PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

When may it be availed? How much should be the Bond posted?

Preliminary Attachment May be sought at any stage of the action but before The amount of bond is addressed to the sound
final judgment. discretion of the court.
Preliminary Injunction -do- -do-
Receivership Maybe filed at any stage of the action and even Bond is mandatory and the court fixes it.
after final judgment.
Replevin Must be file before the defendant filed his answer. The bond is double the value of the personal
property seized.
Support pendente lite Maybe sought at any stage of the action and even No bond is generally required.
for the first time on appeal.
1. A compromise agreement was executed between Lim and Lazaro which made as ground for lifting of
the WPA. RTC granted the lifting of WPA and Lim opposed such grant. WON lifting of WPA is proper?
 No. WPA is not cancelled due to a compromise agreement until the debt is fully paid.Lim Jr vs Lazaro,
700 SCRA 547

NB: Preliminary Attachment is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the
attaching party to realize 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

2. Ligon filed a collection suit with QC RTC with prayer for WPA against Sps. Baladjay, Marasigan,
Polished Arrow Holdings, Inc., and its incorporators. WPA was granted. While the case was pending, a
collection and cancellation of title with WPA to RTC Makati was filed by the Sps Vicente. Makati RTC
rescinded the transfer of property to Polished Arrow and directed RD to issue clean title. Later, RTC
QC ruled in favor of Ligon. WON RTC Makati to order issuance of clean title amounts to grave abuse of
discretion?
 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. It is a
proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world.
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.
Prior registration of an attachment lien creates a preference, such that when an attachment has been
duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the attachment takes the property
subject to the said attachment. As provided under PD 1529, said registration operates as a form of
constructive notice to all persons. Ligon vs RTC Makati Branch 56, 717 SCRA

3. Satsatin was authorized via SPA to sell lands of Petitioner. Solar bought the property to which it already
paid but Satsatin did not remit such payment to Petitioners and that he had acquired a house and lot
and a car (which he registered in the names of his children). An Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of
WPA, respondent was about to depart the country and that they are willing to post a bond fixed by
court. WOA was issued. WOA was served and sheriff levied their properties. Summons and copy of
complaint was served later. Respondents filed a Motion to Discharge WOA: the bond was issued before
the issuance of WOA, the WOA was issued before the summons was received. Moreover, counter-bond
was posted. WON lifting of the WOA is proper?
 Yes. At the time the writ was implemented, the trial court has not acquired jurisdiction over the
persons of the respondent since no summons was yet served upon them. The proper officer should
have previously or simultaneously with the implementation of the writ of attachment, served a copy

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 1
 of the summons upon the respondents in order for the trial court to have acquired jurisdiction upon
them and for the writ to have binding effect. Torres vs Satsatin, 605 SCRA

Three stages involved in the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment; For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained.— first, the court issues the order granting the application; second,
the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. Once the
implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.

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; 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. A belated service of summons on respondents cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect
in the enforcement of the writ.

4. Is jurisdiction required upon issuance of WPA and its enforcement?

 Issuance no, but it is required upon enforcement.
Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued on September 27, 1988 and implemented on October 28,
1988. However, the alias summons was served only on January 26, 1989 or almost three months after
the implementation of the writ of attachment. The trial court had the authority to issue the Writ of
Attachment on September 27 since a motion for its issuance can be filed “at the commencement of the
action.” However, on the day the writ was implemented, the trial court should have, previously or
simultaneously with the implementation of the writ, acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Yet, as
was shown in the records of the case, the summons was actually served on petitioner several months
after the writ had been implemented.

Alias summons served on petitioner cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the
enforcement of the writ. Estoppel cannot lie on this case because estoppel does not apply on questions
of law. Mangila vs CA, 387 SCRA

How is WOA discharged?(exclusive)

 To file a counter bond in accordance with Rule 57, Section 12,
 To quash the attachment on the ground that it was irregularly or improvidently issued, as provided for in Section 13
of the same Rule.
Defect must be in the very issuance of the attachment writ. The merits of the action in which a writ of preliminary attachment
has been issued are not triable on a motion for dissolution of the attachment.— otherwise an applicant for the lifting of the writ
could force a trial of the merits of the case on a mere motion.

5. Phil gov’t filed before the SB a sequestration of ill-gotten wealth with motion for issuance of WOA over
the L/C in the name of Chuidian. Granted. Almost 4 years, Chuidian filed a motion to lift the attachment
arguing the favorable decision made by a foreign court. WON lifting of WOA is proper on this ground?
 No. When the preliminary attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time the applicant’s
cause of action, the defendant is not allowed to file a motion to dissolve the attachment under Section
13 of Rule 57 by offering to show the falsity of the factual averments in the plaintiff’s application and
affidavits on which the writ was based – and consequently that the writ based thereon had been
improperly or irregularly issued – the reason being that the hearing on such a motion for dissolution
of the writ would be tantamount to a trial of the merits of the action. Merits of the action would be
ventilated at a mere hearing of a motion, instead of at the regular trial. Chudian vs Sandiganbayan, 349
SCRA

6. WON a certificate of title of a real property can be used as a substitute to dismiss a WPA other than a
bond
 No, the rule is strict as to disposal of WPA which requires either a deposit or a bond. The remedy is
exclusive. An application for WA, being a harsh remedy is to be construed strictly in favor of the
defendant. It is evidently clear that once the writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy of
the petitioners in lifting the same is through a cash deposit or the filing of the counter-bond.—
petitioner’s argument that it has the option to deposit real property instead of depositing cash or filing
a counter-bond to discharge the attachment or stay the implementation thereof is unmeritorious.
Luzon Development Bank vs Krishman, 755 SCRA 2015

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 2
 7. Northern Islands Co. filed a complaint with WPA due to unpaid appliances delivered to Sps Garcia.
Motion to Discharge Excess Attachment was filed to oppose the WPA. RTC denied the motion hence
case was elevated to CA which ordered appointment of a commissioner. WON RTC losses jurisdiction
as to WPA when case is appealed
 Yes, WPA is an ancillary remedy. If the case is appealed, the jurisdiction over it by the court a quo is
also lost. The attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate action independent of the principal
action because the attachment was only an incident of such action. — Where the main action is
appealed, the attachment which may have been issued as an incident of that action, is also considered
appealed and so also removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo. The attachment itself cannot be
the subject of a separate action independent of the principal action because the attachment was only
an incident of such action. Northern Luzon Island Co. vs Garcia 753 SCRAA 603

8. Win Multi Rich filed a complaint against Ying with prayer for issuance of WOA and posted bond issued
by Visayan Surety. WPA was issued by RTC in favor of WIN. To prevent enforcement of WPA, Ying
issued check drawn from Equitable PCI Bank. Later, Ying filed an Omnibus Motion to discharge
attachment and questioned the jurisdiction of RTC due to the Arbitration Clause as stipulated in their
contract. Another order was issued directing garnished amounts from Ying to be deposited to Clerk of
Court. MultiRich prayed for the release of such cash deposit made by Ying in its favor and posted a
Surety Bond (FESICO) which was granted. CA ordered return of the cash deposit (Equitable) to Ying
and in case of refusal, held Win and FESICO and Visayan solidary liable. Is Visayan Surety liable?
 No. Section 20, Rule 57 specifically requires that the application for damages against the wrongful
attachment, whether filed before the trial court or appellate court, must be with due notice
(indispensable) to the attaching party and his surety or sureties.— Such damages may be awarded
only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case. Under no
circumstance, whatsoever, can the garnished funds or attached properties, under the custody of the
sheriff or the clerk of court, be released to the attaching party before the promulgation of judgment.
Cash deposits and counter-bonds posted by the defendant to lift the writ of attachment is a security
for the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may obtain; they are thus, mere replacement
of the property previously attached.

In this case, there was an application for damages; but there was no notice given to Visayan Surety.
Any application arising from the improper, irregular or excessive attachment shall be governed by
Section 20, Rule 57. The application for this rule requires:
1. The application for damages must be filed in the same case where the bond was issued;
2. Such application for damages must be filed before the entry of judgment; and
3. After hearing with notice to the surety

Visayan was not furnished any copies of the pleadings, motions, processes and judgments. To hold the
surety liable, the notice and hearing is mandatory to the surety. In this case, the petitioner’s answer
with compulsory counterclaim, which contained the application for damages was not served to
Visayan Surety.

However, FESICO’s bond is not covered by Section 20, Rule 57. It is Rule 57, Section 17 which is
applicable. Unlike S20R57 which requires notice and hearing before the finality of the judgment in
application for damages (unliquidated), S17R57 allows a party to claim damages on the surety bond

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 3
 after the judgment become executory (liquidated). It is FESICO who is liable and not Visayan Surety.
Excellent Quality Apparel vs Visayan Surety 761 SCRA 464

WPA should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy because it exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance.
It must be granted only on concrete and specific grounds and not merely on general averments quoting the words of the rules. Since
attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature, the rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly
construed in favor of the defendant.

Ex-parte application – an affidavit of merit and an applicant’s bond must be filed with the court in which the action is pending. —
Bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court and is subject to the conditions that the applicant will pay: (1)
all costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party; and (2) all damages which such party may sustain by reason of the
attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto.

9. Alfred Wolfe works with Watercraft as its shipyard manager. Wolf stored sailboat but never pay. When
he was terminated, he pulled out his boat without paying storage fees. Watercraft filed a collection suit
with WPA. As a result, 2 MV of Wolf were levied including his BPI bank account. Affidavit of Merit
executed by Watercraft VP failed to show the alleged possibility of Wolfe’s flight from the country. Is
non averment of such ground in the affidavit constitutes noncompliance to the rule and would not
merit issuance of WPA?
 Yes. Watercraft failed to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud, as required by
Sec 5, Rule 8. The failure to pay storage fees does not necessarily amount to fraud. Sec 3, Rule 57
requires the AOM to (1) that a sufficient COA exist and (2) that the case is one of those mentioned in
S1 , (3) that there is no other sufficient security for the claim brought to be enforced by the action and
(4) 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 grated above all legal counterclaims.
Watercraft Venture Corp. vs Wolfe 770 SCRA 179

10. A collection suit was filed by Phil-Air against RCJ Lines arising from non-payment of purchased AC for
buses. RCJ refused to pay because of breach of warranty. RCJ posted CB and prayed for reimbursement
for the premium and alleged unrealized profit. Can RCJ claim?
 No. Phil-Air is not directly liable for the CB premium and alleged unrealized profits. 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 counter bond 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.
Philippine Air-conditioning Center vs RCJ Lines 775 SCRA 265

RULE 58: Preliminary Injunction

This Court has consistently held that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial—such writ issues as a matter of
course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond—no discretion is left to the trial court.—The
pendency of the case for the annulment of the Certificate of Sale is not a bar to the issuance of the writ of possession.

