statements and improper conduct tending
directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or
degrade the administration of justice. He argues
that their pronouncements and malicious
comments delved not only on the supposed
inaction of the Court in resolving the petitions
filed, but also on the merits of the criminal
cases before the RTC and prematurely
concluded that he and his co-accused are guilty
of murder.
Issue: WON respondents are liable for indirect
contempt for making improper conduct to
obstruct the administration of justice
Held:
NO- For a comment to be considered as
contempt of court "it must really appear" that
such does impede, interfere with and
embarrass the administration of justice. What
is, thus, sought to be protected is the all-
important duty of the court to administer
justice in the decision of a pending case. The
specific rationale for the sub judice rule is that
courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law
should be immune from every extraneous
influence; that facts should be decided upon
evidence produced in court; and that the
determination of such facts should be
uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
-The "clear and present danger" rule means
that the evil consequence of the comment must
be "extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high" before an utterance
can be punished. There must exist a clear and
present danger that the utterance will harm
Page 97
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
the administration of justice. Freedom of
speech should not be impaired through the
exercise of the power of contempt of court
unless there is no doubt that the utterances in
question make a serious and imminent threat to
the administration of justice. It must constitute
an imminent, not merely a likely, threat.
- As to the merits, the comments seem to be
what the respondents claim to be an expression
of their opinion that their loved ones were
murdered by Marantan. This is merely a
reiteration of their position in G.R. No. 199462,
which precisely calls the Court to upgrade the
charges from homicide to murder. The Court
detects no malice on the face of the said
statements.
Case: Capitol Hills Gold and Country Club vs
Sanchez, 717 SCRA
Facts:
-On July 1, 2002, respondent Manuel O.
Sanchez (respondent), a stockholder of
petitioner Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc.
(Corporation) filed a petition for the
nullification of the annual meeting of
stockholders of May 21, 2002 and the special
meeting of stockholders of April 23, 2002.
-On August 12, 2002, respondent filed a Motion
for Production and Inspection of Documents,
which the court granted in an Order dated
September 10, 2002.
-On February 9, 2007, Judge Hernando issued
an Order, inhibiting himself from handling the
case in view of his close friendship relation with
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
petitioners counsel and ordering the transmittal
of the records of the case to the Office of the
Clerk of Court for re-raffle to another sala. The
case was subsequently re-raffled to RTC Branch
90 presided by Judge Reynaldo B. Daway, who
likewise voluntarily recused himself from the
case per Order dated July 13, 2007.
-During the January 11, 2007 inspection, the
only document produced by the Acting
Corporate Secretary, Atty. Antonio V. Meriz,
and one of the staff, Malou Santos, was the
Stock and Transfer Book of the Corporation.
They alleged that they could not find from the
corporate records the copies of the proxies
submitted by the stockholders, including the
tape recordings taken during the stockholder's
meeting, and that they needed more time to
locate and find the list of stockholders as of
March 2002, which was in the bodega of the
Corporation.
Issue: WON the petitioners are guilty of
contempt charges
Held:
NO- In contempt proceedings, the prescribed
procedure must be followed. Sections 3 and 4,
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provide the
procedure to be followed in case of indirect
contempt. First, there must be an order
requiring the respondent to show cause why he
should not be cited for contempt.Second, the
respondent must be given the opportunity to
comment on the charge against him. Third,
there must be a hearing and the court must
investigate the charge and consider
Page 98
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
respondent's answer. Finally, only if found
guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.
-In all other cases, charges for indirect
contempt shall be commenced by a verified
petition with supporting particulars and
certified true copies of documents or papers
involved therein, and upon full compliance
with the requirements for filing initiatory
pleadings for civil actions in the court
concerned. If the contempt charges arose out
of or are related to a principal action pending
in the court, the petition for contempt shall
allege that fact but said petition shall be
docketed, heard and decided separately,
unless the court in its discretion orders the
consolidation of the contempt charge and the
principal action for joint hearing and decision.
-In contempt proceedings, the respondent
must be given the right to defend himself or
herself and have a day in court a basic
requirement of due process. This is especially
so in indirect contempt proceedings, as the
court cannot decide them summarily pursuant
to the Rules of Court.
-In this case, the proceedings for indirect
contempt have not been initiated. To the
Court's mind, the September 3, 2007 Resolution
could be treated as a mere reiteration of the
September 10, 2002 Order. It is not yet a
judgment or final order of a court in a case of
indirect contempt as contemplated under the
Rules. The penalty mentioned therein only
serves as a reminder to caution petitioners of
the consequence of possible non-observance of
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
the long overdue order to produce and make
available for inspection and photocopying of
the requested records/documents.
Case: Tormis vs Paredes, 749 SCRA 505
Facts:
-Jill added that Judge Paredes included Judge
Tormis in his discussions not only once but
several times. In one session, Judge Paredes
was even said to have included in his discussion
Francis Mondragon Tormis(Francis), son of
Judge Tormis, stating that he was a court-noted
addict. She was absent from class at that time,
but one of her classmates who was present,
Rhoda L. Litang(Rhoda), informed her about the
inclusion of her brother. To avoid humiliation in
school, Jill decided to drop the class under
Judge Paredes and transfer to another law
school in Tacloban City.
Judge Paredes denied the accusations of Jill. He
stated that Judge Tormis had several
administrative cases, some of which he had
investigated; that as a result of the
investigations, he recommended sanctions
against Judge Tormis; that Judge Tormis used
Jill, her daughter, to get back at him; that he
discussed in his class the case of Lachica v.
Tormis, but never Judge Tormis involvement in
the marriage scams nor her sanctions as a result
of the investigation conducted by the Court;
that he never personally attacked Judge Tormis
dignity and credibility.
Page 99
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

-Justice Diy came up with the following
recommendations, The undersigned
Investigating Justice finds that indeed Judge
Paredes is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a
judge. Conduct unbecoming of a judge is
classified as a light offense under Section 10,
Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Issue: WON Judge Paredes is guilty of conduct
unbecoming of a judge
choose his words and exercise more caution
and control in expressing himself. In other
words, a judge should possess the virtue of
gravitas. Furthermore, a magistrate should not
descend to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill-
mannered petty tyrant by uttering harsh words,
snide remarks and sarcastic comments. He is
required to always be temperate, patient and
courteous, both in conduct and in language.

Held:

YES- Misconduct is defined as a transgression of

some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rule 72-109)
negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is
grave if it involves any of the additional Rule 72- General Provisions
elements of corruption, willful intent to violate
Still applicable Not Anymore
the law, or to disregard established rules, which applicable
must be established by substantial evidence. As A. Settlement of Constitution of
distinguished from simple misconduct, the estate of Family Home
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate deceased person
the law, or flagrant disregard of established
B. Escheat Voluntary
rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave
dissolution of
misconduct. corporations
-The subjudice rule restricts comments and C. Guardianship Rescission &
and custody of Revocation of
disclosures pertaining to the judicial children adoption
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the
issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the D. Trustees Hospitalization of
administration of justice. Insane person
E. Adoption Declaration of
-A judge should always conduct himself in a absence and death
manner that would preserve the dignity, H. Habeas Corpus
independence and respect for himself, the F. Cancellation or
Court and the Judiciary as a whole. He must correction of
entries in the
exhibit the hallmark judicial temperament of
utmost sobriety and self-restraint. He should

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 100
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

civil registry 4. The issues are determined by law

G. Change of Name -The petitioner must allege such law since it is

jurisdictional.
K. Judicial approval of
voluntary recognition of Q: When does an estate come to existence?
minor children
A: If a person is deprived of life or someone
died. (Actual or Presumptive Death)
Prerogative Writs- Habeas Data, Writ of
Amparo and Writ of Kalikasan.
Actual Death- It is evidence by the death
certificate of the decedent
Special Proceedings- A remedy by which a
party seeks to establish a status, right or
Presumptive Death- Basis: Rule 131 Sec 3
particular fact. (Rule 1 Sec 3)
GR: When a person is absent for 7 years
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIAL
without any news of that person being alive,
PROCEEDINGS
he/she shall be considered dead.

1. There is only one party (petitioner)

XPN: For purposes of opening succession- 10
years
Exception: Habeas Corpus, Writ of Amparo,
Writ of Kalikasan & Writ of Habeas Data
XPN to XPN: 75 years old- absence of 5 years
shall be sufficient to open his succession.
2. The court acquires jurisdiction over the party
through publication.
Qualification other instances:

-The publication can be once a week for 3

-A person on board lost during a sea voyage or
consecutive weeks.
aircraft which is missing- 4 years from the loss
of vessel or aircraft
-For escheat proceedings, once a week for 6
consecutive weeks.
-Member of the armed forces who has taken
part in armed hostilities- 4 years
-No need for a valid service of summons or
payment of the correct docket fee
-Person who has been in danger of death- 4
years
3. It is imprescriptible or special proceedings do
not prescribe
-For purposes of marriage- 2 years when there
is danger of death

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 101
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Estate- Extension of the decedent Contents of the application

-The totality of the decedent’s assets & liability -Personal Circumstance of the petitioner

Settlement of Estate- (IAL)- Inventory, -Marriage contract of the parents

Administration and Liquidation
-Birth certificate of the petitioner

-What things that the decedent left behind? -Evidence of ownership (TCT/OCT)

-Who will administer the properties? B. Judicial

1. Summary Settlement of Estate of Small

-To whom these properties shall be
Value (Rule 74 Sec 2)
transferred?
-Not practical in actual practice
Kinds of Settlement
-The gross value of the estate of a deceased
A. Extra-Judicial person, whether intestate or testate shall not
exceed Ten Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000)
(1) Agreement/Extra-Judicial partition
(Rule 69) 2. Judicial Partition (Rule 69)

-Project of Partition, Appointment of

(2) Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
Commissioner, Assignment/buyout and Sale
- It usually happen when a decedent left only 3. Escheat (Rule 91)
with one heir, no will and with no debts.
Requirements:
-A party cannot execute an affidavit of self-
adjudication if he has legitimate/illegitimate -Person dies intestate
sibling alive. -Seized real/personal property

-Application shall be made in the Register of -Leaving no heir

Deeds where the property is locared.
-No Will
-There will be a publication of the application,
*The state shall settle the estate for the
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in
decedent in favor of the state.
a newspaper of general circulation.
Q: What is the jurisdiction and venue?
-There shall be posting the public place where
the property is located.

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 102
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
A:Jurisdiction - In all matters of probate, both
testate and intestate, where the gross value of
the estate exceeds Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00) or, in probate matters in
Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds
Four Hundred Thousand pesos (P400,000.00).-
RTC
Venue-Where the property is located
Example: Properties belonging to the estate of
Mr. A is located in Manila, QC, CDO and Davao.
-Escheat proceeding can be filed anywhere
wherein the property is located.
-The distribution of properties shall be based on
its location for public schools, charitable
institution and centers.
Period of Publication: Once a week for Six (6)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Case: Alvarico vs Sola, 382 SCRA
Facts: The property was owned through patent
issued by DENR. Under CA 141, a patent issued
cannot be disposed until 25 years unless there
is permission from the secretary of the DENR.
During the pendency of the sales application of
the patent, Alvarico caused the transfer of the
title to its niece. A patent was issued in favor of
the niece of Alvarico. The sister of the decedent
questioned the transfer of the patent based on
a deed of assignment over the property.
Ruling: The case was dismissed on the ground
that the sister of the decedent is not a proper
party in interest. In cases involving issuance of
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
patent, the state is the proper party in interest
to file Reversion.
Reversion- An action for taking back the
property of the state, it is only initiated by the
State in a judicial action.
Case: Maltos vs Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo,
770 SCRA 397
Facts:
-On February 13, 1979, Eusebio Borromeo was
issued Free Patent No. 586681 over a piece of
agricultural land located in San Francisco,
Agusan del Sur, covered by Original Certificate
of Title No. P-9053.
-On June 15, 1983, well within the five-year
prohibitory period, Eusebio Borromeo sold the
land to Eliseo Maltos. Eusebio Borromeo died
on January 16, 1991. His heirs claimed that prior
to his death, he allegedly told his wife, Norberta
Borromeo and his children to nullify the sale
made to Eliseo Maltos and have the Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-5477 cancelled because
the sale was within the five-year prohibitory
period.
-On June 23, 1993, Norberta Borromeo and her
children (heirs of Borromeo) filed a Complaint
for Nullity of Title and Reconveyance of Title
against Eliseo Maltos, Rosita Maltos, and the
Register of Deeds of Agusan del Sur. The trial
court dismissed the Complaint on the ground of
failure to state a cause of action. Also, the heirs
of Borromeo did not have a right of action
because they were unable to establish their
status as heirs of the late Eusebio Borromeo.
Page 103
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Issue: WON the petitioners are the real-party in reversion must first be filed by the Office of
interest in this case the Solicitor General.

Held: 4. Conventional Settlement of Estate (Rule 73-

90)
-The five-year period prohibiting the sale of
land obtained under homestead or free patent Two Kinds:
is provided under Section 118 of the Public Land
Testate Settlement- A decedent left a will
Act: Except in favor of the Government or any
of its branches, units, or institutions, or legally Intestate Settlement- A decedent left without a
constituted banking corporations, lands will
acquired under free patent or homestead
provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance Q: What is the jurisdiction?
or alienation from the date of the approval of
A: According to RA 7691. In all matters of
the application and for a term of five years
probate, both intestate and testate, where the
from and after the date of issuance of the
gross value of the estate exceeds Three
patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000) outside
the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to
Metro Manila or Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
the expiration of said period.
(Php 400,000) within Metro Manila. It shall be
- Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation, cognizable by RTC.
transfer, or other contract made or executed in
Q: What is the venue of such action?
violation of any of the provisions of sections
one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and A: Under Rule 73, Sec 1, it must be the last
twenty, one hundred and twenty-one, one residence of the decedent.
hundred and twenty-two, and one hundred
and twenty-three of this. Act shall be unlawful Case Doctrine: Fule vs CA- The venue for the
and null and void from its execution and shall settlement of estate shall be the last residence
produce the effect of annulling and cancelling of the decedent.
the grant, title, patent, or permit originally
Rule 75- Production of Will: Allowance of Will
issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or
Necessary
presumptively, and cause the reversion of the
property and its improvements to the State.
Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as
-There is sufficient cause to revert the property to execution.
in favor of the state. However, this court
No will shall pass either real or personal estate
cannot declare reversion of the property in unless it is proved and allowed in the proper
favor of the state in view of the limitation court. Subject to the right of appeal, such
imposed by Section 101 that an action for

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 104
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its
due execution.
PROBATE OF A WILL IS MANDATORY
-Any court that takes cognizance of a probate of
a will shall have limited jurisdiction.
-Limited jurisdiction is a misnomer
-Settlement of estate shall begin with the
probate of a will or appointment of
administrator
-Limited jurisdiction is when the court is acting
on a probate of a will.
Section 2. Custodian of will to deliver. — The
person who has custody of a will shall, within
twenty (20) days after he knows of the death
of the testator, deliver the will to the court
having jurisdiction, or to the executor named in
the will.
-Whoever is in possession of a will, it has the
duty to surrender such will. If that person does
not surrender the will, he can be penalized by
court.
-That person should surrender such will to the
court within 20 days from death of decedent or
knowledge of the death.
Example: Mr. X resides in Makati City, he has 5
children and he executed a will in Makati City.
Upon the execution of the will, he gave it to his
eldest son Mr. A. 2 years later Mr. A got married
and transferred residence in Cebu City. Mr X
died a year after the marriage of Mr. A in
Makati City. Mr A complied with the provision
in Rule 75 and surrenders a copy of the will with
the RTC of Cebu City.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-The rule provides that whoever that has
possession of the will must surrender it to court
within 20 days of death or knowledge of it.
-2 months after the death of Mr. X, Mrs X and
Mr B (Second son) filed for the probate of the
will annexed in the RTC of Makati City.
Q: What shall be the proper venue of the
probate of the will?
A: It shall be Makati City since it is the last
residence of the decedent.
Q: Where does Mr. A should file his opposition
over the probate of the will?
A: It shall be in Cebu RTC since Makati City is
not the proper jurisdiction
Q: Is there a probate of the will in Cebu when
Mr. A surrendered it to the court?
A: YES, the mere surrender of the will in court
connotes that it can now set the hearing for the
probate.
Exclusionary Rule- The court that take
cognizance of the case, it takes it to the
exclusion of all other courts.
Rule 76- Allowance or Disallowance of Will
Section 1. Who may petition for the allowance
of will. — Any executor, devisee, or legatee
named in a will, or any other person interested
in the estate, may, at any time after the death
of the testator, petition the court having
jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether
the same be in his possession or not, or is lost
or destroyed.
Page 105
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

DELTA- Devisee, Executor, Legatee, Testator, Rule 77- Allowance of Will Proved Outside of
Any person interested Philippines and Administration of Estate
Thereunder
No Witness Rule- The application for
allowance/disallowance of a will is filed by the
Section 1. Will proved outside Philippines may
testator himself
be allowed here. — Wills proved and allowed in
a foreign country, according to the laws of such
1-Witness Rule- A Notarial Will which is country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by
uncontested and no oppositor the proper Court of First Instance in the
Philippines.
2 witness rule- lost/destroyed will, the
petitioner should prove its existence Q: Can a will executed outside the Philippines
executed in the Phil?
3 witness rule- contested holographic will
A: NO, Since it shall be considered as a foreign
4 witness rule- Notarial Will Contested; Present judgment
Three (3) witnesses including the notary public
Establishment of foreign judgment/reprobate
Section 9. Grounds for disallowing will. — The of a will
will shall be disallowed in any of the following
cases: Requisites:
(a) If not executed and attested as required by
-The testator should be domiciled outside the
law; Phil.
(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise -The testator executed a will outside the Phil.
mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of
its execution;
-According to the law of the country executing
(c) If it was executed under duress, or the
-It is probated of a court of competent
influence of fear, or threats;
jurisdiction
(d) If it was procured by undue and improper
Q: What shall be the jurisdiction for the
pressure and influence, on the part of the
reprobate of the will?
beneficiary, or of some other person for his
benefit;
A: RTC since it is a court of general jurisdiction
and it is action incapable of pecuniary
(e) If the signature of the testator was procured
estimation
by fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the
instrument should be his will at the time of
Q: Where shall be the venue of the action?
fixing his signature thereto
A: It shall be the location/place of the estate

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 106
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-The reprobate court should render a valid
judgment or issue a certificate of finality.
-The court shall appoint ancillary administrator
which shall take charge of the property in the
Philippines.
Rule 78- Letters Testamentary and of
Administration, when and to whom issued
For Letters Testamentary- Discretionary
towards the court.
-The executor must post a Bond and Accept the
trust.
Section 1. Who are incompetent to serve as
executors or administrators. — No person in
competent to serve as executor or
administrator who:
(a) Is a minor;
(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute
the duties of the trust by reason of
drunkenness, improvidence, or want of
understanding or integrity, or by reason of
conviction of an offense involving moral
turpitude.
*DELTA can file a petition for letters of
testamentary
Section 6. When and to whom letters of
administration granted. — If no executor is
named in the will, or the executor or executors
are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give
bond, or a person dies intestate, administration
shall be granted:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case
may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion
of the court, or to such person as such surviving
husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to
have appointed, if competent and willing to
serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case
may be, or next of kin, or the person selected
by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the
husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for
thirty (30) days after the death of the person to
apply for administration or to request that
administration be granted to some other
person, it may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors, if may be granted to one or
more of the principal creditors, if competent
and willing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and
willing to serve, it may be granted to such other
person as the court may select.
RULE 80-Special Administrator
Section 1. Appointment of special
administrator. — When there is delay in
granting letters testamentary or of
administration by any cause including an appeal
from the allowance or disallowance of a will,
the court may appoint a special administrator
to take possession and charge of the estate of
the deceased until the questions causing the
delay are decided and executors or
administrators appointed.
-There should be delay in the appointment of a
regular administrator/executor.
Section 2. Powers and duties of special
adminsitrator. — Such special administrator
shall take possession and charge of the goods,
chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the
Page 107
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
deceased and preserve the same for the
executors or administrator afterwards
appointed, and for that purpose may
commence and maintain suits as administrator.
He may sell only such perishable and other
property as the court orders sold. A special
administrator shall not be liable to pay any
debts of the deceased unless so ordered by the
court.
Q: What are the rights & obligations of the
administrator/executor?
A: -Payment/Posting of bonds
-Submission of inventory within 3 months from
appointment
-Accounting of the estate within 1 year from
appointment or order of probate court
-Payment of debts
-Sale, mortgage or encumbrance of the estate
-Distribution & partition of the estate- END of
the settlement of estate
RULE 83-Inventory and Appraisal. Provision for
Support of Family
Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be
returned within three months. — Within three
(3) months after his appointment every
executor or administrator shall return to the
court a true inventory and appraisal of all real
and personal estate of the deceased which has
come into his possession or knowledge. In the
appraisement of such estate, the court may
order one or more of the inheritance tax
appraisers to give his or their assistance.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Grandchildren are not entitled to the fruits of
the estate. (Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs Edmond
Ruiz)
RULE 85- Accountability and Compensation of
Executors and Administrators
Section 1. Executor or administrator
chargeable with all estate and income. —
Except as otherwise expressly provided in the
following sections, every executor or
administrator is chargeable in his account with
the whole of the estate of the deceased which
has come into his possession, at the value of
the appraisement contained in the inventory;
with all the interest, profit, and income of such
estate; and with the proceeds of so much of the
estate as is sold by him, at the price at which it
was sold.
-A lawyer and Executor at the same time cannot
charge attorney’s fee.
Remedy: Charge such expenses with all the
estate and income
Rule 86- Claims Against estate
Section 1. Notice to creditors to be issued by
court. — Immediately after granting letters
testamentary or of administration, the court
shall issue a notice requiring all persons having
money claims against the decedent to file
them in the office of the clerk of said court.
Section 2. Time within which claims shall be
filed. — In the notice provided in the preceding
section, the court shall estate the time for the
filing of claims against the estate, which shall
not be more than twelve (12) not less than six
(6) months after the date of the first
Page 108
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
publication of the notice. However, at any time
before an order of distribution is entered, on
application of a creditor who has failed to file
his claim within the previously limited, the court
may, for cause shown and on such terms as are
equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a
time not exceeding one (1) month.
Statute of non-claims- Claims against estate
which shall not be more that twelve (12) not
less than six (6) months after the date of the
first publication of the notice.
Q: What are claimable against estate?
A: The basis shall be Rule 86 Sec 5:
-Claims for money against the decedent based
on contract. (Due, Not Due or Contingent)
-Funeral Expenses
-Expenses for last sickness
-Judgment for money
Exception: Counter-claims brought by the
executor/administrator against claimants
Q: What is a statute of non-claims?
A: Period wherein any person that has an
interest over the estate can file their claim.
Q: What is period of statute of non-claims?
A: It shall not be more than 12 months nor less
than 6 months after the date of its publication.
Q: Is there a conflict between statute of non-
claims against statute of limitations?
A: NO
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Q: Which should prevail statute non-claims or
statute of limitation?
A: Statute of non-claims since if a party do not
file against the estate within the period, it shall
be barred forever.
-A party should comply with the period of
statute of non-claims rather than statute of
limitation.
Example of Contingent Claim
-Mr. Mayaman promised Juan that if he will
pass the bar examination, he will give him Php 5
million pesos. Before the release of the bar
exams results, Mr Mayaman died but upon the
release of the result Juan passed the bar
examination.
-Juan can now file a contingent claim against
the estate of Mr. Mayaman within the period of
statue of non-claims even if he passed or not
passed the bar exams.
Example of Funeral Expenses
-Mr. Sakit died in St. Luke’s Hospital (BGC) due
to colon cancer, he stayed in that hospital for 6
months before he passed away. St. Lukes must
file such unpaid hospital expenses to the estate
of Mr. Sakit. In the woek of Mr. Sakit, Arlington
funeral services catered the funeral. In the
event the heirs of Mr. Sakit failed to pay the
funeral expenses, Arlington can file a claim
against the estate.
Section 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. — A
creditor holding a claim against the deceased
secured by mortgage or other collateral
security, may abandon the security and
prosecute his claim in the manner provided in
this rule, and share in the general distribution
Page 109
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
of the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose
his mortgage or realize upon his security, by
action in court, making the executor or
administrator a party defendant, and if there is
a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of
the mortgaged premises, or the property
pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding
to realize upon the security, he may claim his
deficiency judgment in the manner provided in
the preceding section or he may rely upon his
mortgage or other security alone, and
foreclosure the same at any time within the
period of the statute of limitations, and in that
event he shall not be admitted as a creditor,
and shall receive no share in the distribution of
the other assets of estate; but nothing herein
contained shall prohibit the executor or
administrator from redeeming the property
mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for
which it is held as security, under the direction
of the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be
for the best interest of the estate that such
redemption shall be made.
Q: How can a party can claim against the estate
under a mortgage property?
A: A party has 3 options: (a) file it as a claim
against the estate, (b) apply Rule 68-
foreclosure of real estate mortgage, (c) avail of
(RA 3135)- extra-judicial foreclosure of real
estate mortgage
-The following remedies are not successive but
alternative in nature
Q: How do a party can claim against the estate?
A: It will depend if there is an on-going
settlement of estate- File a motion and Present
evidence
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
No on-going settlement of estate- A Party can
start the filing of such complaint for the
settlement of estate
-The executor/administrator shall file an answer
within 15 days against the person interested
-If a party has a claim for recovery of
real/personal property, recovery of interest
therein, claim for damages against the estate.
-A party can file a separate action against the
executor/administrator under Rule 87
Q: What if the estate is not sufficient to cover
the payment of debts and no specific provision
in the will as to what property shall be used,
what will be the proper remedy?
A: The personal property shall be the first in
priority, if the personal property is not
sufficient, a party can proceed to the real
property.
-Only real property can be the subject of
mortgage, encumbrances and levy. Personal
properties can only be sold ahead of the real
properties.
Rule 87- Actions By and Against Executors and
Administrators
Section 1. Actions which may and which may
not be brought against executor or
administrator. — No action upon a claim for
the recovery of money or debt or interest
thereon shall be commenced against the
executor or administrator; but to recover real
or personal property, or an interest therein,
from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon,
and actions to recover damages for an injury to
person or property, real or personal, may be
commenced against him.
Page 110
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Section 2. Executor or administrator may bring mortgaged, up to the value thereof;

or defend actions which survive. — For the
recovery or protection of the property or rights (5) Credits for the making, repair,
of the deceased, an executor or administrator safekeeping or preservation of personal
may bring or defend, in the right of deceased, property, on the movable thus made,
actions for causes which survive. repaired, kept or possessed;

Rule 88- Payment of Debts of the Estate (6) Claims for laborers' wages, on
the goods manufactured or the work done;
The Executor/Administrator shall be guided
with preference of credit under the Civil Code: (7) For expenses of salvage, upon the goods
salvaged;
Art. 2241. With reference to specific
movable property of the debtor, the following (8) Credits between the landlord and the
claims or liens shall be preferred: tenant, arising from the contract of tenancy
on shares, on the share of each in the fruits
(1) Duties, taxes and fees due thereon or harvest;
to the State or any subdivision thereof;
(9) Credits for transportation, upon the
(2) Claims arising from misappropriation, goods carried, for the price of the contract
breach of trust, or malfeasance by public and incidental expenses, until their delivery
officials committed in the performance of and for thirty days thereafter;
their duties, on the movables, money or
securities obtained by them; (10) Credits for lodging and supplies
usually furnished to travelers by hotelkeepers,
(3) Claims for the unpaid price of movables on the movables belonging to the guest as long
sold, on said movables, so long as they are as such movables are in the hotel, but not for
in the possession of the debtor, up to the money loaned to the guests;
value of the same; and if the movable has been
resold by the debtor and the price is still (11) Credits for seeds and expenses for
unpaid, the lien may be enforced on the price; cultivation and harvest advanced to the debtor,
this right is not lost by the immobilization of upon the fruits harvested;
the thing by destination, provided it has not
lost its form, substance and identity; neither is (12) Credits for rent for one year, upon
the right lost by the sale of the thing the personal property of the lessee existing on
together with other property for a lump the immovable leased and on the fruits of the
sum, when the price thereof can be same, but not on money or instruments of
determined proportionally; credit;

(4) Credits guaranteed with a pledge so (13) Claims in favor of the depositor if
long as the things pledged are in the hands the depositary has wrongfully sold the thing
of the creditor, or those guaranteed by a deposited, upon the price of the sale.
chattel mortgage, upon the things pledged or

