21.

De joya v Marquez

Facts:
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking the nullification of
the warrant of arrest issued against him. He was charged with violation of art 315
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. He asserted that the judge erred in finding the
existence of probable cause justifying the issuance of such.

Issue:
WON the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought.

Held:
No. In addition, it may not be amiss to note that petitioner is not entitled to seek
relief from this Court nor from the trial court as he continuously refuses to
surrender and submit to the court's jurisdiction. Justice Florenz D. Regalado
explains the requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires
such jurisdiction, thus:

x x x Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such
jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired by the filing of the
complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or
petitioner.

Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is acquired by the voluntary

appearance or submission by the defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive
process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is conferred by law and, unlike
jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred on the court by the voluntary act
or agreement of the parties.

Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined and conferred by the
pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order
or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to
object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5,
Rule 10.

Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the subject of the
litigation). This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the
thing in question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment;
or by provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the
property or subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration
proceedings or suits involving civil status or real property in the Philippines of a
non-resident defendant.

Justice Regalado continues to explain:

In two cases, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the case, even if it has not
acquired jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant, as long as it has
jurisdiction over the res, as when the action involves the personal status of the
plaintiff or property in the Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest. In
such cases, the service of summons by publication and notice to the defendant is
merely to comply with due process requirements. Under Sec. 133 of the Corporation
Code, while a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license
cannot sue or intervene in any action here, it may be sued or proceeded against
before our courts or administrative tribunals.

Again, there is no exceptional reason in this case to allow petitioner to obtain relief
from the courts without submitting to its jurisdiction. On the contrary, his
continued refusal to submit to the court's jurisdiction should give this Court more
reason to uphold the action of the respondent judge. The purpose of a warrant of
arrest is to place the accused under the custody of the law to hold him for trial of the
charges against him. His evasive stance shows an intent to circumvent and frustrate
the object of this legal process. It should be remembered that he who invokes the
court's jurisdiction must first submit to its jurisdiction

22. Antonio vs. Register of Deeds of Makati City

Facts:
Petitioner Remedios Antonino (Antonino) had been leasing a residential property
located at Makati City and owned by private respondent Tan Tian Su (Su). Under
the governing lease contract, Antonino was accorded with the right of first refusal in
the event Su would decide to sell the subject property. Subsequently, the parties
executed an Undertaking Agreement for the sale of the subject property.
Disagreeing as to who will pay the capital gains tax, the sale did not push through.

On July 9, 2004, Antonino filed a complaint against Su with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati City, for the reimbursement of the cost of repairs on the
subject property and payment of damages. Later that same day, Antonino filed an
amended complaint to enforce the Undertaking Agreement and compel Su to sell to
her the subject property. RTC dismissed Antoninos complaint on the grounds of
improper venue and nonpayment of the appropriate docket fees. That the action is
one for specific performance, thus, a personal action. An MR was filed by the
petitioner arguing that the amended complaint involves a real action.

The RTC maintained its earlier ruling that Antoninos Motion for Reconsideration
from the December 8, 2004 Order is pro-forma and did not suspend the running of
the period to file an appeal. The RTC also reiterated that Antoninos complaint is a
personal action such that the proper venue therefore is either the City of Manila or
Muntinlupa City.

Antonino filed with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment.

Issue:
WON Antonino may use the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment as
against the final and executory orders of the RTC.

Held:
No. In Ramos v. Judge Combong, Jr., 473 SCRA 499 (2005), this Court expounded
that the remedy of annulment of judgment is only available under certain
exceptional circumstances as this is adverse to the concept of immutability of final
judgments: Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed
only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.
Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for
annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof
explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, i.e., extrinsic fraud
and lack of jurisdiction. The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that
annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation
must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective
administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause
involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is
grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at
the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial
agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.

Personal action is one that is founded on privity of contracts between the parties;
and in which the plaintiff usually seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract, or recovery of damages. Real action, on the other hand, is
one anchored on the privity of real estate, where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of
ownership or possession of real property or interest in it.

35. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts:

In 1987, PCGG, through the Solicitor General, filed a complaint, among others, for
reconveyance alleging that Cruz and the Marcoses stole public assets and invested
them in several institutions here and abroad. The court ordered that alias
summonses be served in Hawaii as the older Marcos was in exile. The Marcoses
failed to file an answer and were declared in default. A motion to set aside the order
of Default was filed by the respondents which was granted on the ground that they
are barred from returning to the Philippines.

After asking for three extensions, the respondent, instead of filing an answer, filed a
motion for bill of particulars. The anti-graft court granted the motion explaining
that the allegations against the former president were vague and general. Petitioner
argued that the default order has not been lifted by any court, respondent cannot
file a motion for bill of particulars.

Issue:

WON a motion for bill of particulars may be availed of by a party declared in

default.

Held:

Yes. Under the Rules of Court, a defending party may be declared in default, upon
motion and notice, for failure to file an answer within the allowable period. As a
result, the defaulting party cannot take part in the trial albeit he is entitled to
notice of subsequent proceedings. The remedies against a default order are: (1) a
motion to set aside the order of default at any time after discovery thereof and
before judgment on the ground that the defendants failure to file an answer was
due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect and that the defendant has a
meritorious defense; (2) a motion for new trial within 15 days from receipt of
judgment by default, if judgment had already been rendered before the defendant
discovered the default, but before said judgment has become final and executory; (3)
an appeal within 15 days from receipt of judgment by default; (4) a petition for relief
from judgment within 60 days from notice of judgment and within 6 months from
entry thereof; and (5) a petition for certiorari in exceptional circumstances.

In this case, former President Marcos was declared in default for failure to file an
answer. He died in Hawaii as an exile while this case was pending, since he and his
family fled to Hawaii in February 1986 during a people-power revolt in Metro
Manila. His representatives failed to file a motion to lift the order of default.
Nevertheless, respondent, as executor of his fathers estate, filed a motion for leave
to file a responsive pleading, three motions for extensions to file an answer, and a
motion for bill of particulars all of which were granted by the anti-graft court. Given
the existence of the default order then, what is the legal effect of the granting of the
motions to file a responsive pleading and bill of particulars? In our view, the effect is
that the default order against the former president is deemed lifted.
36. Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:

In filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance
and/or reversion, during the course of the proceedings, both parties filed several
motions.

The respondent heirs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying their
motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial court could very well resolve the issue
of prescription from the bare allegations of the complaint itself without waiting for
the trial proper. The trial court dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground that
the action had already prescribed.

Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal on March 3, 1998

and, on the 15th day thereafter or on March 18, 1998, filed a motion for
reconsideration. On July 1, 1998, the trial court issued another order dismissing
the motion for reconsideration which petitioners received on July 22, 1998. Five
days later, on July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal
fees on August 3, 1998.
On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was
filed eight days late. This was received by petitioners on July 31, 1998. Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration but this too was denied in an order dated
September 3, 1998.
Via a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, petitioners assailed the dismissal of the notice of appeal before the Court
of Appeals.
In the appellate court, petitioners claimed that they had seasonably filed their
notice of appeal. They argued that the 15-day reglementary period to appeal started
to run only on July 22, 1998 since this was the day they received the final order of
the trial court denying their motion for reconsideration. When they filed their notice
of appeal on July 27, 1998, only five days had elapsed and they were well within the
reglementary period for appeal.

Issue:

WON the period to file the appeal has already prescribed.

Held:

No. First and foremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of
due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail
of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do
so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. The period to appeal is fixed by both
statute and procedural rules.

Based on the foregoing, an appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of
judgment or final order appealed from. A final judgment or order is one that finally
disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do with respect to it. It is an
adjudication on the merits which, considering the evidence presented at the trial,
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are; or it may be
an order or judgment that dismisses an action.
Same; Same; Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of
the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration to
standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules.To standardize the appeal
periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their
cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to
file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the
order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.