11. Idolor obtained a loan from Sps De Guzman secured by a REM. Upon default, extra-judicial foreclosure
proceeding was made. Sps De Guzman won the bid and were issued a Certificate of Sale which was
registered on June 23, 1997. On June 25, 1998, a complaint for annulment of the Certificate of Sale with
prayer for the issuance of a TRO and a WPI was made. Is the issuance of WPI proper?
 NO. 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
aright 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. Petitioner has no more proprietary right to speak of over the
foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction for failure to exercise her right
before its expiry. Idolor vs CA, 351 SCRA 402

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 4
 Before an injunctive writ 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; and (2) the act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such right. The onus probandi
is on movant to show that there exists a right to be protected, which is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Further, there
must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent a serious damage.
12. A judge was filed with administrative case relative to an election protest. Romeo was a candidate for
punong barangay with his opponent Libo-on an incumbent punong barangay and the ABC president.
They were tie on the election and Romeo was proclaimed as the punong barangay. He filed a protest
with preliminary prohibitory injunction, and damages. Judge ordered the issuance of summons to the
parties and set the hearing but Libo-on filed a motion to advance the hearing. However, Romeo was
not served with the Order. TRO was issued and annulled the proclamation of Romeo. Is the issuance of
TRO proper?
 No. 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 been notified and heard in a summary hearing. In the instant
case, Judge admits that he issued the injunctive writ after receiving the applicant’s evidence ex parte.

In this case, complainant had been duly proclaimed as the winning candidate for punong barangay. He
had taken his oath of office. Unless his election was annulled, he was entitled to all the rights of said
office. We see no reason to disagree with the finding of the OCA that the evident purpose of the second
TRO was to prevent complainant from participating in the election of the Liga ng mga Barangay. Gustilo
vs Real 353 SCRA

13. An employee was terminated after accidentally hitting his former girlfriend, who was his co-employee.
A case for illegal dismissal was filed. The LA declared that the dismissal was illegal. LA issued a writ of
execution. Employer moved to quash the writ of execution contending that it timely filed a petition for
certiorari with the CA. TRO was issued and later a WPI. Employer moved to release the TRO cash bond
and injunction cash bond in view of CA decision. Motion was denied as premature due to appeal to SC.
Is the release of the cash bond proper?
 Yes. By its Decision dated January 28, 2005, the appellate court disposed of the case by granting Bristol-
Myers petition and reinstating the Decision dated September 24, 2002 of the NLRC which dismissed
the complaint for dismissal. It also ordered the discharge of the TRO cash bond and injunction cash
bond. Thus, both conditions of the writ of preliminary injunction were satisfied.

A preliminary injunction may be granted only when, among other things, the applicant, not explicitly
exempted, files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party
or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay such
party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining
order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Lagrosas vs Bristo
– Myers, 565 SCRA 90

14. There is an agreement between the parents of the Students and the University that instead of expulsing
the students, they would just transfer to another school. This is signed by the parents and the
University. Later, the parents sent a letter to the University President urging him not to implement the
agreement because the Principal, without convening the COSD, decided to order the immediate
transfer of students. Parents also seek the intervention of DepEd. Parents filed a complaint for
injunction and damages with the RTC which was granted. Is the grant of injunction proper?
 NO. The Principal had the authority to order the immediate transfer of students because of the
agreement. Affixing their signatures to the minutes signified their conformity to transfer their children
to another school. Jenosa vs Delariarte, 630 SCRA

15. China Banking Corporation (CBC) granted several loans to Solid Builders, Inc. (SBI). To secure the
loans, Medina Foods Industries, Inc. (MFII) executed in CBC’s favor several surety agreements and REM
over parcels of land in QC and Rizal. SBI defaulted and filed foreclosure of the REM. Is injunction a
proper remedy to enjoin foreclosure of REM on the ground that the interest on the loan is
unconscionable and usurious?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 5
  NO. Foreclosure of REM as a remedy to collect a debt from the debtor cannot be enjoined through a
WPI and TRO. The determination of the usurious character of the loan depends on the sound discretion
of the court. However, court cannot issue a WPI to enjoin a debtor to foreclose a property securing a
loan.

Default of SBI and MFII to pay the mortgage indebtedness disqualifies them from availing of the
equitable relief of an injunctive writ. It is a breach of contractual obligation. Since SBI is not entitled to
the issuance of a WPI, so is MFII. The accessory follows the principal. The accessory obligation of MFII
as accommodation mortgagor and surety is tied to SBI’s principal obligation to CBC and arises only in
the event of SBI’s default. Solid Builders Inc. vs China Bank, 695 SCRA 4/3/13

16. Vidal’s son and daughter-in-law, filed a Complaint for Injunction, Damages, AF with Prayer for the
Issuance of the WPI and/or TRO against Barbara’s successors (who was declared the owner of a parcel
of agricultural land in another case which decision become F&E) and the Government of Butuan
claiming that they acquired the land from Tuazon in 1997 who was the sole bidder and winner in a tax
delinquency sale conducted by the City of Butuan. Decide.
 Deny. The petitioners failed to show clear and unmistakable rights to be protected by the writ; the
present action has been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the main action. A WPI is a
provisional remedy; it is auxiliary, an adjunct of, and subject to the determination of the main action.
It is deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding. Sps
Silvestre vs Lustiva, 718 SCRA 3/5/14

17. BSU-BOR issued Resolution No. 18, series of 2005 to implement the Order issued by Ombudsman
dismissing an employee. EE filed a petition for injunction with prayer for issuance of a TRO or PI before
the RTC against the BSU-BOR because of a pending appeal and, therefore, are not yet final and
executory. Is injunction a proper remedy?
 NO. The requisites for the issuance of WPI was not satisfied. In the present case, the right of
respondents cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because the prevailing jurisprudence is that
the penalty of dismissal from the service meted on government employees or officials is immediately
executory in accordance with the valid rule of execution pending appeal uniformly observed in
administrative disciplinary cases. Decision of the Ombudsman is immediately executory pending
appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ. For a WPI
to issue, the following essential requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material
and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an
urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Office of the Ombudsman vs De
Chavez, 700 SCRA (Compare with Ombudsman vs Sison, 612 SCRA)

18. Office of the Ombudsman rendered a Decision, finding Sison and several other local officials of the
Province of Samar guilty and ordered dismissal. Sison appealed, CA reversed the decision. Ombudsman
filed an Omnibus Motion for Intervention and to Admit Attached MR. CA did not allow the Office of the
Ombudsman to intervene, because (1) the Office of the Ombudsman is not a third party who has a legal
interest in the administrative case against petitioner; (2) the Omnibus Motion for Intervention was
filed after the CA rendered its Decision; and (3) the Office of the Ombudsman was the quasi-judicial
body which rendered the impugned decision. Does the Office of the Ombudsman have the personality
to invervene?
 No. It is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance of a Motion to Intervene is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court. The permissive tenor of the rules shows the intention to give to the court
the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the intervention. To warrant intervention
under Rule 19 of the ROC, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest in the matter
in litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a
separate proceeding.

The Office of the Ombudsman is not an appropriate party to intervene in the instant case. It must
remain partial and detached. More importantly, it must be mindful of its role as an adjudicator, not an

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 6
 advocate. It is an established doctrine that judges should detach themselves from cases where their
decisions are appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d'etre for such a doctrine is the fact that
judges are not active combatants in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend
their individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without the judges active
participation. When judges actively participate in the appeal of their judgment, they, in a way, cease to
be judicial and have become adversarial instead. Office of the Ombudsman v. Sison, G.R. No. 185954,
February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 702, 712

19. Tuazon and Nieto filed a complaint for forcible entry against Novecio et. al. Respondents contended
that they have been in possession of the land for more than 2 years when complaint filed. MTC favored
Tuazon. RTC reversed the MTC decision based on a certification issued by DENR. Prior to execution, an
Extremely Urgent Application for WPI and TRO was filed before the CA by Novecio. CA issued TRO
effective for 60 days. On resolution, CA denied issuance of the PI. Is CA correct?
 Yes, the resolution of CA contains no legal and factual basis for the denial of the application of WPI. The
grant of PI would only be provisional and would not be conclusively determinative of the principal
action. 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.— A WPI is generally based solely on initial or incomplete evidence. Such evidence
need only be a sampling 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. Novecio vs Lim, 754 SCRA 111

20. Atlocom Wireless System, Inc. (Atlocom) was granted a Provisional Authority (PA) to install, operate
and maintain a Multi-Point Multi-Channel Distribution System (MMDS) in Metro Manila, subject to the
assignment of frequency by the Frequency Management Division of the NTC. PA is valid for 18 months.
Atlocom failed and seek extension but was denied. Prior to the denial of extension, NTC re-allocated
the bands for broadband wireless access for fixed, nomadic and mobile networks. Hence, Atlocom filed
a Petition to enjoin the implementation of MC and reinstate the frequencies to it.
Liberty Broadcasting Network, Inc. (LBNI), also a grantee allowed to intervene, joining NTC in
opposing Atlocom's claims. Pursuant to MC, frequency bands were re-allocated and assigned to LBNI.
Is Atlocom entitled to PI? Is LBNI entitled to file CB?

 No. Atlocom failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable legal right to the PI because the PA had
already expired and its application for extension was denied. Findings of RTC as to issuance of PI
cannot be disturbed absence of grave abuse of discretion.
 No, but the petition to file CB was already moot on this decision. In denying the motion to file a CB, CA
relied on the Affidavit executed by Atlocom’s technical consultant to refute the affidavit submitted by
LBNI. He said that the issuance of the injunction would result in reducing LBNI’s bandwidth which
affects thousands of its subscribers. In contrast, Atlocom damage can be fully compensated considering
that it has not constructed stations nor launched any network service. TRO issued was made
permanent. Liberty Broadcasting Network vs Atlocom, 760 SCRA 625

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction.” A preliminary injunction
does not determine the merits of a case or decide controverted facts. Since it is a mere preventive remedy, it only seeks to prevent
threatened wrong, further injury and irreparable harm or injustice until the rights of the parties are settled. “It is usually granted when it
is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the
immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can
be had on the merits of the case.”

A final injunction is one which perpetually restrains the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of an act, or in case
of mandatory injunctive writ, one which confirms the preliminary mandatory injunction. It is issued when the court, after trial on the
merits, is convinced that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined. Otherwise stated, it is only
after the court has come up with a definite pronouncement respecting an applicant’s right and of the act violative of such right, based on
its appreciation of the evidence presented, that a final injunction is issued. To be a basis for a final and permanent injunction, the right
and the act violative thereof must be established by the applicant with absolute certainty.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 7
 21. Rev. Cortez is a missionary who claimed that since 1962 he has been in possession of 50 hectares of
and. Marcos reserved the land for military purposes. After 2 decades, Ramos declared the entire Island
as marine reserve. Rev. Cortez filed a Petition for Injunction with prayer for WPMI against the
Commanding Officer of Navy. RTC granted WPMI but only as to 5 hectares and not 50 hectares. Is Rev.
Cortez is entitled to final PMI?