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 111
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Art. 2242. With reference to specific
immovable property and real rights of
the debtor, the following claims, mortgages
and liens shall be preferred, and shall constitute
an encumbrance on the immovable or real
right:
(1) Taxes due upon the land or building;
(2) For the unpaid price of real property
sold, upon the immovable sold;
(3) Claims of laborers, masons,
mechanics and other workmen, as well as
of architects, engineers and contractors,
engaged in the construction, reconstruction or
repair of buildings, canals or other works,
upon said buildings, canals or other works;
(4) Claims of furnishers of materials
used in the construction, reconstruction, or
repair of buildings, canals or other works,
upon said buildings, canals or other works;
(5) Mortgage credits recorded in the
Registry of Property, upon the real estate
mortgaged;
(6) Expenses for the preservation or
improvement of real property when the law
authorizes reimbursement, upon the
immovable preserved or improved;
(7) Credits annotated in the Registry of
Property, in virtue of a judicial order, by
attachments or executions, upon the property
affected, and only as to later credits;
(8) Claims of co-heirs for warranty in the
partition of an immovable among them,
upon the real property thus divided;
(9) Claims of donors or real property for
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
pecuniary charges or other conditions imposed
upon the donee, upon the immovable donated;
(10) Credits of insurers, upon the property
insured, for the insurance premium for two
years.
CASES:
Case: San Luis vs San Luis, 514 SCRA, Feb 2007
Facts:
The parties involved in this case are the heirs of
former governor of Laguna. During his lifetime,
Governor San Luis contracted three marriages.
On his first marriage, he had three (3) legitimate
children but the spouse died eventually. In his
second marriage, Governor San Luis obtained a
divorce decree in the United States, On his third
marriage, Gov. San Luis married Feliscitas.
During the death of the decedent, they were
living in Alabang, Muntinlupa. Feliscitas filed a
petition for the administration of the estate of
Gov. San Luis towards the Regional Trial Court
of Makati. The children of Gov. San Luis
challenged the said petition on the ground of
wrong venue since it should be filed in Laguna
since the decedent is the governor of the
province for a long time. They also questioned
Feliscitas as not the proper party in interest
since the marriage between Gov. San Luis and
Feliscitas is void ab initio.
Issue: WON RTC of Makati is the proper venue
for the settlement of estate
Held:
Page 112
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
YES- Based on the doctrine laid down in Fule
“The venue for the settlement of estate shall be
the last residence of the decendent”. Residence
pertains to the actual, personal and physical
abode of the decedent.
-The court also ruled that the requirement for
venue under the settlement of estate shall be
residence and not domicile. Domicile is defined
the residence of someone with intent to remain
so for the purposes of election, since the
requirement is residence and not domicile
Case: Garcia-Quiazon vs Belen, 702 SCRA
July 31,2013
Facts:
- On 12 September 1994, Maria Lourdes Elise
Quiazon (Elise), represented by her mother, Ma.
Lourdes Belen (Lourdes), filed a Petition for
Letters of Administration before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. In her
Petition docketed as SP Proc. No. M-3957, Elise
claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo
having been conceived and born at the time
when her parents were both capacitated to
marry each other. Insisting on the legal capacity
of Eliseo and Lourdes to marry, Elise impugned
the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia by
claiming that it was bigamous for having been
contracted during the subsistence of the latter’s
marriage with one Filipito Sandico (Filipito).
-Claiming that the venue of the petition was
improperly laid, Amelia, together with her
children, Jenneth and Jennifer, opposed the
issuance of the letters of administration by filing
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss. The
petitioners asserted that as shown by his Death
Certificate, Eliseo was a resident of Capas,
Tarlac and not of Las Piñas City, at the time of
his death. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 73 of the
Revised Rules of Court, the petition for
settlement of decedent’s estate should have
been filed in Capas, Tarlac and not in Las Piñas
City.
-The lower court ruled that the venue of the
petition was properly laid in Las Piñas City,
thereby discrediting the position taken by the
petitioners that Eliseo’s last residence was in
Capas, Tarlac, as hearsay.
Issue: WON the petition for letters of
administration if properly filed in Las Pinas as
venue of the action
Held:
YES- Rule 73 Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased
persons settled. – If the decedent is an
inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his
death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will
shall be proved, or letters of administration
granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of
First Instance now Regional Trial Court in the
province in which he resides at the time of his
death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the Court of First Instance now
Regional Trial Court of any province in which
he had estate.
Page 113
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
- The term "resides" connotes ex vi termini
"actual residence" as distinguished from "legal
residence or domicile." This term "resides," like
the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic
and should be interpreted in the light of the
object or purpose of the statute or rule in which
it is employed. In the application of venue
statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the
Revised Rules of Court is of such nature –
residence rather than domicile is the
significant factor. Even where the statute uses
word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning
residence and not domicile in the technical
sense. Some cases make a distinction between
the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as
generally used in statutes fixing venue, the
terms are synonymous, and convey the same
meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other
words, "resides" should be viewed or
understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a
person, actual residence or place of abode. It
signifies physical presence in a place and actual
stay thereat. Venue for ordinary civil actions
and that for special proceedings have one and
the same meaning. As thus defined,
"residence," in the context of venue
provisions, means nothing more than a
person’s actual residence or place of abode,
provided he resides therein with continuity
and consistency.
-The Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for
affirming the ruling of the RTC that the venue
for the settlement of the estate of Eliseo was
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
properly laid in Las Piñas City. It is evident from
the records that during his lifetime, Eliseo
resided at No. 26 Everlasting Road, Phase 5,
Pilar Village, Las Piñas City. For this reason, the
venue for the settlement of his estate may be
laid in the said city.
Case: Agtarap vs Agtarap, 651 SCRA, October
2012
Facts:
-On September 15, 1994, Eduardo filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 114, a
verified petition for the judicial settlement of
the estate of his deceased father Joaquin
Agtarap (Joaquin).
-The petition alleged that Joaquin died intestate
on November 21, 1964 in without any known
debts or obligations. During his lifetime, Joaquin
contracted two marriages, first with Lucia
Garcia (Lucia), and second with Caridad Garcia
(Caridad). Lucia died on April 24, 1924.
-Joseph, Gloria, and Teresa filed their
answer/opposition. They alleged that the two
subject lots belong to the conjugal partnership
of Joaquin with Lucia, and that, upon Lucias
death in April 1924, they became the pro
indiviso owners of the subject properties. They
said that their residence was built with the
exclusive money of their late father Jose, and
the expenses of the extensions to the house
were shouldered by Gloria and Teresa, while
the restaurant (Manongs Restaurant) was built
with the exclusive money of Joseph and his
business partner.
Page 114
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-RTC issued a resolution and order of partition
of the property involved.
Issue: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over
the distribution of inheritance
Held:
YES
-The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the
trial court, either as a probate or an intestate
court, relates only to matters having to do with
the probate of the will and/or settlement of the
estate of deceased persons, but does not
extend to the determination of questions of
ownership that arise during the proceedings.
The patent rationale for this rule is that such
court merely exercises special and limited
jurisdiction.
-The probate court may provisionally pass upon
in an intestate or a testate proceeding the
question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the
inventory of a piece of property without
prejudice to the final determination of
ownership in a separate action. Second, if the
interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or
the question is one of collation or
advancement, or the parties consent to the
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court
and the rights of third parties are not impaired,
then the probate court is competent to resolve
issues on ownership.
-Section 2, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court
provides that when the marriage is dissolved
by the death of the husband or the wife, the
community property shall be inventoried,
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
administered, and liquidated, and the debts
thereof paid; in the testate or intestate
proceedings of the deceased spouse, and if
both spouses have died, the conjugal
partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or
intestate proceedings of either. Thus, the RTC
had jurisdiction to determine whether the
properties are conjugal as it had to liquidate
the conjugal partnership to determine the
estate of the decedent.
Case: Suntay III vs Cojuangco-Suntay 683 SCRA
October 2012
Facts:
- The decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay
(Cristina) died intestate on 4 June 1990. Cristina
was survived by her spouse, Dr. Federico Suntay
(Federico) and five grandchildren: three
legitimate grandchildren, including herein
respondent, Isabel; and two illegitimate
grandchildren, including petitioner Emilio III, all
by Federico’s and Cristina’s only child, Emilio A.
Suntay (Emilio I), who predeceased his parents.
-Isabel’s parents, along with her paternal
grandparents, were involved in domestic
relations cases, including a case for parricide
filed by Isabel Cojuangco against Emilio I. Emilio
I was eventually acquitted.
-On 27 September 1993, more than three years
after Cristina’s death, Federico adopted his
illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III and Nenita.
On 26 October 1995, respondent Isabel, filed
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos,
Page 115
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Bulacan, a petition for the issuance of letters of
administration over Cristina’s estate.
-Federico filed a Motion to Dismiss Isabel’s
petition for letters of administration on the
ground that Isabel had no right of
representation to the estate of Cristina, she
being an illegitimate grandchild of the latter as
a result of Isabel’s parents’ marriage being
declared null and void.
-The trial court rendered a decision appointing
Emilio III as administrator of decedent Cristina’s
intestate estate. The Court of Appeals reversed
and set aside the decision of the RTC, revoked
the Letters of Administration issued to Emilio III,
and appointed respondent as administratrix of
the subject estate
Issue: WON Emilio III is the proper
administrator of the estate of the decedent
Held:
NO-Rule 78 SEC. 6 When and to whom letters
of administration granted. – If no executor is
named in the will, or the executor or executors
are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give
bond, or a person dies intestate, administration
shall be granted:(a) To the surviving husband or
wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or
both, in the discretion of the court, or to such
person as such surviving husband or wife, or
next of kin, requests to have appointed, if
competent and willing to serve; (b) If such
surviving husband or wife, as the case may be,
or next of kin, or the person selected by them,
be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband
or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30)
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
days after the death of the person to apply for
administration or to request that
administration be granted to some other
person, it may be granted to one or more of
the principal creditors, if competent and
willing to serve; (c) If there is not such creditor
competent and willing to serve, it may be
granted to such other person as the court may
select.
-The paramount consideration in the
appointment of an administrator over the
estate of a decedent is the prospective
administrator’s interest in the estate. This is the
same consideration which Section 6, Rule 78
takes into account in establishing the order of
preference in the appointment of administrator
for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is
that those who will reap the benefit of a wise,
speedy and economical administration of the
estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the
consequences of waste, improvidence or
mismanagement, have the highest interest and
most influential motive to administer the
estate correctly.
-Under certain circumstances and for various
reasons well-settled in Philippine and American
jurisprudence, we have upheld the
appointment of co-administrators: (1) to have
the benefits of their judgment and perhaps at
all times to have different interests
represented;(2) where justice and equity
demand that opposing parties or factions be
represented in the management of the estate
of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large
or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing
one to settle; (4) to have all interested persons
Page 116
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
satisfied and the representatives to work in
harmony for the best interests of the estate;
and when a person entitled to the
administration of an estate desires to have
another competent person associated with him
in the office.
-it should be noted that on the matter of
appointment of administrator of the estate of
the deceased, the surviving spouse is preferred
over the next of kin of the decedent. When the
law speaks of "next of kin," the reference is to
those who are entitled, under the statute of
distribution, to the decedent's property; one
whose relationship is such that he is entitled to
share in the estate as distributed, or, in short,
an heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of
whether an applicant for letters of
administration is a next of kin or an heir of the
decedent, the probate court perforce has to
determine and pass upon the issue of filiation.
Case: Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs Edmond Ruiz, 252
SCRA
Facts:
-On June 27, 1987, Hilario M. Ruiz executed a
holographic will naming as his heirs his only son,
Edmond Ruiz, his adopted daughter, private
respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, and his
three granddaughters, private respondents
Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria
Angeline, all children of Edmond Ruiz. The
testator bequeathed to his heirs substantial
cash, personal and real properties and named
Edmond Ruiz executor of his estate.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-On June 29, 1992, four years after the testators
death, it was private respondent Maria Pilar
Ruiz Montes who filed before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 156, Pasig, a petition for the
probate and approval of Hilario Ruizs will and
for the issuance of letters testamentary to
Edmond Ruiz. Edmond opposed the petition on
the ground that the will was executed under
undue influence.
-On January 19, 1993, the probate court
ordered to deposit with the Branch Clerk of
Court the rental deposit and payments totalling
P540,000.00 representing the one-year lease of
the Valle Verde property. In compliance, on
January 25, 1993, turned over the amount of
P348,583.56, representing the balance of the
rent after deducting P191,416.14 for repair and
maintenance expenses on the estate.
-On May 14, 1993, Edmond withdrew his
opposition to the probate of the will.
Consequently, the probate court on May 18,
1993, admitted the will to probate and ordered
the issuance of letters testamentary to
conditioned upon the filing of a bond in the
amount of P50,000.00. The letters testamentary
were issued on June 23, 1993.
Issue: WON the estate shall be liable for the
support of the testator's grandchildren
Held:
NO- Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Revised Rules of
Court provides: Sec. 3. Allowance to widow and
family. - The widow and minor or incapacitated
children of a deceased person, during the
settlement of the estate, shall receive
Page 117
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
therefrom under the direction of the court,
such allowance as are provided by law.
-It is settled that allowances for support under
Section 3 of Rule 83 should not be limited to the
minor or incapacitated children of the
deceased. Article 188 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the substantive law in force at the
time of the testators death, provides that
during the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership, the deceaseds legitimate spouse
and children, regardless of their age, civil
status or gainful employment, are entitled to
provisional support from the funds of the
estate. The law is rooted on the fact that the
right and duty to support, especially the right to
education, subsist even beyond the age of
majority.
-Grandchildren are not entitled to provisional
support from the funds of the decedents
estate. The law clearly limits the allowance to
widow and children and does not extend it to
the deceaseds grandchildren, regardless of their
minority or incapacity.
Case: Lee vs RTC of Quezon City Branch 85, 423
SCRA
Facts:
-Dr. Juvencio P. Ortaez incorporated the
Philippine International Life Insurance
Company, Inc. on July 6, 1956. At the time of
the companys incorporation, Dr. Ortaez owned
ninety percent (90%) of the subscribed capital
stock. On July 21, 1980, Dr. Ortaez died. He left
behind a wife (Juliana Salgado Ortaez), three
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
legitimate children (Rafael, Jose and Antonio
Ortaez) and five illegitimate children by Ligaya
Novicio (herein private respondent Ma. Divina
Ortaez-Enderes and her siblings Jose, Romeo,
Enrico Manuel and Cesar, all surnamed Ortaez).
-Juliana S. Ortaez, claiming that she owned
1,014 Philinterlife shares of stock as her
conjugal share in the estate, sold said shares
with right to repurchase in favor of herein
petitioner Filipino Loan Assistance Group
(FLAG), represented by its president, herein
petitioner Jose C. Lee. Juliana Ortaez failed to
repurchase the shares of stock within the
stipulated period, thus ownership thereof was
consolidated by petitioner FLAG in its name.
-On July 12, 1995, herein private respondent
Ma. Divina Ortaez-Enderes and her siblings filed
a motion for appointment of special
administrator of Philinterlife shares of stock.
This move was opposed by Special
Administrator Jose Ortaez. On November 8,
1995, the intestate court granted the motion of
private respondents Enderes et al. and
appointed private respondent Enderes special
administratrix of the Philinterlife shares of
stock.
-On December 20, 1995, Special Administratrix
Enderes filed an urgent motion to declare void
ab initio the memorandum of agreement dated
March 4, 1982. On January 9, 1996, she filed a
motion to declare the partial nullity of the
extrajudicial settlement of the decedents
estate.
Page 118
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Issue: WON the sale of the shares of stock be
rendered void ab initio since it done without
court approval
Held:
YES -it is clear that Juliana Ortaez, and her three
sons, Jose, Rafael and Antonio, all surnamed
Ortaez, invalidly entered into a memorandum
of agreement extrajudicially partitioning the
intestate estate among themselves, despite
their knowledge that there were other heirs or
claimants to the estate and before final
settlement of the estate by the intestate court.
Since the appropriation of the estate properties
by Juliana Ortaez and her children (Jose, Rafael
and Antonio Ortaez) was invalid, the
subsequent sale thereof by Juliana and Jose to a
third party (FLAG), without court approval, was
likewise void.
-An heir can sell his right, interest, or
participation in the property under
administration under Art. 533 of the Civil Code
which provides that possession of hereditary
property is deemed transmitted to the heir
without interruption from the moment of
death of the decedent. However, an heir can
only alienate such portion of the estate that
may be allotted to him in the division of the
estate by the probate or intestate court after
final adjudication, that is, after all debtors shall
have been paid or the devisees or legatees shall
have been given their shares.This means that
an heir may only sell his ideal or undivided
share in the estate, not any specific property
therein.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Our jurisprudence is therefore clear that (1)
any disposition of estate property by an
administrator or prospective heir pending final
adjudication requires court approval and (2)
any unauthorized disposition of estate
property can be annulled by the probate court,
there being no need for a separate action to
annul the unauthorized disposition.
-The sale of any property of the estate by an
administrator or prospective heir without
order of the probate or intestate court is void
and passes no title to the purchaser.
Case: Unionbank vs Santibanez, 452 SCRA Feb
2005
Facts:
-On May 31, 1980, the First Countryside Credit
Corporation (FCCC) and Efraim M. Santibaez
entered into a loan agreement in the amount of
P128,000.00. The amount was intended for the
payment of the purchase price of one (1) unit
Ford 6600 Agricultural All-Purpose Diesel
Tractor. In view thereof, Efraim and his son,
Edmund, executed a promissory note in favor of
the FCCC, the principal sum payable in five
equal annual amortizations of P43,745.96 due
on May 31, 1981 and every May 31st thereafter
up to May 31, 1985.
-Sometime in February 1981, Efraim died,
leaving a holographic will. Subsequently in
March 1981, testate proceedings commenced
before the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 7, docketed
as Special Proceedings No. 2706. On April 9,
Page 119
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
1981, Edmund, as one of the heirs, was
appointed as the special administrator of the
estate of the decedent.
-On August 20, 1981, a Deed of Assignment
with Assumption of Liabilities was executed by
and between FCCC and Union Savings and
Mortgage Bank, wherein the FCCC as the
assignor, among others, assigned all its assets
and liabilities to Union Savings and Mortgage
Bank.
-Demand letters for the settlement of his
account were sent by petitioner Union Bank of
the Philippines (UBP) to Edmund, but the latter
failed to heed the same and refused to pay.
Thus, on February 5, 1988, the petitioner filed a
Complaint for sum of money against the heirs of
Efraim Santibaez, Edmund and Florence, before
the RTC of Makati City, Branch 150.
Issue: WON the partition in the agreement
executed by the heirs is valid
Held:
NO
-A probate court has the jurisdiction to
determine all the properties of the deceased, to
determine whether they should or should not
be included in the inventory or list of properties
to be administered.
-In testate succession, there can be no valid
partition among the heirs until after the will
has been probated. The law enjoins the
probate of a will and the public requires it,
because unless a will is probated and notice
thereof given to the whole world, the right of a
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
person to dispose of his property by will may
be rendered nugatory. The authentication of a
will decides no other question than such as
touch upon the capacity of the testator and the
compliance with those requirements or
solemnities which the law prescribes for the
validity of a will.
-The probate proceeding had already acquired
jurisdiction over all the properties of the
deceased, including the three (3) tractors. To
dispose of them in any way without the probate
courts approval is tantamount to divesting it
with jurisdiction which the Court cannot allow.
Every act intended to put an end to indivision
among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is
deemed to be a partition, although it should
purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
compromise, or any other transaction. Thus, in
executing any joint agreement which appears
to be in the nature of an extra-judicial
partition, as in the case at bar, court approval
is imperative, and the heirs cannot just divest
the court of its jurisdiction over that part of
the estate. Moreover, it is within the
jurisdiction of the probate court to determine
the identity of the heirs of the decedent. In the
instant case, there is no showing that the
signatories in the joint agreement were the only
heirs of the decedent. When it was executed,
the probate of the will was still pending before
the court and the latter had yet to determine
who the heirs of the decedent were. Thus, for
Edmund and respondent Florence S. Ariola to
adjudicate unto themselves the three (3)
tractors was a premature act, and prejudicial to
the other possible heirs and creditors who may
Page 120
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
have a valid claim against the estate of the
deceased.
-The filing of a money claim against the
decedents estate in the probate court is
mandatory. This requirement is for the purpose
of protecting the estate of the deceased by
informing the executor or administrator of the
claims against it, thus enabling him to examine
each claim and to determine whether it is a
proper one which should be allowed. The plain
and obvious design of the rule is the speedy
settlement of the affairs of the deceased and
the early delivery of the property to the
distributees, legatees, or heirs. `The law strictly
requires the prompt presentation and
disposition of the claims against the decedent's
estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate
as soon as possible, pay off its debts and
distribute the residue.
Case: Pilapil vs Heirs of Maximo Briones, 514
SCRA, Feb 2007
Facts:
-Petitioners are the heirs of the late Donata
Ortiz-Briones (Donata), consisting of her
surviving sister, Rizalina Ortiz-Aguila (Rizalina);
Rizalinas daughter, ErlindaPilapil (Erlinda); and
the other nephews and nieces of Donata, in
representation of her two other sisters who had
also passed away. Respondents, on the other
hand, are the heirs of the late Maximino
Briones (Maximino), composed of his nephews
and nieces, and grandnephews and
grandnieces, in representation of the deceased
siblings of Maximino.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-Maximino was married to Donata but their
union did not produce any children. When
Maximino died on 1 May 1952, Donata
instituted intestate proceedings to settle her
husbands estate with the Cebu City Court of
First Instance (CFI), 14th Judicial District.
-Donata died on 1 November 1977. Erlinda, one
of Donatas nieces, instituted with the RTC a
petition for the administration of the intestate
estate of Donata. Erlinda and her husband,
Gregorio, were appointed by the RTC as
administrators of Donatas intestate estate.
Controversy arose among Donatas heirs when
Erlinda claimed exclusive ownership of three
parcels of land.
-On 3 March 1987, the heirs of Maximino filed a
Complaint with the RTC against the heirs of
Donata for the partition, annulment, and
recovery of possession of real property. RTC
rendered a decision in favor of the heirs of
Maximino.
Issue: WON there was fraud in the acquisition
of the decision made by the lower court
Held:
NO- The existence of any trust relations
between petitioners and respondents shall be
examined in the light of Article 1456 of the New
Civil Code, which provides that, [i]f property is
acquired through mistake or fraud, the person
obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a
trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the
person from whom the property comes. Hence,
the foremost question to be answered is still
whether an implied trust under Article 1456 of
Page 121
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
the New Civil Code had been sufficiently
established in the present case.
-While it is true that since the CFI was not
informed that Maximino still had surviving
siblings and so the court was not able to order
that these siblings be given personal notices of
the intestate proceedings, it should be borne in
mind that the settlement of estate, whether
testate or intestate, is a proceeding in rem, and
that the publication in the newspapers of the
filing of the application and of the date set for
the hearing of the same, in the manner
prescribed by law, is a notice to the whole
world of the existence of the proceedings and
of the hearing on the date and time indicated in
the publication. The publication requirement of
the notice in newspapers is precisely for the
purpose of informing all interested parties in
the estate of the deceased of the existence of
the settlement proceedings, most especially
those who were not named as heirs or
creditors in the petition, regardless of whether
such omission was voluntarily or involuntarily
made.
-Although Donata may have alleged before the
CFI that she was her husbands sole heir, it was
not established that she did so knowingly,
maliciously and in bad faith, so as for this Court
to conclude that she indeed committed fraud.
This Court again brings to the fore the delay by
which respondents filed the present case, when
the principal actors involved, particularly,
Donata and Maximinos siblings, have already
passed away and their lips forever sealed as to
what truly transpired between them.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Case: Heirs of Maglasang vs MBC, 706 SCRA
235
Facts:
-On June 16, 1975, spouses Flaviano and Salud
Maglasang (Sps.Maglasang) obtained a credit
line from respondent in the amount of
₱350,000.00 which was secured by a real estate
mortgage executed over seven of their
properties located in Ormoc City and the
Municipality of Kananga, Province of Leyte.
They availed of their credit line by securing
loans in the amounts of ₱209,790.50 and
₱139,805.83 on October 24, 1975 and March
15, 1976, respectively, both of which becoming
due and demandable within a period of one
year.
-After Flaviano Maglasang (Flaviano) died
intestate on February 14,1977, his widow Salud
Maglasang (Salud) and their surviving children,
filed a verified petition for letters of
administration of the intestate estate of
Flaviano before the then Court of First Instance
of Leyte, Ormoc City, Branch 5 (probate court).
-In view of the issuance of letters of
administration, the probate court, on August
30, 1977, issued a Notice to Creditors for the
filing of money claims against Flaviano’s estate.
-The probate court terminated the proceedings
with the surviving heirs executing an extra-
judicial partition of the properties of Flaviano’s
estate. The loan obligations owed by the estate
to respondent, however, remained unsatisfied
due to respondent’s certification that Flaviano’s
account was undergoing a restructuring.
Page 122
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-RTC rendered a decision directing the heirs of
Maglasang to pay the amount of ₱434,742.36
with interest at the rate of 12%. CA affirmed the
decision made by the RTC.
Issue: WON CA erred in affirming the RTC's
award of deficiency judgment
Held:
YES- Claims against deceased persons should be
filed during the settlement proceedings of their
estate. Such proceedings are primarily governed
by special rules found under Rules 73 to 90 of
the Rules, although rules governing ordinary
actions may, as far as practicable, apply
suppletorily.
-A creditor holding a claim against the deceased
secured by a mortgage or other collateral
security" as above-highlighted, it may be
reasonably concluded that the aforementioned
section covers all secured claims, whether by
mortgage or any other form of collateral, which
a creditor may enforce against the estate of the
deceased debtor.
-Jurisprudence breaks down the rule under
Section 7, Rule 86 and explains that the secured
creditor has three remedies/options that he
may alternatively adopt for the satisfaction of
his indebtedness. In particular, he may choose
to: (a) waive the mortgage and claim the entire
debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an
ordinary claim; (b) foreclose the mortgage
judicially and prove the deficiency as an
ordinary claim; and (c) rely on the mortgage
exclusively, or other security and foreclose the
same before it is barred by prescription,
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
without the right to file a claim for any
deficiency.
-In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to
the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative
and not cumulative. Notably, an election of one
remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For
this purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon
the filing of the suit for collection or upon the
filing of the complaint in an action for
foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the
provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
-Section 7, Rule 86 governs the parameters and
the extent to which a claim may be advanced
against the estate, whereas Act No. 3135 sets
out the specific procedure to be followed when
the creditor subsequently chooses the third
option – specifically, that of extra-judicially
foreclosing real property belonging to the
estate. The application of the procedure under
Act No. 3135 must be concordant with Section
7, Rule 86 as the latter is a special rule
applicable to claims against the estate, and at
the same time, since Section 7, Rule 86 does
not detail the procedure for extra-judicial
foreclosures, the formalities governing the
manner of availing of the third option – such as
the place where the application for extra-
judicial foreclosure is filed, the requirements of
publication and posting and the place of sale –
must be governed by Act No. 3135.
-Having unequivocally opted to exercise the
third option of extra-judicial foreclosure under
Section 7, Rule 86, respondent is now precluded
Page 123
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
from filing a suit to recover any deficiency
amount as earlier discussed.
Case: Butiong vs Plazo, 765 SCRA 227
Facts:
-On November 16, 1989, Pedro L. Rifioza died
intestate, leaving several heirs, including his_
children with his first wife, respondents Ma.
Gracia R. Plazo and Ma. Fe Alaras, as well as
several properties including a resort covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 51354
and No. 51355, each with an area of 351 square
meters, and a family home, the land on which it
stands is covered by TCT Nos. 40807 and 40808,
both located in Nasugbu, Batangas.
-Respondents alleged that sometime in March
1991, they discovered that their co-heirs,
Pedro’s second wife, Benita"Tenorio and other
children, had sold the subject properties to
petitioners, spouses Francisco Villafria and
Maria Butiong, who are now deceased and
substituted by their son, Dr. Ruel B. Villafria,
without their knowledge and consent.
-On October 1, 2001, the trial court nullified the
transfer of the subject Properties to petitioners
and spouses Bondoc due to irregularities in the
Documents of conveyance offered by
petitioner’s .as well as the circumstances
Surrounding the execution of the same.
Specifically, the Extra-Judicial Settlement was
notarized by a notary public that was not duly
commissioned as such on the date it was
executed.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
- The Petitioner argues that the assailed
Decision and Order of the Court a quo, supra,
should be annulled and set aside on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction.
Issue: WON RTC of Nasugbu Batangas has
jurisdiction over the settlement of estate
Held:
- Considering that settlement of estate is a
special proceeding cognizable by a probate
court of limited jurisdiction while judicial
partition with annulment of title and recovery
of possession are ordinary civil actions
cognizable by a court of general jurisdiction, the
trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in
entertaining the latter while it was sitting
merely in its probate jurisdiction. This is in view
of the prohibition found in the Rules on the
joiner of special civil actions and ordinary civil
actions.
Rule 74 Sec 1-. Extrajudicial settlement by
agreement between heirs. - If the decedent left
no will and no debts and the heirs are all of
age 5 or the minors are represented by their
judicial or legal representatives duly
authorized for the purpose, the parties may
without securing letters of administration,
divide the estate among themselves as they
see fit by means of a public instrument filed in
the office of the register of deeds, and should
they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary
action of partition. If there is only one heir, he
may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by
means of an affidavit filled in the office of the
Page 124
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
register of deeds. The parties to an
Extrajudicial settlement, whether by public
instrument or by stipulation in a pending
action for partition, or the sole heir who
adjudicates the entire estate to himself by
means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously
with and as a condition precedent to the filing
of the public instrument, or stipulation in the
action for partition, or of the affidavit in the
office of the register of deeds, a bond with the
said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent
to the value of the personal property involved
as certified to under oath by the parties
concerned and conditioned upon the payment
of any just claim that may be filed under section
4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the
decedent left no debts if no creditor files a
petition for letters of administration within
two (2) years after the death of the decedent.
-The fact of the Extrajudicial settlement or
administration shall be Published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the manner
provided in the next succeeding section; but no
Extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon
any person who has not participated therein or
had no notice thereof.
-The general rule is that when a person dies
intestate, or, if testate, failed to name an
executor in his will or the executor o named is
incompetent, or refuses the trust, or. Fails to
furnish the bond equipped by the Rules of
Court, then the decedent's estate shall be
judicially administered and the competent
court shall appoint a qualified administrator
the order established in Section 6 of Rule 78 of
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
the Rules of Court. An exception to this rule,
however, is found in the aforequoted Section 1
of Rule 4 wherein the heirs of a decedent, who
left no will and no debts due from is estate,
may divide the estate either extrajudicially or
in an ordinary action or partition without
submitting the same for judicial administration
nor applying for the appointment of an
administrator by the court.
-Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of
Court, however, does not preclude the heirs
from instituting administration proceedings,
even if the estate has no· debts or obligations, if
they do not desire to resort for good reasons to
an ordinary action for partition. he complaint
contained allegations inherent in an action for
settlement of estate does not. Mean that there
was a prohibited joined of causes of action for
questions as to the estate's properties as well as
a determination of the heirs, their status as
such, and the nature and extent of their titles to
the estate, may also be properly ventilated in
partition proceedings alone.
GUARDIANSHIP (Rule 92-97) AM No. 03-02-05
SC
Q: What are the three kinds of guardianship?
A: Natural, Judicial and Guardianship ad litem
Natural Guardian- Parents of the Ward
Judicial Guardian- Any person qualified to be
appointed as guardian of the person of the
ward or its property.
Page 125
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

Guardian Ad Litem- Any person qualified to be -Deaf and dumb who are unable to read and
appointed as guardian but has limited duty write
since his duty is for a particular purpose.
-Unsound mind even though they have lucid
Object of guardianship interval

-Person of the ward -Persons having a disease, weak mind and of

age
-Property of the ward
Sec 3- Venue
-Person & property of the ward
-Where the prospective ward resides
Kinds:
*Under the new rules, guardians are mandated
-Guardianship over the minor to post a bond.

