Civil Procedure

Doctrine
I. On Appeal
1. LBSP vs Amila

The order denying petitioners motion for issuance of a TRO is an

interlocutory order on an incident which does not touch on the merits of
the case or put an end to the proceedings.1[11] The remedy against an
interlocutory order is not certiorari, but an appeal in case of an unfavorable
decision. Only if there are circumstances that clearly demonstrate the
inadequacy of an appeal that the remedy of certiorari is allowed, 2[12] none of
which is present in the instant case.

2. JMM vs CA

As an overture, clear and unmistakable is the rule that the Supreme

Court is not a trier of facts. Just as well entrenched is the doctrine that
pure issues of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court as this mode of
appeal is generally confined to questions of law

3. Springfield vs RTC Judge Mis Occ.

DARAB is a co-equal body with the RTC and its decisions are beyond
the RTCs control. The silence of B.P. Blg. 129 on the jurisdiction of the CA to
annul judgments or final orders and resolutions of quasi-judicial bodies like
the DARAB indicates its lack of such authority.

II. Preliminary Attachment

2.1 Mangila vs CA

The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or

simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendant whether by
personal service, substituted service or by publication as warranted by the
circumstances of the case.27 The subsequent service of summons does not
confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law
does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service.

2.2 Chuidian vs Sandiganbayan

When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the

same time the applicant's cause of action, the only other way the writ can
be lifted or dissolved is by a counterbond, in accordance with Section
12 of the same rule. Only two ways of quashing a writ of attachment: (a) by

1
2
 filing a counterbond immediately; or (b) by moving to quash on the ground of
improper and irregular issuance

III. Preliminary Injunction

3.1 Idolor vs CA

The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial power to issue
the writ is that the court may thereby prevent a threatened or continuous
irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be
thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated.9 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. The
possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing
right is not aground for an injunction.

IV. Receivership

4.1 Larrobis, Jr. vs Phil Veteran’s Bank

The Bank’s right to foreclose a mortgaged property is not interrupted

when it is placed in receivership.

V. Replevin

5.1 Orosa vs CA

Creditors cannot ask for the return of the car mortgaged and at the
same time ask for the full payment of the remaining balance.

5.2 Yang vs Valdez

The provisional remedy of replevin is in the nature of a possessory

action and the applicant who seeks immediate possession of the property
involved need not be holder of the legal title to the property. It suffices, if at
the time he applies for a writ of replevin, he is, in the words of Section 2, Rule
60, "entitled to the possession thereof.

VI. Support

6.1 De Asis vs CA

It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or paternity must

first be shown between the claimant and the parent. However, paternity and
filiation or the lack of the same is a relationship that must be judicially
established and it is for the court to declare its existence or absence. It
cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties.

6.2 People vs Manahan

 Compulsory acknowledgment of the child Melanie Tibigar is not proper
there being a legal impediment in doing so as it appears that the accused is a
married man

6.3 Lopez vs CA

A judgment granting support never becomes final.

VII. Interpleader

7.1 Eternal Gardens vs IAC

The essence of an interpleader, aside from the disavowal of interest in

the property in litigation on the part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the
property or funds in controversy with the court. it is a rule founded on justice
and equity: "that the plaintiff may not continue to benefit from the property or
funds in litigation during the pendency of the suit at the expense of whoever
will ultimately be decided as entitled thereto."

7.2 Wack Wack Golf and Country Club vs Lee Won

The remedy is afforded to protect a person not against double liability

but against double vexation in respect of one liability; but one who, with
knowledge of all the facts, neglects to avail himself of the relief, or elects to
take the chances for success in the actions at law, ought to submit to the
consequences of defeat. To now permit the Corporation to bring Lee to court
after the latter's successful establishment of his rights in civil case 26044 to
the membership fee certificate 201, is to increase instead of to diminish the
number of suits, which is one of the purposes of an action of interpleader, with
the possibility that the latter would lose the benefits of the favorable
judgment

VIII. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

8.1 Velarde vs Social Justice Society

The Rules require that the interest must be material to the issue and
affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from simple
curiosity or incidental interest in the question raised. However, in special
civil actions for declaratory relief, the concept of a cause of action
under ordinary civil actions does not strictly apply. The reason for this
exception is that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has
been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising
thereunder.3[31] Nevertheless, a breach or violation should be impending,
imminent or at least threatened.