 No, there is a distinction between WPMI and FPMI. In this case, rev. Cortez failed to present evidence
to form a conclusion that he is entitled thereto. Motion of OSG was granted. Final injunction is
dissolved. Republic vs Cortez, 769 SCRA 267

RULE 59: Receivership

22. Petitioner contracted a loan with PVbank secured by a REM. PVB then went bankrupt and was placed
under receivership/liquidation by the Central Bank. More than 14 years from the time the loan became
due and demandable, an extrajudicial foreclosure was made and property was sold to it.

Can there be foreclosure of REM while a bank is under receivership or is it prohibited?

 It’s not prohibited. While it is true that foreclosure falls within the broad definition of “doing business,”
it should not be considered included in the acts prohibited whenever banks are “prohibited from doing
business” during receivership and liquidation proceedings. This is consistent with the purpose of
receivership proceedings, i.e., to receive collectibles and preserve the assets of the bank in substitution
of its former management, and prevent the dissipation of its assets to the detriment of the creditors of
the bank.

Is the judicial act of placing the bank under receivership toll the running of prescriptive period to
foreclose the REM?
 No. PVB was placed under receivership by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank pursuant to Section
29 of the Central Bank Act on insolvency of banks. There was no legal prohibition imposed upon PVB
to deter its receiver and liquidator from performing their obligations under the law. Larrobis Jr. vs
Philippine Veterans Bank 440 SCRA

(In contrast to Provident Savings Bank v. CA, this is the General Rule)
Suspension viz-a-viz interruption. In suspension, past period is included in the computation.
Interruption is to start counting anew.
 Receivership is a harsh remedy to be granted with utmost circumspection and only in extreme situations.
 Receivership must be granted only when there is a clear showing of necessity for it in order to save the plaintiff from grave and
immediate loss or damage.
 Before appointing a receiver, courts should consider: (1) whether or not the injury resulting from such appointment would
probably be greater than the injury ensuing if the status quo is left undisturbed; and (2) whether or not the appointment will
imperil the interest of others whose rights deserve as much a consideration from the court as those of the person requesting for
receivership.
 Section 2 of Rule 59, Rules of Court 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 filing of an applicant’s bond is
required at all times. On the other hand, the 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.

23. A complaint of annulment of DOAS was instituted. During the pendency of the case, a Partial
Settlement Agreement (PSA) was executed fixing the sharing of the properties, the appointment of
administrator (Josephine) and the share as to the fruits of the property. Later, Dominalda (one who’s
entitled to a share in the fruits) applied for receivership for not receiving her share resulting to
appointment of new administrator. Case was filed alleging error to the court by failing to require
Dominalda (the applicant) to post a bond prior to the issuance of the order appointing a new receiver,
in violation of Section 2, Rule 59 of the Rules of court. Rule on the petition of Josephine.
 Granted. Dominalda’s Application for receivership has no leg to stand on. Financial reasons are not
amongst those enumerated under Sec 1, Rule 59. Moreover, there is no clear showing that the disputed

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 8
 properties are in danger of being lost or materially impaired and that the placing them under the
receivership is the most convenient and feasible means to preserve, administer or dispose them.

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 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. Tantano vs Espina-
Caboverde, 702 SCRA 508

24. Complaint was filed before RTC Makati for violation of corporation code with prayer for receivership
and creation of a Management Committee. Answer was made raising lack of jurisdiction and dismissal
of the case which was denied. Case was appealed to CA in which a 60-day TRO enjoining RTC Judge
from hearing the case was issued. Later, CA issued WPI. Contended that RTC has no jurisdiction. This
decision was assailed. Does RTC have jurisdiction to try the case?
 No, it is the BSP that has jurisdiction over the case. The acts complained of pertain to the conduct of
Banco Filipino's banking business. The law vests in the BSP the supervision over operations and
activities of banks.
New Central Bank Act grants the Monetary Board the power to impose administrative sanctions on the
erring bank. It is not the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies, or Rule 59 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure on Receivership, that would apply to this case. Instead, Sections 29 and 30
of the New Central Bank Act.
Section 30. - The Monetary Board may summarily and without need for prior hearing forbid the
institution from doing business in the Philippines and designate the PDIC as receiver of the banking
institution. Actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section or under Section 29 of this Act shall
be final and executory, and may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on petition for certiorari
on the ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as
to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
It is the Monetary Board that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings for receivership of
banks. Koruga vs Arcenas, 590 SCRA

25. Fidela (land owner) contract with Evelina to supervise management and production of this land with
50:50 sharing. Fidela claimed that Evelina remiss to give her share in the profits. Hence a complaint
was file for recovery of possession, rent and damages with prayer for receivership. Evelina refuted
jurisdiction according to her it was an agrarian dispute. RTC dismissed the case finding that tenancy
exist. Fidela filed motion for receivership in CA who granted such. Did CA correctly grant the
receivership?
 No, following Sec 1(b) of Rule 59. Deprivation of her share in the land produce is not equally necessary
mean that the land would disappear or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. Fidela’s claim that the
land has been materially injured, necessitating its protection and preservation was not proven clearly.
Receivership is not an action; It is but an auxiliary remedy, a mere incident of the suit to help achieve
its purpose; It cannot be said that the grant of receivership in one case will amount to res judicata on
the merits of the other cases. A petition for receivership under Section 1 (b), Rule 59 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that the property or fund subject of the action is in danger of being lost,
removed, or materially injured, necessitating its protection or preservation; If the action does not
require such protection or preservation, the remedy is not receivership. Chavez vs CA, 610 SCRA

RULE 60: Replevin

26. FCP filed a case of replevin was against Jose and John to recover possession of a Ford Sedan which was
originally purchased by one Orosa from Fiesta Motor Sales Corp. on installment and delivered a PN

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 9
 and CM as security. This PN and CM was assigned to FCP. Orosa failed to pay installment hence FCP
demanded full payment. RTC dismissed complaint and ordered return of the MV or equivalent value.
A supplemental decision was later on rendered ordering the surety – Stronghold Insurance to jointly
and severally return the MV. Stronghold filed with CA a petition for certiorari to annul the order which
was dismissed. Orosa also filed an appeal and was partially affirmed. CA affirmed RTC decision
directing FCP to return the MV to Orosa and directed return of the 14 monthly installments. Is CA
correct?
 Yes. The order to return the MV was deleted including the award for damages and FCP was made to
return the installment payments made by Orosa. Replevin; It is error for a court to order a creditor to
return the car earlier seized by virtue of a writ of replevin or to pay its equivalent, value when the
debtor has not yet fully paid the purchase price.—To sustain the trial court’s decision would amount
to unjust enrichment. The CA was correct when it instead ordered private respondent to return, not
the car itself, but only the amount equivalent to the 14 installments actually paid with interest. Orosa
vs CA 329 SCRA

NB: Stronghold Insurance was for certiorari with injunction questioning the Supplemental decision. On the
other hand, Orosa filed under Rule 45 raising errors of law in the main decision. SC and CA did not pass on the
merits of the case but merely ruled on the issues of WON surety can be held jointly and solidarily liable and
WON the execution pending appeal is proper.

27. Astorga is an original EE of Smart who was terminated due to reorganizational restructuring and
outsourcing. A Complaint for ID, non-payment of salaries and other benefits with prayer for damages
was filed. On the other hand, SMART filed replevin with RTC to recover a car issued by the company as
a benefit under car plan. It gave Astorga an option to return the car or pay the balance. Does RTC have
jurisdiction over the replevin case or is it the NLRC who has jurisdiction?
 RTC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over the suit and acted well within its discretion. The demand to
return the car or pay its FMV is not a labor case but a civil dispute. It involves debtor and creditor
relationship rather than Er-Ee. Smart Communications vs Astorga, 542 SCRA
Under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the procedure for the execution of writs and other processes are: First, the sheriff must
make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him; Second, he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; Third, the
approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex officio sheriff; Fourth, the Clerk of
Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and Fifth, the executing sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same
period for rendering a return on the writ.
28. Case was file against the Sheriff by one of the defendants in a replevin case. Judge issued an order of
seizure against 22 MV owned by defendant who alleged that the seizure was oppressive – sheriff was
accompanied by armed personnel’s during the seizure and that the MV were stored in the compound
of the respondents (in the main case) Defendant filed a counter bond, hence an order to desist from
implementation of the seizure order was made plus instruction to return the seized vehicles. However,
8 of the MV were reported missing. Should Sheriff be made liable?
 Yes. As legal custodian, it is his duty to safe keep the seized motor vehicles. Hence, when he passed his
duty to safeguard the motor vehicles to another, he committed a clear neglect of duty. Sheriffs, being
ranking officers of the court and agents of the law, must discharge their duties with great care and
diligence. Hence, his failure to return the motor vehicles at the time when its return was still feasible
constitutes another instance of neglect of duty. The rule is clear that the property seized should not be
immediately delivered to the plaintiff, and the sheriff must retain custody of the seized property for at
least five days to give a chance to the defendant to object to the sufficiency of the bond or the surety or
sureties thereon or require the return of the property by filing a counter bond. Hao vs Andres, 555
SCRA

29. Karen T. Go filed for replevin and sum of money with damages against Navarro with prayer for writs
of replevin. Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense that the two complaints stated no cause of
action, since Karen Go was not a party to the Lease Agreements with Option to Purchase (executed
between her husband and respondent). RTC initially dismissed the case but later ordered the inclusion
of Glenn Go as co-plaintiff as per Rule 4, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Navarro refuted the claim for
non-compliance of prior demand. CA denied. Is denial proper?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 10
  No. For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond pursuant
to Sec 2, Rule 60. SC held in this case that Karen Go a real party in interest for being the registered
owner of the business name Kargo Enterprises. She will directly benefit from or be injured by a
judgment in this case. Navarro vs Escobido, 606 SCRA

30. Sps. Agner executed PN with CM in favor of Citimotors, Inc. secured by a MV; interest of 6%/month for
failure to pay each installment. Citimotors assigned them to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc. which
assigned them to BPI Family Savings Bank. Due to failure to pay, BPI filed on an action for Replevin and
Damages in RTC of Manila which granted the application but vehicle was not seized. RTC (trial on
merits) ordered Sps. to pay. Sps Agner argued that there was no prior demand before the filing of the
case hence no COA against them. Decide.
 Demand is not necessary. In this case, assuming arguendo that demand is necessary, Sps had effectively
waived their right to notice and demand when they executed the PN and CM because it is expressly
stipulated that demand is no longer necessary. The Civil Code in Art. 1169 provides that one incurs in
delay or is in default from the time the obligor demands the fulfillment of the obligation from the
obligee. However, the law expressly provides that demand is not necessary under certain
circumstances, and one of these circumstances is when the parties expressly waive demand. Hence,
since the co-signors expressly waived demand in the promissory notes, demand was unnecessary for
them to be in default. Agner vs BPI Family Savings Bank, 697 SCRA June 3 2013

Elisco Case: The remedies provided for in Art. 1484 are alternative, not cumulative. The exercise of one bars
the exercise of the others. At the same time, it prayed for the issuance of a writ of replevin or the delivery to it
of the motor vehicle

Compared with Elisco, the vehicle subject matter of this case was never recovered and delivered to respondent
despite the issuance of a writ of replevin. As there was no seizure that transpired, it cannot be said that
petitioners were deprived of the use and enjoyment of the mortgaged vehicle or that respondent pursued,
commenced or concluded its actual foreclosure. The trial court, therefore, rightfully granted the alternative
prayer for sum of money, which is equivalent to the remedy of "exacting fulfillment of the obligation." Certainly,
there is no double recovery or unjust enrichment to speak of.