-Guardianship over the incompetent -The natural guardians are not entitled to sell
the property of their wards.
*Under the new rules on guardianship, mere
minority is not a ground for him to qualify. -Their remedy is to apply for the appointment
as guardian ad litem in order for them to sell
(Example: Orphan, one of the parents died and such property
remarried)
Q: When is guardianship is terminated?
Rule 92- Venue
A: The petition for guardianship ceases to exist
Sec 1- Where to institute proceeding upon the death of the ward or guardian.
(Jurisdiction)
Case Doctrine: Caniza as Represented by
Minor- Family Court Amparo Evangelista vs CA

Incompetent & Minor- Family Court “Guardianship was terminated upon the death
of Caniza but the case against Sps. Estrada shall
Incompetent- RTC not be dismissed on the ground of substitution”

Sec 2- Meaning of word “incompetent” Rule 93- Appointment of Guardians

-Person suffering the penalty of civil interdiction -In default of parents or court appointed
guardian, the court may appoint a guardian.
-Hospitalized lepers
-Surviving grandparents
-Prodigals

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 126
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Oldest brother or sister of the minor over 21
years of age unless fit or disqualified
-Actual custodian of the minor over 21 years of
age
-Any other person who is the sound discretion
of the court that would serve the best interest
of the minor.
Section 4. Opposition to petition. — Any
interested person may, by filing a written
opposition, contest the petition on the ground
of majority of the alleged minor, competency of
the alleged incompetent, or the insuitability of
the person for whom letters are prayed, and
may pray that the petition be dismissed, or that
letters of guardianship issue to himself, or to
any suitable person named in the opposition.
Rule 96- General Power and Duties of
Guardians
Q: What is the authority of the guardian?
A: A guardian has full authority to take
possession of the property of the ward, to pay
the debts of the ward, to settle accounts,
collect debts, and appear in actions for the
ward, Estate to be managed frugally, and
proceeds applied to maintenance of ward,
Guardian may be authorized to join in partition
proceedings after hearing, Inventories and
accounts of guardians, and appraisement of
estates.
Rule 97- Termination
Section 2. When the guardian removed or
allowed to resign. New appointment. — When
a guardian becomes insane or otherwise
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
incapable of discharging his trust or unsuitable
therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the
estate, or failed for thirty (30) days after it is
due to render an account or make a return, the
court may, upon reasonable notice to the
guardian, remove him, and compel him to
surrender the estate of the ward to the person
found to be lawfully entitled thereto. A
guardian may resign when it appears proper to
allow the same; and upon his resignation or
removal the court may appoint another in his
place.
Section 3. Other termination of guardianship.
— The marriage or voluntary emancipation of
a minor ward terminates the guardianship of
the person of the ward, and shall enable the
minor to administer his property as though he
were of age, but he cannot borrow the money
or alienate or encumber real property without
the consent of his father or mother, or
guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only
with the assistance of his father, mother or
guardian. The guardian of any person may be
discharged by the court when it appears, upon
the application of the ward or otherwise, that
the guardianship is no longer necessary.
CASES:
Goyena vs Ledesma-Gustillo, Jan 13, 2003
Facts:
-On July 8, 1996, respondent filed at the RTC of
Makati a PETITION FOR LETTERS OF
GUARDIANSHIP over the person and properties
of her sister Julieta.
-(a)That for the most part during the year 1995
and 1996, Julieta Ledesma has been a patient in
the Makati Medical Center where she is under
medical attention for old age, general debility,
Page 127
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
and a mini-stroke which she suffered in the
United States in early 1995; (b) That Julieta
Ledesma is confined to her bed and cannot get
up from bed without outside assistance, and
she has to be moved by wheel chair; (c) That
Julieta Ledesma owns real estate and personal
properties in Metro Manila and in Western
Visayas, with an aggregate estimated assessed
and par value of P1 Million Pesos
-Petitioner filed an Opposition to the petition
for letters of guardianship. She later filed an
Amended Opposition on August 15, 1996.
-The trial court found Julieta incompetent and
incapable of taking care of herself and her
property and appointed respondent as guardian
of her person and properties.
Issue: WON Amparo Gustillo is the proper
guardian in this case
Held:
YES- As a rule, when it appears that the judge
has exercised care and diligence in selecting
the guardian, and has given due consideration
to the reasons for and against his action which
are urged by the interested parties, his action
should not be disturbed unless it is made very
clear that he has fallen into grievous error.
-The claim that respondent is hostile to the best
interests of Julieta also lacks merit. That
respondent removed Julieta from the Makati
Medical Center where she was confined after
she suffered a stroke does not necessarily show
her hostility towards Julieta, given the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
observation by the trial court, cited in the
present petition, that Julieta was still placed
under the care of doctors after she checked out
and was returned to the hospital when she
suffered another stroke.
- SC noted two undisputed facts in the case at
bar, to wit: 1) Petitioner opposed the petition
for the appointment of respondent as guardian
before the trial court because, among other
reasons, she felt she was disliked by
respondent, a ground which does not render
respondent unsuitable for appointment as
guardian, and 2) Petitioner concealed the
deteriorating state of mind of Julieta before the
trial court, which is reflective of a lack of good
faith.
Case: Neri vs Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy, 683
SCRA
Doctrine: “Parents should apply for judicial
guardianship in order for them to sell properties
of their children.”
Facts:
-During the lifetime of Petitoner’s mother,
Anunciacion, she and her 2nd husband, Enrique,
acquired several homestead properties. When
Anunciacion died, however, Enrique in his
personal capacity and as natural guardian of his
minor children Rosa and Douglas, together
with, Napoleon, Alicia and Visminda executed
an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with
Absolute Deed of Sale (1979) adjudicating
among themselves the said homestead
properties, and thereafter, sold the properties
to the late spouses Uy for a consideration of
80,000.
Page 128
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-On 1996, the children of Enrique filed a
complaint for annulment of the said sale against
spouses Uy, assailing the validity of the sale for
having been sold within the prohibited period.
And, also, for having been executed without the
consent or approval of Eutropia, Victoria, Rosa
and Douglas; thus, depriving the latter siblings
of their legitime.
-Uy countered that the sale took place beyond
the 5 year prohibitory period from the issuance
of the homestead patents. They also denied
that Eutropia and Victoria were excluded from
the Extra-judicial settlement and sale of the
subject properties, and interposed further the
defense of prescription and laches.
RTC rendered a Decision annulling the Extra-
judicial settlement of estate with Absolute Deed
of Sale. It ruled that the sale is void because
Eutropia and Victoria were deprived of their
hereditary rights and that Enrique had no
judicial authority to sell the shares of his minor
children, Rosa and Douglas.
On appeal, however, CA reserved and set aside
RTC decision.
Issue: WON Enrique, as guardian of his children
and co-owner (with his children), sell their co-
owned property?
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held: No, as to the shares of the minor children
because as a natural guardian, he is merely
clothed with powers of administration.
With respect to Rosa and Douglas who were
minors at the time of the execution of the
settlement and sale, their NATURAL GUARDIAN
and father, Enrique, represented them in the
transaction. However, on the basis of the laws
prevailing at that time, Enrique was merely
clothed with POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION and
bereft of any authority to dispose of their 2/16
shares in the estate of their mother,
Anunciacion.
Power of dominion, is granted by law only to a
JUDICIAL GUARDIAN of the ward’s property
and even then only with court’s prior approval
secured in accordance with the proceedings
set forth by the Rules.
Exception: RATIFICATION Consequently, the
disputed sale entered into by Enrique in behalf
of his minor children without the proper judicial
authority, unless ratified by them upon reaching
the age of majority, is unenforceable in
accordance with Art. 1317 and 1403(1) of the
Civil Code.
Records, however, show that Rosa had ratified
the extrajudicial settlement of the estate with
absolute deed of sale. The same, however, is
not true with respect to Douglas for lack of
evidence showing ratification.
Page 129
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
THEREFORE, the extrajudicial settlement with
sale is invalid and not binding on Eutropia,
Victoria and Douglas.
Case: Oropesa vs Oropesa, 671 SCRA (4/2012)
Facts:
-On January 23, 2004, the (petitioner) filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, a
petition for him and a certain Ms. Louie Ginez
to be appointed as guardians over the property
of his father, the (respondent) Cirilo Oropesa.
-It is alleged among others that the
(respondent) has been afflicted with several
maladies and has been sickly for over ten (10)
years already having suffered a stroke on April
1, 2003 and June 1, 2003, that his judgment and
memory [were] impaired and such has been
evident after his hospitalization; that even
before his stroke, the (respondent) was
observed to have had lapses in memory and
judgment, showing signs of failure to manage
his property properly; that due to his age and
medical condition, he cannot, without outside
aid, manage his property wisely, and has
become an easy prey for deceit and exploitation
by people around him, particularly Ms. Ma.
Luisa Agamata, his girlfriend.
- On July 6, 2004, respondent filed his
Opposition to the petition for guardianship.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-During the course of the trial, respondent filed
demurrer to evidence which was granted by the
trial court. It was declared that petitioner failed
to provide documentary and testimonial
evidence to establish that General Oropesa is
incompetent to run his personal affairs.
Issue: WON respondent is considered as
incompetent person who should be placed
under guardianship
Held:
-A guardianship is a trust relation of the most
sacred character, in which one person, called a
guardian acts for another called the ward whom
the law regards as incapable of managing his
own affairs. A guardianship is designed to
further the wards well-being, not that of the
guardian. It is intended to preserve the wards
property, as well as to render any assistance
that the ward may personally require. It has
been stated that while custody involves
immediate care and control, guardianship
indicates not only those responsibilities, but
those of one in loco parentis as well.
-Persons who, though of sound mind but by
reason of age, disease, weak mind or other
similar causes, are incapable of taking care of
themselves and their property without outside
aid are considered as incompetents who may
properly be placed under guardianship. A
Page 130
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
finding that a person is incompetent should be
anchored on clear, positive and definite
evidence.
-With the failure of petitioner to formally offer
his documentary evidence, his proof of his
fathers incompetence consisted purely of
testimonies given by himself and his sister.
These testimonies, which did not include any
expert medical testimony, were insufficient to
convince the trial court of petitioners cause of
action and instead lead it to grant the demurrer
to evidence that was filed by respondent.
Case: Caniza vs CA, G.R. No. 110427 February
24, 1997
Facts:
-On November 20, 1989, being then ninety-four
(94) years of age, Carmen Caiza, a spinster, a
retired pharmacist, and former professor of the
College of Chemistry and Pharmacy of the
University of the Philippines, was declared
incompetent by judgment of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 107, in a
guardianship proceeding instituted by her
niece, Amparo A. Evangelista.
-Judgment was rendered by the MetroTC on
April 13, 1992 in Caiza's favor, the Estradas
being ordered to vacate the premises and pay
Caiza P5,000.00 by way of attorney's fees.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-RTC reversed the decision "action by which the
issue of defendants' possession should be
resolved is accion publiciana, the obtaining
factual and legal situation, demanding
adjudication by such plenary action for recovery
of possession cognizable in the first instance by
the Regional Trial Court."
Issue: WON Evangelista, as Caiza's legal
guardian had authority to bring said action
Held:
-Amparo Evangelista was appointed by a
competent court the general guardian of both
the person and the estate of her aunt, Carmen
Caiza. Her Letters of Guardianship dated
December 19, 1989 clearly installed her as the
"guardian over the person and properties of the
incompetent CARMEN CAIZA with full authority
to take possession of the property of said
incompetent in any province or provinces in
which it may be situated and to perform all
other acts necessary for the management of her
properties By that appointment, it became
Evangelista's duty to care for her aunt's person,
to attend to her physical and spiritual needs, to
assure her well-being, with right to custody of
her person in preference to relatives and
friends.
-Evangelista was merely discharging the duty to
attend to "the comfortable and suitable
Page 131
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
maintenance of the ward" explicitly imposed on
her by Section 4, Rule 96 of the Rules of Court: “
A guardian must manage the estate of his
ward frugally and without waste, and apply
the income and profits thereof, so far as
maybe necessary, to the comfortable and
suitable maintenance of the ward and his
family, if there be any; and if such income and
profits be insufficient for that purpose, the
guardian may sell or encumber the real estate,
upon being authorized by order to do so, and
apply to such of the proceeds as may be
necessary to such maintenance."
Case: Abad vs Biazon, 687 SCRA (12/5/2012)
Facts:
-On March 19, 2007, petitioner Eduardo Abad
(Abad) filed a petition for guardianship over the
person and properties of Maura B. Abad
(Maura) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Dagupan City, Branch 42. He averred that
Maura, who is single, more than ninety (90)
years old and a resident of Rizal Street,
Poblacion, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, is in dire
need of a guardian who will look after her and
her business affairs. Due to her advanced age,
Maura is already sickly and can no longer
manage to take care of herself and her
properties unassisted thus becoming an easy
prey of deceit and exploitation.
-RTC ordered and appointing Biason as Maura's
guardian. The Court hereby fixes the
guardianship bond at Php500,000.00 and the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
letters of guardianship shall be issued only upon
the submission of the bond, conditioned on the
following provisions of the Rule 94 Section 1, of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
-Abad filed an appeal to the CA. He argued that
the RTC erred in disqualifying him from being
appointed as Maura’s guardian despite the fact
that he has all the qualifications stated under
the Rules. That he was not a resident of
Mangaldan, Pangasinan should not be a ground
for his disqualification as he had actively and
efficiently managed the affairs and properties
of his aunt even if he is residing in Metro
Manila. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the Regional Trial Court.
Issue: WON Biason is qualifed to become the
guardian of Maura
Held:
-In his petition, Abad prayed for the nullification
of the CA Decision dated August 28, 2009 and
Resolution dated April 19, 2010, which
dismissed his appeal from the Decision dated
September 26, 2007 of the RTC and denied his
motion for reconsideration, respectively.
Basically, he was challenging Biason’s
qualifications and the procedure by which the
RTC appointed him as guardian for Maura.
However, with Biason’s demise, it has become
impractical and futile to proceed with resolving
the merits of the petition. It is a well-
established rule that the relationship of
guardian and ward is necessarily terminated
by the death of either the guardian or the
ward.The supervening event of death rendered
Page 132
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
it pointless to delve into the propriety of
Biason’s appointment since the juridical tie
between him and Maura has already been
dissolved. The petition, regardless of its
disposition, will not afford Abad, or anyone else
for that matter, any substantial relief.
ADOPTION AND CUSTODY OF MINORS
Jurisdiction- Family Court
Venue- The residence of the adopter
Q: What is Adoption?
A: Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding in
rem which creates a relationship of two person
similar to that of a legitimate paternity and
filiation.
Juridical Act- It cannot be a subject of a
contract since there must be a judicial order.
Proceeding in Rem- It binds the whole world
which creates a relationship between two
persons similar to that of a legitimate paternity
and filiation.
*Adoption has taken a lot of changes
throughout the years.
RA 8552- Domestic Adoption Act
RA 8043- Inter-Country Adoption Act
AM 02-6-02- Rules on Adoption
Child- Anyone below:
18 years of age (Domestic Adoption)
15 years of age (Inter- Country Adoption Act)
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Situation: Liza, 19 years of age and earning Php
200,000 per month. She wants to adopt Little
Mario.
Q: Is Liza qualified to adopt Little Mario?
A: NO, Legal age is not only a requirement in
the petition for Adoption. Liza is not entitled to
adopt since Liza does not have full civil capacity.
Under the Civil Code, a person shall have the
full capacity when he/she reached the age of
21.
-If she obtained consent from the biological
parents of Little Mario, Liza is entitled or has
the right to adoption.
-The prospective adoptee must be one that is
legally available for adoption.
Q: When is a person legally available for
adoption?
A: In petition for adoption, there must be an
indication that a person is legally available for
adoption.
Q: What are the kinds of legally available
persons for adoption?
A: Voluntarily committed- The Biological
parents renounces their right/parental
authority.
Involuntary committed- The government insists
that a person should be adopted
Kinds: -Abandoned -Neglected
Child Placement Agency vs Child Caring Agency
Page 133
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Child Placement Agency- They authorize to take
care of a child and to file an adoption
proceeding.
Child Caring Agency- An organization that take
care of a child support but not authorize to file
adoption proceeding.
Simulation of Birth- When a party tries to
tamper the birth certificate towards the civil
registry to make it appear that they are the real
parents of a child who is his own biological
-Considered as Criminal Offense
Case: In Re Petition for Adoption of Michelle
and Michael Lim
Facts: Mr & Mrs Lim wanted to adopt Michelle
and Michael. One day, a woman went to the
clinic of Mrs. Lim asking if they can adopt her 11
day old child. Sps Lim took care of the children
and even enrolled them in an exclusive school.
Mrs. Lim simulated the birth certificates of
Michelle and Michael. When Mrs. Lim filed the
petition, Michelle was already married and
Michael was of legal age. Mrs. Lim was able to
get the consent of her husband, the children
and it was granted by the lower court.
Issue: WON Mrs. Lim validly adopt Michelle and
Michael
Held: NO- The Supreme Court denied the
petition on the ground that petition for
adoption must be filed jointly by spouses even if
there is a prospective divorce between them.
Procedure for RA 8552- Domestic Adoption Act
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Section 7. Who May Adopt. – The following
may adopt:
(a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession
of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good
moral character, has not been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally
and psychologically capable of caring for
children, at least sixteen (16) years older than
the adoptee, and who is in a position to support
and care for his/her children in keeping with the
means of the family. The requirement of sixteen
(16) year difference between the age of the
adopter and adoptee may be waived when the
adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee,
or is the spouse of the adoptee's parent;
(b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications
as above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided,
That his/her country has diplomatic relations
with the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she
has been living in the Philippines for at least
three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of
the application for adoption and maintains such
residence until the adoption decree is entered,
that he/she has been certified by his/her
diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate
government agency that he/she has the legal
capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that
his/her government allows the adoptee to enter
his/her country as his/her adopted
son/daughter: Provided, Further, That the
requirements on residency and certification of
the alien's qualification to adopt in his/her
country may be waived for the following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a
relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate
son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
Page 134
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and
seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a
relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse;
or
(c) The guardian with respect to the ward after
the termination of the guardianship and
clearance of his/her financial accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in
the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate
son/daughter of the other; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own
illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, However,
that the other spouse has signified his/her
consent thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from
each other.
In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one
spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of
the other, joint parental authority shall be
exercised by the spouses.
Section 8. Who May Be Adopted. – The
following may be adopted:
(a) Any person below eighteen (18) years of age
who has been administratively or judicially
declared available for adoption;
(b) The legitimate son/daughter of one spouse
by the other spouse;
(c) An illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified
adopter to improve his/her status to that of
legitimacy;
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
(d) A person of legal age if, prior to the
adoption, said person has been consistently
considered and treated by the adopter(s) as
his/her own child since minority;
(e) A child whose adoption has been previously
rescinded; or
(f) A child whose biological or adoptive
parent(s) has died: Provided, That no
proceedings shall be initiated within six (6)
months from the time of death of said
parent(s).
Section 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the
Adoption. – After being properly counseled and
informed of his/her right to give or withhold
his/her approval of the adoption, the written
consent of the following to the adoption is
hereby required:
(a) The adoptee, if ten (10) years of age or over;
(b) The biological parent(s) of the child, if
known, or the legal guardian, or the proper
government instrumentality which has legal
custody of the child;
(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters,
ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter(s)
and adoptee, if any;
(d) The illegitimate sons/daughters, ten (10)
years of age or over, of the adopter if living with
said adopter and the latter's spouse, if any; and
(e) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or
to be adopted.
Kinds of Individual that can adopt:
-Filipino Citizen
Page 135
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Alien Citizen
-Guardian
RA 8043- Inter Country Adoption Act of 2005
Qualification for alien/foreigner adopter
-Legal Age
-Full Civil Capability
-Qualified emotionally/psychologically/mentally
-Resident of the Phil for 3 consecutive years
-His country must have diplomatic ties with the
Phil
-Duly certified by his own country to be eligible
to adopt
Exception: Residency Requirement can be
waived
-Former Filipino who seeks to adopt a relative
within 4th degree of consanguinity.
-Married to a Filipino who seeks to adopt a
relative within 4th degree of consanguinity or
legitimate child from former marriage.
Consent
Q: whose consent is required in adoption
proceeding?
A: Adoptee must be at least 10 years of age &
Parents of the prospective adoptee, children of
the adopter (whether legitimate/illegitimate),
spouses
Case: Cang vs Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 128
Facts: -Sps Cang were residents of the
Philippines, Mr Cang was found to be a
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
womanizer therefore Mrs. Cang wanted to
separate from him. Mr Cang left for United
States and later on filed a divorce within that
country. He left behind in the Phil. 3 minor
children. The brother in law wanted to adopt
the three children of Mrs. Cang who were
childless. A petition for adoption was filed
before the trial court. Mr. Cang discovered the
petition for adoption and he come to the Phil
and opposed on the petition on the ground that
his consent was not given. Petitioner argued
that consent of Mr. Cang is not necessary on
the ground that he already abandoned the
children.
Issue: WON the consent of Mr. Cang is
necessary in the adoption proceeding
Held:
YES- Consent of Mr. Cang is necessary. The
defense of abandonment is not proper since it
should be total/absolute. The records will show
that there is no abandonment on the part of
Mr. Cang of his parental authority since he
regularly communicate with the children.
*While adoption is for the best interest of
prospective adoptee, that should not deprive
the biological parent of their parental authority.
Case: Castro vs Gregorio 738 SCRA
Facts: Atty Jose Castro of Laoag City and also a
practioner of law in Manila. He was married to
Mrs Castro and during their marriage they had
one child but died during the pregnancy. Atty
Castro and Mrs Castro got separated but later
Page 136
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
on reconciled to each other and had one
daughter named Joanne. Mrs Castro separated
again from Atty. Castro on the ground that the
latter has homosexual tendencies. Atty Castro
sought to adopt the 2 illegitimate child to whom
he had with their housemate. The petition for
adoption was granted by the trial court. Mrs
Castro discovered the alleged adoption after
the death of Atty Castro and argued that her
consent was not secured during the adoption
proceeding. The adoption proceeding was held
in the trial court of Batac which not the
residence of Atty. Castro during his lifetime.
Mrs. Castro availed of annulment of judgment
on the ground of extrinsic fraud.
Issue: WON the consent of Mrs. Castro is
necessary in the adoption proceeding
Held: YES- The two children which Atty Castro
sought to adopt is not his illegitimate children
to the house maid but to Larry her common law
spouse. It was also ruled that Atty. Castro is
allegedly the lover of Larry. The consent of Mrs.
Castro is also necessary in order for adoption to
be valid.
Case: IN Re Matter of Adoption of Stephanie
Nathy Astorga Garcia 454 SCRA
Facts: Stephanie was the illegitimate child of
Mr. Catindig and he wanted to adopt her. In the
petition for adoption, the petitioner asked that
the child will retain Garcia as her middle which
is the family name of the biological mother. This
petition was opposed by the OSG on the ground
that it should be through a separate petition
under change of name Rule 103.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that there is no
reason or prohibition for the adoptee to use the
middle name of her former natural parent.
Considering that the identity of a person is not
only dependent on the paternal side but also on
the maternal side.
Case: Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim
Carulasan Wang 588 SCRA 98
Facts: A petition was filed by Anna Lisa Wang
for the change of name and/or
correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil
Registry of her son, a minor, Julian Lin Carulasan
Wang before the RTC of Cebu City.
Julian was the son of Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-
Foe Wang. They were not yet married to each
other when Julian was born. Subsequently,
when Julian’s parents got married, the latter
executed a deed of legitimation of their son so
that the child’s name was changed from Julian
Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
Reason: Since the family plans to stay in
Singapore and, since in Singapore middle names
or the maiden surname of the mother are not
carried in a persons name, they anticipated that
Julian will be discriminated against because of
his current registered name which carries a
middle name. Also, the spouses’ daughter and
Julian might get confused if they are really
brothers and sisters because they have
different surnames. Lastly, Carulasan sounds
funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language since
they do not have the letter “R” but if there is,
Page 137
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
they pronounce it as “L”. It is for these reasons
why the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is
requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.
RTC: denied the petition. It found that the
reasons abovementioned does not fall within
the grounds recognized by law. It further ruled
that the real reason behind is only convenience.
MR: Denied. The Singaporean practice of not
carrying a middle name does not justify the
dropping of the middle name of a legitimate
Filipino child who intends to study there. The
dropping of the middle name would be
tantamount to giving due recognition to or
application of the laws of Singapore instead of
Philippine law which is controlling.
Hence, this Appeal. SC required the OGS to
comment on the petition.
OSG: Trial Court is correct. legitimate children
have the right to bear the surnames of both
their mother and father, and such right cannot
be denied by the mere expedient of dropping
the same (Family Code). Mere convenience is
not sufficient to support a petition for change of
name and/or cancellation of entry.
Issue: Whether the name mother’s surname
should be dropped in the instant case because
it is a common practice in Singapore to omit
said surname?
Decision: No. Petition is denied.
The State has an interest in the names borne by
individuals and entities for purposes of
identification, and that A CHANGE OF NAME IS
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT, so that before a
person can be authorized to change his name
given him either in his certificate of birth or civil
registry, he must show PROPER AND
REASONABLE CAUSE, or ANY COMPELLING
REASON which may justify such change.
Otherwise, the request should be denied.
VALID GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME:
1. When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable
or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
2. When the change results as a legal
consequence, as in legitimation;
3. When the change will avoid confusion;
4. When one has continuously used and been
known since childhood by a Filipino name,
and was unaware of alien parentage;
5. A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to
erase signs of former alienage, all in good
faith and without prejudicing anybody; and
6. When the surname causes embarrassment
and there is no showing that the desired
change of name was for a fraudulent
purpose or that the change of name would
prejudice public interest.
IN GRANTING/DENYING:
The question of proper and reasonable cause is
left to the sound discretion of the court. The
evidence presented need only be satisfactory to
the court and not all the best evidence
available.
Page 138
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
What is involved is not a mere matter of
allowance or disallowance of the request, but a
JUDICIOUS evaluation of the sufficiency and
propriety of the justifications advanced in
support thereof, mindful of the consequent
results in the event of its grant and with the
sole prerogative for making such determination
being lodged in the courts.
Rescission of Adoption- The adopter can no
longer rescind adoption and the right to rescind
shall belong to the adoptee
Q: What is the effect of the
rescission/termination of adoption?
A: The adoptee shall go back to his biological
parents along with all the legal ties that were
severed.
Case: Bartolome vs SSS 740 SCRA
Facts: A certain seaman that is earning well
meet an accident that caused his death. The
biological mother filed an application with the
Compensation Act as beneficiary of his
deceased son. This application was disapproved
by SSS on the ground that during the childhood
of the deceased, he was adopted by his
grandfather. The grandfather already died
therefore the adoption relationship was already
terminated.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that after
adoption, the adopter died. Upon his death, the
biological mother took care of the deceased
son. The parental authority of the biological
parents has returned upon the death of the
adopter therefore she is not entitled to the
benefits of SSS.
Inter-Country Adoption Law
-It can be availed of Filipino Citizens living
abroad or those permanently residing abroad.
-A party can file a petition for adoption in the
Family court in Phil or Inter-Country Adoption
Board.
Q: Can a foreigner avail of domestic adoption
act?
A: YES, the law does not prohibit a foreigner to
avail of domestic adoption act.
Exceptions: -Seeks to adopt a relative within 4th
civil degree
-Seeks to adopt her own illegitimate child
-Seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the
spouse
Cases:
Page 139
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Case: Vda. de Jacob vs Court of Appeals- 312
SCRA 772
-Petitioner claimed to be the surviving spouse
of deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob and was
appointed Special Administratix for the various
estates of the deceased by virtue
a reconstructed Marriage Contract between
herself and the deceased.
-During the proceeding for the settlement of
the estate of the deceased Alfredo in Case No.
T-46 (entitled Tomasa vda. de Jacob v. Jose
Centenera, et al) herein defendant-appellee
Pedro sought to intervene therein claiming his
share of the deceaseds estate as Alfredos
adopted son and as his sole surviving
heir. Pedro questioned the validity of the
marriage between appellant Tomasa and his
adoptive father Alfredo.
- The trial court found some irregularities
in the execution of the Marriage Contract.
(a) No copy of the Marriage Contract was
sent to the local civil registrar by the
solemnizing officer thus giving the
implication that there was no copy of the
marriage contract sent to, nor a record
existing in the civil registry of Manila, (b) In
signing the Marriage Contract, the late
Alfredo Jacob merely placed his
thumbmark on said contract.
-Appellee presented the Order dated 18
July 1961 in Special Proceedings No. 192
issued by then Presiding Judge Moya
granting the petition for adoption filed by
deceased Alfredo which declared therein
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Pedro Pilapil as the legally adopted son of
Alfredo.
Issue: WON Pedro Pilapil is legally adopted
son of Alfredo Jacob
Held:
NO- The factual findings of the trial court
of are accorded great weight and respect by
appellate courts, because it had the
opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses and to note telltale signs
indicating the truth or the falsity of a
testimony. The rule, however, is not
applicable to the present case, because it
was Judge Augusto O. Cledera, not
the ponente, who heard the testimonies of
the two expert witnesses.
-No proof was presented that Dr. Jacob had
treated him as an adopted child. Likewise, both
the Bureau of Records Management in Manila
and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of
Tigaon, Camarines Sur, issued Certifications
that there was no record that Pedro Pilapil had
been adopted by Dr. Jacob. Taken together,
these circumstances inexorably negate the
alleged adoption of respondent.
-The burden of proof in establishing adoption
is upon the person claiming such relationship.
Case: Republic vs Hon. Jose R. Hernandez,
253 SCRA 509
Facts:
-On March 10, 1994, herein private
respondent spouses, Van Munson y
Navarro and Regina Munson y Andrade,
filed a petition to adopt the minor Kevin
Earl Bartolome Moran.
Page 140
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-At the hearing on April 18, 1994,
petitioner opposed the inclusion of the
relief for change of name in the same
petition for adoption. In its formal
opposition dated May 3, 1995, petitioner
reiterated its objection to the joinder of
the petition for adoption and the petitions
for change of name in a single proceeding,
arguing that these petitions should be
conducted and pursued as two separate
proceedings.
-The trial court granted the petition for
adoption filed by herein petitioners.
Issue: WON the court a quo erred in
granting the prayer for the change of the
registered proper or given name of the
minor adoptee embodied in the petition
for adoption
Held:
Art. 189 of the Family Code enumerate in no
uncertain terms the legal effects of adoption:
(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be
deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters
and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights and
obligations arising from the relationship of
parent and child, including the right of the
adopted to use the surname of the adopters;
(2) The parental authority of the parents by
nature over the adopted shall terminate and be
vested in the adopters, except that if the
adopter is the spouse of the parent by nature of
the adopted, parental authority over the
adopted shall be exercised jointly by both
spouses; and
(3) The adopted shall remain an intestate heir
of his parents and other blood relatives.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
- The law allows the adoptee, as a matter of
right and obligation, to bear the surname of
the adopter, upon issuance of the decree of
adoption. It is the change of the
adoptees surname to follow that of the
adopter which is the natural and necessary
consequence of a grant of adoption and must
specifically be contained in the order of the
court, in fact, even if not prayed for by
petitioner.
However, the given or proper name, also known
as the first or Christian name, of the adoptee
must remain as it was originally registered in
the civil register. The creation of an adoptive
relationship does not confer upon the adopter a
license to change the adoptees registered
Christian or first name. The automatic change
thereof, premised solely upon the adoption
thus granted, is beyond the purview of a decree
of adoption. Neither is it a mere incident in nor
an adjunct of an adoption proceeding, such that
a prayer therefor furtively inserted in a petition
for adoption, as in this case, cannot properly be
granted.
-The name of the adoptee as recorded in the
civil register should be used in the adoption
proceedings in order to vest the court with
jurisdiction to hear and determine the
same and shall continue to be so used until the
court orders otherwise. Changing the given or
proper name of a person as recorded in the civil
register is a substantial change in one’s official
or legal name and cannot be authorized without
a judicial order.
- Petition for adoption and a petition for change
of name are two special proceedings which, in
substance and purpose, are different from each
other. Each action is individually governed by
particular sets of laws and rules. These two
proceedings involve disparate issues. In a
petition for adoption, the court is called upon to
Page 141
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
evaluate the proposed adopters fitness and
qualifications to bring up and educate the
adoptee properly. On the other hand, in a
petition for change of name, no family relations
are created or affected for what is looked into is
the propriety and reasonableness of the
grounds supporting the proposed change of
name. The individual merits of each issue must
be separately assessed and determined for
neither action is dependent on the other.
Case: Nery vs Sampana, 734 SCRA
-On 14 February 2009, Sampana sent a text
message informing Nery that he already filed
the petition for adoption and it was already
published. Sampana further informed Nery that
they needed to rehearse before the hearing.
Subsequently, Sampana told Nery that the
hearing was set on 5 March 2010 in Branch 11
of Malolos, Bulacan.
-On 11 March 2010, Nery inquired from Branch
11 of Malolos, Bulacan about the status of the
petition for adoption and discovered that there
was no such petition filed in the court. Thus, in
the afternoon of the same day, Nery met
Sampana and sought the reimbursement of the
₱100,000.00 she paid him. Sampana agreed,
but said that he would deduct the filing fee
worth ₱12,000.00.
-Commissioner Antiquiera found Sampana
guilty of malpractice for making Nery believe
that he already filed the petition for adoption
and for failing to file the petition despite
receiving his legal fees. Thus, Commissioner
Antiquiera recommended a penalty of three (3)
months suspension from the practice of law.
Issue: WON there was a valid adoption
proceeding
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
NO -Under the Domestic Adoption Act
provision, which Sampana suggested, the alien
adopter can jointly adopt a relative within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of
his/her Filipino spouse, and the certification of
the alien’s qualification to adopt is waived.
-Having no valid reason not to file the petition
for adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the
status of the petition.
Rule 102- Habeas Corpus
Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends. —
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law,
the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all
cases of illegal confinement or detention by
which any person is deprived of his liberty, or
by which the rightful custody of any person is
withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Section 3. Requisites of application therefor. —
Application for the writ shall be by petition
signed and verified either by the party for
whose relief it is intended, or by some person
on his behalf, and shall set forth:
(a) That the person in whose behalf the
application is made is imprisoned or restrained
on his liberty;
(b) The officer or name of the person by whom
he is so imprisoned or restrained; or, if both are
unknown or uncertain, such officer or person
may be described by an assumed appellation,
and the person who is served with the writ shall
be deemed the person intended;
(c) The place where he is so imprisoned or
restrained, if known;
Page 142
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
(d) A copy of the commitment or cause of
detention of such person, if it can be procured
without impairing the efficiency of the remedy;
or, if the imprisonment or restraint is without
any legal authority, such fact shall appear.
Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge
authorized. — If it appears that the person
alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the
custody of an officer under process issued by a
court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or
order of a court of record, and that the court
or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process,
render the judgment, or make the order, the
writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction
appears after the writ is allowed, the person
shall not be discharged by reason of any
informality or defect in the process, judgment,
or order. Not shall anything in this rule be held
to authorize the discharge of a person charged
with or convicted of an offense in the
Philippines, or of a person suffering
imprisonment under lawful judgment.