8.2 Almeda vs Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc.

A petition for declaratory relief may not be dismissed despite the filing
of an action for rescission, ejectment and damages where the trial court had not yet

3
resolved the recission ejectment case during the pendency of the declaratory relief
petition

IX. Certiorari

9.1 Llamzon vs Logronio

While the general rule is that before certiorari may be availed of,
petitioner must have filed a motion for reconsideration of the act or order
complained of, except in the ff cases: 1.) pure issue of law, 2.) pubic interest
is involved, 3.) there is urgency, 4.) a question of jurisdiction is squarely raised
before and decided by the lower court, and 5.) the order is a patent
nullity.

9.2 Torres, Jr. vs Aguinaldo

Petition for certiorari is availed of if the officer of an agency has

committed grave abuse of discretion absence of “grave abuse” certiorari in
Rule 65 cannot be availed of.

X. Prohibition and Mandamus

10.1 Manila Electric Co., vs Phil Consumers Foundation

A lower court cannot reverse or set aside or set aside decisions or

orders of a superior court, especially of the Supreme Court, for to do so will negate
the principle of hierarchy of courts and nullify the essence of review.

10.2 Licaros vs Sandiganbayan

Ideally, a petition for mandamus lies to compel the performance of a

ministerial but not of a discretionary duty.i[33]More specifically, persons or
public officials may be directed to act with or to exercise discretion, but not as
to how that discretion should be exercised. However, our jurisprudence is
replete with exceptions in this matter. Thus, it has been held that in a
case where there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or
palpable excess of authority, the writ may be issued to control
precisely the exercise of such discretion.

XI. Quo Warranto

11.1 Mendoza vs Allas

It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the

person — to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally authorized
to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays
claim.

11.2 Calleja vs Panday

 Actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp an office in a
corporation, which were formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange
Commission under PD 902-A, have been transferred to the courts of general
jurisdiction but this doesn’t change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure does not apply to quo warranto cases against
persons who usurp an office in a private corporation.

XII. Expropriation

12.1 NPC vs CA

Ordinarily, the dismissal of the expropriation case restores possession

of the expropriated land to the landowner. 42 However, when possession of
the land cannot be turned over to the landowner because it is neither
convenient nor feasible anymore to do so, the only remedy available
to the aggrieved landowner is to demand payment of just
compensation.43

XIII. Foreclosure of REM

13.1 Dayot vs Shell

An order for the issuance of the writ of possession is simply an incident

in the transfer of title in the name of the buyer – such order cannot be said to
be a judgment on the merits.

13.2 Unionbank vs CA

It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute

owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one
year after the registration of the sale.

XIV. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

14. Javelosa vs CA

Unlawful detainer – MTC

Accion publiciana – RTC.

In an action for unlawful detainer, a simple allegation that defendant is

unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is sufficient for the words
“unlawfully withholding” imply possession on the part of defendant which was
legal in the beginning having no other source than a contract express or
implied, possession which has later expired as and is being withheld by the
defendant.
 15. Refugia vs CA

An action for unlawful detainer is different from a forcible entry case in

that the former involves an act of unlawfully withholding the possession of the
land or building against or from a landlord, vendor or vendee or other person
after the expiration or termination of the detainers right to hold possession by
virtue of a contract, express or implied,[32] and neither is prior physical
possession of the property by the plaintiff necessary;[33] whereas in the
latter, the main issue is one of priority of possession. A person who occupies
the land of another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any
contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he
will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for
ejectment is the proper remedy against him It has further been held that such
tolerance must be present right from the start of possession sought to be
recovered, to categorize a cause of action as one of unlawful detainer.

XV. Contempt

15.1 Montenegro vs Montenegro

The totality of petitioners acts clearly indicated a deliberate and

unjustified refusal to be examined as a judgment obligor at the time the
examination was scheduled for hearing by the trial court. His acts tended to
degrade the authority and respect for court processes and impaired the
judiciary’s duty to deliver and administer justice. Petitioner tried to impose his
will on the trial court.

Indirect contempt may either be initiated (1) motu proprio by the court
by issuing an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to
show cause why he should not be punished for contempt or (2) by the filing of
a verified petition, complying with the requirements for filing initiatory
pleadings.4[10] In the present case, the trial court initiated the proceedings for
indirect contempt by issuing two orders5[11] directing the petitioner to show
cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt.

The contemptuous act was the petitioner’s refusal to attend a hearing

for his examination as judgment obligor, upon motion by the respondent
Teresa. This constitutes indirect contempt

15.2 Espanol vs Formoso

The use of falsified and forged documents is a contumacious act.

However, it constitutes indirect contempt not direct. Settled is the rule that a
contempt proceeding is not a civil action, but a separate proceeding of a
criminal nature in which the court exercised limited jurisdiction. The judge
erred in declaring summarily that respondents are guilty of direct contempt
and ordering their incarceration.

4
5
i
[
[