RULE 61: Support Pendente Lite

31. Vircel Andres as legal guardian of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed an action for maintenance and
support against the alleged father Manuel De Asis who failed to provide support and maintenance
despite repeated demands. Vircel later on withdrew the complaint for the reason that Manuel denied
paternity of the said minor and due to such denial, it seems useless to pursue the said action. They
mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint with the condition that Manuel will not
pursue his counter claim. A similar complaint against Manuel was filed, this time the petitioner is the
Minor as represented by her legal guardian. Manuel interposed maxim of res judicata for the dismissal
of the case. Is the claim of Manuel tenable?
 No. The right to give support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a third person. The
original agreement between the parties to dismiss the initial complaint was in the nature of a
compromise regarding future support which is prohibited by law. With respect to Manuel’s contention
for the lack of filial relationship between him and the child and agreement of Vircel in not pursuing the
original claim, the Court held that existence of lack thereof of any filial relationship between parties
was not a matter which the parties must decide but should be decided by the Court itself. While it is
true that in order to claim support, filiation or paternity must be first shown between the parties, but
the presence or lack thereof must be judicially established and declaration is vested in the Court. It
cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties. Hence, the first dismissal cannot bar the filing of
another action asking for the same relief (no force and effect). Furthermore, the defense of res judicata
claimed by Manuel was untenable since future support cannot be the subject of any compromise or
waiver.

Future support cannot be the subject of a compromise.—the right to receive support can neither be
renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Neither can it be compensated with what the recipient

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 11
 owes the obligor. Furthermore, future support cannot be the subject of a compromise. To allow
renunciation or transmission or compensation of the family right of a person to support is virtually to
allow either suicide or the conversion of the recipient to a public burden. An agreement for the
dismissal of a complaint for maintenance and support conditioned upon the dismissal of the
counterclaim is in the nature of a compromise which cannot be countenanced. De Asis vs CA 303 SCRA

32. Teresita Tibigar, 16 y/o was a stay-in waitress at Espiritu Canteen in Dagupan City. Teresita was raped
by Manuel, brother-in-law of the owner, who was temporarily residing in the same canteen. She
became pregnant. Rape case was filed. Teresita gave birth to Melanie Tibigar. Court found Manuel
guilty and sentenced him to death. He was also ordered to indemnify the victim 50k as moral damages,
pay the costs, and acknowledge and support the offspring of his indiscretion. May CA order Manny to
acknowledge the child born out of an offense?
 No. Compulsory acknowledgment of the child is not proper there being a legal impediment. As
pronounced by this Court in People v. Guerrero, the rule is that if the rapist is a married man, he cannot
be compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime, should there be any, as his child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate. However, he is obligated to support the child. People vs Manahan, 315 SCRA

33. Grandparents, parents and their son Edward and his wife Cheryl and their 3 minor children all live in
the same house. Edward’s earning in the family business of 6k shouldered the family expenses as
Cheryl has no steady source of income. When Cheryl caught Edward with another girl, , she left the
house together with the 3 minor children. Cheryl sued Edward and his parents for support. RTC
ordered Edward to provide monthly support of 6k and the balance of 34 from his parents. WON
Edwards parents have obligation to provide support?
 Yes limited to the amount of monthly support needed by the children. Edwards parents’ partial
concurrent obligation extends only to their descendants as this word is commonly understood to refer
to relatives, by blood of lower degree.

“The obligation to provide legal support passes on to ascendants not only upon default of the parents
but also for the latter’s inability to provide sufficient support. This inability of Edward and Cheryl to
sufficiently provide for their children shifts a portion of their obligation to the ascendants in the
nearest degree, both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal lines, following the ordering in Article
199.” Lim vs Lim, 604 SCRA

There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action that parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative
defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and the child.―A prima facie case exists if a woman
declares―supported by corroborative proof―that she had sexual relations with the putative father; at this point, the burden of evidence shifts
to the putative father. We explained further that the two affirmative defenses available to the putative father are: (1) incapability of sexual
relations with the mother due to either physical absence or impotency, or (2) that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time
of conception.

A parent is obliged to support his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate. Support consists of everything indispensable for sustenance,
dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.―Amount of support
is variable, no final judgment on the amount of support is made as the amount shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver
and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the necessities
of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to support.

34. Divina Buling filed a complaint for compulsory recognition and support against petitioner claiming
that he is the putative father of her child, Gliffze. Divina is a casual employee while Gotardo is an
accounting supervisor. They become sweethearts and eventually, Divina got pregnant. Plans for
wedding were made but eventually, Gotardo backed out. When she gave birth, she eventually
demanded recognition and support to the child. Gotardo denied paternity. During pendency of the
case, RTC ordered 2k monthly support. Later, RTC dismissed the case for lack of evidence to prove
child’s filiation, ordered return of the amount of support initially awarded and pay attorney’s fees. CA
reversed the decision. Is CA correct?
 No, filiation proceedings are not just to prove paternal filiation but also to secure the child’s rights for
future inheritance. In this case, Divina established a prima facie case that the petitioner is the putative

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 12
 father through testimony that she had been sexually involved only with one man. Rodulfo corroborated
her testimony. Gotardo vs Buling, 678 SCRA

35. Susan Lim-Lua filed a petition against Danilo Lua for a declaration of nullity of marriage with a prayer
for support pendente lite for herself and her two children amounting to P500,000.00 per month. RTC
granted. Danilo filed MR asserting that Susan is not entitled to spousal support considering that she
does not maintain for herself a separate dwelling from their children and respondent has continued to
support the family for their sustenance and well- being in accordance with family’s social and
financial standing. Moreover, he asserted that the order for support is unconscionable (1.75M one time
award and 250k each monthly thereafter). CA reduced the monthly support to 115k for both of the
children and permitted deduction due to the value of 2 cars of the children and the maintenance cost.
CA ruled that these are considered as advances. Is CA correct?
 Yes. The support should be limited to the basic needs of the children and not including the mother.
Any amount respondent seeks to be credited as monthly support should only cover those incurred for
sustenance and household expenses. The amount of support may be reduced or increased
proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the
resources or means of the person obliged to support. Lim-Lua vs Lua, 697 SCRA

36. Daisy Yahon filed a complaint under RA 9262 against Sgt. Charles. Sheriff served the TPO. An order
was also issued directing agencies thru their heads to withhold any retirement, pension and other
benefits of Sgt. Charles pending the pre-trial. He appeared during the pre-trial conference without
counsel. He requested for time to hire one but was never done. Hence, ex parte presentation of
evidence was made. Order was made directing Sgt. Yahon to give 50% spousal support which will be
automatically deducted from his pension. He never complied. RTC issued a Permanent Protection
Order. A motion to lift protection order against AFP was filed contending that AFP is not a party to the
suit and RTC has no jurisdiction there being no copy of complaint nor summons served but RTC
dismissed the motion. Can AFP be ordered to automatically deduct claim of spousal support in
compliance with a court order arising from violation of RA 9262?
 Yes in line with the legislative intent of RA 9262. To issue an injunction would defeat the very purpose
of the law against VAWC. The argument of AFP vest from PD 1638, Sec 31, retirement benefits shall
not be subject to attachment, garnishment, levy, execution or any tax whatsoever . . . . RA 8291, GSIS
law likewise provides a similar provision. SC held that RA 9262 as the exception to the non-execution
of retirement benefits using the statutory construction rule that later enactment prevails when
irreconcilable conflict between laws arise. Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, the provision of spousal
and child support specifically address one form of violence committed against women — “Economic
abuse” - refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but
is not limited to the following: 1. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging
in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other
spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code; 2.
Deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the
conjugal, community or property owned in common; 3. Destroying household property; 4. Controlling the
victims’ own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties. Republic vs
Yahon, 726 SCRA 438

37. Anabelle filed a complaint for support and damages against Narciso Salas for her son Christian Paulo.
Anabelle was 24 when she met 56 yr old Narciso. She was made to believe that he is widower. Rented
an apartment, and financed the delivery of the child. Later on, Narciso offered to take the child from
Anabelle but she refused. Hence, Narciso abandoned the child and Anabelle. Anabelle offered the birth
certificate and her testimony plus pictures of Narciso and the child as evidence of filiation. Narciso
denied alleging that it was mere act of charity. Is paternal filiation established?
 No, other than the documentary evidence presented, the testimonial evidence is now accepted by
jurisprudence to be a basis of filiation. However, in this case, the testimonial evidence presented was
not sufficient to prove the paternal filiation. A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative
father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 13
 hand in the preparation of the certificate. While baptismal certificates may be considered public
documents, they can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so
specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to
the child’s paternity. Pictures taken of the mother and her child together with the alleged father are
inconclusive evidence to prove paternity. As to the handwritten notes of petitioner and respondent
showing their exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts, these are not sufficient to establish
Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner as they were not signed by petitioner and contained no statement
of admission by petitioner that he is the father of said child. An illegitimate child is now also allowed to
establish his claimed filiation by “any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,” like
his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common
reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of
proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Salas vs Matusalem, 705 SCRA 560

38. Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They were blessed with
a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a
Divorce Decree. Norma and her son came home to the Philippines. Ernst never gave support. Later,
Ernst remarried again a Filipina and resides again the Philippines. Norma filed a complaint for R.A. No.
9262 for the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. The trial court dismissed
the complaint since the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to
the accused, he being an alien.

Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under the Philippine law?
 YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with
the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged
to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however,
mean that Ernst is not obliged to support Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the party who
wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In
the present case, Ernst hastily concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed by
such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the
Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the
same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove that the national law of the Netherlands does not
impose upon the parents the obligation to support their child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves
in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact,
they must be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application
would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most
important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the
fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands
neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith,
such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the
child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified
failure to support his minor child.
 YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because the foreigner is living here in the
Philippines and committed the offense here. Del Socorro vs Van Wilsem, 744 SCRA 516
Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 – Rule 71)
RULE 62 Interpleader
Difference between interpleader under the Code of Civil Procedure and under the ROC.— under CivPRo the remedy of interpleader is
available regardless of the nature of the subject-matter of the controversy, whereas ROC an interpleader suit is proper only if the subject-
matter of the controversy is personal property or relates to the performance of an obligation.