Section 6. To whom writ directed, and what to
require. — In case of imprisonment or restraint
by an officer, the writ shall be directed to him,
and shall command him to have the body of
the person restrained of his liberty before the
court or judge designated in the writ at the
time and place therein specified. In case of
imprisonment or restraint by a person not an
officer, the writ shall be directed to an officer,
and shall command him to take and have the
body of the person restrained of his liberty
before the court or judge designated in the
writ at the time and place therein specified,
and to summon the person by whom he is
restrained then and there to appear before said
court or judge to show the cause of the
imprisonment or restraint.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Section 10. Contents of return. — When the
person to be produced is imprisoned or
restrained by an officer, the person who makes
the return shall state therein, and in other cases
the person in whose custody the prisoner is
found shall state, in writing to the court or
judge before whom the writ is returnable,
plainly and unequivocally:
(a) Whether he has or has not the party in his
custody or power, or under restraint;
(b) If he has the party in his custody or power,
or under restraint, the authority and the true
and whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with
a copy of the writ, order execution, or other
process, if any, upon which the party is held;
(c) If the party is in his custody or power or is
restrained by him, and is not produced,
particularly the nature and gravity of the
sickness or infirmity of such party by reason of
which he cannot, without danger, be bought
before the court or judge;
(d) If he has had the party in his custody or
power, or under restraint, and has transferred
such custody or restraint to another,
particularly to whom, at what time, for what
cause, and by what authority such transfer was
made.
Section 12. Hearing on return. Adjournments.
— When the writ is returned before one judge,
at a time when the court is in session, he may
forthwith adjourn the case into the court, there
to be heard and determined. The court or judge
before whom the writ is returned or adjourned
must immediately proceed to hear and examine
the return, and such other matters as are
properly submitted for consideration, unless for
good cause shown the hearing is adjourned, in
which event the court or judge shall make such
Page 143
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
order for the safekeeping of the person
imprisoned or restrained as the nature of the
case requires. If the person imprisoned or
restrained is not produced because of his
alleged sickness or infirmity, the court or judge
must be satisfied that it is so grave that such
person cannot be produced without danger,
before proceeding to hear and dispose of the
matter. On the hearing the court or judge shall
disregard matters of form and technicalities in
respect to any warrant or order of commitment
of a court or officer authorized to commit by
law.
Section 13. When the return evidence, and
when only a plea. — If it appears that the
prisoner is in custody under a warrant of
commitment in pursuance of law, the return
shall be considered prima facie evidence of the
cause of restraint, but if he is restrained of his
liberty by any alleged private authority, the
return shall be considered only as a plea of the
facts therein set forth, and the party claiming
the custody must prove such facts.
Cases: Ilusorio vs Bildner, 512 SCRA 169
Facts:
- Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age
possessed of extensive property valued at
millions of pesos. For many years, lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio was Chairman of the Board
and President of Baguio Country Club.
-Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio
contracted matrimony and lived together for a
period of thirty (30) years. In 1972, they
separated from bed and board for undisclosed
reasons. Potenciano lived at Urdaneta
Condominium, Ayala Ave., Makati City when he
was in Manila and at Ilusorio Penthouse, Baguio
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Country Club when he was in Baguio City. On
the other hand, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.
-On February 25, 1998, Erlinda filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City a petition for
guardianship over the person and property of
Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latters advanced
age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired
judgment.
-Erlinda filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for habeas corpus to have the custody
of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio. She alleged that
respondents refused petitioners demands to
see and visit her husband and prohibited
Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City but
it was denied by the court of appeals.
Issue: WON Habeas Corpus shall prosper in this
case
Held:
NO- Writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases
of illegal confinement or detention, or by
which the rightful custody of a person is
withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is
available where a person continues to be
unlawfully denied of one or more of his
constitutional freedoms, where there is denial
of due process, where the restraints are not
merely involuntary but are unnecessary, and
where a deprivation of freedom originally valid
has later become arbitrary. It is devised as a
speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint, as the best and only
sufficient defense of personal freedom.
- The essential object and purpose of the writ
of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person
therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
Page 144
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-The evidence shows that there was no actual
and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorios liberty that would justify
the issuance of the writ. The fact that lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age, or
under medication does not necessarily render
him mentally incapacitated. Soundness of mind
does not hinge on age or medical condition but
on the capacity of the individual to discern his
actions.
-Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with
the capacity to make choices. In this case, the
crucial choices revolve on his residence and the
people he opts to see or live with. The choices
he made may not appeal to some of his family
members but these are choices which
exclusively belong to Potenciano. He made it
clear before the Court of Appeals that he was
not prevented from leaving his house or seeing
people.
Case: Lacson vs Perez, 357 SCRA
Facts:
-On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo,
faced by an angry and violent mob armed with
explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs,
stones and other deadly weapons assaulting
and attempting to break into Malacaang, issued
Proclamation No. 38 declaring that there was a
state of rebellion in the National Capital
Region. She likewise issued General Order No. 1
directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and the Philippine National Police to suppress
the rebellion in the National Capital
Region. Warrantless arrests of several alleged
leaders and promoters of the rebellion were
thereafter effected.
-There are 4 petitions filed before the Supreme
Court:” (1) G.R. No. 147780 for prohibition,
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
injunction, mandamus, and habeas corpus (with
an urgent application for the issuance of
temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction) filed by Panfilo M.
Lacson, Michael Ray B. Aquino, and Cezar O.
Mancao; (2) G.R. No. 147781
for mandamus and/or review of the factual
basis for the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, with prayer for a
temporary restraining order filed by Miriam
Defensor-Santiago; (3) G.R. No. 147799 for
prohibition and injunction with prayer for a writ
of preliminary injunction and/or restraining
order filed by Rolando A. Lumbao; and (4) G.R.
No. 147810 for certiorari and prohibition filed
by the political party Laban ng Demokratikong
Pilipino.”
Issue: WON Habeas Corpus shall prosper in this
case
Held:
NO- The rule requires that a party must show a
personal stake in the outcome of the case or an
injury to himself that can be redressed by a
favorable decision so as to warrant an
invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and to
justify the exercise of the courts remedial
powers in his behalf.
-At best, the instant petition may be considered
as an action for declaratory relief, petitioner
claiming that its right to freedom of expression
and freedom of assembly is affected by the
declaration of a state of rebellion and that said
proclamation is invalid for being contrary to the
Constitution.
Case: Sangca vs City Prosecutor of Cebu, 524
SCRA 610
Facts:
Page 145
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-On July 7, 2006, at about 2:00 P.M., Yap and
Tuliao were able to contact the informant and
inquired from him if he was really sincere with
his words and the latter replied
affirmatively.Ligan immediately composed a
team and planned for an entrapment operation
against respondent and her cohorts.
- Yap told her no problem as long as she has the
item, he will give her the money. Respondent
instructed Yap to go with her at the parking
area so that she could give it to him and there,
she got inside her car. She took the shabu inside
the compartment of her Toyota Fortuner with
plate number YCX 965 and handed to him one
(1) packed medium size of heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet filled with white
crystalline substance believed to be
shabu. Upon receiving the said
item, Yap pressed it to determine if it was really
shabu or not and when he noticed that it was
shabu, he immediately miscalled the members
of the team informing them that the transaction
was consummated and subsequently held
respondent. He then introduced himself as
PDEA 7 operative. Tuliao, who was just at the
side of the car, assisted Yap in apprehending
the suspect. They also seized her cellular phone
and the Toyota Fortuner which she used in
delivering and transporting illegal drugs.
-The inquest prosecutor recommended the
dismissal of the case but was disapproved by
the City Prosecutor. Consequently, an
information charging Adam with violation of
Section 5, Article 2 of R.A. No. 9165 was filed.
-On petition for review before the Department
of Justice, Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez found no
probable cause to hold Adam liable for the
offense charged.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Issue: WON Habeas Corpus is the proper
remedy is already moot
Held:
YES- Writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases
of illegal confinement or detention in which
any person is deprived of his liberty, or in
which the rightful custody of any person is
withheld from the person entitled to it. Its
essential object and purpose is to inquire into
all manner of involuntary restraint and to
relieve a person from it if such restraint is
illegal. The singular function of a petition for
habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic
freedom of physical liberty.
-In the instant case, records show that Adam
has been released upon order of the trial judge
on January 26, 2007. Therefore, the petition has
become moot.
Case: TUJANMILITANTE IN BEHALF OF THE
MINOR CRISELDA M. CADA vs CADA-DEAPARA,
G.R. No. 210636, July 28, 2014
Facts:
-On March 24, 2011, respondent Raquel M.
Cada-Deapera filed before the RTC-Caloocan a
verified petition for writ of habeas corpus. In
the said petition, respondent demanded the
immediate issuance of the special writ,
directing petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-
Militante to produce before the court
respondent's biological daughter, minor
Criselda M. Cada (Criselda), and to return to her
the custody over the child.
- The next day, on March 25, 2011, the RTC-
Caloocan issued a writ of habeas corpus,
ordering petitioner to bring the child to court
on March 28, 2011. Despite diligent efforts and
Page 146
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
several attempts, however, the Sheriff was
unsuccessful in personally serving petitioner
copies of the habeas corpus petition and of the
writ. Instead, on March 29, 2011, the Sheriff left
copies of the court processes at petitioner’s
Caloocan residence, as witnessed by
respondent’s counsel and barangay officials.
-Petitioner filed a Petition for Guardianship over
the person of Criselda before the RTC, Branch
89 in Quezon City (RTC-Quezon City).
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the
petition for guardianship on the ground of litis
pendentia, among others.
- Raquel moved for the ex parte issuance of an
alias writ of habeas corpus before the RTC-
Caloocan, which was granted by the trial court
on August 8, 2011 but it was denied by the RTC
and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the
habeas corpus case
Held:
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus.-
A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus
involving custody of minors shall be filed with
the Family Court. The writ shall been
enforceable within its judicial region to which
the Family Court belongs. However, the
petition may be filed with the regular court in
the absence of the presiding judge of the Family
Court, provided, however, that the regular
court shall refer the case to the Family Court as
soon as its presiding judge returns to duty.
-The petition may also be filed with the
appropriate regular courts in places where
there are no Family Courts.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-The petition may likewise be filed with the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any
of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall
be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
The writ may be made returnable to a Family
Court or to any regular court within the region
where the petitioner resides or where the
minor may be found for hearing and decision
on the merits. Upon return of the writ, the
court shall decide the issue on custody of
minors. The appellate court, or the member
thereof, issuing the writ shall be furnished a
copy of the decision.
-In view of the afore-quoted provision, it is
indubitable that the filing of a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus before a
family court in any of the cities enumerated is
proper as long as the writ is sought to be
enforced within the National Capital Judicial
Region.
Rule 103- Change of Name
Rule 108- Cancellation/Correction of Entries in
the Civil Registry
RA 9048- AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR
MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL
GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR
CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE
CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL
ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE
ARTICLES 376 AND 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Example: In one compound, there are 2 persons
named as Juan de la Cruz. The difference that
they have is the middle name. (Juan Reyes Dela
Page 147
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Cruz/Juan Robles Dela Cruz). Whenever Juan
Reyes Dela-Cruz receives a letter or packages, it
is intended for another. In order avoid
confusion, Juan Reyes dela cruz filed a petion
for change of name
-The only record that should be changed is the
name in the Birth Certificate.
Rule 103- Change of Name
Q: What is the Jurisdiction?
A: RTC
Q: What is the venue of this action?
A: It is where the petitioner resides
Q: What are the contents of the petition under
Rule 103?
A: (a) That the petitioner has been a bona
fide resident of the province where the petition
is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the
date of such filing;
(b) The cause for which the change of the
petitioner's name is sought;
(c) The name asked for.
Q: How the court acquire jurisdiction over the
petition?
A: Upon publication of the notice of at least
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in
a newspaper of general circulation.
Rule 108- Cancellation/Correction of Entries in
the Civil Registry
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Q: What is the jurisdiction under Rule 108?
A: RTC
Q: What is the venue in this petition?
A: The location of the civil registrar keeping the
records of the subject matter a person want to
correct/cancel an entry
Q: What are the entries that is the subject of
cancellation or correction of entries?
A: Under Sec 2, (a) births: (b) marriage; (c)
deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of
annulments of marriage; (f) judgments
declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g)
legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i)
acknowledgments of natural children; (j)
naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of
citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial
determination of filiation; (n) voluntary
emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of
name.
Q: Who are the parties to the petition?
A: Petitioner, Civil Registrar and any person
interested of be affected
Two Procedures:
Adversial Procedure- Substantial error
Summary Procedure- Typographical
error/clerical error
Case Doctrine: Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of QC-
“ If a Party wants to correct substantial/clerical
error, the remedy is Rule 108. If the cause of
Page 148
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
action is adversial, it shall be summary in
nature.”
-RA 9048 did not repeal Rule 103 and 108 but
only amendatory.
Case Doctrine: Onde vs Civil Registrar of Las
Pinas- “If a party sought for amendment of
typographical error in their record, the remedy
is RA 9048”
Q: What is a typographical/clerical error?
A: An error which is harmless, visible to the
eyes and of understanding.
Example: Matio Reyes---- Matio Reyes
Huanito Santos----- Juanito Santos
July 2, 1890-------- July 2, 1990
*No Correction of Error but change of name as
a remedy.
-If in the Birth Certificate, the sex of a party is
not indicated. The remedy is not correction of
entries but late registration.
RA 9048- Change of Name
Section 3. Who May File the Petition and
Where. – Any person having direct and personal
interest in the correction of a clerical or
typographical error in an entry and/or change
of first name or nickname in the civil register
may file, in person, a verified petition with the
local civil registry office of the city or
municipality where the record being sought to
be corrected or changed is kept.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Q: What are the grounds?
A: (1) The petitioner finds the first name or
nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with
dishonor or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce. (2) The new first name or nickname
has been habitually and continuously used by
the petitioner and he has been publicly known
by that by that first name or nickname in the
community: or (3) The change will avoid
confusion.
Section 6. Duties of the City or Municipal Civil
Registrar or the Consul General. – The city or
municipal civil registrar or the consul general to
whom the petition is presented shall examine
the petition and its supporting documents. He
shall post the petition in a conspicuous place
provided for that purpose for ten (10)
consecutive days after he finds the petition and
its supporting documents sufficient in form and
substance.
Q: Did RA 9048 repealed Rule 103 and 108?
A: No, it only amended the rule pursuant to
case of Onde.
-It only pertains to correction but not
cancellation. It sought to correct clerical/
typographical error.
-The Judicial proceeding is adversial and the
party must comply with the notices.
Procedure:
Page 149
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-File a petition/application with the office of the
civil registrar where the records are kept.
-Posting of Notice in the place of the petition
for 10 consecutive days.
– The city or municipal civil registrar or the
consul general to whom the petition is
presented shall examine the petition and its
supporting documents. He shall post the
petition in a conspicuous place provided for
that purpose for ten (10) consecutive days after
he finds the petition and its supporting
documents sufficient in form and substance.
- The city or municipal civil registrar or the
consul general shall act on the petition and shall
render a decision not later than five (5) working
days after the completion of the posting and/or
publication requirement.
The civil registrar general shall, within ten (10)
working days from receipt of the decision
granting a petition, exercise the power to
impugn such decision by way of an objection
based on the following grounds: (1) The error is
not clerical or typographical; (2) The correction
of an entry or entries in the civil register is
substantial or controversial as it affects the civil
status of a person; or (3) The basis used in
changing the first name or nickname of a
person does not fall under Section 4.
- Where the petition is denied by the city or
municipal civil registrar or the consul general,
the petitioner may either appeal the decision to
the civil registrar general or file the appropriate
petition with the proper court.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
*If a party is a resident of Manila and the entry
sought to be cancelled/corrected is in Davao.
He/she can file his petition in Civil Registrar of
Manila and not in Davao.
-Posting of Notice should be in Manila and
Davao.
Q: What is the remedy if the Civil Registrar
denies the petition?
A: A party can file an appeal towards the Civil
Registrar General. If the Civil Registrar denied
the petition, a party can proceed with judicial
remedy under Rule 103/108.
Case: Eleosida vs Civil Registrar, G.R. No.
130277. May 9, 2002
Facts:
-On January 30, 1997, petitioner Ma. Lourdes
Eleosida filed a petition before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City seeking to correct the
following entries in the birth certificate of her
son, Charles Christian: first, the surname
"Borbon" should be changed to "Eleosida;"
second, the date of the parents' wedding
should be left blank; and third, the informant's
name should be "Ma. Lourdes B. Eleosida,"
instead of "Ma. Lourdes E. Borbon." In support
of her petition, petitioner alleged that she gave
birth to her son out of wedlock on May 24,
1992; that she and the boy's father, Carlos
Borbon, were never married; and that the child
is therefore illegitimate and should follow the
mother's surname.
Page 150
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of
merit.
Issue: WON corrections of entries in the
certificate of live birth pursuant to Article 412 of
the Civil Code, in relation to Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court may be allowed even if the errors
to be corrected are substantial and not merely
clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous
nature.
Held:
YES- Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides the procedure for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil registry. The
proceedings under said rule may either be
summary or adversary in nature. If the
correction sought to be made in the civil
register is clerical, then the procedure to be
adopted is summary. If the rectification affects
the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a
party, it is deemed substantial, and the
procedure to be adopted is adversary.
-The persons who must be made parties to a
proceeding concerning the cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil register are--
(1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who
have or claim any interest which would be
affected thereby.
-Even substantial errors in a civil registry may
be corrected and the true facts established
under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved
by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary proceeding. An
appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
where the trial court has conducted
proceedings where all relevant facts have been
fully and properly developed, where opposing
counsel have been given opportunity to
demolish the opposite party's case, and where
the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and
considered.
-If all these procedural requirements have been
followed, a petition for correction and/or
cancellation of entries in the record of birth
even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of
the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be
described as 'summary.'
Case: Republic vs Kho, G.R. No. 170340, June
29, 2007
Facts:
-On February 12, 2001, Carlito and his siblings
Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed
before the RTC of Butuan City a verified petition
for correction of entries in the civil registry
of Butuan City to effect changes in their
respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked
the court in behalf of his minor children, Kevin
and Kelly, to order the correction of some
entries in their birth certificates.
-Carlito requested the correction in his birth
certificate of the citizenship of his mother to
Filipino instead of Chinese, as well as the
deletion of the word married opposite the
phrase Date of marriage of parents because his
parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco
(Epifania), were allegedly not legally married.
Page 151
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Carlitos filed an amended petition that his
second name be deleted from his record of
birth and that the citizenship be corrected from
Filipino to Chinese.
-The trial court directed the local civil registrar
of Butuan City to correct the entries in the
record of birth of Carlito, as follows: (1) change
the citizenship of his mother from Chinese to
Filipino; (2) delete John from his name; and (3)
delete the word married opposite the date of
marriage of his parents. The last correction was
ordered to be effected likewise in the birth
certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy
Nona, and Heddy Moira.
Issue: WON the case involve is substantial in
nature
Held:
If the entries in the civil register could be
corrected or changed through mere summary
proceedings and not through appropriate
action wherein all parties who may be affected
by the entries are notified or represented, the
door to fraud or other mischief would be set
open, the consequence of which might be
detrimental and far reaching.
-the obvious effect of Republic Act No. 9048 is
to make possible the administrative correction
of clerical or typographical errors or change of
first name or nickname in entries in the civil
register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of
substantial changes in the civil registry in
appropriate adversarial proceedings.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-A petition for correction is an action in rem,
an action against a thing and not against a
person. The decision on the petition binds not
only the parties thereto but the whole world.
An in rem proceeding is validated essentially
through publication. Publication is notice to the
whole world that the proceeding has for its
object to bar indefinitely all who might be
minded to make an objection of any sort
against the right sought to be established. It is
the publication of such notice that brings in the
whole world as a party in the case and vests the
court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
-The correction of the mother’s citizenship from
Chinese to Filipino as appearing in Carlitos birth
record was also proper. Of note is the fact that
during the cross examination by the city
prosecutor of Epifania, he did not deem fit to
question her citizenship. Such failure to oppose
the correction prayed for, which certainly was
not respondents fault, does not in any way
change the adversarial nature of the
proceedings.
Case: Republic vs Silverio, G.R. No. 174689
October 22, 2007
Facts:
-Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed
a petition for the change of his first name and
sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 8.
-He further alleged that he is a male
transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but
feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he
Page 152
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
had always identified himself with girls since
childhood. Petitioner lived as a female and was
in fact engaged to be married. He then sought
to have his name in his birth certificate changed
from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex
from "male" to "female."
-The trial court rendered a decision in favor of
the petitioner granting the change of name and
sex. OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the
Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is no law
allowing the change of entries in the birth
certificate by reason of sex alteration.
-Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the
trial court since there is no law allowing the
change of either name or sex in the certificate
of birth on the ground of sex reassignment
through surgery.
Issue: WON the petitioner has a legal ground to
change its name and sex in the birth certificate.
Held:
NO- A change of name does not alter one’s
legal capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not
sanction a change of first name on the ground
of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding
confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for
his declared purpose may only create grave
complications in the civil registry and the
public interest.
-Before a person can legally change his given
name, he must present proper or reasonable
cause or any compelling reason justifying such
change. In addition, he must show that he will
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
be prejudiced by the use of his true and official
name. In this case, he failed to show, or even
allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a
result of using his true and official name.
-Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil
registry involving the change of sex is not a
mere clerical or typographical error. It is a
substantial change for which the applicable
procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
-There is no special law in the Philippines
governing sex reassignment and its effects.
Case: Republic vs Cagandahan, G.R. No.
166676, September 12, 2008
Facts:
-Jennifer Cagandahan as born on January 13,
1981 and was registered as a female in the
Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up,
she developed secondary male characteristics
and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where
persons thus afflicted possess both male and
female characteristics. She further alleged that
she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy
in her early years and at age six, underwent an
ultrasound where it was discovered that she has
small ovaries.
-t age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian
structures had minimized, she has stopped
growing and she has no breast or menstrual
development. She then alleged that for all
interests and appearances as well as in mind
and emotion, she has become a male
person. Thus, she prayed that her birth
Page 153
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
certificate be corrected such that her gender be
changed from female to male and her first
name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
-RTC granted the petition filed by Cagandahan
on the ground that he is suffering from CAH.
Issue: WON the petition for correction of entry
for sex should be granted
Held:
YES- Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in
the civil registry involving the change of sex is
not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a
substantial change for which the applicable
procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
-Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This
condition causes the early or inappropriate
appearance of male characteristics. A person,
like respondent, with this condition produces
too much androgen, a male hormone. A
newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled
with CAH usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with
the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous
genitalia often appearing more male than
female; (2) normal internal structures of the
female reproductive tract such as the ovaries,
uterus and fallopian tubes; as the child grows
older, some features start to appear male, such
as deepening of the voice, facial hair,
and failure to menstruate at puberty. About 1 in
10,000 to 18,000 children are born with CAH.
-Respondent here has simply let nature take its
course and has not taken unnatural steps to
arrest or interfere with what he was born
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
with. And accordingly, he has already ordered
his life to that of a male. Respondent could have
undergone treatment and taken steps, like
taking lifelong medication, to force his body
into the categorical mold of a female but he did
not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead
taken its due course in respondent’s
development to reveal more fully his male
characteristics.
Case: Onde vs Civil Registrar of Las Pinas City,
G.R. No. 197174 September 10, 2014
Facts:
-Petitioner filed a petition for correction of
entries in his certificate of live birth before the
R TC and named respondent Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of Las Pinas City as sole
respondent. Petitioner alleged that he is the
illegitimate child of his parents Guillermo A.
Onde and Matilde DC Pakingan, but his birth
certificate stated that his parents were
married.
-RTC dismissed the petition for correction of
entries on the ground thatit is insufficient in
form and substance. It ruled that the
proceedings must be adversarial since the first
correction is substantial in nature and would
affect petitioner’s status as a legitimate child. It
was further held that the correction in the first
name of petitioner and his mother can be done
by the city civil registrar under Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9048.
Page 154
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Issue: WON RTC erred in its decision in the
correction on the first name of the petitioner
Held:
No- Under Section 1 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or
typographical errors on entries in a civil register
can be corrected and changes of first name can
be done by the concerned city civil registrar
without need of a judicial order.
- Under R.A. No. 9048, jurisdiction over
applications for change of first name is now
primarily lodged with administrative officers.
The intent and effect of said law is to exclude
the change of first name from the coverage of
Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless
an administrative petition for change of name is
first filed and subsequently denied.
-Corrections of entries in the civil register
including those on citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage,
involve substantial alterations. Substantial
errors in a civil registry may be corrected and
the true facts established provided the parties
aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary proceedings.
- Petition seeking a substantial correction of an
entry in a civil register must implead as parties
to the proceedings not only the local civil
registrar, as petitioner did in the dismissed
petition for correction of entries, but also all
persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected by the correction. This is
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
required by Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court.
Case: Republic vs Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538
February 10, 2014
Facts:
-Respondent requested from the National
Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No
Marriage (CENOMAR) as one of the
requirements for her marriage with her
boyfriend of five years. Upon receipt thereof,
she discovered that she was already married to
a certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean National, on
June 24, 2002, at the Office of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Palace of Justice.
-She, thus, filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the
entries in the wife portion thereof. Respondent
impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City,
as well as her alleged husband, as parties to the
case.
-RTC granted the petition and ordered the Civil
Registrar to cancel the marriage contract.
Issue: WON Rule 108 is applicable in this case
Held:
YES
-Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the
procedure for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry. The proceedings
may either be summary or adversary. If the
Page 155
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
correction is clerical, then the procedure to be
adopted is summary. If the rectification affects
the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a
party, it is deemed substantial, and the
procedure to be adopted is adversary.
-It is true that in special proceedings, formal
pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with,
and the remedy granted upon mere application
or motion. However, a special proceeding is not
always summary. The procedure laid down in
Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per se.
It requires publication of the petition; it
mandates the inclusion as parties of all
persons who may claim interest which would
be affected by the cancellation or correction; it
also requires the civil registrar and any person
in interest to file their opposition, if any; and it
states that although the court may make
orders expediting the proceedings, it is after
hearing that the court shall either dismiss the
petition or issue an order granting the same.
-Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such
evidence was presented to show the existence
of marriage.1âwphi1 Rather, respondent
showed by overwhelming evidence that no
marriage was entered into and that she was not
even aware of such existence. The testimonial
and documentary evidence clearly established
that the only "evidence" of marriage which is
the marriage certificate was a forgery.
-Respondent indeed sought, not the
nullification of marriage as there was no
marriage to speak of, but the correction of the
record of such marriage to reflect the truth as
set forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
allowing the correction of the subject certificate
of marriage by cancelling the wife portion
thereof, the trial court did not, in any way,
declare the marriage void as there was no
marriage to speak of.
Case: Braza vs City Civil Registrar of
Himamaylan, G.R. No. 181174, December 4,
2009
Facts:
-On April 15, 2002, Pablo Braza died in a
vehicular accident in Bandung, West Java,
Indonesia.
-During the wake following the repatriation of
his remains to the Philippines, respondent
Lucille Titular (Lucille) began introducing her co-
respondent minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza
(Patrick) as her and Pablo's son. Ma. Cristina
thereupon made inquiries in the course of
which she obtained Patrick's birth certificate
from the Local Civil Registrar of Himamaylan
City, Negros Occidental.
-Ma. Cristina likewise obtained a copy of a
marriage contract showing that Pablo and
Lucille were married on April 22, 1998, drawing
her and her co-petitioners to file on December
23, 2005 before the Regional Trial Court of
Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental a
Page 156
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
petition to correct the entries in the birth
record of Patrick in the Local Civil Register.
-The trial court dismissed the petition without
prejudice, it holding that in a special proceeding
for correction of entry, the court, which is not
acting as a family court under the Family Code,
has no jurisdiction over an action to annul the
marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the
legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be
subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy
should be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial
action.
Issue: WON the trial court has jurisdiction
under Rule 108 to nullify marriages and rule on
legitimacy and filiation.
Held:
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article
412 of the Civil Code charts the procedure by
which an entry in the civil registry may be
cancelled or corrected. The proceeding
contemplated therein may generally be used
only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical
and other innocuous errors in the civil
registry. A clerical error is one which is visible
to the eyes or obvious to the understanding;
an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a
mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless
change such as a correction of name that is
clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the
occupation of the parent. Substantial or
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
contentious alterations may be allowed only in
adversarial proceedings, in which all interested
parties are impleaded and due process is
properly observed.
-Their cause of action is actually to seek the
declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage as
void for being bigamous and impugn Patricks
legitimacy, which causes of action are governed
not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art.
171 of the Family Code, respectively, hence, the
petition should be filed in a Family Court as
expressly provided in said Code.
- Validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and
filiation can be questioned only in a direct
action seasonably filed by the proper party,
and not through collateral attack such as the
petition filed before the court a quo.
EVIDENCE- “The most practical among Remedial
Law”
Rule 128- General Provisions
-Two things to consider in Evidence: -Relevancy
–Credibility
-In order for an evidence to be credible, it must
also come from a credible witness.
Page 157
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Example: Cardinal Tagle or Pope Francis
Q: Where were on June 5, 2000?
A: On that day, I am on my way to the moon.
-In this example, Cardinal Tagle is credible but
his testimony is irrelevant.
Definition: “Evidence is the means sanctioned
by the rules of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting as a matter of
fact” (R 128,Sec 1)
According to Wigmore: Requirement for
Admissibility of Evidence
-Relevancy -Competency
Means=Relevancy
Q: What is the meaning of relevancy or means?
A: It connects immediately two things: Cause &
Effect.
Q: What is the definition of Relevancy?
A: That which tends to prove.
Q: How does a matter (word, object, document)
to prove something?
A: It bridges the cause & effect of the evidence.
-Evidence must be relevant to the case
Example: A caliber 45 gun is material in killing a
person.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Sanction- It is allowed by law or Rules
(Competent)
-There can be evidence which is material and
relevant but not competent.
Case Doctrine: Zulueta vs CA- “The evidence
presented by might be material & relevant to
the case but they are not sanctioned by the
rules. The constitutional rights was violated in
obtaining the pieces of evidence which is the
right to privacy”
Example of laws/statute:
-Anti-Wiretapping law
-Hearsay Rule
Case: OngChia vs Republic
Facts: Ongchia a China man filed a petition
before the court for naturalization. His petition
for naturalization was granted by the trial court
but the OSG appealed such decision on the
ground that some documentary evidence were
not offered in court.
Ruling: The rules of court shall not be applicable
in a petition for naturalization therefore the
presentation of evidence shall not apply.
Case Doctrine: Sasan Jr vs NLRC-“ In Labor
Cases, evidence not presented before the Labor
Arbiter may still be presented on appeal and it is
still admissible. Labor cases are not covered by
the Rules of Court.”
Page 158
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

To Ascertain- To make sure that the evidence is Objects which are not identifiable
the real thing (Authentication)
Example: Blood, oil, shabu
Nature of Evidence:

-Object/Real Evidence
Case: Ong Chia vs Republic, 328 SCRA
-Documentary Evidence
Facts:
- Testimonial Evidence
 Petitioner was born on January 1, 1923
Steps for Authentication in Amoy, China. In 1932, he arrived at
the port of Manila on vessel "Angking”
-Marking of Evidence
and found employment and eventually
-Identification of Evidence started his own business, married a
Filipina, with whom he had four
Rationale: To prepare the evidence during the
trial to which it will be offered. children. At the age of 66, he filed a
verified petition to be admitted as a
Documentary Evidence- It must be supported
with testimonial evidence. Filipino citizen under C.A. No. 473,
otherwise known as the Revised
Q: How do you authenticate testimonial
Naturalization Law, as amended.
evidence?
Petitioner, after stating his
A: Before a witness is allowed to testify, he
qualifications as required in and lack of
must take an OATH.
the disqualifications enumerated in of
-When a witness does not want to take an oath
the law.
during his presentation, his testimony cannot
be authenticated therefore it is inadmissible.

Q: How do you authenticate object evidence?  During the hearings, petitioner testified

A: It will depend if the object evidence is easily
identifiable since by their very nature, they are
already marked.
Example: Gun used in a killing incident (Serial
Number of the Gun)
as to his qualifications and presented
three witnesses to corroborate his
testimony. Prosecutor Moran remarked
that petitioner seems to be well-versed

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 159
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

with the major portion of the history of failed to support his petition with the
the Philippines and is convinced that appropriate documentary evidence.
petitioner really deserves to be Issue: WON CA erred in its decision on denying
admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. the presentation of documentary evidence
And for this, do not wish to present any
Held: NO
evidence to counteract or refute the
testimony of the witnesses for the - The contention has no merit. Petitioner failed
petitioner, as well as the petitioner to note Rule 143 of the Rules of Court which
himself. provides that “These rules shall not apply to
land registration, cadastral and election cases,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
 August 25, 1999, the trial court
other cases not herein provided for, except by
granted the petition and
analogy or in a suppletory character and
admitted petitioner to Philippine
whenever practicable and convenient.”
citizenship.

-Rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, Sec

 The State through the Office of the
34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly
Solicitor General, appealed contending
not applicable to the present case involving a
that petitioner: (1) failed to state all the
petition for naturalization. The only instance
names by which he is or had been
when said rules may be applied by analogy or
known; (2) failed to state all his former
suppletorily in such cases is when it is
places of residence in violation of C.A.
"practicable and convenient." That is not the
No. 473; (3) failed to conduct himself in
case here, “since reliance upon the documents
a proper and irreproachable manner
presented by the State for the first time on
during his entire stay in the Philippines,
appeal, in fact, appears to be the more practical
in violation of; (4) has no known
and convenient course of action considering
lucrative trade or occupation and his
that decisions in naturalization proceedings are
previous incomes have been
not covered by the rule on r e s judicta”.
insufficient or misdeclared and (5)

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 160
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

-A final favorable judgment does not Held:

preclude the State from later on moving for a
revocation of the grant of naturalization on
the basis of the same documents.
Case: Zulueta vs. CA 253 SCRA
Facts:
-Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private
respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982,
petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a
doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her
mother, a driver and private respondents
secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and
cabinet in her husband’s clinic and took 157
documents consisting of private
correspondence between Dr. Martin and his
alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled
checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and
photographs.
-The documents and papers were seized for use
in evidence in a case for legal separation and for
disqualification from the practice of medicine
which petitioner had filed against her husband.
Issue: WON the documentary evidence
presented during the trial are competent
evidence
NO- Indeed the documents and papers in
question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring the privacy
of communication and correspondence
inviolable is no less applicable simply because it
is the wife who is the party against whom the
constitutional provision is to be enforced. The
only exception to the prohibition in the
Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a
court or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.
-Any violation of this provision renders the
evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.
Case: People vs Yatar, 428 SCRA
FACTS
Accused-appellant was sentenced to death for
the special complex crime of Rape with
Homicide, and ordering him to pay the heirs of
the victim. Appellant was charged to have had
carnal knowledge of a certain Kathylyn Uba
against her will, and with the use of a bladed
weapon, stabbed the latter inflicting upon her
fatal injuries resulting in her untimely demise.

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 161
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
In the instant case, appellant raises the issue of
credibility of witnesses, specifically assigning as
error on the part of the trial court, the latter’s
giving of much weight to the evidence
presented by the prosecution notwithstanding
their doubtfulness.
ISSUE (1)
Whether appellant’s contentions as regards the
witnesses’ credibility are meritorious.
HELD: NO.
The issue regarding the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses should be resolved
against appellant. This Court will not interfere
with the judgment of the trial court in
determining the credibility of witnesses unless
there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has
been overlooked or the significance of which
has been misinterpreted.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the findings of
the trial court on credibility of witnesses are
entitled to great weight on appeal unless
cogent reasons are presented necessitating a
reexamination if not the disturbance of the
same; the reason being that the former is in a
better and unique position of hearing first hand
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
the witnesses and observing their deportment,
conduct and attitude. Absent any showing that
the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight which would affect the result of the
case, the trial judge’s assessment of credibility
deserves the appellate court’s highest
respect. Where there is nothing to show that
the witnesses for the prosecution were
actuated by improper motive, their testimonies
are entitled to full faith and credit.
The weight of the prosecution’s evidence must
be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule
which provides that an accused can be
convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as
long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is
presented by the prosecution to prove beyond
doubt that the accused committed the crime.
ISSUE (2)
Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence
HELD: Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient
to warrant a conviction, must form an unbroken
chain which leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of
others, is the perpetrator of the crime. To
determine whether there is sufficient
Page 162
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
circumstantial evidence, three requisites must
concur: (1) there is more than
circumstance; (2) facts on which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (3)
combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
Case: Tating vs Marcella, 519 SCRA
Facts:
-On October 14, 1969, Daniela sold the subject
property to her granddaughter,
petitioner Nena Lazalita Tating.
-The contract of sale was embodied in a duly
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
Daniela in favor of Nena. Subsequently, title
over the subject property was transferred in the
name of Nena. She declared the property in her
name for tax purposes and paid the real estate
taxes due thereon for the years 1972, 1973,
1975 to 1986 and 1988. However, the land
remained in possession of Daniela.
=On December 28, 1977, Daniela executed a
sworn statement claiming that she had actually
no intention of selling the property; the true
agreement between her and Nena was simply
to transfer title over the subject property in
favor of the latter to enable her to obtain a loan
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
by mortgaging the subject property for the
one purpose of helping her defray her business
expenses; she later discovered that Nena did
the not secure any loan nor mortgage the property;
she wants the title in the name of Nena
cancelled and the subject property reconveyed
to her. Daniela died on July 29, 1988 leaving her
children as her heirs.
-In a letter dated March 1, 1989, Carlos
informed Nena that when Daniela died they
discovered the sworn statement she executed
herein
on December 28, 1977 and, as a consequence,
they are demanding from Nena the return of
their rightful shares over the subject property
as heirs of Daniela. Nena did not reply. Efforts
to settle the case amicably proved futile. Hence,
her son filed a complaint with the RTC praying
for the nullification of the Deed of Absolute
Sale. RTC decide in favour of the plaintiff and
was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: WON the Sworn Statement should have
been rejected outright by the lower courts.
Held:
There is no issue on the admissibility of the
subject sworn statement. However, the
admissibility of evidence should not be
equated with weight of evidence. The
Page 163
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

admissibility of evidence depends on its simulated and that, as a consequence, a trust

relevance and competence while the weight of relationship was created between them.
evidence pertains to evidence already
Case: People vs Salafranca, 666 SCRA
admitted and its tendency to convince and
persuade. Thus, a particular item of evidence
Facts: After trial, the RTC convicted Salafranca,
may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight
stating: “The evidence is clear that it was
depends on judicial evaluation within the
Rodrigo Salafranca who delivered two (2)
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence. It
stabbing blows to the victim while holding
is settled that affidavits are classified as
Johnny Bolanon with his left arm encircled
hearsay evidence since they are not generally
around Bolanon’s neck stabbing the latter with
prepared by the affiant but by another who
the use of his right hand at the right sub costal
uses his own language in writing the affiant’s
area which caused Bolanon’s death. Not only
statements, which may thus be either omitted
because it was testified to by Augusto Mendoza
or misunderstood by the one writing them.
but corroborated by Rodolfo Estaño, the
Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the
victim’s uncle who brought Bolanon to the
opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. For
hospital and who relayed to the court that
this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for
when he aided Bolanon and even on their way
being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves
to the hospital while the latter was suffering
are placed on the witness stand to testify
from hard breathing, victim Bolanon was able to
thereon.
say that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who stabbed
The Court finds that both the trial court and the him.”
CA committed error in giving the sworn
-Salafranca has come to the Court on a final
statement probative weight. Since Daniela is no
appeal, continuing to challenge the credibility of
longer available to take the witness stand as she
the witnesses who had incriminated him.
is already dead, the RTC and the CA should not
have given probative value on Daniela's sworn Issue: WON Salafranca is guilty beyond
statement for purposes of proving that the reasonable doubt.
contract of sale between her and petitioner was
Held:

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 164
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
YES.
-Salafranca’s denial and alibi were worthless in
the face of his positive identification by
Mendoza as the assailant of Bolanon. The lower
courts properly accorded full faith to such
incrimination by Mendoza considering that
Salafranca did not even project any ill motive
that could have impelled Mendoza to testify
against him unless it was upon the truth.
It appears from the foregoing testimony that
Bolanon had gone to the residence of Estaño,
his uncle, to seek help right after being stabbed
by Salafranca; that Estaño had hurriedly dressed
up to bring his nephew to the Philippine
General Hospital by taxicab; that on the way to
the hospital, Estaño had asked Bolanon who
had stabbed him, and the latter had told Estaño
that his assailant had been Salafranca; that at
the time of the utterance Bolanon had seemed
to be having a hard time breathing, causing
Estaño to advise him not to talk anymore; and
that about ten minutes after his admission at
the emergency ward of the hospital, Bolanon
had expired and had been pronounced dead.
-Such circumstances qualified the utterance of
Bolanon as both a dying declaration and as part
of the res gestae, considering that the Court has
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
recognized that the statement of the victim an
hour before his death and right after the
hacking incident bore all the earmarks either of
a dying declaration or part of the res gestae
either of which was an exception to the hearsay
rule.
Rule 129- WHAT NEED TO BE PROVED
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. —
A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty
and maritime courts of the world and their
seals, the political constitution and history of
the Philippines, the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of
time, and the geographical divisions.
Judicial Notice- It is a process whereby the
court takes note of certain facts which are
capable of being known to a veritable certainty
by consulting sources of indisputable accuracy,
thereby relieving one party of the burden of
producing evidence to prove these facts.
-Judicial Notice can be mandatory or
discretionary.
Q: When is judicial notice mandatory?
A: A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence of: State, International
Law, Philippines, Laws of Nature, Measures of
Time, and Geographical Divisions.
Q: When is judicial notice mandatory?
Page 165
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
A: A court may take judicial notice of matter
which are of public knowledge, or are capable
of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to
be known to because of their judicial functions.
Q: When to take judicial notice?
A: During the trial, the court, on its own
initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice of
any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon. After the trial, and before judgment or
on appeal, the proper court, on its own
initiative or on request of a party, may take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case. (Rule
129 Sec 3)
Q: Can a court take judicial notice of foreign
laws?
A: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
law. The parties may however stipulate on what
the foreign law is which case the same are
judicial admissions binding upon them and they
cannot take a contrary stance.
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission,
verbal or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.
Examples of judicial admission:
- The genuineness and due execution of an
actionable document copied in or attached to a
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
pleading is deemed by the adverse party if he
does not specifically deny it under oath and set
forth what he claims to be the facts.
-Material averment in the complaint, other than
those as to the amount of unliquidated
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied.
-Stipulation of facts
-Admission in the pleadings
Q: May a judicial admission be contradicted?
A: NO, except by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake (R129 Sec 4)
Case: LBP vs Banal, 434 SCRA
Facts:
- Spouses Vicente and Leonidas Banal,
respondents, are the registered owners of
agricultural land situated in San Felipe, Basud,
Camarines Norte covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-6296. A portion of the land
consisting of 6.2330 hectares (5.4730 of which
is planted to coconut and 0.7600 planted to
palay) was compulsorily acquired by the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant
to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as amended,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
-Spouses Vicente and Leonidas Banal rejected
the above valuation. Thus, pursuant to Section
Page 166
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

16(d) of R.A. 6657, as amended, a summary intention to take judicial notice of any
administrative proceeding was conducted matter and allow the parties to be heard
before the Provincial Agrarian Reform thereon.”
Adjudicator (PARAD) to determine the valuation
After the trial, and before judgment or on
of the land. Eventually, the PARAD rendered its
appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or
Decision affirming the Land bank’s valuation.
on request of a party, may take judicial notice
Issue: WON the valuation of respondent’s of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
property take judicial notice
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
Held: issue in the case.

-Courts are not authorized to take judicial

notice of the contents of the records of other
cases even when said cases have been tried or
are pending in the same court or before the
Case: People vs Kulais 292 SCRA
FACTS:
-Five Information for the crime of kidnapping

same judge. They may only do so in the for ransom were filed before the RTC of

absence of objection and with the knowledge Zamboanga City against the accused. That being

of the opposing party, which are not obtaining all private individuals, conspiring and

here. confederating together, mutually aiding and

assisting one another, with threats to kill Felix
Furthermore, as earlier stated, the Rules of
Rosario, who is a male public officer of the City
Court shall apply to all proceedings before the
Government of Zamboanga, who was then
Special Agrarian Courts. In this regard, Section
aboard a Cimarron vehicle which was being
3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is
ambushed by the herein accused at the
explicit on the necessity of a hearing before a
highway of Sitio Tigbao Lisomo, Zamboanga
court takes judicial notice of a certain matter,
City, and brought Rosario to different
thus:
mountainous places of Zamboanga City and

“SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. Zamboanga Del Sur, where he was detained and

During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, deprived of his liberty.

or on request of a party, may announce its

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 167
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due
process when the trial court took judicial notice
of the testimony given in another case by one
Lt. Melquiades Feliciano, who was the team
leader of the government troops that captured
them and his purported cohorts. Because he
was allegedly deprived of his right to cross-
examine a material witness in the person of
Lieutenant Feliciano, he contends that the
latter's testimony should not be used against
him.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in taking
judicial notice of a material testimony given in
another case by Lt. Melquiades Feliciano.
HELD:
-No, As a general rule, courts should not take
judicial notice of the evidence presented in
other proceedings, even if these have been
tried or are pending in the same court, or have
been heard and are actually pending before
the same judge. This is especially true in
criminal cases, where the accused has the
constitutional right to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him.
-Even if the court a quo did take judicial notice
of the testimony of Lieutenant Feliciano, it did
not use such testimony in deciding the cases
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
against the appellant. Hence, the appellant was
not denied due process. His conviction was
based mainly on the positive identification
made by some of the kidnap victims. These
witnesses were subjected to meticulous cross-
examinations conducted by appellant's counsel.
Case: Laureno vs CA, 324 SCRA
Facts:
-In 1978, Menandro Laureano was hired as a
pilot by the Singapore Airlines Limited (SAL). In
1982 however, SAL was hit by recession and so
it had to lay off some employees.
-Laureano was one of them. Laureano asked for
reconsideration but it was not granted.
Aggrieved, Laureano filed a labor case for illegal
dismissal against SAL. But in 1987, he withdrew
the labor case and instead filed a civil case for
damages due to illegal termination of contract
against SAL. Laureano filed the case here in the
Philippines. SAL moved for the dismissal of the
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The
motion was denied. On trial, SAL alleged that
the termination of Laureano is valid pursuant to
Singaporean law.
-The trial court ruled in favor of Laureano. SAL
appealed the case raising the issue of lack of
jurisdiction, non-applicability of Philippine laws,
Page 168
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
and estoppel, among others. The Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court.
ISSUE: WON Singaporean Law is applicable to
this case.
HELD:
No. -The specific Singaporean Law which holds
valid the dismissal of Laureano is not proved in
court. As such, the trial court cannot make a
determination if the termination is indeed valid
under Singaporean Law. Philippine courts do
not take judicial notice of the laws of
Singapore. SAL has the burden of proof. SAL
failed to prove such law hence Philippine law
shall apply. However, the case must be
dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Under
our laws, all money claims arising from
employer-employee relationships must be filed
within three years from the time the cause of
action accrued. Laureano’s cause of action
accrued in 1982 when he was terminated but
he only filed the money claim in 1987 or more
than three years from 1982. Hence he is already
barred by prescription.
Case: People vs Baharan, 639 SCRA
Facts:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
On 14 February 2005, an RRCG bus was plying
its usual southbound route. According to Elmer
Andales, bus conductor, two men insisted on
getting on the bus. He then let them in. As soon
as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of
Ayala Avenue the two insisted on getting off the
bus. According to Andales, the bus driver
initially did not want to let them off the bus,
because of an ordinance prohibiting the
unloading except at designated bus stops.
Moments after, a fire quickly engulfed the bus.
The prosecution presented documents
furnished by the Department of Justice,
confirming that shortly before the explosion,
the spokesperson of the Abu Sayyaf Group
announced over radio station that the group
had a Valentine's Day "gift" for former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Accused
Trinidad gave ABS-CBN News Network an
exclusive interview some time after the
incident, confessing his participation in the
bombing incident. The bus conductor identified
Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed that they
were the two men who had entered the RRCG
busy. Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group
were then charged with multiple murder and
multiple frustrated murder. On their
arraignment for the multiple murder charge,
Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea
Page 169
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
of guilty. On the other hand, upon arraignment
for the multiple frustrated murder charge,
accused Asali pled guilty. Accused Trinidad and
Baharan pled not guilty. Rohmat pled not
guilty to both charges.
ISSUES:
WON the trial court gravely erred in accepting
plea of guilt despite insufficiency of searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and
comprehension of the consequences of the said
plea; and
WON the trial court gravely erred in finding that
the guilt of accused-appellants for the crimes
charged had been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
RULING:
(A) NO. This court have reiterated in a long line
of cases that the conduct of a searching inquiry
remains the duty of judges, as they are
mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves
that the accused had not been under coercion
or duress; mistaken impressions; or
misunderstanding of the significance, effects,
and consequences of their guilty plea. This
requirement is stringent and mandatory. The
Court observes that accused Baharan and
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Trinidad previously pled guilty to another
charge - multiple murder - based on the same
act relied upon in the multiple frustrated
murder charge. The Court further notes that
prior to the change of plea to one of guilt,
accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other
confessions of guilt - one through
an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television
interviews, as stipulated by both accused during
full pretrial), and the other via judicial admission
(pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing
circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to rule
on the sufficiency of the "searching inquiry"
in this instance. Remanding the case for re-
arraignment is not warranted, as the accused's
plea of guilt was not the sole basis of the
condemnatory judgment under consideration.
(B) NO. Insofar as appellants Baharan and
Trinidad are concerned, the evidence for the
prosecution, in addition to that which can be
drawn from the stipulation of facts, primarily
consisted of the testimonies of the bus
conductor, who positively identified accused
a Baharan and of the accused-turned-state-
witness. The guilt of the accused Baharan and
Trinidad was sufficiently established by these
corroborating testimonies, coupled with their
respective judicial admissions (pretrial
Page 170
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions
(exclusive television interviews, as they both
stipulated during pretrial) that they were
indeed the perpetrators of the Valentine's Day
bombing. It is true that under the rule,
statements made by a conspirator against a co-
conspirator are admissible only when made
during the existence of the conspiracy.
However, as the Court ruled in People v.
Buntag, if the declarant repeats the statement
in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes
a judicial admission, making the testimony
admissible as to both conspirators. Thus, in
People v. Palijon, the Court held the following:
… [W]e must make a distinction between
extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An
extrajudicial confession may be given in
evidence against the confessant but not against
his co-accused as they are deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial
confession is admissible against the declarant's
co-accused since the latter are afforded
opportunity to cross-examine the former.
Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions
and not to testimony at trial where the party
adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant. Mercene's admission
implicating his co-accused was given on the
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
witness stand. It is admissible in evidence
against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where
several accused are tried together for the same
offense, the testimony of a co-accused
implicating his co-accused is competent
evidence against the latter.
Case: Ligtas vs People 767 SCRA
Facts:
- On or about the 29th day of June 2000 at Sitio
Lamak, Barangay San Juan, Municipality of
Sogod, Province of Southern Leyte, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent of
gain, entered into the abaca plantation
belonging to one Anecita Pacate, and once
inside the plantation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously harvested
1,000 kilos of abaca fibers, valued at
Php29,000.00 at Php29.00 per kilo.
- On June 29, 2000, Cabero, the plantation's
administrator, and several men, including
Cipres, went to the plantation to harvest abaca
upon Anecita Pacate's instructions. At about
10:00 a.m., Cabero and his men were surprised
to find Ligtas harvesting abaca at the plantation.
Ligtas was accompanied by three (3)
unidentified men.
- RTC convict accused Monico Ligtas guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft.
Page 171
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Object Evidence-1 section
trial court.
Q: What is object evidence?
Issue: WON Ligtas is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of theft? A: It is which is directly addressed to the senses
of the court like tangible things exhibited or
Held:
demonstrated in open court.
NO
Documentary Evidence- (Best Evidence, Parole
-Decisions in administrative cases are not
Evidence & Electronic Evidence)
binding on criminal proceedings. This court has
ruled in a number of cases that it is indeed a
Testimonial Evidence- The rest of the sections
fundamental principle of administrative law
under Rule 130.
that administrative cases are independent from
criminal actions for the same act or omission. -The strongest kind of evidence is object
evidence, the 2nd will be documentary and the
Findings of fact of administrative agencies in
weakest is testimonial.
the exercise of their quasi-judicial powers are
entitled to respect if supported by substantial -Object and Documentary Evidence must also
evidence. This court is not tasked to weigh be testified and supported in court.
again "the evidence submitted before the
administrative body and to substitute its own Example: Presentation of Mahal & Mura to
judgment as to the sufficiency of evidence.” prove that there is dwarfism in the country.

- The landowner's share in the produce depends
on the agreement between the parties. Hence,
the harvesting done by the tenant is with the
landowner’s consent.
-In view of the presentation of Mahal & Mura, a
person should testify for their existence.
Corpus Delicti- Fact of the crime
Q: What do you mean of to the sense of court?

Rule 130- Rules of Admissibility A: It is addressed to the senses of the judge (5

Section 1 Object as Evidence- Objects as
evidence are those addressed to the senses of
the court. When an object is relevant to the
facts in issue, it may be exhibited, examined or
viewed by the court.
senses of Man)
The kinds of Object Evidence shall depend on
what sense of man it is addressed.
Visual Evidence- Pertains to Visual Sense
Audio Evidence- Pertains to Hearing Sense

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 172
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Gustatory Evidence- Pertains to Sense of Taste
Olfactory Evidence- Pertains to the Sense of
Smell
Tactil Evidence- Pertains to the Sense of Touch
*Frequently used in practice is Audio-Visual
Evidence.
Cases: People vs Malinlin 553 SCRA
Facts:
-On the strength of a warrant of search and
seizure issued by the RTC of Sorsogon City,
Branch 52, a team of five police officers
raided the residence of petitioner in
Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City on 4
February 2003. The team was headed by
P/Insp. Catalino Bolanos (Bolanos), with
PO3 Roberto Esternon (Esternon), SPO1
Pedro Docot,
- SPO1 Danilo Lasala and SPO2 Romeo
Gallinera (Gallinera) as members. The
search conducted in the presence of
Barangay Kagawad.
- Petitioner was charged with violation of
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
- On cross, he admitted that it was he alone
who conducted the search because Bolanos
was standing behind him in the living room
portion of the house and that petitioner
handed to him the things to be searched,
which included the pillow in which the two
sachets of shabu were kept.
- On 20 June 2004 the trial court rendered
its Decision declaring petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged.
- The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed
decision affirming the judgment of the trial
court but modifying the prison sentence to an
indeterminate term of twelve (12) years as
minimum to seventeen (17) years as maximum.
Issue: WON the shabu confiscated shall be
admissible evidence against the petitioner?
Held:
- Prosecutions for illegal possession of
prohibited drugs necessitates that the
elemental act of possession of a prohibited
substance be established with moral certainty,
together with the fact that the same is not
authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
Page 173
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

offense and the fact of its existence is vital to illegal drug actually recovered from the
a judgment of conviction. Pagaduan. Strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure is required because of the
Case: People vs Pagaduan, 627 SCRA illegal drug’s unique characteristic rendering it
Facts: indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering alteration or substitution
-Buy-bust operation was conducted by PO3 either by accident or otherwise.
Almarez, SPO1 Balido and Captain de Vera.
Ruper Pagaduan was arrested and plastic sachet Case: Salas vs Matusalem 705 SCRA
of what appears to be shabu was marked,
Facts:
request for laboratory examination was done
the same day. - On May 26, 1995, Annabelle Matusalem
(respondent) filed a complaint for
-The plastic sachet was turned over to PNP
Support/Damages against Narciso Salas
Crime Laboratory two days after. He was found
(petitioner) in the Regional Trial Court of
guilty by the court and the same was affirmed
Cabanatuan City.
by CA
- Respondent claimed that the petitioner is the
-Pagaduan contents among others that the father of her son Christian Paulo Salas who was
prosecution failed to show an unbroken chain born on December 28, 1994. Petitioner, already
of custody in the handling of the seized drug. 56 years old at the time, enticed her as she was
He claims that there was no evidence to show then only 24 years old, making her believe that
when the marking were done. he is a widower.

Issue: WON the integrity of the evidence was - Petitioner rented an apartment where
preserved respondent stayed and shouldered all expenses
in the delivery of their child, including the cost
Held:
of caesarian operation and hospital
confinement. However, when respondent
NO- The prosecution failed to show that the
refused the offer of petitioner’s family to take
illegal drug presented in the court is the same

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 174
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

the child from her, petitioner abandoned the the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is
respondent and her child and left them to the incompetent evidence of paternity.
mercy of relatives and friends. Respondent
-While baptismal certificates may be considered
further alleged that she attempted suicide due
public documents, they can only serve as
to depression but still petitioner refused to
evidence of the administration of the
support her and their child.
sacraments on the dates so specified. They are
- The testimonial evidence of the owner of the not necessarily competent evidence of the
apartment where petitioner allegedly housed veracity of entries therein with respect to the
respondent when she was pregnant was one of child’s paternity.
the basis for respondent’s claim for support.
- Pictures taken of the mother and her child
- The RTC ruled in favor of respondent to which together with the alleged father are
the CA affirmed on appeal. inconclusive evidence to prove paternity. As to
the handwritten notes are not sufficient to
Issue: WON the trial and appellate court erred
establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner.
in ruling that respondent’s evidence sufficiently
Thus, even these notes were authentic; they do
proved that her son Christian Paulo is the
not qualify as competent evidence of
illegitimate child of petitioner
illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a
Held: private handwritten instrument signed by the
parent concerned.