39. Wack Wack Golf and Country Club filed a complaint for interpleader against Won and Tan who both
claim ownership over membership fee certificate. Won claims its ownership from a court decision. Tan
claims ownership from the assignment made by the alleged true owner of the same certificate.
According to Wack-Wack, it has no power to issue two separate certificates for the same membership

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 14
 fee or issue another membership fee certificate without violating it AOI and CBL. Moreover, it alleged
that the certificate issued by CFI Manila is null and void because it violated the CBL of Wack-Wack. The
trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of failure to state COA and res judicata by reason of
the previous civil case that issued Won the right to the certificate. Is interpleader the proper remedy?
If yes, was it timey filed?
 Yes, however the corporation had not timely filed the remedy. There is no question that the subject
matter of the present controversy, i.e., the membership fee certificate, is proper for an interpleader
suit.

It is the general rule that before a person will be deemed to be in a position to ask for an order of
intrepleader, he must be prepared to show, among other prerequisites, that he has not become
independently liable to any of the claimants. Indeed, if a stakeholder defends a suit filed by one of the
adverse claimants and allows said suit to proceed to final judgment against him, he cannot later on
have that part of the litigation repeated in an interpleader suit.

In the case at hand, the Corporation allowed civil case 26044 to proceed to final judgment. It was aware
of the conflicting claims of the appellees with respect to the membership fee certificate 201 long before
it filed the present interpleader suit. Yet it did not interplead Tan. It preferred to proceed with the
litigation and to defend itself therein. As a matter of fact, final judgment was rendered against it and
said judgment has already been executed. It is therefore too late for it to invoke the remedy of
interpleader In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the Corporation had already
been made independently liable in civil case 26044 and, therefore, its present application for
interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the said civil case. Wack-
wack Golf and Country Club vs Won, 70 SCRA

40. Eternal Gardens Memorial Parks Corporation (EGMPC) and North Philippine Union Mission
Corporation (NPUMC) of the Seventh Day Adventists executed a Land Development Agreement
whereby EGMPC would improve the land of NPUMC to be used for memorial of which 40% would go
to EGMPC. The agreement is secured by REM. All went well until Maysilo Estate asserted ownership
over the land. EGMPC filed an action for interpleader with NPUMC. Several other interpleaded
asserting interest. NPUMC filed a motion for placing on judicial deposit to a bank approved by the court,
this is granted by CA. Is the order to deposit proper?
 Yes. 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."

CA found that more than 20M involved; so that on interest alone for savings or time deposit would be
considerable, now accruing in favor of the ETERNAL. Finding that such is violative of the very essence
of the complaint for interpleader as it clearly runs against the interest of justice in this case, the CA
cannot be faulted for finding that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion which requires
correction by the requirement that a deposit of said amounts should be made to a bank approved by
the Court. Eternal Gardens vs IAC, 165 SCRA

41. Lessee refused to pay the rent because of the internal squabble as to the person authorized to receive
payment and allege that they were prevented from using the units rented. Ejectment complaint was
filed against the lessee. They eventually paid their monthly rent for December 1992 , and claimed that
Lessor waived its right to collect the rents for the months of July to November 1992 since they were
prevented from using some of the units. However, they again withheld payment starting January 1993
because respondent refused to turn over certain property. Is the lessee justified to its non-payment?
 No, because they are not without remedy in law. Lessee should have had availed of consignation of
payment and/or interpleader. Article 1256. Consignation shall be made by depositing the things due
at the disposal of a judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment shall be proved in a proper
case, and the announcement of the consignation in other cases. R62S1 of the ROC—Whenever

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 15
 conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person who claims no
interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the
claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and
litigate their several claims among themselves. Pasricha vs Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA

42. RCBC was a registered owner of CB worth 70M evidenced by Detached Assignment. RCBC sold these
bills to BOC who in turn sold the bills to PDB; PDB to BOC. However, instead of delivering all the CB,
PDB delivered only 7 CB with a note “substitution in lieu of 06-29-94 TB and retained possession of
the Detached Assignment. BOC negotiated the CB further. PDB informed OIC of BSP’s Government
Securities department (BSP-GSD) to record its claim and explained that the non-possession of the CBs
were based on imperfect negotiations. Denied. In light of the refusal of BSP to adhere to its request a
Mandamus case was filed with Prohibition and Injunction with PI and TRO against BSP and RCBC.

BSP ask for an interpleader suit between and among the claimants to the CB bills. PDB agreed on a
condition that the CB’s be placed in an escrow fund which would only be disposed upon order of RTC.
Hence, BOC and PDB entered into 2 separate Escrow Agreements. They agreed to jointly collect from
BSP the proceeds of the CB’s and deposit the amounts. RTC approved the agreement. BOC filed an
answer and prayed declaration of ownership. PDB questioned jurisdiction and alleged that BSP has the
jurisdiction as to the determination of who is the rightful owner of the CB’s. Is interpleader proper?

 Yes. However, RTC erred in dismissing the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction. When competing
claims of ownership over the proceeds of the securities it has issued are brought before it, the law has
not given the BSP the quasi-judicial power to resolve these competing claims as part of its power to
engage in open market operations. Nothing in its charter provides such hence jurisdiction falls within
the regular courts.

Interpleader is a proper remedy. It is designed to protect a person against double vexation. It requires,
as an indispensable requisite, that conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made
against the stakeholder (the possessor of the subject matter) who claims no interest whatever in the
subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants. Through this
remedy, the stakeholder can join all competing claimants in a single proceeding to determine
conflicting claims without exposing the stakeholder to the possibility of having to pay more than once
on a single liability.

Interpleader as a special civil action primarily governed by Rule 62 and secondary by the provisions
applicable to ordinary civil actions. Indeed, Rule 62 does not expressly authorize the filing of a
complaint-in-interpleader as part of, although separate and independent from, the answer. Similarly,
Section 5, Rule 6, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9 of the ROC does not include a complaint-in-
interpleader as a claim, a form of defense, or as an objection that a defendant may be allowed to put
up in his answer or in a motion to dismiss. This does not mean, however, that the BSP’s “counter-
complaint/cross-claim for interpleader” runs counter to general procedures.

Interpleader is a civil action made special by the existence of a particular rules to govern the
uniqueness of its application and operation. Under Section 2, Rule 6 of the ROC, governing ordinary
civil actions, a party’s claim is asserted “in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-
party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.” In an interpleader suit, however, a claim is not
required to be contained in any of these pleadings but in the answer-(of the conflicting claimants)-in-
interpleader. This claim is different from the counter-claim (or cross-claim, third party-complaint)
which is separately allowed under Section 5, par. 2 of Rule 62.

In this case, BSP averred the interpleader thru an answer and not through an initiatory pleading. Court
allowed such. Bank of Commerce vs Planters Development Bank, 681 SCRA

RULE 63: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 16
 43. Bathala Marketing, renewed its Contract of Lease with Ponciano Almeda. Under the contract, Almeda
agreed to lease a portion of Almeda Compound for 4 years. In 1998, Almeda informed BM that its
monthly rental be increased by 73% pursuant to the condition No. 7 of the contract and Article 1250.
BM refused the demand and insisted that there was no extraordinary inflation to warrant such
application. BM refused to pay the VAT and adjusted rentals as demanded by the Almeda but
continually paid the stipulated amount. BM filed an action for declaratory relief for purposes of
determining the correct interpretation of conditions Nos. 6 and 7 of the lease contract to prevent
damage and prejudice. Almeda filed an ejectment suit. In response to the declaratory relief, Almeda
moved to dismiss such on the ground that it is an improper remedy. WON declaratory relief is proper
notwithstanding the fact that BM is already in breach when the petition for declaratory relief was filed
 Yes. In this case the requisites of declaratory relief is present except that petitioners were already in
breach of the contract when it was filed. Based on the facts, there is no showing that there is breach.
Hence, BM is not barred to seek the remedy of DR. 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 resolved the rescission/ejectment case during the pendency of the declaratory relief
petition. In this case, the trial court had not yet resolved the rescission/ejectment case during the
pendency of the declaratory relief petition. In fact, the trial court, where the rescission case was on
appeal, itself initiated the suspension of the proceedings pending the resolution of the action for
declaratory relief. Almeda vs Bathala Marketing INd, 542 SCRA

Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive
order or regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised
in such a petition is the question of construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute. Corollary is the
general rule that such an action must be justified, as no other adequate relief or remedy is available under the
circumstances.

Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an action for declaratory relief, as follows:
1) the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute,
executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
2) the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
3) there must have been no breach of the documents in question;
4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons whose interests
are adverse;
5) the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
6) adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.

NB:
Panganiban v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, 395 SCRA 624 (2003) - DR should be dismissed in view of
the pendency of a separate action for unlawful detainer.

Teodoro, Jr. v. Mirasol, 99 Phil. 150 (1956) - DR was dismissed because the issue therein could be threshed out
in the unlawful detainer suit. There was already a breach of contract at the time of the filing of the DR petition.

44. Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church
of Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and
Kimberly, respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years
later, Orbecido discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from
his son that his wife sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He
thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article
26 of the Family Code. May Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code.
 Yes. The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a
foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to
remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. Republic
vs Orbecido, 472 SCRA

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 17
 45. A case for Reinvindicacion Quieting of Title and Damages was filed. Petitioners alleged ownership from
the estate of Anastacio who allowed Consuelo married to Boncad to occupy and build improvements
over it. Later, Consuelo claims ownership. Hence this case. RTC ordered dismissal on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. MR was filed alleging that the COA is for quieting of title and the accion reinvindicacion
is merely an accessory relief. Is the dismissal proper on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
 Yes. Rule 63 Section 1 first paragraph and second paragraph should be distinguished. First paragraph
deals with a petition for declaratory relief in which RTC has exclusive jurisdiction. Paragraph 2 refers
to quieting of title and is cognizable in accordance with the rules under BP 1980 as amended by BP
129 on jurisdiction.

Paragraph 2 specifically refers to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument, recognized under
Articles 1359 to 1369 of the NCC, (2) an action to quite title authorized under Articles 476 to 481 NCC,
(3) action to consolidate ownership under Article 1607, NCC in a sale with right of repurchase. There
remedies are considered similar to DR because they also result in the adjudication of the legal rights
of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into effect. Note that ROC
used the word “may” in contrast with BP 1980 which used the word “shall”. Hence, a case filed under
paragraph 2 must comply with the jurisdictional amount imposed.

Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already been deprived of the possession of
their property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion
reinvindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. — An accion publiciana is a suit for the recovery of
possession, filed one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding
of possession of the realty. An accion reinvindicatoria is a suit that has for its object one’s recovery of
possession over the real property as owner. Malana vs Tappa, 600 SCRA

46. Section 8, A8, 1987 Constitution provides that a JBC will be created composed of CJ as ex officio
Chairman, Sec of Justice, rep from Congress as ex officio Members, a Rep of IBP, professor of law, retired
Member of SC, and Rep of private sector. (2) members will have 4 years term subject to consent of
Commission on Appointments. . . . . x x x. The issue is the representation of Congress. HOR and Senate
send alternate representatives to the JBC. Later, composition of JBC was changed allowing 1 Rep for
each HOR and Senate with half vote each which was later on changed again to a full vote.
Does Section 8, A8, 1987 Constitution allow more than 1 member of Congress to sit in the JBC?

 No. The Constitution as the subject matter, and the validity and construction of Section 8 (1), Article
VIII as the issue raised, the petition should properly be considered as that which would result in the
adjudication of rights sans the execution process because the only relief to be granted is the very
declaration of the rights under the document sought to be construed. It being so, the original
jurisdiction over the petition lies with the appropriate RTC. Notwithstanding the fact that only
questions of law are raised in the petition, an action for declaratory relief is not among those within
the original jurisdiction of this Court as provided in Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution.

However, in this case, SC took cognizance due to its serious implications. Hence, SC exercised its
judicial power of review. SC declared that the composition of JBC to have 2 Rep from Congress – 1 from
Senate and 1 from HOR is unconstitutional and regarded the matter to the legislative department for
proper remedies. SC declared that Congress must only have 1 representative. Chavez vs JBC, 676 SCRA

47. Alberto Garcia executed an unnotarized Deed of Sale in favor of Juanito Muertegui over an unregistered
land in Leyte covered by a tax declaration. Juanito’s took possession of the land and made
improvements thereon. Paid RPT from 1980 to 1998. On 1991, Alberto sold the lot to Juanitos family
lawyer Atty. Sabitsana with a notarized DOAS which was also registered. In effect, TD was cancelled
and a new TD was issued in his favor. When Domingo Sr. (father of Juanito) died, heirs applied for TCT
under PLA. Atty. Sabitsana wrote to DENR CENRO/PENRO opposing the application by the Juanito’s
claiming ownership. Juanitos filed for Quieting of title and preliminary injunction. RTC declared sale
to Atty. Sabitsana as void and has no legal effects. Which court has jurisdiciton?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 18
  RTC has jurisdiction. Quieting of title may be instituted in the RTC regardless of the assessed value of
the real property. Rule 63, ROC, an action to quiet title to RP or remove clouds therefrom may be
brought to the appropriate RTC. In this case, the suit was prompted when a letter-opposition was sent
to DENR CENRO upon application of Juanitos for registration. Thus, in order to prevent a cloud form
being cast upon his application, a case was filed to obtain a declaration of his rights. The law applicable
in the sale of unregistered lands in Act 3344 and not A1544 of NCC. In this case, Juanito has a better
right for being the first buyer. Sabitsana vs Muertegui, 703 SCRA August 5, 2013

Republic vs Roque, 706 SCRA September 24, 2013/ Relate to Southern Hemisphere case 632 SCRA
October 5, 2010
48. A case for declaratory relief was filed before RTC assailing constitutionality of RA 9372: (a) Section 3
for being void for vagueness; and (b) Section 7, for violating the right to privacy of communication and
due process and the privileged nature of priest-penitent relationships; (c) Section 18 for violating due
process, the prohibition against ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, the UDHR, and the ICCPR as
well as for contradicting Article 125 of the RPC; (d) Section 26 for violating the right to travel and (e)
Section 27 for violating the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. A move to
suspend the proceedings was made due to pending SC cases assailing constitutionality which was
granted by RTC. Is DR proper? Should RTC moved to dismiss the case?
 The following are the requisites for an action for declaratory relief: first, the subject matter of the
controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance; second, the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful
and require judicial construction; third, there must have been no breach of the documents in question;
fourth, there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons
whose interests are adverse; fifth, the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and sixth,
adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.

In this case, elements 1-3 exists, elements 4-6 is wanting. As to the 4th requisite, there is serious doubt
that an actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one exist in this case. As to the 5th
element, the controversy at hand remain highly speculative and merely theorized. A question is ripe
when the act being challenge has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. RTC
should have dismissed the case. Republic vs Roque, 706 SCRA September 24, 2013

Southern Hemisphere case 632 SCRA October 5, 2010

Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the SC has
no original jurisdiction.—Declaratory actions characterized by “double contingency,” where both the activity the
petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely theorized, lie
beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness.

This case assails the constitutionality of RA 9372 filed by several parties through a petition for certiorari. The
case was dismissed because of technicalities. SC held that certiorari is not the proper remedy. SC held that the
power of judicial review is not proper for noncompliance with the requirements set forth for its exercise.
Petitioners have no locus standing to the suit, they failed to present actual case or controversy, the facial
invalidation alleged is limited to invalidation of a statute on free speech cases.

49. EO 140 was issued which created the CPRO in the DOF. It states that the CPRO "shall be responsible
for reviewing the customs administration policies, rules and procedures, and thereafter providing
sound recommendations for the improvement of the same." EO 140 shall take effect immediately upon
publication in 2 newspapers of GC which was compiled thru Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star. On
the same day of the publication, BOC Commissioner issued CPO 189-2013 detailing 27 BOC personnel
holding the positions of Collector of Customs V and VI to CPRO.

Ee detailed filed a case in RTC and EJ issued a WPI. Certiorari and Prohibition was filed with prayer for
the issuance of a TRO or a WPMI to enjoin RTC’s WPI. Petitioners alleged that since the case involves
personnel action affecting public officers which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC. Also, CPO

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 19
 189-2013 is an internal personnel order and as such, it cannot be the subject of an action for
declaratory relief. RTC denied the petition for WPMI. Is the denial proper and does RTC have
jurisdiction?
 YES. When the petition was filed, it raised issues on constitutionality which is beyond the jurisdiction
of the CSC.

The CSC has jurisdiction over all employees of government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities,
and agencies, including GOCC’s with original charters. It is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to
the civil service. The rule is that disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel actions, including
"appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail,
reassignment, demotion, and separation," are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC.

CPO 189-2013 did not provide for the period of respondents details which should be not more than a
year. Moreover, they are not occupying professional, technical and scientific positions. SC sustained
validity of EO 140, RTC has jurisdiction and the detail order not valid. “If adequate relief is available
through another form of action or proceeding, the other action must be preferred over an action for
declaratory relief.” Department of Finance vs Dela Cruz Jr., 768 SCRA 73

50. Umali filed a case as to the current practice of 6 months rotational representation of Congress in JBC.
OSG wants SC to revisit Chavez case. OSG is on the position that House of Rep and Senate should have
1 representation with 1 vote each in the JBC. JBC moved to dismiss alleging that the subject matter is
not a proper for certiorari and even a mandamus because it does not involve an exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. Is Certiorari and mandamus proper?
 Yes. Whenever the acts affects the powers, prerogatives and privileges of Congress, anyone of its
members may validly bring an action to challenge the same to safeguard and maintain strict sanctity
thereof.

Generally, the writ of certiorari can only be availed of in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In Bordomeo v. CA, however, this Court clarified
that it is inadequacy that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari and not the mere absence
of all other remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ. A remedy is considered plain,
speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment,
order, or resolution of the lower court or agency.

Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the present ROC are the two special civil actions used for
determining and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The
sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which necessarily includes
the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The issuance of a writ
of mandamus requires that the applicant has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be
the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It lies only to compel an officer to
perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. Umali vs JBC, 832 SCRA 194 July 2017

RULE 64: Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA
51. Certiorari with prayer for TRO and Mandamus was filed to compel COMELEC to canvass the votes cast
for ANAD in 2013 party-list elections. COMELEC cancelled the Registration and Accreditation of ANAD
because it does not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, failure to comply with
the procedural requirements and for failure to submit Statement of Contributions. Hence certiorarie
was filed to question this cancellation. Is the remedy proper?
 No, the only question that may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Sec 2, Rule 64 is WON
COMELECC active with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari
requires a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. In this case, SC
dismissed the petition because ANAD’s votes were not meritorious of a seat in the House of Rep.
Alliance for Nationalism and democracy vs COMELEC 705 SCRA 340, September 10, 2013

RULE 65: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 20
 52. Consolidated case was filed by Ampil, one under Rule 45 and one under Rule 65 challenging the
decision of Ombudsman for dismissing the criminal complaint he filed against Espenesin et. al. alleging
falsification of Public Documents and Graft. The issue arose from a Joint Project Development
Agreement for construction of a condo building between ASB and Malayan Insurance. Accordingly,
there exist a fraudulent changing of the name of owner that led to erroneous issuance of CCT. MICO
was declared to be the true owner. Hence, Ampil filed this case. Is the remedy proper?
 Yes. Generally, certiorari is only used on pure questions of law. In this case however, SC checked the
evidentiary facts because of grave abuse of discretion committed by the Ombudsman. SC found that
there exist a prima facie presumption as to the acts made by Espesin that leads to the existence of a
probable cause to his guilt. Espesin (RD head) is held liable with gross negligence and ordered
dismissal from service. Ombudsman was directed to file information as to his criminal liability due for
trail. The SC is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari
where neither questions of fact nor law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.— In this case, however, certiorari will lie, given that the
Ombudsman made no finding at all on respondents possible liability for violation of Sections 3(a) and
(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Ampil vs Ombudsman, 703 SCRA July 31, 2013

53. A.L. Ang Network filed a case for small claims against Emma for unpaid water bills. A.L. claims that it
is authorized to supply water and collect payment from homeowners of Regent Pearl Subdivision
where Emma lives. As a defense, Emma alleged that she agreed on a flat rate of water bill which could
only be adjusted upon prior notice. Moreover, she alleged that the 40 cu.m. per month consumption is
impossible for a household with 3 members only. Meanwhile, the water service was disconnected by
A.L. MTCC ruled in favor of Emma ratiocinating that since CPC issued by NWRD was only on August 7,
2003, Emma could only be charged for the flat rate covering the periods in question. A.L. filed a case
for certiorari under R65 to RTC but was dismissed because there is no appeal in small claims cases.
Hence it directed its case to SC. Is the dismissal of the case by the RTC proper?
 No, The proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not
an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the ROC.

A petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action designed to correct only errors of
jurisdiction and not of judgment. In the facts given, certiorari is the proper remedy. Considering the
final nature of small claims case, the remedy of appeal is not allowed and the prevailing party may
immediately move for execution of judgment does not preclude a losing party to file a petition for
certiorari under R65. In certiorari, it is the inadequacy – not the mere absence – of all other legal
remedies and the danger of failure without the writ that usually determines when it is proper. A
petition for certiorari is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of
judgmentA.L. And Network Inc vs Mondejar, 714 SCRA January 28, 2014

54. One afternoon while on duty, Cecilia approached Maglalang and handed over an undetermined amount
of cash. Following protocol, he laid down the bills in the spreading board but made an error of
spreading it only on 4 clusters instead of 5. Cecilia asked him to rectify the error since she is aware that
there should be 5 clusters. He recounted and apologized for the mistake but Cecilia accused him of
trying to shortchange her. Memorandum was issued charging him of Discourtesy and imposed a 30-
day suspension. He filed a case under R65 before CA. He explained that he did not appeal to CSC
because the penalty is only 30 days suspension and is not within the jurisdiction of CSC. CA dismissed
the case for being premature for failure to exhaust admin remedies. Is CA correct?
 No. As a general rule, the non-compliance with the doctrine of admin remedies will cause the dismissal
of a case except for various reasons. This case falls under one of them, to wit – where no administrative
review provided by law is available.

What the law declares as “final” are decisions of heads and agencies involving suspension for not more
than 30 days or fine in an amount not exceeding 3 days salary. Decisions of admin agencies which are
declared final and unappeasable by law are subject to judicial review. A special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 21
 the ordinary course of law.—It bears stressing that the judicial recourse petitioner availed of in this
case before the CA is a special civil action for certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of PAGCOR, not an appeal. Suffice it to state that an appeal
and a special civil action such as certiorari under Rule 65 are entirely distinct and separate from each
other. Maglalang vs PAGCOR, 712 SCRA December 11, 2013

55. Garcia is an owner of Plinth Ent who imported software CD’s and under declared the items cost leading
to damage and prejudice of the Republic for taxes. Garcia pleaded not guilty, trial ensued and after
prosecution presented evidence, a Demurrer was filed. CTA dismissed the case for failure to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of evidentiary documents. Later, RATS and RCMG received
a copy of the order of entry of judgment hence a certiorari was filed. Should the Petition be granted?

 No. Petition was filed beyond the reglementary period under R65. Belated filing cannot be
countenanced by the Court. Rule 65, S4 expressly provides the non-extendible 60 day period to file a
petition either from notice of judgment or from the order denying a MR, otherwise it would be barred
of any remedy. In this case, no convincing justification for belated filing was advance to warrant the
relaxation of the rule.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating that certiorari should be
instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be
assailed. — The 60-day period is in extendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the
constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case. While there are recognized
exceptions to such strict observance, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking
liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the
rules. People vs Castaneda, 712 SCRA December 11, 2013

56. Ramon Nadal applied for a scholarship program. A home investigation was made. Discrepancies as to
his application were discovered. As a result, he was required to pay full tuition plus legal interest. The
board decided to award him a penalty of expulsion and was required to reimburse the university. He
filed a case for mandamus in RTC with prayer for PI and TRO which was temporarily granted pending
continuation of hearing asserting denial of due process. WPI was issued in favor of Nadal. UP filed
certiorari. May mandamus lie to compel UP to issue credentials to Nadal as a result of the WPI?
 No, Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part of
the petitioner being required. In this case, lower court find that the implementation of the disciplinary
sanction of suspension on Nadal “would work injustice to the petitioner as it would delay him in
finishing his course, and consequently, in getting a decent and good paying job.” Sadly, such a ruling
considers only the situation of Nadal without taking into account the circumstances, clearly of his own
making, which led him into such a predicament. More importantly, it has completely disregarded the
overriding issue of academic freedom which provides more than ample justification for the imposition
of a disciplinary sanction upon an erring student of an institution of higher learning. UP Board of
Regents vs Ligot- Teylan 227 SCRA

57. Tuason’s (retired teachers) bought a land from Carmel Farms from their retirement benefits and
savings. TCT was issued, took possession of the property for 8 years and after they just learned that
they are no longer owners of the property because of president’s declaration that their land is open for
disposition and sale to members of Malacañang Homeowners Association. A year after ML declaration,
Marcos issued PD 293 invalidating the TCT of Carmel where the property of Tuason is part thereof as
a result of the sale. Carmel bought the land under Act 1120 and CA 32. Under PD 293, Carmel was
found out that she failed to completely pay the purchase price. Marcos invalidated the TCT and
declared the land open for disposition and sale to the Homeowners. Tuason filed a case for certiorari.
Decide.
 Grant. Extraordinary writ of certiorari is proper to nullify only judicial or quasi-judicial acts. In a writ
of prohibition, it is directed against acts of either judicial or ministerial.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 22
 Section 1, Rule 65 of the ROC deals with the writ of certiorari in relation to “any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial functions, while Section 2 of the same Rule treats of the writ of
prohibition in relation to “proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person x x exercising
functions judicial or ministerial.” But the petition will be shown upon analysis to be in reality
directed against an unlawful exercise of judicial power. In this case, Marcos exercised a judicial
function. Hence, certiorari is proper. PD 293 - unconstitutional and void ab initio and directed what is
necessary to restore TCT to Tuason. Tuason vs RD of Caloocan 157 SCRA

58. Leyte issued franchise tax assessments to EDC which were protested separately. When Leyte denied
the protest, EDC filed to RTC. While case is pending, another tax assessment was issued under the
instruction of the governor. Hence, motion was filed for WPI praying Leyte to be enjoined from
collection until case is resolved. EDC as a defense allege that it has no franchise hence it is not proper
for Leyte to assess franchise tax. RTC issued WPI. Leyte filed certiorari to CA which dismissed the case
on the ground of lack of proof of service against EDC. Is the dismissal proper?
 No because there was substantial compliance with the very purpose of requiring parties to furnish
proof of service in this case. A certiorari by nature is an original and independent action and not
considered part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained of.
Hence, acquisition of jurisdiction by the appellate court is necessary.

In the case at bar, records reveal that the CA served its Resolution indicating its initial action on the
Province of Leyte’s certiorari petition before it. Rule 46 Section 3 provides the procedural
requirements for filing original actions before CA. The rule requires proof of service to the other party.
The purpose of this rule is to apprise such party of the pendency of an action in the CA. Thus, if such
party had already been notified of the same and had even participated in the proceedings, such
purpose would have already been served. Province of Leyte vs Energy Dev Corp 760 SCRA 149

59. A certiorari case under Rue 65 was filed by Philippine Public Health Association, Inc., (PPHAI) assailing
validity of Joint Circular 1 of DBM and DOH. Issued by virtue of resolution 4 of Congress authorizing
PGMA to modify government employee’s compensation. Hence, DBM and CSC issued guidelines on
grant of Step Increments due to meritorious performance. It provides that when granted with
Longevity pay (5% of monthly salary for every 5 years of service), Ee will no longer be qualified for
Step Increment pay. The Sec of DBM and DOH opposed arguing that it diminish the benefits granted
under Magna Carta to PHWs. Hence certitorarie was filed on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
Decide.
 Denied. Issuance of the Resolution is in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers which is not within the
ambit of certiorari and prohibition for being an improper remedy. . A writ of certiorari lies against
judicial or quasi-judicial acts, while a writ of prohibition is the proper remedy to address judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial acts. RA Petitions for certiorari seek solely to correct defects in jurisdiction
and not to correct just any error committed by any court, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions unless such court, board or officer thereby acts without or in excess of jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Cawad vs Abad, 764 SC
Certiorari as a special civil action is available only if:
1. it is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
2. the tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction; and
3. There is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Prohibition is available only if:

(1) it is directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person exercising functions, judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial;
(2) the tribunal, corporation, board or person acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
(3) There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Cases (S2 – Prohibition)

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 23
 Prohibition or a “writ of prohibition” is that process by which a superior court prevents inferior courts, tribunals, officers, or persons from
usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with which they have not been vested by law, and confines them to the exercise of those powers legally
conferred. The proper function of a writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done. It is not intended to
provide a remedy for acts already accomplished.

Strict observance of the policy of judicial hierarchy demands that where the issuance of the extraordinary writs is also within the
competence of the CA or the RTC, the special action for the obtainment of such writ must be presented to either court.— As a rule, the
Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts; or where
exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and with serious implications, justify the availment of the
extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. The judicial
policy must be observed to prevent an imposition on the precious time and attention of the Court.

60. Rural Bank of Faire, Incorporated (RBFI) corporate life expired which was extended and such led to
the change of its name to EuroCredit Community Bank, Incorporated (ECBI). MB conducted General
examination from 2007 to 2009 which placed ECBI under Prompt Corrective Action. ECBI unjustly
refused to allow the BSP examiners from examining and inspecting its books and records. MB issued
Resolution imposing penalty and referred it to the Office of the Special Investigation for filing of
appropriate legal action. Moreover, MB issued a cease and desist order against ECBI, which enjoined it
from doing business in the Philippines and to place its assets and affairs under receivership through
OSI recommendation. Vivas filed petition for prohibition ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the MB
for prohibiting ECBI from continuing its banking business and for placing it under receivership. Decide.
 No. Vivas availed of the wrong remedy. The resolution issued by MB placing the bank under
receivership may not be restrained or set aside except on a petition for certiorari pursuant to RA 7653
Sec 30. The proper function of a writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to
be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. Settled is the rule that
prohibition does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli. *Fait accompli -a thing that
has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option
but to accept. SC posits that the Petition should have been filed with CA (S4, R65) in accordance with
the doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. Vivas vs Monetary Board of BSP, 703 SCRA August 7, 2013

61. Corales is duly elected Mayor of Laguna for 3 consecutive terms. In his first term, he appointed Dr.
Angeles as Municipal Administrator with approval of SB. He renewed the appointment on his 2 nd and
3rd terms but this time without approval of SB due to nepotism. On an audit report submitted to
Corales, it stated that Dr. Angeles is a de facto officer and is entitled only to actual services rendered
which must be shouldered by Corales. Instead of commenting on the audit report, Corales and Angeles
filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus against Andal and SB with RTC. What is the proper
remedy?
 Certiorari. CA decision is affirmed. Prohibition and mandamus is prematurely filed by Corales. For
judicial determination to prosper, the requisites must all be met. In this case, petitioners failed to show
the existence of an actual case or controversy that would necessitate judicial inquiry. In this case,
Corales was merely asked to comment on an audit report which is not yet final nor executory. What
Corales assails is Andal’s authority to request them to file the desired comment to the audit report,
which is beyond the scope of the action for prohibition. Prohibition, being a preventive remedy to seek
a judgment ordering the defendant to desist from continuing with the commission of an act perceived
to be illegal, may only be resorted to when there is “no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Corales vs Republic, 703 SCRA August 27, 2013