Yes -The SC held that a certificate of live birth

purportedly identifying the putative father is
not competent evidence of paternity when
Case: People vs Posing, 703 SCRA
there is no showing that the putative father
had a hand in the preparation of the Facts:

certificate. Thus, if the father did not signed in - SPO1 Angeles together with PO1 Jesus Cortez
the birth certificate, the placing of his name by (PO1 Cortez), PO1 Ralph Nicart (PO1 Nicart) and
the informant were dispatched to Makabayan
St., Brgy. Obrero, Kamuning, Quezon City, and

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 175
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
upon arrival, the informant and SPO1 Angeles
proceeded to the squatter’s area.
- SPO1 Angeles met Posing beside the
basketball court, where he was introduced by
the informant as a buyer of shabu. The former
asked if he could buy one hundred peso
(P100.00) worth of shabu for personal use.
Posing then pulled out one (1) transparent
plastic sachet from his pocket and gave it to
SPO1 Angeles in exchange for the buy-bust
money. Afterwards, SPO1 Angeles took out his
cap to alert his companions that the deal was
already concluded. PO1 Cortez and PO1 Nicart
rushed to the scene and introduced themselves
as police officers.
-The trial court rendered a decision founding
Posing guilty of Sec 5 & 11 of RA 9165. CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue: WON accused Posing is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of RA 9165.
Held:
YES- For the successful prosecution of offenses
involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following
elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the
buyer and seller, object and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of evidence of corpus delicti.
- In cases involving violations of Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence should be given to the
narration of the incident by the prosecution
witnesses especially when they are police
officers who are presumed to have performed
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
their duties in a regular manner, unless there is
evidence to the contrary.
- But time and again, jurisprudence is consistent
in stating that less than strict compliance with
the procedural aspect of the chain of custody
rule does not necessarily render the seized drug
items inadmissible.
- RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict
compliance as to the chain of custody rule.
- As to the charge of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object,
which is identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the drug.
Case: People vs Mercury Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
212171 September 7, 2016
Facts:
- The accused-appellant Mercury Dela Cruz alias
"Deday" was found guilty of illegal sale of shabu
in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500, 000.00.
-The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies
of the police officers who conducted the buy-
bust operation against the accused-appellant,
and rejected the self-serving defenses of denial
Page 176
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
and alibi of the accused-appellant and her live-
in partner. The RTC noted the the categorical
affirmation of accused-appellant and her live-in
partner that the arresting officers did not
demand anything from them in exchange for
the accused-appellant's liberty created the
presumption that the arresting officers were
performing their official functions regularly.
- On intermediate appellate review, the CA
affirmed in toto the Roc's ruling. The CA agreed
with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses, and held that the
arresting officer's complied with the proper
procedure in the custody and disposition of the
seized drugs.
Issue: WON the confiscated dangerous drug
constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime.
Held:
Yes.
-The court considered by the courts in arriving
at the decision despite the fact that the forensic
chemist who examined it did not testify in
court. The accused-appellant's contention that
the drugs were marked not at the place where
she was apprehended but at the police station
and that there was no physical inventory made
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
on the seized item nor was it photographed, the
court find it untenable. The alleged non-
compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was
not fatal to the prosecution's case because the
apprehending team properly preserved the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
drugs.
- Although ideally the prosecution should offer
a perfect chain of custody in handling of
evidence, "substantial compliance with the
legal requirements on the handling of the
seized item" is sufficient. The court ruled that
even if the arresting officers failed to strictly
comply with the requirements under Section 21
of R.A. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal
and will not render the items seized
inadmissible in evidence.
- To be admissible in evidence, the prosecution
must be able to present through records or
testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous
drugs from the time these were seized from
the accused by the arresting officers; turned
over to the investigating officer; forwarded to
the laboratory for determination their
composition; and up to the time these are
offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of
custody remains unbroken, as in this case,
even though the procedural requirements
Page 177
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

provided for in Section 21 R.A. 9165 were not Public Record- (d) When the original is a public
record in the custody of a public officer or is
faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will
recorded in a public office.
not be affected.
-The content of the document is the subject of
inquiry in a trial.
Section 2 Documentary Evidence- Documents
as evidence consist of writing or any material
Q: What is secondary evidence under the best
containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
evidence rule?
symbols or other modes of written expression
offered as proof of their contents.
A: Secondary evidence is that which may be
used to prove the contents of a document
Three Rules: Best Evidence Rule, Parole
where the original is lost, destroyed, or cannot
Evidence Rule & Electronic Evidence Rule
be produced or where the original is in the
custody or control of the party against whom
Best Evidence Rule
the evidence is offered and who fails to produce
if after reasonable notice.
Section 3. Original document must be
produced; exceptions. — When the subject of
Q: What does secondary evidence consist of?
inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the
A: Secondary evidence consist of: (i) copy of the
original document itself, except in the following
original, (ii) a recital of its contents in an
cases:
authentic document (iii) testimony of witnesses.
Exceptions:
Q: What is the proper foundation for the
introduction of secondary evidence in the case
Custody/Control- (a) When the original has
of loss, destruction or inability to produce the
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
original?
in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
A: The offeror must show: (i) proof of the
execution or existence of the document, (ii)
Lost or destroyed without bad faith-(b) When
proof of the cause of its unavailability, without
the original is in the custody or under the
bad faith on his part, (iii) proof of reasonable
control of the party against whom the evidence
diligence and good faith on the part of the
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
offeror in the search for or attempt.
reasonable notice;
Case: Loon vs Power Master Inc, 712 SCRA
Accounts (numerous)- (c) When the original
consists of numerous accounts or other Facts:
documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C
to be established from them is only the general General Services employed and assigned the
result of the whole; and
petitioners as janitors and leadsmen in various

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 178
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
(PLDT) offices in Metro Manila area.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint
for money claims against Power Master, Inc.,
Tri-C General Services and their officers, the
spouses Homer and Carina Alumisin
(collectively, the respondents). The petitioners
alleged in their complaint that they were not
paid minimum wages, overtime, holiday,
premium, service incentive leave, and
thirteenth month pays. They further averred
that the respondents made them sign blank
payroll sheets. On June 11, 2001, the
petitioners amended their complaint and
included illegal dismissal as their cause of
action. They claimed that the respondents
relieved them from service in retaliation for the
filing of their original complaint.
The Labor Arbiter awarded the petitioners
salary differential, service incentive leaves and
13th month pays. In awarding these claims the
LA stated that the burden in proving the
payment of these money claims rests with the
employer. However, they were not awarded
backwages, overtime, holiday and premium
pays for failure to show that they rendered
overtime work and worked on holidays.
Moreover, it was not decided that they were
illegally dismissed for failure to show notice of
termination of employment.
Both parties appealed to the ruling of the LA.
NLRC allowed the respondents to present
pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal
on the ground that they have been deprived of
due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
ruling of the NLRC.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Issue: WON the respondents were estopped
from submitting pieces of evidence for the first
time on appeal;
Held:
Yes.
A party may only adduce evidence for the first
time on appeal if he adequately explains his
delay in the submission of evidence and he
sufficiently proves the allegations sought to be
proven.In labor cases, strict adherence to the
technical rules of procedure is not required.
Time and again, we have allowed evidence to
be submitted for the first time on appeal with
the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice.
Thus, we have consistently supported the rule
that labor officials should use all reasonable
means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, in the
interest of due process. However, this liberal
policy should still be subject to rules of reason
and fairplay. The liberality of procedural rules
is qualified by two requirements: (1) a party
should adequately explain any delay in the
submission of evidence; and (2) a party should
sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be
proven. The reason for these requirements is
that the liberal application of the rules before
quasi-judicial agencies cannot be used to
perpetuate injustice and hamper the just
resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on
liberal construction a license to disregard the
rules of procedure.
Page 179
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Guided by these principles, the CA grossly erred
in ruling that the NLRC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in arbitrarily admitting and
giving weight to the respondents’ pieces of
evidence for the first time on appeal. The
respondents failed to adequately explain their
delay in the submission of evidence.
Parole Evidence Rule
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. —
When the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by
the parties or their successors in interest after
the execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Parole Evidence=Evidence Aliunde
-Any evidence outside document cannot
establish the terms and conditions of the
contract.
-A party cannot proof to establish a contract
through a new contract since it will be
inadmissible as evidence.
Rationale: When 2 persons enter into a
contract and they put in writing the terms &
conditions of such, it shall be binding among
them.
Q: What is parole evidence rule?
A: It is the rule which provides that once the
terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be between
the parties and their successor in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents
of the written agreement.
Q: What is parole evidence?
A: It is any evidence whether oral or written,
outside of the written agreement, which is
offered to modify, explain or add to the terms
of the written agreement.
Q: What is the rationale behind parole
evidence?
A: Under the Integration Rule, it is presumed
that the parties to a written contract intended it
to integrate all the terms of their agreement.
Q: What are the exceptions to the parole
evidence rule?
A: (VISA)
Page 180
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

1. Validity of the written agreement and conditions and conditions

2. Failure of the written agreement to express through parole through parole
the true Intent and agreement of the evidence, it should be evidence, it should be
parties. set forth in the set forth in the
3. Existence of Subsequent terms pleadings. pleadings.
4. Intrinsic Ambiguity, mistake or -In order for the -In order for the
imperfection exception to prosper, exception to prosper,
it should be alleged in it should be alleged in
Exceptions: the pleadings. the pleadings.
-Can be invoked by -Can be invoked only
Validity of the written agreement non-parties to the by a party to the
document written contract
Q: What if the contract is void or invalid?

A: There is no contract to speak of since it is

void ab initio. Case: Ortanez vs Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA

Intrinsic Ambiguity in the contract- In which it Facts:

has double interpretation Private respondent Rafael Ortanez filed with
the Quezon City RTC a complaint for annulment
Example: Dollar= US Dollar or Singaporean
of marriage with damages against petitioner
Dollar
Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of
marriage license and/or psychological
Mistake- It refers to an error in the drafting or
wording of the written agreement which incapacity of the petitioner.
changes the intended meaning thereof.
Among the exhibits offered by private
respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of
Best Evidence Rule vs Parole Evidence Rule
alleged telephone conversations between
BEST EVIDENCE RULE PAROLE EVIDENCE petitioner and unidentified persons.
RULE
Teresita submitted her Objection/Comment to
Applies to all Applies only to written
Rafael’s oral offer of evidence. However, the
documentary evidence contracts (including
trial court admitted all of private respondent’s
wills)
Original is not Original is available in offered evidence and later on denied her
available in court court motion for reconsideration, prompting
-In order for the -In order for the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari with
exception to prosper, exception to prosper, the CA to assail the admission in evidence of the
it should be alleged in it should be alleged in aforementioned cassette tapes.
the pleadings. the pleadings. These tape recordings were made and obtained
-When a party tries to -When a party tries to when private respondent allowed his friends
contest certain terms contest certain terms

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 181
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
from the military to wire-tap his home
telephone.
CA denied the petition because (1) Tape
recordings are not inadmissible per se. They
and any other variant thereof can be admitted
in evidence for certain purposes, depending on
how they are presented and offered and on
how the trial judge utilizes them in the interest
of truth and fairness and the even handed
administration of justice; and (2) A petition
for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to
rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence
adduced during trial. The ruling on admissibility
is interlocutory; neither does it impinge on
jurisdiction. If it is erroneous, the ruling should
be questioned in the appeal from the judgment
on the merits and not through the special civil
action of certiorari. The error, assuming
gratuitously exists, cannot be any more than an
error of law, properly correctible by appeal and
not by certiorari.
Petitioner then filed the present petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
WON the recordings of the telephone
conversations are admissible in evidence
No. Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled “An Act to
Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other
Related Violations of the Privacy of
Communication, and for other purposes”
expressly makes such tape recordings
inadmissible in evidence thus:
“Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not
being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap
any wire or cable, or by using any other device
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept,
or record such communication or spoken word
by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however
otherwise described.”
“Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or
the existence, contents, substance, purport, or
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained, obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the
preceding sections of this Act shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.”
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
telephone conversations allowed the recording
of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject
tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
Case: Lapu-Lapu Foundation vs CA, 421 SCRA
Petitioner Elias Q. Tan, then President of the co-
petitioner Lapulapu Foundation, Inc., obtained
four loans from the respondent Allied Banking
Corporation covered by four promissory notes
in the amounts of P100,000 each. The
petitioners failed to pay the same. The
respondent Bank was constrained to file a
complaint seeking payment by the petitioners,
jointly and solidarily, of the sum of P493,566.61
representing their loan obligation, exclusive of
interests, penalty charges, attorney’s fees and
costs
Page 182
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
In its answer to the complaint, the petitioner
Foundation denied incurring indebtedness from
the respondent Bank alleging that the loans
were obtained by petitioner Tan in his personal
capacity. The petitioner Foundation maintained
that it never authorized petitioner Tan to co-
sign in his capacity as its President any
promissory note and that the petitioner
Foundation never benefited, directly or
indirectly, therefrom. For his part, petitioner
Tan admitted that he contracted the loans from
the respondent Bank in his personal capacity.
The parties, however, agreed that the loans
were to be paid from the proceeds of petitioner
Tans shares of common stocks in the Lapulapu
Industries Corporation, a real estate firm. The
loans were covered by promissory notes which
were automatically renewable (rolled-over)
every year at an amount including unpaid
interests, until such time as petitioner Tan was
able to pay the same from the proceeds of his
aforesaid shares.
According to petitioner Tan, the respondent
Banks employee required him to affix two
signatures on every promissory note, assuring
him that the loan documents would be filled
out in accordance with their agreement.
However, after he signed and delivered the loan
documents to the respondent Bank, these were
filled out in a manner not in accord with their
agreement, such that the petitioner Foundation
was included as party thereto. Further, prior to
its filing of the complaint, the respondent Bank
made no demand on him.
Applying the parole evidence rule, the CA
likewise rejected petitioner Tans assertion that
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
there was an unwritten agreement between
him and the respondent Bank that he would pay
the loans from the proceeds of his shares of
stocks in the Lapulapu Industries Corp.
Issue: WON petitioner Tans claim regarding the
purported unwritten agreement between him
and the respondent Bank on the payment of the
obligation should be upheld.
Held:
No.
-The parole evidence rule constrains this Court
to reject petitioner Tans claim regarding the
purported unwritten agreement between him
and the respondent Bank on the payment of the
obligation. Section 9, Rule 130 of the of the
Revised Rules of Court provides that [w]hen the
terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is to be considered as containing all
the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors-in-
interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement.
In this case, the promissory notes are the law
between the petitioners and the respondent
Bank. These promissory notes contained
maturity dates as follows: February 5, 1978,
March 28, 1978, April 11, 1978 and May 5,
1978, respectively. That these notes were to be
paid on these dates is clear and explicit.
Page 183
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Nowhere was it stated therein that they would
be renewed on a year-to-year basis or rolled-
over annually until paid from the proceeds of
petitioner Tans shares in the Lapulapu
Industries Corp. Accordingly, this purported
unwritten agreement could not be made to vary
or contradict the terms and conditions in the
promissory notes.
Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal
agreement is generally not admissible to vary,
contradict or defeat the operation of a valid
contract. While parole evidence is admissible to
explain the meaning of written contracts, it
cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into
the contract additional contemporaneous
conditions which are not mentioned at all in
writing, unless there has been fraud or
mistake. No such allegation had been made by
the petitioners in this case.
Electronic Evidence (AM No. 01-7-01 SC)
Electronic Evidence- information or
representation of information, data figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression
by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished, or by which fact may be proved,
which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
Examples:
-Email, recorded or saved text messages,
computer generated documents, Facebook chat
or similar.
Original of an electronic document- It shall be
regarded as the equivalent of an original
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
document under Best Evidence Rule if it is a
printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
Necessity of Authentication
Q: How does a party authenticate electronic
evidence?
A: To authenticate electronic evidence, it must
be made by someone privy to the document. A
party who is not privy to the document has no
right to authenticate such evidence.
Q: What is the exception under this rule?
A: Expert witness
Example: Text Message- A party can present
expert witness that is working under such
telecommunication company.
Situation:
Mr. X texted Mr. Y on January 1, 2017 and this is
the content of the text message: “Mr Y, I will kill
you!”
-Mr A (son) of Mr Y cannot use such evidence
since he is not privy to the contract.
-Only Mr X and Mr. Y can testify on the context
of the text message.
Rule 4- Best Evidence Rule
Sec 1- An electronic document shall be
regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a
printout or output readable by sight or other
means.
Page 184
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Electronic Message vs Electronic Document
Electronic Document- it consist of electronic
data or message that creates RIGHTS or
EXTINGUISHES OBLIGATION.
Electronic Signature- It shall be considered as
admissible in evidence as the functional
equivalent of the signature of a person on a
written document.
Q: How do you authenticate electronic
signature?
A: -Method or process was utilized to establish
a digital signature
-Other means provided by law
-Other means satisfactory to the judge
establishing the genuineness of electronic
signature.
Case: Heirs of Sabanpan vs Comorposa, 408
SCRA
- The complaint alleged that Marcos Saez was
the lawful and actual possessor of Lot No. 845,
Land 275 located at Darong, Sta. Cruz, Davao
del Sur with an area of 1.2 hectares. In 1960, he
died leaving all his heirs, his children and
grandchildren.
- In 1965, Francisco Comorposa who was
working in the land of Oboza was terminated
from his job. The termination of his
employment caused a problem in relocating his
house. Being a close family friend of Marcos
Saez, Francisco Comorposa approached the late
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Marcos Saezs son, Adolfo Saez, the husband of
Gloria Leano Saez, about his problem. Out of
pity and for humanitarian consideration, Adolfo
allowed Francisco Comorposa to occupy the
land of Marcos Saez. Hence, his nipa hut was
carried by his neighbors and transferred to a
portion of the land subject matter of this
case. Such transfer was witnessed by several
people, among them, Gloria Leano and Noel
Oboza. Francisco Comorposa occupied a portion
of Marcos Saez property without paying any
rental.
- Francisco Comorposa left for Hawaii, U.S.A. He
was succeeded in his possession by the
respondents who likewise did not pay any
rental and are occupying the premises through
petitioners tolerance.
- On 7 May 1998, a formal demand was made
upon the respondents to vacate the premises
but the latter refused to vacate the same and
claimed that they were the legitimate claimants
and the actual and lawful possessor[s] of the
premises. A complaint was filed with the
barangay office of Sta. Cruz[,] Davao del Sur,
but the parties failed to arrive at an amicable
settlement. Thus, the corresponding Certificate
to File Action was issued by the said barangay
and an action for unlawful detainer was filed by
petitioners against respondents.
- Respondents, in their Answer, denied the
material allegations of the complaint and
alleged that they entered and occupied the
premises in their own right as true, valid and
lawful claimants, possessors and owners of the
said lot way back in 1960 and up to the present
time; that they have acquired just and valid
ownership and possession of the premises by
ordinary or extraordinary prescription, and that
the Regional Director of the DENR, Region XI
has already upheld their possession over the
land in question when it ruled that they were
Page 185
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
the rightful claimants and possessors and,
therefore, entitled to the issuance of a title.
- The Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Davao
del Sur rendered judgment in favor of
petitioners but the Regional Trial Court of Digos,
Davao del Sur, on appeal, reversed and set
aside the said decision.
- Affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the
CA upheld the right of respondents as claimants
and possessors. The appellate court held that --
although not yet final -- the Order issued by the
regional executive director of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
remained in full force and effect, unless
declared null and void. The CA added that the
Certification issued by the DENRs community
environment and natural resources (CENR)
officer was proof that when the cadastral
survey was conducted, the land was still
alienable and was not yet allocated to any
person. According to the CA, respondents had
the better right to possess alienable and
disposable land of the public domain, because
they have suffiently proven their actual,
physical, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous
and uninterrupted possession thereof since
1960. The appellate court deemed as self-
serving, and therefore incredible, the Affidavits
executed by Gloria Leano Saez, Noel Oboza and
Paulina Paran.
ISSUE: WON the Court of Appeals gravely abuse
its discretion and err in sustaining the Regional
Trial Courts ruling giving weight to the CENR
Officers Certification, which only bears the
facsimile of the alleged signature of a certain
Jose F. Tagorda and, it is a new matter raised
for the first time on appeal?
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
-If the Certification were a sham as petitioner
claims, then the regional director would not
have used it as reference in his Order. Instead,
he would have either verified it or directed the
CENR officer to take the appropriate action, as
the latter was under the formers direct control
and supervision.
- Petitioners claim that the Certification was
raised for the first time on appeal is incorrect.
AS early as the pretrial conference at the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), the CENR
Certification had already been marked as
evidence for respondents as stated in the Pre-
trial Order. The Certification was not formally
offered, however, because respondents had not
been able to file their position paper.
-Neither the rules of procedure nor
jurisprudence would sanction the admission of
evidence that has not been formally offered
during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is
applicable only to ordinary trials, not to cases
covered by the rule on summary procedure --
cases in which no full-blown trial is held.
-The admissibility of evidence should not be
confused with its probative value.Admissibility
refers to the question of whether certain pieces
of evidence are to be considered at all, while
probative value refers to the question of
whether the admitted evidence proves an
issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may
be admissible, but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation within the
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.
-While in summary proceedings affidavits are
admissible as the witnesses respective
testimonies, the failure of the adverse party to
reply does not ipso facto render the facts, set
forth therein, duly proven. Petitioners still
Page 186
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
bear the burden of proving their cause of
action, because they are the ones asserting an
affirmative relief.
Case: Torres vs PAGCOR, 661 SCRA
- Petitioner was a Slot Machine Operations
Supervisor (SMOS) of respondent Philippine
Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(PAGCOR).
- On the basis of an alleged intelligence report,
PAGCOR's Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU)
allegedly conducted an investigation to verify
the veracity of such report.
- The CIU served petitioner with a
Memorandum of Charges for dishonesty,
serious misconduct, fraud and violation of office
rules and regulations.
- On August 4, 2007, petitioner received a letter
dated August 2, 2007 from Atty. Lizette F.
Mortel, Managing Head of PAGCOR's Human
Resource and Development Department,
dismissing him from the service.
- On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed with
the CSC a Complaint against PAGCOR and its
Chairman Efraim Genuino for illegal dismissal,
non-payment of backwages and other benefits.
- CSC denied the complaint filed by petitioner
Torres on the ground of Dishonesty, Gross
Misconduct, Serious Violation of Office Rules
and Regulations, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service and Loss of Trust and
Confidence.
- CA affirmed the decision issued by the CSC on
the ground that the petition lacks merit.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Issue: WON the facsimile sent by the petitioner
should be admissible as evidence under our law
Held:
NO
-Petitioner claims that that the sending of
documents thru electronic data message,
which includes facsimile, is sanctioned under
Republic Act No. 8792, the Electronic
Commerce Act of 2000.
-A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic
pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy
preserving all the marks of an original.
Without the original, there is no way of
determining on its face whether the facsimile
pleading is genuine and authentic and was
originally signed by the party and his counsel.
It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.
- A facsimile transmission is not considered as
an electronic evidence under the Electronic
Commerce Act.
Case: Ang vs Republic, 618 SCRA
Facts: Irish Sagud (Irish) and Rustan were
classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora
Province. Rustan courted Irish and they became
"on-and-off" sweethearts towards the end of
2004. When Irish learned afterwards that
Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his
Page 187
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish
broke up with him.
Before Rustan got married, however, he got in
touch with Irish and tried to convince her to
elope with him, saying that he did not love the
woman he was about to marry. Irish rejected
the proposal and told Rustan to take on his
responsibility to the other woman and their
child. Irish changed her cellphone number but
Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and
sent her text messages. Rustan used two
cellphone numbers for sending his messages,
namely, 0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768. Irish
replied to his text messages but it was to ask
him to leave her alone.
In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish
received through multimedia message service
(MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread
legs and with Irish’s face superimposed on the
figure (Exhibit A). The sender’s cellphone
number, stated in the message, was 0921-
8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used.
Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her
face from a shot he took when they were in
Baguio in 2003 (Exhibit B).
After she got the obscene picture, Irish got
other text messages from Rustan. He boasted
that it would be easy for him to create similarly
scandalous pictures of her. And he threatened
to spread the picture he sent through the
internet. One of the messages he sent to Irish,
written in text messaging shorthand, read:
"Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac
rayt pwede ring send sa lahat ng chatter." Irish
sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Aurora who referred her to the police. Under
police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan
through the cellphone numbers he used in
sending the picture and his text messages. Irish
asked Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess
Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, and he
did. He came in a motorcycle. After parking it,
he walked towards Irish but the waiting police
officers intercepted and arrested him. They
searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900
cellphone and several SIM cards. While Rustan
was being questioned at the police station, he
shouted at Irish: "Malandi ka kasi!"
Issue: WON accused Rustan sent Irish by
cellphone message the picture with her face
pasted on the body of a nude woman, inflicting
anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation
on her in violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.
Held:
Rustan argues that, since he was arrested and
certain items were seized from him without any
warrant, the evidence presented against him
should be deemed inadmissible. But the fact is
that the prosecution did not present in
evidence either the cellphone or the SIM cards
that the police officers seized from him at the
time of his arrest. The prosecution did not need
such items to prove its case. Exhibit C for the
prosecution was but a photograph depicting the
Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone that was used,
which cellphone Rustan admitted owning
during the pre-trial conference.
Though, the bulk of the evidence against him
consisted in Irish’s testimony that she received
Page 188
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
the obscene picture and malicious text
messages that the sender’s cellphone numbers
belonged to Rustan with whom she had been
previously in communication. Indeed, to prove
that the cellphone numbers belonged to
Rustan, Irish and the police used such numbers
to summon him to come to Lorentess Resort
and he did. Consequently, the prosecution did
not have to present the confiscated cellphone
and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent those
messages.
Moreover, Rustan admitted having sent the
malicious text messages to Irish. His defense
was that he himself received those messages
from an unidentified person who was harassing
Irish and he merely forwarded the same to her,
using his cellphone. But Rustan never presented
the cellphone number of the unidentified
person who sent the messages to him to
authenticate the same. The RTC did not give
credence to such version and neither will this
Court. Besides, it was most unlikely for Irish to
pin the things on Rustan if he had merely tried
to help her identify the sender.
Case: People vs Enojas, GR No. 204894, March
10, 2014
Facts:
-Enojas was riding a taxi parked in front of
Aguila Auto Glass shop. He was approached by
patrolling policemen who found the taxi
suspicious. He was asked to come with them to
the police station. However, on the way to the
police station, they encountered robbers.
During suchencounter with robbers, Enojas was
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
able to escape. The policemen became
suspicious of Enojas’ involvement in the
robbery and monitored his mobile phone which
he inadvertently left in the patrol car. The police
conducted an entrapment, posing as Enojas in
communicating with the other accused. Enojas
and another accused Gomez were arrested. The
prosecution presented the transcripts of the
mobile phone text messages between Enojas
and some of his co-accused. The accused
asserted that they were entitled to an acquittal
because they were illegally arrested and the
evidence of the text messages were
inadmissible, not having been properly
identified.
Issue: WON the text messages were admissible
as evidence against the accused
Held:
YES- Text messages are admissible according to
the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Text
messages are to be proved by the testimony of
a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge of them. The text
messages to and from the mobile phone left at
the scene by accused Enojas provided strong
leads on the participation and identities of the
accused. Indeed, the police caught them in an
entrapment using this knowledge.
Testimonial Evidence
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. —
Except as provided in the next succeeding
section, all persons who can perceive, and
Page 189
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
perceiving, can make their known perception to
others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
ground for disqualification.
Requirements:
-A person that can perceive- Ability to observe
and remember
- A person that can make known of his
perception- Ability to communicate what he
perceived
Q: Who are disqualified to testify in open court?
A: Sec 21- Mental Incapacity or immaturity
Sec 22- Reason of Marriage
Sec 23- Reason of death or insanity of adverse
party
Sec 24- Privileged Communication
Q: May an insane person qualify as a witness?
A: Yes, provided that he is capable or
intelligently making known his perception to
others. His insanity would affect the weight of
his testimony.
Q: Is a child qualified to be a witness?
A: YES, every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness. The court may conduct a competency
examination if substantial doubts exists as to
the child’s competency as to the child’s
competency to testify. EXCEPTION- a child
whose mental capacity is such as to render him
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
incapable of perceiving the facts which they are
examined and of relating the truthfully
disqualified to be a witness.
Q: Who is a child witness?
A: One who at the time of giving testimony is
below 18 years.
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of
mental incapacity or immaturity. — The
following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time
of their production for examination, is such that
they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of
relating them truthfully.
-Children are presumed to be competent
witness.
Basis: Rule on the Examination of Child Witness
-If a party wants to assail the competency of
child witness, he shall have the burden of proof.
Competency Test- Regular observation through
searching question of the judge to simply
establish whether the child is competent.
-The judge must determine if the child knows
the difference between truth and falsity. There
is No Hard and Fast Rule.
-The Test must be done to the exclusion of the
public.
Q: What is Live-Link testimony?
Page 190
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
A: A child witness is excluded from the general
public in giving his testimony.
Q: What are testimonial aids?
A: Object/Person that will help a child
(psychological/emotional) in the course of
testimony.
Support Persons- Natural Persons that will
accompany the child in the course of his
testimony. ( Mother, Guardian, Guardian Ad
Litem)
Q: Who is a facilitator?
A: A facilitator is one that propounds the
question to the child given by the parties
concerned.
Q: What are the question that are barred to ask
towards a child witness?
A: -Sexual propensity of the child
-Sexual encounters of the child
Exception: If a party will establish that the
seamen found in the vagina of the victim, he
can ask specific sexual encounter of the child.
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of
marriage. — During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against
the other without the consent of the affected
spouse, EXCEPT in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the
latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
Q: What is marital disqualification rule?
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
A: The rule provides that during their marriage,
a spouse may not testify for or against the other
spouse without the latter’s consent.
Q: What are the exceptions to the marital
disqualification rule?
A: A spouse may testify against the other in:
-Civil case by one against the other
-Criminal case for a crime committed by one
spouse against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants.
Case: Marcos vs Heirs of Andres Navarro, 700
SCRA
Facts:
Spouses Navarro passed away and left behind
several parcels of land. They were survived by
their daughters, Luisa Navarro Marcos
(petitioner) and Lydia Navarro Grageda, and the
heirs of their only son, Andres Navarro. The
heirs of Andres are the respondents in this case.
Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that
respondents are claiming exclusive ownership
of the lot based on an Affidavit of Transfer of
Real Property where Andres, Sr. donated the lot
to Andres, Jr. The sisters requested a
handwriting examination of the affidavit. The
PNP handwriting expert, PO2 Mary Grace
Alvarez, found that Andres, Sr.’s signature on
the affidavit and the submitted standard
signatures of Andres, Sr.were not written by the
same person.
The sisters sued the respondents for annulment
of the deed of donation. Respondents moved to
disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness.
Page 191
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
RTC granted respondents’ motion and
disqualified Alvarez as a witness, ruling that her
supposed testimony would be hearsay as she
has no personal knowledge of the alleged
handwriting of Andres, Sr. Also, there is no need
for PO2 Alvarez to be presented, if she is to be
presented as an expert witness, because her
testimony is not yet needed. CA dismissed the
sisters’ petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: WON PO2 Alvarez should be disqualified
as a witness
HELD:
No. Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason
of mental incapacity or immaturity. Section 22
disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage.
Section 23 disqualifies a witness by reason of
death or insanity of the adverse party. Section
24 disqualifies a witness by reason of privileged
communication.
The specific enumeration of disqualified
witnesses excludes the operation of causes of
disability other than those mentioned in the
Rules. The Rules should not be interpreted to
include an exception not embodied therein.
As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez
can surely perceive and make known her
perception to others. Respondents’ motion to
disqualify her should have been denied by the
RTC for it was not based on any of these
grounds for disqualification. The RTC confused
the qualification of the witness with the
credibility and weight of her testimony.
Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Evidence is clear that the opinion of an expert
witness may be received in evidence. PO2
Alvarez’s testimony would not be hearsay.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Under Section 49 of Rule 130, PO2 Alvarez is
allowed to render an expert opinion.
Although the word “may” in Sec. 49 of Rule 130
signifies that the use of the opinion of an expert
witness is permissive and not mandatory on the
part of the courts, handwriting experts are
often offered as expert witnesses considering
the technical nature of the procedure in
examining forged documents.
RTC shouldn’t have disqualified Alvarez as a
witness. She has the qualifications and none of
the disqualifications of a witness under the
Rules. The analysis of the signature in the deed
of donation executed by the late Andres, Sr. is
crucial to the resolution of the case.
Case: People vs Golimlim, 427 SCRA
People vs Golimlim, 427 SCRA
Facts:
- Salvador Golimlim (“Accused”) was charged
for the rape of Evelyn Canchela (“Victim”), a
mental retardate, sometime in August 1996
while the Victim was placed in the Accused’s
custody by her mother who in turn left for
abroad to work as a domestic helper. Accused
was the husband of the mother’s sister.
- Victim was able to file a complaint against the
Accused only after several months. Accused
merely denied the allegations of the Victim and
blamed her mental incapacity in casting doubt
in the accusation against him, stating that she
mentioned many other names of men who had
intercourse with her. RTC ruled for conviction,
hence the instant appeal.
Page 192
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Issue: WON Evelyn Canchela, being a mental
retardate, is disqualified from testifying as
witness to the case.
Held:
No. Evelyn Canchela is still qualified as witness
and may testify accordingly.
- Mental retardation does not equate/translate
to the incapacity contemplated in Sections 20 &
21 of Rule 130. Thus, the Court cited the
definition of a mental retardate:
“A mental retardate or a feebleminded
person is not, per se, disqualified from
being a witness, her mental condition
not being a vitiation of her credibility. It
is now universally accepted that
intellectual weakness, no matter what
form it assumes, is not a valid objection
to the competency of a witness so long
as the latter can still give a fairly
intelligent and reasonable narrative of
the matter testified to.”
- The Victim was fully capable of making her
perceptions known to others since she was able
to respond to various questions framed in
different forms so as to have her narrate the
whole incident and still give coherent facts.
Further, mere denial of the Accused is a weak
defense and could not controvert the positive
testimony of the Victim herself.
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of
privileged communication. — The following
persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
Q: What us the marital communication
privilege?
A: It is the privilege which provides that the
husband or wife cannot be examined without
the consent of the other as to any confidential
communication received from the other during
the marriage except in a civil case by one
against the other or in criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the
latter’s direct as ascendants or descendants.
Marital Marital
Disqualification Rule Communication
Privilege
Blanket The privilege applies
disqualification of a only to confidential
spouse from testifying communications
for or against the
other
Effective only during Effective during and
the existence of the after the marriage
marriage
Can be invoked only if It may be invoked
one of the spouses is a whether or not a
party to the action spouse is a party to
the action
AS TO PERIOD OF EFFECTIVITY- The marital
disqualification rule is effective only during the
existence of the marriage while the marital
communication rule subsists even after the
termination of the marriage.
Page 193
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
AS TO SCOPE- The marital disqualification rule
is a total prohibition against any testimony by
one spouse for or against the other, while the
marital communication privilege applies only
confidential communication between the
spouses.
AS TO SPOUSE BEING A PARTY TO THE ACTION-
The marital disqualification rule can be invoked
only if one of the spouses is a party to the
action, while the marital communication
privilege may be invoked whether or not a
spouse is a party to the action.
Q: If a confidential communication by one
spouse to the other comes into the hands of a
third person, may a third person testify
thereon?
A: YES, where the privileged communication
comes into the hands of a third person, the
marital communications privilege does not
apply unless the aggrieved spouse shows that
there was collusion between his spouse and
third person.
Case: Alvarez vs Ramirez, 473 SCRA
Doctrine: If the spouses are separated in fact,
the marital disqualification rule shall not apply.
Facts:
Respondent Susan Ramirez was the complaining
witness in a criminal case or arson pending
before the RTC. The accused was petitioner
Maximo Alvarez, stranged husband of
Esperanza Alvarez, sister of respondent. On
June 21, 1999, Esperanza Alvarez was called to
the witness stand as the first witness against
petitioner, her husband. Petitioner filed a
motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
against him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court on marital disqualification.
Respondent filed an opposition to the motion.
Pending resolution of the motion, the trial court
directed the prosecution to proceed with the
presentation of the other witnesses. On
September 2, 1999, the trial court issued the
questioned Order disqualifying Esperanza
Alvarez from further testifying and deleting her
testimony from the records. The prosecution
filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied in the other assailed Order dated
October 19, 1999. This prompted respondent
to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari with application for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order. On
May 31, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a
Decision nullifying and setting aside the assailed
Orders issued by the trial court. Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: WON Esperanza can testify over the
objection of her estranged husband on the
ground of marital privilege.
HELD:
Yes, Esperanza may testify over the objection of
her husband. The disqualification of a witness
by reason of marriage under Sec. 22, Rule 130
of the Revised Rules of Court has its exceptions
as where the marital relations are so strained
that there is no more harmony to be preserved.
The acts of the petitioner stamp out all major
aspects of marital life. On the other hand, the
State has an interest in punishing the guilty
and exonerating the innocent, and must have
the right to offer the testimony of Esperanza
Page 194
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
over the objection of her husband. The
purpose of marital disqualification rule shall
not apply on the reason that: commonality of
interest no longer holds, their marriage is no
longer protected since they are already
separated in fact.
Case: People vs Judge Castaneda, 88 SCRA
Facts: A spouse owned a parcel of land and the
husband sell the parcel of land without the
consent of his wife. The husband forged the
signature of the wife on the marital conformity
of the sale of the land. During the trial for the
case of falsification, the wife is called to take
the witness stand to testify but the adverse
party objected on the ground of marital
disqualification and it was sustained by Judge
Castaneda.
Held: The marriage is still subsisting and the
spouses are not separated in fact. Considering
that the property involved is a conjugal
property and there is falsification of the
signature, the marital disqualification shall not
be applicable.
-When a father commits a crime against the
daughter, it is in effect a crime against mother
therefore the latter can testify against the
father.
Marital Privilege Communication Rule- It was
intended not to be known by a Third Person or
other people.
Example: One evening during a family dinner,
Father X confessed to his family that he killed A.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Q: Will the disqualification rule extend to the
children in the dinner?
A: YES, since the communication was given in
trust and confidence and the children belongs
to the family.
B. Attorney-Client Relationship
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of
his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or
his advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment, nor
can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or
clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such
capacity
-The client is being protected by this privilege
communication in order for him to divulge
certain information without uncertainty.
Rationale: To Protect the Legal Profession
-The privilege communication only covers legal
matter which is the subject matter of the
lawyer-client relationship.
-The communication also extends to its
secretary, stenographer or clerk.
Q: May the attorney himself be the one to
invoke the privilege?
A: YES, either the client or his lawyer may raise
such privilege.
-The attorney-client privilege bars only the
attorney, secretary, stenographer or clerk from
being examined but the privilege does not
extend to third persons who obtain knowledge
Page 195
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
of the communication between the lawyer and
client.
C. Doctor-Client Relationship
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any advice or treatment given
by him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information was
necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and
which would blacken the reputation of the
patient.
-A doctor cannot without the consent of the
client be examined on communication or
information disclose in the course of medical
services.
- It is applicable in civil or administrative cases
Q: Are autopsies conducted by medico-legal
officer covered by the privilege?
A: NO, since there is patient or treatment
involved, the autopsy having been conducted
on a dead person.
D. PRIEST-CONFESSION RELATIONSHIP
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the
consent of the person making the confession,
be examined as to any confession made to or
any advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined by
the church to which the minister or priest
belongs.
-A minister or priest cannot, without the
confessant’s consent be examined as to any
confession made to or advice.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-It is only applicable in Catholic Religion.
E. Public interest privilege
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during
his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure.
-It pertains to custodial of public records or
communications
-A public officer cannot be examined during his
term of office or afterwards, as to
communication made to him in official
confidence and if the court finds that public
interest would be prejudiced.
Case: Chan vs Chan, 702 SCRA
Facts: Josielene filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of her marriage to
respondent Johnny Chan (Johnny), the
dissolution of their conjugal partnership of
gains, and the award of custody of their
children to her.
During the pre-trial conference, Josielene pre-
marked the Philhealth Claim Form1 that Johnny
attached to his answer as proof that he was
forcibly confined at the rehabilitation unit of a
hospital. The form carried a physician’s
handwritten note that Johnny suffered from
“methamphetamine and alcohol abuse.”
Following up on this point, Josielene filed with
the RTC a request for the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum addressed to Medical
City, covering Johnny’s medical records when
he was there confined. The request was
Page 196
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
accompanied by a motion to “be allowed to
submit in evidence” the records sought by
subpoena duces tecum. RTC and CA denied
Josielene’s motion.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in ruling that the trial
court correctly denied the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny’s
hospital records on the ground that these are
covered by the privileged character of the
physician-patient communication.
HELD: NO. Issuance of a subpoena duces tecum
for its production will violate the physician-
patient privilege rule under Rule 130, Sec. 24(c)
of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, this
privilege is not absolute. The request of
petitioner for a copy of the medical records has
not been properly laid. Instead of a request for
the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum,
Josielene Lara Chan should avail of the mode of
discovery under Rule 28 of Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 28 pertains to the physical or
mental examination of persons. This may be
ordered by the court, in its discretion, upon
motion and showing of good cause by the
requesting party, in cases when the mental
and/or physical condition of a party is in
controversy. Aside from showing good cause,
the requesting party needs only to notify the
party to be examined (and all other parties) and
specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and
scope of the examination, including the name of
the physician who will conduct the examination.
Discovery procedures provide a balance
between the need of the plaintiff or claimant to
fully and fairly establish her case and the policy
to protect ― to a certain extent ―
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
communications made between a patient and
his doctor. Hence, the physician-patient
privilege does not cover information discovered
under Rule 28. This procedure is availed with
the intention of making the results public during
trial. Along with other modes of discovery, this
would prevent the trial from being carried on in
the dark.
Case: CLARITA J. SAMALA vs. ATTY. LUCIANO
D. VALENCIA
A.C. No. 5439, January 22, 2007
FACTS: Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed
against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for
Disbarment. One of the grounds for disbarment
was the act of Atty. Valencia of serving on two
separate occasions as counsel for contending
parties. Atty. Valencia then filed his Comment.
After which, the Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation.
After a series of hearings, the parties filed their
respective memoranda and the case was
deemed submitted for resolution. The
Commissioner found respondent guilty of
violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the report
and recommendation of Commissioner Reyes.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Valencia violated the
privilege communication by serving as counsel
for contending parties
RULING: Yes. Records show that Atty. Valencia
serves as a counsel for contending parties. The
Presiding Judge even warned him to refrain
Page 197
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
from repeating the act of being counsel of
record of both parties.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts. A
lawyer may not, without being guilty of
professional misconduct, act as counsel for a
person whose interest conflicts with that of his
present or former client. He may not also
undertake to discharge conflicting duties any
more than he may represent antagonistic
interests.
The stern rule against representation of
conflicting interests is founded on principles of
public policy and good taste. It springs from the
attorney's duty to represent his client with
undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate the
client's confidence as well as from the
injunction forbidding the examination of an
attorney as to any of the privileged
communications of his client. An attorney owes
loyalty to his client not only in the case in which
he has represented him but also after the
relation of attorney and client has
terminated. The bare attorney-client
relationship with a client precludes an attorney
from accepting professional employment from
the client's adversary either in the same case or
in a different but related action. A lawyer is
forbidden from representing a subsequent
client against a former client when the subject
matter of the present controversy is related,
directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
the previous litigation in which he appeared for
the former client.
Executive Privilege
Q: What is executive privilege?
A: It is the privilege which protects the
confidentiality of conversation that takes place
in the president’s performance of official duty.
Case: Almonte vs Vasquez, 244 SCRA
Facts: General Almonte was appointed by
President Ramos as the head of EEIP. Almonte
was later on asked to divulge certain
information which is of national interest but he
invoke that if he disclosed such information, it
will be a threat to national security and safety.
Held: The manifestation made by General
Almonte is valid on the ground of executive
privilege since it involves national security,
diplomatic matter and national safety.
Case Doctrine: Neri vs Senate Committee “The
president of the Republic of the Philippines
cannot be called into a congressional hearing
and the executive privilege given to the
President is extended to its alter-ego”
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death
or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or
assignor of parties to a case, or persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against
a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against such person of unsound mind,
cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
Page 198
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

before the death of such deceased person or Admissions and Confessions

before such person became of unsound mind.
Deadman’s Statute- It is for the protection of
the estate.
Q: Who are disqualified to testify?
Admission- A statement or confirmation about
a fact.
Confession- More than a statement of fact
which leads to an acknowledgment of guilt.

A: Plaintiff or assignor of plaintiff Two Types of Confession

Q: Against whom they are prohibited to testify?
A: Executor or Administrator of the estate on
claim against the estate or ante lite motam-
before the occurrence of the event.
PAP-EAR
Judicial- The plea of guilty of an accused
pending trial in criminal cases.
Extra-judicial-
Requirements: -To establish voluntariness of
the accused

-If the case is against the executor or -it should be within the time frame of custodial
administrator of the estate, it is not a claim interrogation.
against the estate.
*If the confession is without the assistance of
-The claim must be on matter before the death lawyer, it shall be inadmissible as evidence
of the party.
-It must be in writing
Claim against the estate- The liability must not
be personal to the executor/administrator but Extra-Judicial Judicial Admission
chargeable to the estate. Admission
Made outside of the Made in the course of
Rationale: To avoid Perjury- When death closes proceeding in the the proceeding in the
the lip of someone, the law must come to the same case same case
other and close his lip as well. Must be offered in Need not be offered in
evidence in order to evidence since they
Case Doctrine: Sunga-Chan vs Chan “The dead’s considered by the already form part of
man statute will no longer apply since the court the records.
executor on the counter-claim is the plaintiff” May be contradicted May not be
by the admitter contradicted by the
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No admitter except by
person may be compelled to testify against his showing that the
parents, other direct ascendants, children or admission was made
other direct descendants. through palpable
mistake or that no
-Applicable in civil and criminal cases

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 199
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
such admission was
made.
Q: What are the forms which ad admission may
take?
A: An admission may be in the form of an act, a
declaration or statement, or an omission.
Q: Give examples of acts as admission
A: (1) Voluntary participation in the police re-
enactment, (2) Flight from the scene of the
crime, (3) Changing one’s appearance or name.
(4) Transfer of property.
Q: May an offer of compromise be considered
as admission of liability by the offeror?
A: Civil Case- an offer of compromise is not an
admission of liability and it not admissible in
evidence against the offeror.
Criminal Case- an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an
admission of guilt.
-A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an
unaccepted offer of a guilty plea to a lesser
offense, as in plea bargaining, is not admissible
in evidence against the accused who made the
plea or offer.
Q: What is the rule on admission by silence?
A: Any act or declaration made in the presence
and within the hearing or observation of a party
who does or says nothing.
Q: Give an example of admission by silence?
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
A: Accused’s silence when his wife’s nephew
asked him why he killed his is an admission by
silence.
Doctrine of adoptive admission- it is where a
party, by his words or conduct, voluntarily
adopts or ratifies another’s statement. Evidence
of the statement would then be admissible
against the party.
Res inter alios acta rule- The rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act declaration or
omission of another.
Exceptions:
1. Co-partner
2. Agent
3. Joint owner, joint debtor or other person
interested with the party
4. Co-conspirator
5. Privies
Rule on admission by a co-conspirator- The act
or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be
given in evidence against the co-conspirator
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration.
Q: May an extrajudicial confession be given in
evidence against a person other than the
confessant?
A: No on the ground that a person may not be
bound by the act or declaration of another. It
cannot be admitted against his or her co-
accused an it considered against them. The
Page 200
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
exception is when the confession is used as
corroborative or circumstantial evidence.
Q: What is an interlocking confession?
A: There are several confessant. Extra judicial
confession made without collusion which are
identical with each other in their essential
details and corroborated by other evidence on
record are admissible as circumstantial
evidence.
Q: May an extrajudicial confession made by an
accused be sufficient ground for conviction?
A: NO, unless it is corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti.
Case: Constantino vs Heirs of Constantino Jr,
706 SCRA
Facts:
-This involves a controversy over a parcel of
land claimed to be part of an estate, which
needed to be proportionally subdivided among
heirs.
-Pedro Constantino, Sr. ancestor of the
petitioners and respondents, owned several
parcels of land one of which is an unregistered
parcel of land consisting of 240 sq. meters
situated at Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan.
-Upon his death, he was survived by six (6)
children.
-On 17 June 1999, respondents Asuncion
Laquindanum (Asuncion) and Josefina Cailipan
(Josefina), great grandchildren of Pedro, Sr. in
representation of Pedro, Jr. filed a complaint
against petitioners: grandchildren of Pedro, Sr.
for the nullification of a document entitled as
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
“Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman” dated 10
August 1992.
-A pre-trial conference was conducted wherein
the parties entered into stipulations and
admissions as well as identification of the issues
to be litigated.
-RTC – As a result of “Extrajudicial Settlement
with Waiver” executed by the heirs of Pedro
Constantino Jr. and the subsequent execution
of another deed denominated as “Pagmamana
sa Labas ng Hukuman” executed by the heirs of
Santiago and Bruno Constantino (sons of Pedro
Sr.) to the exclusion of the other heirs, both
plaintiffs and defendants acted equally at fault.
They are in pari declito.
-CA – in favor or the respondent heirs of Pedro
Jr., declaring that the “Extrajudicial Settlement
with Waiver” covering the 192 sq. m lot actually
belongs to Pedro Jr., hence, not part of the
estate of Pedro Sr. It is erroneous for the trial
court to declare the parties in pari delicto.
ISSUE: WON the CA committed error by
disregarding the stipulations and admissions
during the pre-trail conference on which the
application of the doctrine of in pari delicto was
based?
HELD:
YES
-The CA actually contradicted the admissions
made no less by the respondents during the
pre-trial conference where they stipulated that
the land belongs to Pedro Sr. The respondent’s
admissions is an admission against the
respondent’s interest of the fact of ownership
by Pedro Sr. of the 192 sq. m lot which was
Page 201
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
transferred to respondent’s mother, the
daughter of Pedro Sr.
-Judicial admissions are legally binding on the
party making the admissions. Pre-trial
admission in civil cases is one of the instances
of judicial admissions explicitly provided for
under Section 7, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court,
which mandates that the contents of the pre-
trial order shall control the subsequent course
of the action, thereby, defining and limiting
the issues to be tried. Once the the stipulations
are reduced into writing and signed by the
parties and their counsels, they become binding
on the parties who made them. They become
judicial admissions of the fact or facts
stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous
position, a party may not be allowed to rescind
them unilaterally; it must assume the
consequences of the disadvantage.
-Respondents failed to refute the earlier
admissions/stipulation before and during the
trial. While denying ownership by Pedro Sr. of
the 192 sq. m lot, respondent Asuncion, when
placed on the stand, offered a vague
explanation as to how such parcel of land was
acquired by Pedro Jr.
Case: Doldol vs People, 470 SCRA
FACTS:
A team of State Auditors conducted an audit of
the cash and cash account of Conrado C. Doldol,
the Municipal Treasurer of Urbiztondo,
Pangasinan. The audit covered the General
Fund, Special Education Fund and Trust Fund in
his custody. Doldol and the Municipal
Accountant were present during the audit. The
State Auditors discovered and noted the
following: (1) Doldol had a shortage; (2) Doldol
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
made cash withdrawals from the municipality’s
deposit account and such withdrawal,
purportedly for salaries, wages, allowances and
mid-year bonuses of municipal officers and
employees, had not been recorded in the
General Fund Cashbook; (3) Doldol made
adjustments in the said cashbook. In a Letter,
the State Auditors demanded the immediate
refund of the said amount, and for Doldol to
submit a written explanation. Doldol failed to
respond and was, thereafter, relieved of his
duties. He was directed to transfer the account
to Assistant Municipal Treasurer.
The State Auditors then conducted another
audit. They discovered that Doldol incurred an
added cash shortage. In a Letter to Doldol, the
State Auditors demanded the immediate
restitution of the missing fund, and directed
him to submit another written explanation.
Again, Doldol failed to respond. The State
Auditors submitted their Report on their
examinations. The State Auditors submitted
their Memorandum on the result of the audits
to the Provincial Auditor. On the same day,
Doldol wrote the Provincial Treasurer
requesting that a re-audit be conducted on his
cash and cash account, taking exception to the
findings of the State Auditors. Instead of
pursuing his request for a re-audit, Doldol opted
to refund the missing funds. He remitted certain
amount to the Acting Municipal Treasurer.
Doldol promised to pay the balance of his
shortage. However, he reneged on his promise.
The Provincial Auditor transmitted the
Memorandum and Consolidated Report of the
State Auditors to the Ombudsman, and
requested that Doldol be charged for
malversation of public funds. Despite the
extensions given to him, Doldol failed to file his
counter-affidavit. Two information for
malversation of public funds were then filed
against Doldol. Doldol testified that the funds
Page 202
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
which the State Auditors found missing were, in
fact, cash advances availed of by the municipal
employees. He insisted that not a single centavo
was used for his personal benefit. He averred
that the charges lodged against him were
premature because the same were based on an
incomplete audit.
In a Joint Decision, the trial court convicted the
accused of the crimes charged. Doldol appealed
to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA rendered
judgment affirming the appealed decision, and,
likewise, denied Doldol’s motion for
reconsideration thereof.
Issue: WON the partial restitution of the cash
shortage by Doldol can be considered as
implied admission of misappropriation of the
missing funds
Held:
Yes. Except for his bare testimony, the Doldol
offered no competent and credible evidence to
prove that the missing funds were actually cash
advances of employees in the municipality.
The Doldol could have offered in evidence the
documents evidencing the names of the
recipients and amounts of the cash advances,
but failed to do so. Moreover, the petitioner
wrote the Provincial Auditor and offered to
refund the missing funds. He was able to pay
only for certain amount, and failed to remit the
balance of his shortage. Such partial restitution
of the cash shortage is an implied admission of
misappropriation of the missing funds.
Case: Ladiana vs People, 393 SCRA
Facts:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
The defense counsel made an admission as to
the authorship, authenticity, and voluntariness
of the execution of the counter-affidavit of
accused Ladiana, which was subscribed and
sworn to before Cortez. In said counter-
affidavit, accused Ladiana allegedly admitted to
making the fatal shots on Francisco. However,
accused Ladiana allegedly did so in self-defense
as Francisco was then purportedly attacking
accused Ladiana and had, in fact, already
inflicted a stab wound on the arm of accused
Ladiana.
However, Cortez emphasized that he was not
the one who conducted the preliminary
investigation of the complaint which led to the
filing of the subject case. Additionally, Cortez
testified that he would not be able to anymore
recognize the face of the affiant in the said
counter-affidavit, but maintained that there
was a person who appeared and identified
himself as Josue Ladiana before he affixed his
signature on the counter-affidavit.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that the prosecution
had been able to establish the guilt of petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt. The court a quo held
that his Counter-Affidavit, in which he had
admitted to having fired the fatal shots that
caused the victim’s death, may be used as
evidence against him.
Issue: WON the Counter-Affidavit he executed
during the preliminary investigation of this case
is admissible proof showing his complicity in the
crime
Held:
YES.
-It is well-settled that the foregoing legal
formalities required by the fundamental law of
the land apply only to extra-judicial confessions
or admissions obtained during custodial
Page 203
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
investigations. Indeed, the rights enumerated in
the constitutional provision “exist only in
custodial interrogations, or in-custody
interrogation of accused persons.”
In the present case, petitioner admits that the
questioned statements were made during the
preliminary investigation, not during the
custodial investigation. Evidently, a person
undergoing preliminary investigation before the
public prosecutor cannot be considered as
being under custodial investigation. In fact, this
Court has unequivocally declared that a
defendant on trial or under preliminary
investigation is not under custodial
interrogation.
There is no question that even in the absence of
counsel, the admissions made by petitioner in
his Counter-Affidavit are not violative of his
constitutional rights. It is clear from the
undisputed facts that it was not exacted by the
police while he was under custody or
interrogation. Hence, the constitutional rights
of a person under custodial investigation as
embodied in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution, are not at issue in this case.
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of
guilt; in an admission, there is merely a
statement of fact not directly involving an
acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal
intent to commit the offense with which one is
charged. Thus, in the case at bar, a statement
by the accused admitting the commission of the
act charged against him but denying that it was
done with criminal intent is an admission, not a
confession.
Case: People vs Ulit, 423 SCRA
Facts:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Before the Court on automatic review is the
Decision dated December 17, 1997 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 62,
in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-385 to 97-388 finding
appellant Feliciano Ulit y Tampoy guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified
rape. During the hearing on October 20, 1997,
the prosecution presented Lucelle anew to
continue with her testimony on direct
examination.
She declared that the appellant raped her in
November 1996 and many other times
thereafter in her residence at No. 7104 San
Maximo Street, Makati City. Instead of asking
questions to elicit the facts and circumstances
before and during the commission of the
crimes, the prosecutor asked Lucelle to identify
her signature in her sworn statement and to
affirm the truth of its contents. She did so. The
public prosecutor then marked the sworn
statement in evidence as Exhibit H, and then
manifested to the court that he had no more
questions for the witness on direct
examination.
-On cross-examination, Lucelle testified that the
appellant was her mother’s older brother. In
November 1996, she was not enrolled in any
school. Her father was working at a
construction firm, the appellant was employed
at the Department of Environment and
Sanitation in Makati City, while her
grandmother, who lived with her, worked as a
maid in Bel Air Subdivison. Her mother worked
for one of her father’s cousins. On re-direct
examination, the prosecution elicited from
Lucelle that the appellant raped her in
November 1996 at 11:00 p.m. inside the room
Page 204
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
of her aunt Marina in her grandmother’s house
at No. 7104 San Maximo Street, Olympia,
Makati City, and that her aunt, Marina, and her
Ate Sharon were inside the room. When asked
where her aunt and Ate Sharon were when she
was being raped in her aunts room, Lucelle did
not respond. When asked why she did not
respond to the questions propounded to her
during the previous hearings and why she had
been crying in open court, Lucelle replied that
she was afraid of her uncle, the appellant.
Issue: WON the testimony given is admissible
Held:
NO- Supreme Court do not agree with the ruling
of the trial court that the contents of the sworn
statement of Lucelle are hearsay, simply
because she did not testify thereon and merely
identified her signatures therein. By hearsay
evidence is meant that kind of evidence which
does not derive its value solely from the
credence to be attributed to the witness herself
but rests solely in part on the veracity and
competence of some persons from whom the
witness has received the information. It signifies
all evidence which is not founded upon the
personal knowledge of the witness from whom
it is elicited, and which, consequently, is not
subject to cross-examination. The basis for the
exclusion appears to lie in the fact that such
testimony is not subject to the test which can
ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of
truth of testimony, since the declarant is not
present and available for cross-examination. In
criminal cases, the admission of hearsay
evidence would be a violation of the
constitutional provision while the accused
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
shall enjoy the right to confront and cross-
examine the witness testifying against
him. Generally, the affidavits of persons who
are not presented to testify on the truth of the
contents thereof are hearsay evidence. Such
affidavit must be formally offered in evidence
and accepted by the court; otherwise, it shall
not be considered by the court for the simple
reason that the court shall consider such
evidence formally offered and accepted.
In this case, Lucelle testified on and affirmed
the truth of the contents of her sworn
statement which she herself had given. As
gleaned from the said statement, she narrated
how and when the appellant raped and
subjected her to lascivious acts. She was cross-
examined by the appellants counsel and
answered the trial courts clarificatory
questions. The prosecution offered her sworn
statement as part of her testimony and the
court admitted the same for the said purpose
without objection on the part of the appellant.
Case: Carlos L. Tanenggee vs People of the
Philippines GR No. 179448, June 26, 2013
Facts:
-There were five separate information for estafa
through falsification of commercial documents
were filed against petitioner. The said
information portray the same mode of
commission of the crime as in Criminal case No.
98-163806 but differ with respect to the
numbers of the checks and promissory notes
involved and the dates and amounts.
-In January 1998, two Metrobank auditors
conducted an audit of the Commercio Branch
Page 205
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
for more than a week. Therefore, an appellant
was asked by Elvira Ong-Chan, senior vice
president of Metrobank, to report to the Head
Office on the following day.
-In his surprise, there were seven other people
present in the said office: two senior branch
officers, two bank lawyers, two policemen, and
a representative of the internal affairs unit of
the bank, Valentino Elevado.
-Appellant claimed that Elevado asked him to
sign a paper in connection with the audit
investigation; that he inquired what he was
made to sign but was not offered any
explanation; that he was intimidated to sign
and was threatened by the police that he will be
brought to the precinct if he will not sign; that
he was not able to consult a lawyer since he
was not apprised of the purpose of the
meeting; and that just to get it over with he
signed the paper which turned out to be a
confession.
-After the said meeting, appellant wanted to
see Tan but was unable to find the latter and he
cannot even contact him. He asserts that the
said written statement was taken in violation of
his rights under Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution, particularly of his right to remain
silent, right to counsel, and the right to be
informed of the first two rights.
-Hence, the same should not have been
admitted in evidence against him.
Issue: WON the written statement executed by
the appellant is admissible in evidence?
Held:
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Yes.
-Petitioner’s written statement is admissible as
evidence. Here, petitioner’s written statement
was given during an administrative inquiry
conducted by his employer in connection with
an anomaly or irregularity he allegedly
committed in the course of his employment. No
error can therefore be attributed to the courts
below in admitting in evidence and in giving due
consideration to petitioner’s written statement
as there is no constitutional impediment to its
admissibility.
- Petitioner’s written statement was given
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. His
attempts to convince us that he signed, under
duress and intimidation, an already prepared
typewritten statement. However, his claims
lacks sustainable basis and his supposition is
just an afterthought for there is nothing in the
records that would support his claim of duress
and intimidation.
-It is settled that a confession or admission is
presumed voluntarily until the contrary is
proved and the confessant bears the burden of
proving the contrary.
-Petitioner’s failed to overcome this
presumption. His written statement was found
to have been executed freely and consciously.
The pertinent details he narrated in his
statement were of such nature and quality that
only a perpetrator of the crime could finish.
Case: People vs Santos, 221 SCRA 715
Facts:
Page 206
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-Cupcupin and Bautista were ambushed while in
a jeepney by 2 persons using unlicensed
firearms (.45 caliber pistols) at around 11:45am
in Navotas, resulting to the death of Cupcupin
(driver) and serious physical injuries to Bautista;
-Witness Police Aide Bohol, the officer on duty
and directing traffic at that time, witnessed the
incident and identified Cupcupin and Bautista as
the victims, as well as Santos as the one who
shot the said victims. He also stated in his
testimony that there were 2 other persons
shooting at the passengers of the above-
mentioned vehicle;
-During trial, the criminal propensity of the
accused Santos was being proven by the
prosecution when it submitted the testimony of
a certain Guerrero as part of its evidence, the
latter being a witness to another case of murder
imputed to the accused which took place at the
exact same place of the instant case;
-Santos was therefore identified by victim
Bautista and witness Bohol positively, leading to
his conviction before the trial court;
-On appeal, Santos argues among others that
the testimony of Guerrero is hearsay for not
having presented the latter as witness during
the trial of the instant case;
Issue: WON the testimony of Guerrero is
admissible; and
. the land to the latter’s District Land Office. The
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Held:
Yes. Guerrero’s testimony is admissible.
-The trial court correctly considered the
testimony of Guerrero as admissible for being
covered by the exception of proving knowledge,
plan, scheme, and the like, pursuant to Section
34, Rule 130. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed
the same and held as follows:
“We consider that the trial court did
not commit reversible error in admitting
the Guerrero affidavit for the limited
purpose for proving knowledge or plan
or scheme, and more specifically, that
appellant knew that the particular
corner of two (2) particular streets in
Manila was a good place to ambush a
vehicle and its passengers. Appellant
also had waived the hearsay character
of this evidence by failure seasonably to
object to the admission of the affidavit;
it is too late in that day to raise the
hearsay rule in the appellant's
memorandum after prosecution and
defense had presented their respective
cases and had made their respective
offers of evidence.”
Case: Republic vs Heirs of Alejaga Sr, 393 SCRA
Facts:
Felipe Alejaga Sr. filed with the District Land
Office of Roxas City, Iloilo a Free Patent
Application covering a parcel of land located at
Dumolog, Roxas City. When the application was
executed under oath, Efren Recio, Land
Inspector of Bureau of Lands, submitted a
report of his investigation and verification of
Page 207
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
application of the respondent was approved by
the District Land Officer of Roxas City and was
issued a Free Patent. Thereafter, an Original
Certificate of Title was issued to the respondent
by the Register of Deeds.
The heirs of Ignacio Arrobang, through counsel
in a letter-complaint requested the Director of
Lands, Manila, for an investigation of the
District Land Officer, Roxas City and the
Regional Office of Iloilo City, for irregularities in
the issuance of the title of a foreshore land in
favor of respondent. Isagani Cartagena, the
Supervising Special Investigator, Legal Division
of the Land Management Bureau submitted his
Report. The Chief of the Legal Division of the
Land Management Bureau (formerly Bureau of
Lands) recommended to the Director of Lands
appropriate civil proceeding for the cancellation
of Free Patent and the corresponding Original
Certificate of Title in the name of the
respondent.
In the meantime, respondent obtained
a NACIDA loan under the Cottage Industry
Guarantee and Loan Fund by the defendant
PNB executed in Cebu City in the amount of
P10,000.00. The loan was secured by a real
estate mortgage in favor of defendant PNB.
The government through the Solicitor
General instituted an action for
Annulment/Cancellation of Patent and Title and
Reversion against respondent, the PNB of Roxas
City and defendant Register of Deeds of Roxas
City. While the case is pending hearing, the
respondent died. He was substituted by his wife
Roqueta Alejaga and his seven (7) children.
The RTC declared that by means of
fraud, hence, the approval of Free Patent
Application and issuance of Original Certificate
of Title in the name of Felipe Alejaga be
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
considered as null and void ab initio. However,
the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the
RTC, which the latter failed to prove its
allegation that respondents had obtained the
free patent and the Certificate of Title through
fraud and misrepresentation.
Issue: WON the respondents have acquired a
vested right over the parcel of land.
Held:
NO.
-The claim of the respondents that an actual
investigation was conducted is not sustained by
the Verification and Investigation Report itself,
which bears no signature of Efren Recio. Their
reliance on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty is thus misplaced.
Therefore, there can be no presumption that an
investigation and verification of the parcel of
land was actually conducted. Strangely,
respondents do not proffer any explanation
why the Verification and Investigation Reports
was not signed by Efren Recio. Even more
important and as will later on be explained, this
alleged presumption of regularity – assuming it
ever existed – is overcome by the evidence
presented by petitioner.
HEARSAY RULE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS
-Hearsay is an out of court statement offered
for the truth of the matter asserted.
-Hearsay is evidence of a fact which the witness
does not know of his personal knowledge, that
is, something not derived from his own
perception.
Exceptions:
Sec 37- Dying Declaration
Sec 38- Declaration against Interest
Page 208
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Sec 39- Act or Declaration about pedigree
Sec 40- Family Reputation
Sec 41- Common Reputation
Sec 42- Part of the Res gestae
Sec 43- Entries in the course of business
Sec 44-Entries in official records
Sec 45- Commercial list and like
Sec 46- Learned Treaties
Sec 47- Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding
-Hearsay Rule in Legal concept are those that
are inadmissible as evidence since such
testimony is incompetent.
Q: What is the purpose of such hearsay rule?
A: If the purpose is not to establish a statement
from which a person heard from a Third Person,
it shall not be hearsay.
Requirements:
-There must be an out of court statement or
declaration.
-Such testimony or declaration must be
repeated in court.
-The purpose of such testimony is to establish
the truth of the out of court declaration.
Example: Mr X is on the witness stand, he
testified that “Mr.A told him that B killed C”
Q: Who made the out of court declaration?
A: it was A that made the declaration.
Q: Is that a hearsay statement?
A: Not yet since the purpose of X is not yet
given.
Q: What is the purpose of X in his testimony
that A mentioned to him that B killed C?
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
A: The purpose of X of his testimony is to
ascertain that B is alive.
-The statement of X is not hearsay therefore it
is admissible.
Independently relevant statement- It is an out
of court statement which is relevant not for the
truth of a matter asserted but for something
else.
Q: What are the reasons for excluding hearsay?
A: 1) lack of opportunity, 2) Statement or
declaration not made under oath, 3) Court does
not have the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the declarant.
Q: May hearsay be in written form?
A: YES, If a party will present a letter to prove
the truth of the contents thereof without
presenting the letter-writer, the letter would be
hearsay.
Section 37. Dying declaration. — The
declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be
received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death.
-The declaration of dying person made under
the consciousness of an impending death, may
be received in any case wherein death is the
subject of inquiry.
Rationale: A person that is in the brink of
death, he naturally will tell the truth.
Page 209
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-There must be a consciousness of impending or
a person is aware that he will actually die NOW.
-The basis should be the nature & gravity of the
wound.
-The counsel must establish relevance and
competency of such testimony.
-The subject matter of the case must be the
death of the declarant.
-It is applicable in criminal and civil cases.
Section 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements
made by a person while a starting occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res
gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it
a legal significance, may be received as part of
the res gestae.
Res Gestae= Things Done
Excited utterances- Statement made by a
person while a starling occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto regarding the circumstances.
-Acts or Statements which are uttered in a very
dire situation.
-Statements made by a person while a
STARLING OCCURRENCE is taking place or
immediately or prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances.
-There is NO HARD AND FAST RULE for the time
period in order to appreciate Res Gestae.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-24hrs interval from time of the commission of
the crime and reporting to police authorities is
not anymore considered part of the res gestae.
Verbal Acts Doctrine
Example: Juan saw Mr. Katol giving an envelope
to Mr. Balot with a statement, “Pare eto na
yung utang ko sa iyo na Php 100,000”. If Juan
will be called to the witness stand testifying
such event, will it be admissible as evidence?
Answer: Yes, under the doctrine of verbal acts
docrtrine it shall form part of the res gestae.
Section 38. Declaration against interest. — The
declaration made by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact is asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to be
true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against
third persons.
Requirements:
-The declarant must be dead or unable to testify
-The declaration must be against the interest of
the declarant
-Fact asserted in the declaration was at the time
it was made far contrary to declarant’s own
interest.
-It covers all kinds of interest.
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.
— The act or declaration of a person deceased,
Page 210
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree
of another person related to him by birth or
marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The word "pedigree" includes relationship,
family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
Requirements:
-The declarant is dead or unable to testify
-The act or declaration is about pedigree of
another person related to the declarant by birth
or marriage.
-The relationship between the relative and the
declarant is shown by evidence other than such
act or declaration.
-The act or declaration occurred before the
controversy (ante lite motam)
Q: What does pedigree?
A: The word pedigree includes relationship,
family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
date when and the places were these facts
occurred and the names of the relatives.
Declaration Against Party Admission
Interest
Made by a non-party Made by a party
Must be against the Need not be against
declarant’s interest the admitter’s interest
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Hearsay but Not hearsay and this
admissible as an admissible
exception to the
hearsay rule
The declarant must be No requirement that
dead or unable to the admitter is dead
testify or unable to testify
Admissible against Admissible only
declarant and third against the admitter
persons
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree. — The reputation or
tradition existing in a family previous to the
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any
one of its members, may be received in
evidence if the witness testifying thereon be
also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles
or other family books or charts, engravings on
rings, family portraits and the like, may be
received as evidence of pedigree.
-The reputation or tradition existing in a family
previous to the controversy regarding the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence if the witness testifying
thereon be also a member of the family either
by consanguity or affinity.
Section 41. Common reputation. — Common
reputation existing previous to the controversy,
respecting facts of public or general interest
more than thirty years old, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common
reputation.
Page 211
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Q: IS a statement regarding common reputation
admissible as a hearsay exception?
A: YES, provided that: (i) existed previous to the
controversy or ante litem motam and (ii) facts
of public or general interest more than 30 years
or about marriage or moral character.
-Common reputation which is generally
understood as the reputation existing in the
community in which the fact to be proven is
known or exists.
Section 43. Entries in the course of business. —
Entries made at, or near the time of
transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
position to know the facts therein stated, may
be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of duty and in
the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty.
Requirements:
-The entries must be made at or near the time
of the transaction to which they refer.
-The entrant must be dead or unable to testify
-The entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated therein
-The entrant must have made the entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of a
duty.
-The entries must have been made in the
ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Business- It extends to all case were the entries
were made in a professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty.
Examples: Book of account, invoices, statement
of account, bill of lading, log-book of security
guard, medical charts
Electronic business records- it is a
memorandum, report, record or data
compilation of acts, conditions, events,
diagnoses or opinions made by electronic,
optical or other similar means.
Requirements:
-The electronic business records is made at or
near the time of the transaction.
-The electronic business record is made by or
from transmission or supply of information by a
person with knowledge of the transaction.
-The electronic business record is kept in the
regular course of conduct of a business activity.
-It is the regular practice to keep electronic
business records.
Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries
in official records made in the performance of
his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Requirements:
- The entries must have been made in official
records.
-The entries must have been made by a public
officer of the Philippines in the performance of
Page 212
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
his duty or by a person in the performance of a
duty enjoined by law.
-The entrant must have personal knowledge of
the facts stated by him or such facts were
acquired by him from reports made by person
under a legal duty to submit the same.
Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. —
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in
a list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to prove
the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein.
Requirements:
-There is a list, register, periodical or other
published compilation
-Such published compilation contains
statements or matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation.
-The compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation
-The compilation is generally used and relied
upon by the person engaged in that occupation
Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a
witness expert in the subject testifies, that the
writer of the statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Requirements:
-There is a published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet.
-It is on the subject of law, art, science or
history.
-The writer of the statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a
former proceeding. — The testimony or
deposition of a witness deceased or unable to
testify, given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
Requirements:
-The witness or deponent is dead or unable to
testify
-The former case or proceeding involves the
same parties and subject matter
-The adverse party had the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness or deponent in the
former case or proceeding.
Double/Multiple hearsay- When a hearsay
declaration is embedded in another with the
result that there are two or more levels of
hearsay.
Opinion Rule
Page 213
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not
admissible
Exception:
-Opinion of expert witness
-Opinion of ordinary witness
Q: What is an expert opinion?
A: The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge or skill, experience,
training.
Q: What steps should be taken before an expert
witness is allowed to testify?
A: -The expert witness should be qualified
before he is allowed to testify.
-Qualification is made by showing that the
witness possesses special knowledge, skill,
experience or training.
*An expert witness may testify based on
hypothetical or assumed facts.
Q: When is the opinion of an ordinary witness
admissible in evidence?
A: -The identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge.
-A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity.
-The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
-The witness may also testify on his impression
of the condition, appearance, behaviors or
emotions of a person.
Character Evidence
Section 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions: —
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in
civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14.
Q: Distinguish between character and
reputation?
A: Character is what you are, reputation what
the community knows you are. Reputation may
be used to prove character.
Page 214
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
GR: Character evidence is not admissible
Exceptions:
Criminal Cases
-The accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
-Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
-The good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
Civil Cases:
-Evidence of the moral character of a party in
civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
Q: How is character proved?
A: It is proved by (1) reputation evidence, (2)
specific instances of conduct or (3) witness
opinion.
Reputation Evidence- it is a mode to prove
moral character.
-The modern view is that reputation among a
person’s associate is also admissible to prove
his character.
Rule 131- Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Burden of Proof vs Burden of Evidence
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Burden of Proof- The duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law.
-The burden of proof rests upon a party
asserting the affirmative of an issue.
Burden of evidence- The duty of a party to go
forward with the evidence and which duty if
fulfilled by the party shifts the burden of
evidence to the adverse party.
Equipoise doctrine- It is where the evidence on
a particular issue is in equipoise or level or
where the party not having the burden of proof
has produced countervailing evidence, the
result is that the party with the burden of proof
will lose out on that particular issue.
Q: What is a Reputation?
A: It is an interference-It arrives at a logical
conclusion.
Q: What are the two kinds of inferences?
A: -Presumption of Fact- Simple Inference
-Presumption of Law- It is an inference
determined by law
-Under the ROC, there are only 2 kinds of
presumption: Disputable/Conclusive
Q: How many are the disputable presumptions
provided by law?
A: 37 disputable presumptions Sec 3 (A to KK)
Q: How many are the conclusive presumptions
provided by law?
Page 215
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
A: 2 conclusive presumptions (Sec 2)
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The
following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led to another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted
to falsify it: (Estoppel in Pais)
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title
of his landlord at the time of commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between
them. (Estoppel of a Tenant)
Q: What is a conclusive presumption?
A: It is a term that cannot be controverted and
the court has no other choice but to accept it.
Q: What is estoppel in Pais?
A: When a person represent somebody and a
third person acted on such representation
whether in a negative or positive way then the
former cannot deny the existence of such
representation.
-Such Representation shall be binding.
-It is also applicable in a contract of agency
Estoppel By Tenant- A lessee who is the
occupant of the premises on the basis of
accepting the contract of lease, the lessee
accept the fact that lessor is owner of the land
and relation of landlord & tenant.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Example: A leases to B a parcel of land located
in Bulacan which the latter cultivates. Later on,
B discovered that is not the real owner of the
land and decided to stop paying rentals. Is the
stoppage to pay rental valid?
Answer: NO, Since there is a conclusive
presumption that when he entered into a
contract of lease with A, he acknowledges the
fact that A has the right to lease such property
unto him.
Disputable Presumption- The quantum of
evidence should be clear and convincing.
Exception: Presumption of Innocence
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced.
Requirements:
-The suppression must be willful
- The evidence must be material
-The evidence is not available to both parties
*Suppression is an exercise of privilege.
Example: In a case of rape, the victim was never
presented as a witness. When the accused was
convicted, he appealed to the appellate court
on the ground of suppression of evidence. SC
ruled that there is no suppression of evidence
since the evidence (testimonial) is available to
both parties. The accused should have
subpoena the rape victim to appear in court.
(PP vs Padrigone)
Example 2: Benny filed a case against XYZ
Hospital, Doctor A & Nurse B for damages due
Page 216
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

to medical negligence. The son of Benny died The following shall be considered dead for all
due to medical complication on the ground of purposes including the division of the estate
medical negligence. During the trial of the case, among the heirs:
when the counsel for the plaintiff asked for the
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
hospital records and upon discovery of such
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has
records, the documents pertaining to 42 to 44 th not been heard of for four years since the loss
day of records are not available. The court of the vessel or aircraft;
ordered the defendant to release such
document but they failed to do so. (2) A member of the armed forces who has
taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
Effect of Suppression of Evidence: Those that missing for four years;
the plaintiff wants to establish are deemed
established. (3) A person who has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and whose existence
has not been known for four years;
(m) That official duty has been regularly
performed.
(4) If a married person has been absent for four
consecutive years, the spouse present may
-When a police officer conducts a buy-busy
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has
operation and the accused was killed. There is a
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
presumption that the police officer performed
already death. In case of disappearance, where
his duty based on the rules & regulation.
there is a danger of death the circumstances
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two
Q: For this presumption to be applicable, what
years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
should be the rule?
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in
any case, before marrying again, the spouse
A: If there are guidelines to be followed and one
present must institute a summary proceedings
of which is not followed, the disputable
as provided in the Family Code and in the rules
presumption of regularity in the performance of
for declaration of presumptive death of the
duty shall not be applicable.
absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it
being unknown whether or not the absentee
4 years- A person on board a vessel lost during
still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes,
a sea voyage or an aircraft which is missing.
except for those of succession.
4 years- Member of the army who has taken
The absentee shall not be considered dead for
part in armed hostilities.
the purpose of opening his succession till after
an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after
4 years- A person who has been in danger of
the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five
death under other circumstances.
years shall be sufficient in order that his
succession may be opened.

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 217
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
4 years- The spouse present may contract a
subsequent marriage if he/she has well founded
belief of the absent spouse.
2 years- In case of disappearance, when there is
danger of death.
GR: Any person that is absent for 7 consecutive
years without news being alive is presumed
dead for all intents & purposes.
Exception: For purpose of succession- 10 years
absences
Exception to Exception: Person disappeared
was 75 years of age- 5 consecutive years to
open succession.
Effects of Absence to Marriage
-2 years of presumptive death shall suffice
-In the case of Santos vs Santos, for the purpose
of re-marriage there is a need for judicial
declaration of absences.
Factual Death- It is evidenced by the Corpus
delicti (Fact of Death)
Presumptive Death- There is a necessity to
apply for judicial declaration of absences.
(aa) That a man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered
into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a
woman who are capacitated to marry each
other and who live exclusively with each other
as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under void marriage, has been
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and
a woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquire properly
through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such contributions
and their corresponding shares including joint
deposits of money and evidences of credit are
equal.
(jj) That except for purposes of succession,
when two persons perish in the same calamity,
such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is
not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be
inferred, the survivorship is determined from
the probabilities resulting from the strength and
the age of the sexes, according to the following
rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years,
the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger
is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above
sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and
the sex be different, the male is deemed to
have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the
other between those ages, the latter is deemed
to have survived.
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or
illegitimacy. — There is no presumption of
legitimacy of a child born after three hundred
days following the dissolution of the marriage
or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such
child must prove his allegation.
Page 218
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Rule 132- Presentation of Evidence
Three Parts of the presentation of evidence
-Examination of Witness (Sec 1-18)
-Authentication and Proof of Documents (Sec
19-33)
-Offer and Objection (Sec 34-40)
Section 1. Examination to be done in open
court. — The examination of witnesses
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court, and under oath or affirmation.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
the questions calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be
given orally.
-Under the Constitution, a party has the right to
public, impartial and speedy trial.
Q: What do you mean of public?
A: It means it should be in open court the
presentation of evidence.
Q: What is open court?
A: It should be accessible to the public.
Q: What is the opposite of trial in open court?
A: Trial in chambers
-All trials must be recorded and all of the courts
right now are Courts of Record.
Stenographer- The person assigned to record all
the proceeding during the trial.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Transcript of Stenographic Notes- The notes
prepared by the stenographer.
-Under Sec 2, it shall be deemed prima facie a
correct statement of such proceeding.
Q: Give exceptions to the rule that the witness’s
examination of a witness
A: -In Civil Cases covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure, the testimony of a witness
shall be by way of affidavit.
-In Criminal cases, covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure, the affidavits submitted
by the parties shall constitute the direct
testimonies of the witnesses who executed the
same, subject to cross-examination, redirect or
re-cross examination.
-Cases covered by the Judicial Affidavit Rule
-Matters regarding the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of electronic documents may
be proved by affidavits to cross by adverse
party.
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.
— A witness must answer questions, although
his answer may tend to establish a claim against
him. However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
Page 219
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very
fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in
issue would be presumed. But a witness must
answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense.
Right of Self-Incrimination as Witness- Upon
proposal of questions
Right of Self-Incrimination as accused-witness-
Total Refusal to take witness stand
-In Criminal Cases, the accused and the witness
are protected by the Constitutional Right
against Self-Incrimination.
Order of Trial vs Order of Presentation of
Evidence
Order of Trial
Rule 30- Civil Case
Rule 119- Criminal Case
Order of Presentation of Evidence
-Direct Examination
-Cross Examination
-Re-Direct Examination
-Re-Cross Examination
*Under Rule 23- modes of discovery upon
written interrogatories- The party shall prepare
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
ahead the direct, cross, re-direct & re-cross
questions.
Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct
examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.
Q: What are the prohibited forms of question in
a direct examination?
A: Leading Question and Misleading Question
Q: What is a leading question?
A: It is a question which suggests the answer.
Q: What is a misleading question?
A: One which assumes as true as fact not yet
testified to by the witness or contrary to the
previously stated.
-Misleading questions are not allowed in the
proceeding/trial.
Example: On March 5, 2010 at 7pm a crime of
rape happened.
Question: You testified that on March 5, 2010
around 7:00 am, you were within the vicinity of
the crime?
-In Judicial Affidavit, there can be a lot of
leading and misleading question.
Remedy of Adverse Party- A party should make
a manifestation that he object to the leading
question under judicial affidavit or to strike out
such leading questions.
Exceptions to Leading Question:
Page 220
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
-On Cross-Examination
-Preliminary Matters
-Children of Tender Years
-Unwilling/Hostile Witness
-Witness who is an adverse party
Q: Who is an adverse witness?
A: The opposing side and there is no need to
give the predicate.
Q: Who is an adverse-party interest?
A: If the witness is an adverse party or a
director, officer or managing agent of a
corporation, partnership or association which is
an adverse party.
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and
extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to many
matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias,
or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts
bearing upon the issue.
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose
and extent. — After the cross-examination of
the witness has been concluded, he may be re-
examined by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during the cross-
examination. On re-direct-examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the
cross-examination, may be allowed by the court
in its discretion.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness
on matters stated in his re-direct examination,
and also on such other matters as may be
allowed by the court in its discretion.
Q: What is a misleading question? Is it allowed?
A: A misleading question is one which assumes
as trues a fact not yet testified to by the witness
or contrary to that which he has previously
stated. It is never allowed.
Section 9. Recalling Witness
-After the examination of a witness by both
sides has been concluded, the witness cannot
be recalled without leave of court.
-Only discretionary upon court.
-Additional Direct & Re-Direct Examination
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's
witness. — A witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called, by
contradictory evidence, by evidence that his
general reputation for truth, honestly, or
integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has
made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present, testimony, but not by
evidence of particular wrongful acts, except
that it may be shown by the examination of the
witness, or the record of the judgment, that he
has been convicted of an offense.
GR: A party cannot impeach his own witness.
Exception: Hostile Witness
(3) Three Ways to Impeach a Witness in
Cross-Examination
Page 221
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
- Contradictory Evidence
- General Reputation or integrity
- Prior inconsistent statement
-In order to impeach a witness, the basis shall
be the direct examination.
Example of Prior Inconsistent Statement
-A witness testified that he saw the accused
stabbed the deceased and he described the
physical feature of the accused.
-In order to impeach such witness, a counsel
should rely on the sinumpaang salaysay and
present it in the trial.
- Before a witness is impeached by evidence of
an inconsistent statement, the predicate must
first be laid.
Q: How is the predicate laid?
A: - It must be in writing, it must first be shown
to the witness before any question is asked of
him concerning the statement.
-The statement must be related to him, with the
circumstances of the time and place and the
persons present.
=He must be asked whether he made such
statement.
-If so, he must be asked to explain the
inconsistency.
Judicial-Affidavit Rule
GR: It shall be applicable in all courts
Exception: Supreme Court
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Criminal Case
Penalty: 6 years and above- J.A is not
mandatory
-The option to avail J.A is with the accused.
6 years and below- J.A is mandatory
Section 16. When witness may refer to
memorandum. — A witness may be allowed to
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by
anything written or recorded by himself or
under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any
other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case the
writing or record must be produced and may be
inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he
chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and
may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may
testify from such writing or record, though he
retain no recollection of the particular facts, if
he is able to swear that the writing or record
correctly stated the transaction when made;
but such evidence must be received with
caution.
Principles: -Present Memory Revive
-Past Recollection Recorded
-When a witness is called to the witness stand,
he is not allowed to use as documentary paper
as the basis.
Present Memory Revive- With leave of court, a
counsel can ask the trial court to allow his
witness to revive the memory.
Example: On June 1, 2010 while on his way
home. A saw a stabbing incident happened in
Page 222
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
the corner of Espana Avenue. When A arrived
home, he writes what transpired in his daily
diary. If A will be called to the witness stand, A
can ask the court to allow him to use the daily
diary.
Limitation: The documentary evidence help will
not form part as annexes.
-It cannot be used as corroborative evidence.
Past Recollection Recorded- The witness has no
recollection about what transpired and he can
only testify based on the memorandum or
record.
-The memorandum can be marked as evidence.
Example: Dr. Arizala of NBI Forensics lab and his
job is to conduct autopsy of dead bodies. If Dr.
Arizala will be called in the witness stand, he
can use a memorandum un order to identify the
dead body and his cause of death.
Q: How is testimonial evidence completed?
A: It is completed when all the parties are given
opportunity as provided in the rules.
Q: Is incomplete testimony admissible?
A: It will depend as to who cause the
incomplete testimony.
Example 1: During the direct examination of the
witness by the plaintiff, he manifested that he
completed the direct examination. The counsel
for the defendant moved that the cross-
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
examination be continued on the next hearing
schedule and it was granted by the court. On
the day set for cross-examination, the witness
died.
-The Incomplete testimony made by the witness
shall be admitted as evidence since the cause is
the defendant.
Example 2: After the counsel for the plaintiff
conducted its direct examination. The counsel
for the defendant will start the cross-
examination but the former manifested before
the court that he has an urgent hearing in
another place. On the day of the supposed
cross-examination, the witness died.
-The direct examination conducted by the
counsel of the plaintiff shall not form part as
evidence since the cause of the incompleteness
is the plaintiff.
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
Q: What is authentication?
A: Authentication is the process of establiing
that evidence is what is purports to be, in other
words, that it is genuine.
Q: Should a document be authenticated before
it may be received as evidence?
Private documents- it must be authenticated
before they may be received.
Public documents- It may be received in
evidence without the need for authentication.
Q: What is a private document?
Page 223
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
A: A private document is a document other
than a public document.
Q: How is a private document authenticated?
A: Before a private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence first be
authenticated, that is its due execution and
authenticity should be proved by (a) anyone
who saw the document executed or written or
(b) evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker.
Q: What is an ancient document? Does it need
to be authenticated?
A: An ancient document is a private document
which is more than 30 years old, is produced
from a custody in which it would be found if
genuine, and is unblemished by any alteration
or circumstance of suspicion.
-It does not need to be authenticated.
Q: How is a private electronic document
authenticated?
A: - Evidence that it had been digitally signed.
-Appropriate security procedure or devices as
may be authorized by law or rules have been
applied to the document.
-Other evidence showing its reliability and
integrity to the satisfaction of the judge.
Public Records:
Official Records- Written official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
tribunals, and public officers whether
Philippines or foreign country.
Acknowledged documents except wills
Public records
Q: Are affidavits and sworn certifications public
documents?
A: Affidavits and sworn certifications are not
public documents because they do not contain
acknowledgment but a jurat.
-A marriage contract is considered as private
writing and authenticated.
-If a public record is presented as evidence in
the trial, there is no need to authenticate such
document.
-If a document carries an acknowledgment,
there is no need to authenticate such
document.
Q: How is an official record proved?
A: -Through official publication thereof or –
Copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record and accompanied, if the
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody.
Q: How is a public record of a private document
is proved?
A: An authorized public record of a private
document may be proved by : (a) original
record copy attested by the legal custodian of
the record, with an appropriate certificates that
such officer has the custody.
Page 224
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Q: May a judicial record be impeached?
A: Yes, a judicial record may be impeached by
evidence of: (i) want of jurisdiction in the court
or judicial officer, (ii) collusion between the
parties or (iii) fraud in the party offering the
record, in respect of the proceeding
Q: When will an alteration affect the
admissibility of a document?
A: An alteration will affect the admissibility of a
document if :
(1) The document is being offered as
genuine
(2) The alteration was made after the
execution of the document.
(3) The alteration is in a part material to
the question in dispute.
Offer and Objection
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.
Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards
the testimony of a witness, the offer must be
made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be
offered after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done
orally unless allowed by the court to be done in
writing.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Testimonial Evidence- At the time the witness
is called to testify. The offer shall be made
orally.
-Under Judicial Affidavit Rule, the party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in
place of direct testimony shall state the purpose
of such testimony at the start of the
presentation of witness.
Documentary Evidence- After the presentation
of a party’s testimonial evidence and before he
rests his case. The offer shall be done orally
unless allowed by the court to be done in
writing.
Object Evidence- Same as documentary
evidence, unless it cannot be submitted to the
court in which case at the time it is presented to
the court’s senses.
Q: May evidence offered for one purpose be
considered for another?
A: NO
Formal Offer of Evidence
GR: A formal offer of evidence must be done
orally.
Exception: In writing (Evidence consists of
voluminous documents)
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after
the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness shall
be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall
become reasonably apparent.
Page 225
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
to within three (3) days after notice of the
unless a different period is allowed by the
court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must
be specified.
Q: How can a party interpose an objection?
A: A party can interpose an objection at the
time of the offer of evidence.
Q: Why does a party object in the course of the
trial?
A: It is allowed by the rules as oral objection
which must be ruled upon immediately by the
court.
Q: What are the kinds of objection?
A: (a) formal objection, (b) substantial
objection, (c) formal & substantial objection.
Formal Objection- it only pertains to the form
Example: Leading Questions
Substantial Objection- It violates the Best
Evidence and Parole Evidence Rule
Broad Side Objection- It is grounded on
irrelevancy and competency.
Continuing Evidence-When a party has
previously objected to a question and
succeeding questions are of the same class as
those previously objected.
General Objection- It is submitted that they are
not prohibited where the evidence is orally
offered.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
Q: When may a witness’s answer be stricken off
the record?
A: Where a witness answered the question
before the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection, and such objection is
found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain
the objection and order the answer given to be
stricken off the record.
-Where the answer is incompetent, irrelevant
or otherwise improper.
Q: When must the court give its ruling upon the
objection?
A: The ruling of the court must be given
immediately after the objection is made, unless
the court desires to take a reasonable time to
inform itself on the question presented; but the
ruling shall always be made during the trial and
at such time as will give the party against whom
it is made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling. (Rule 132, Sec 38)
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If
documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the record. If
the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may
state for the record the name and other
personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
Q: What is the remedy of the offeror if the
evidence is excluded?
A: it will depend on what kind of evidence:
Page 226
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018
Documentary/Object Evidence- The offeror may
have the same attached to or made part of the
record.
Oral Evidence- The offeror may state for the
record the name or other personal
circumstance of the witness.
Q: What is the purpose of the tender of
excluded evidence?
A: To allow the appellate court to assess
whether the trial court’s exclusion of the
evidence is proper.
Rule 133- Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
-Evidence may be admissible and it is a matter
of law.
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence – It is a
matter of perception or judicial evaluation.
Quantum of Evidence- The weight of evidence
required to discharge the burden of proof.
Kinds of Evidence
1. Overwhelming Evidence- Any evidence
which is beyond controversy and it cannot be
controverted.
2. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
-Applicable in Criminal Cases
-That quantum of evidence which produces in
unprejudiced mind and it produces conviction.
-Moral certainty is required.
-A person is sincerely convicted that the
accused is guilty of charge.
Rolan Jeff A. Lancion
Arellano University School of Law
3. Clear and Convincing Evidence (HK
Government vs Olalia)
-The quantum of evidence which is lower than
proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than
preponderance of evidence.
-In Labor Cases, it is clear and convincing
evidence
-Applicable to establish fraud and forgery cases.
-If a party want to overturn a disputable
presumption.
4. Preponderance of Evidence
-Applicable in civil cases
-It provides for superior weight of evidence on
the issues involved.
Equipoise Doctrine- The evidence for both
parties is on equilibrium
-In civil cases, if the evidence of the plaintiff are
on equilibrium and the determination of weight
shall be based on the evidence presented and
offered.
5. Substantial Evidence
-It is applicable in admin cases
-It is a quantum of evidence required in
administrative cases.
-That amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.
6. Probable Cause
Page 227
 Remedial Law 2- Brondial Notes AY 2017- 2018

-The quantum of evidence consisting of several
facts and circumstance known to the person to
arrive at a probability that a person charged is
guilty of an offense.
-It is used in Preliminary Examination and
Investigation.
-It never shifts and always with the claimant.
Burden of Evidence- It is the duty to persuade
the court through evidence that he has a claim
over the case.
-It follows the burden of proof.

Preliminary Examination- Issuance of Warrant

of Arrest

Preliminary Investigation- Filing of an

information in court.

7. Prima Facie Evidence- The quantum of

evidence which becomes conclusive if not
controverted.

-An accused can be convicted of Prima Facie

Evidence.

8. Iota of Evidence- it is related to

circumstantial evidence

Requirements:

-More than one circumstance

-Facts from which the inferences are derived

and proven

-Combination of all circumstance as to produce

conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

-In a petition for Quo Warranto, it should be

proof beyond reasonable doubt that will lead to
the ouster of a judicial officer.

Burden of Proof vs Burden of Evidence

Burden of Proof- It is the obligation of the party

to establish his claim.

Rolan Jeff A. Lancion

Arellano University School of Law Page 228