62. King charged Go et. al for violation of BP 22 and estafa. Later, a Supplemental Complaint Affidavit was
filed to add 5 more checks. A second supplemental complaint-affidavit was filed for estafa to implead
another Go and Tan et. al. King averred that Go borrowed money form him and in exchange, Go would
issue PDC as payment plus interest. Their first few transactions were okay. Later, during a meeting,
allegedly, Go attacked King with a box cutter and told him that all issued checks will be dishonored
(this was subject to a separate criminal case). True indeed, all checks were dishonored thereafter.
Despite demands, no payment was made. Prosecutor found probable cause. Arraignment was ensued
and respondents pleaded not guilty followed by a petition for prohibition and injunction with PI and
TRO before CA questioning the investigation of the prosecutor and alleging that there is no basis for
his findings of probable cause which was dismissed. CA denied the petition. Decide.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 24
  Denied. A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to prevent the lawful and oppressive exercise
of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice. It is available only
when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and
when the proceedings are done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
The petitioner must allege in his petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is
not speedy or adequate. A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the
petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court.
Further, the writ will not lie to correct errors of judgment but only errors of jurisdiction. As long as the
tribunal acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will
amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment which are correctible by a timely appeal. In
determining whether a tribunal acted in grave abuse of discretion, mere abuse of discretion is not
enough. There must be grave abuse of discretion as where the tribunal exercised its power in an
arbitrary or despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or
gross as would amount to an evasion, or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act in
contemplation of law. Tan vs CA, 524 SCRA

Cases (S3 – Mandamus)

63. Two Informations for rape and one Information for acts of lasciviousness were filed against Darryl
Hipos et. al. in RTC. Complainants filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking Judge to order the
Prosecutor to study if the proper Informations had been filed. RTC granted the Motion and ordered a
reinvestigation. Hipos et. al. filed their Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Case before the
Prosecutor. City Prosecutor affirmed the Informations filed against them. However, 2nd Asst. City
Prosecutor reversed the Resolution holding that there was lack of probable cause. City Prosecutor filed
a Motion to Withdraw Informations before RTC which was denied. Mandamus was filed without MR.
May a judge may be compelled to dismiss the case through a writ of mandamus by virtue of the
resolution of the office of the prosecutor
 No, the prayer to compel the judge to grant the Motion for Withdrawal of Informations against them is
tantamount to curb the power of the judge to exercise judicial discretion. Mandamus is an
extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, immediately or at
some other specified time, to do the act required to be done, when the respondent unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station; or when the respondent excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which the latter is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.

Limited to a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. Mandamus is never available to direct the
exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already
taken in the exercise of either. If petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed grave abuse of
discretion in the issuance of such Order denying the Motion to Withdraw Informations, the proper
remedy of petitioners should have been to file a Petition for Certiorari against the assailed Order of
Judge Bay. Hipos, Sr vs Bay 581 SCRA March 17, 2009

64. Sanchez, a constable in Philippine Constabulary, was discharged from service for losing his firearm.
Meteoro was also discharged for being absent without leave. They appealed and was cleared. They
applied for reinstatement but was not acted until integration of PNP. Resolution 98-037 was issued by
NAPOLCOM absorbing PC employees. Director Galvante prepared a list which includes the petitioners.
Later, NAPOLCOM Commissioner absorbed the 45 PC in the initial batch. Sanchez is in 45 of the list.
However, no absorption order was issued, hence they seek assistance from DILG who in turn asked for
feedback. Without waiting for this feedback, petitioners filed a case for mandamus in RTC. May PNP be
compelled by mandamus to absorb the petitioners
 No because the act being mandated is not a ministerial duty. Remedy of mandamus is employed only
to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to require anyone to fulfill a
discretionary one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed
and to perform a duty already imposed. Sanchez vs Lastimosa 534 SCRA September 25, 2007

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 25
 65. Social Justice Society (SJS) et. al. filed a mandamus to compel Mayor Atienza of Manila to implement
Ordinance 8027. Reclassifying certain lands from Industrial II to Commercial I which in effect
prohibited business operation for 6 months. However, in 2006, Manila and DOE entered into a MOU in
which they agreed scaling down the Pandacan Terminals. Ateinza alleged that the MOU superseded
the Ordinance. Is the remedy proper?
 Yes. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the performance, when refused,
of a ministerial duty that is already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioner should have a well-defined, clear and
certain legal right to the performance of the act and it must be the clear and imperative duty of
respondent to do the act required to be done. Assuming that the MOU is inconsistent with the
Ordinance questioned, it is already moot because the MOU is valid only for 6 months. Petition is
granted and Atienza is directed to implement the ordinance. Social Justice Society vs Atienza 517 SCRA
March 7 2007

66. MECO was organized under BP 68 as a result of our relationship with Taiwan. It became a trusted
entity of the government and was in fact authorized by the government to perform consular and other
functions. Funa sent a letter to COA requesting FS under the belief that MECO is under operational
supervision of DTI. Finding MECO that is not audited by COA, Funa filed a case as a taxpayer for
mandamus. MECO filed MTD for being premature. It posits that for mandamus to compel the
performance of a ministerial duty required by law only ripens once there has been a refusal by the
tribunal, board, officer concerned to perform the duty. Moreover, MECO denied to be a GOCC. COA
posits that the Mandamus must be dismissed on the ground of mootness and lack of locus standi.
However, it ordered audit of MECO on the “verification fees “collected by it and maintains that it is not
a GOCC. Decide.
 Mandamus is proper but on a limited capacity only to those funds it collect for performing
governmental function. MECO is a non-governmental entity but “verification fees “collected in behalf
of DO and those under Sec 2(6) of EO 15 S2001 are subject to COA jurisdiction.

SC declined dismissal of mandamus on ground of mootness. The issuance of order by COA is a

supervening event but since the petition crafts commission of a grave violation of the Constitution and
involving paramount public interest, dismissal is not proper. Moreover, the issue at hand is capable of
being repeated yet evading for review. MECO is a non-stock non-profit and non-governmental
institution who perform certain diplomatic governmental function making it a sui generis. Funa vs
Manila Economic and Cultural Office, 715 SCRA February 4 2014

67. A case was filed by the father 6 days prior to PMA graduation for his son Jeff. A case for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with application for TRO. Jeff, a member of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 and
belonging to “A” Coy, a Deputy Baron of his class was supposed to graduate as salutatorian. This did
not happen because A Delinquency Report (DR) was issued against him by Prof Berong when he was
2 minutes late. Graduation ensued. Cudia filed a mandamus to SC but this was not acted upon until
graduation ceremony had eventually commenced. Is mandamus proper?
 No, it’s already moot and academic because the commencement exercised is over. Moreover, since it
does not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. Substantive merits of the case was also
discussed by SC in this case. In its final verdict, SC affirmed the dismissal of Cudia from PMA. For a writ
of mandamus to issue, petitioners should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and there
should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to perform the act sought to be mandated.
Cudia vs Superintendent of PMA, 715 SVRA February 24 2015

68. Judge Villanueva was appointed in 2012 as the Presiding Judge of the MTC Compostela Valley Province.
After a year, he applied as RTC Judge. Later, he was informed that he was not included in the list of
candidate nominees. He seek reconsideration on same day of his non-inclusion in the list. Accordingly,
his exclusion is due to the JBC's long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to second-
level courts to judges who have served in their current position for at least 5 years. This requirement
was not published. May JBC be compelled to include Judge V in its recommendation through
mandamus?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 26
  No. The remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of in assailing JBC’s policy. In the issuance of the writ
requires a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent
to perform the act required. The function of the JBC to select and recommend nominees for vacant
judicial positions is discretionary, not ministerial. Likewise, the petition for declaratory relief is
improper. An action for DR should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or
other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation
or an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of
the validity of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties
thereunder.

In this case, the petition for declaratory relief did not involve an unsound policy. Rather, the petition
specifically sought a judicial declaration that the petitioner has the right to be included in the list of
applicants although he failed to meet JBC's five-year requirement policy. The opportunity of
appointment to judicial office is a mere privilege, and not a judicially enforceable right that may be
properly claimed by any person

The consideration of experience does not constitute a violation of equal protection clause. JBC has the
prerogative to impose certain criteria and qualification to its recommendation. However, SC assailed
the criteria for the 5 year experience requirement because of failure to publish. Villanueva vs JBC, 755
SCRA 182

RULE 66: Quo Warranto

69. A justice was appointed. 5 years after appointment, it was found out that she had failed to submit her
SALN’s. A quo warranto proceeding under Rule 66, the Republic, through the OSG filed the petition for
the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare as void the appointment and oust her
was made. May the 1 year limit apply in case the action is instituted by the Republic?
 No. Quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed of when the subject
act or omission was committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official’s
qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid. Acts or omissions, even
if it relates to the qualification of integrity being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed
during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official cannot be the subject of
a quo warranto proceeding, but of impeachment if the public official concerned is impeachable and the
act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or to disciplinary, administrative or criminal
action, if otherwise.

Prescription does not lie against the State. The rules on quo warranto provides that “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”. Previously, the one-year prescriptive
period has been applied in cases where private individuals asserting their right of office, unlike the
instant case where no private individual claims title to the Office of the Chief Justice. Instead, it is the
government itself which commenced the present petition for quo warranto and puts in issue the
qualification of the person holding the highest position in the Judiciary. Republic vs Sereno, GR 237428,
May 11, 2008

70. Mendoza became part of the BOC in 1972, and received promotions until he became Director III of
the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service. In 1993, he was temporarily designated as Acting
District Collector, while Allas was temporarily appointed to take his old position. In 1994, a letter was
sent to petitioner, stating that he is terminated from the services of the BOC. He filed a petition for quo
warranto against Allas, which the court granted. Allas appealed, but became moot and academic when
Allas was promoted and was appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Customs Assessment and
Operations. When Mendoza filed for motion for execution of its decision, it was denied because
Godofredo Olores was appointed to take his old position and being not party to the quo warranto
petition. Does a petition for quo warranto extends to the position claimed?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 27
  NO, a petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to use or exercise of
a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he
has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the successor
in office, even though the successor’s title comes from the same source. It is always directed to a
person, in this case, Allas. Olores had never become part of the case; hence the decision
cannot extend to him. Since Mendoza has reached the age of retirement, he cannot be reappointed.
Neither can he claim from Allas his back wages, nor compel the BOC to pay said back wages.

In the case at bar, the petition for quo warranto was filed by petitioner solely against respondent Allas.
What was threshed out before the trial court was the qualification and right of petitioner to the
contested position as against respondent Ray Allas, not against Godofredo Olores. If the court finds for
the respondent, the judgment should simply state that the respondent is entitled to the office. x x x If
it is found that the respondent or defendant is usurping or intruding into the office, or unlawfully
holding the same, the court may order: 1. The ouster and exclusion of the defendant from office; 2. The
recovery of costs by plaintiff or relator; 3. The determination of the respective rights in and to the
office, position, right, privilege or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires. The rule
that a judgment against a public officer in regard to a public right binds his successor in office is not
applicable in quo warranto cases; The writ of quo warranto 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. Mendoza vs Allas, 302
SCRA

71. Panday file a case against Calleja for Quo Warranto with damages and prayer for MPI plus damages,
and issuance of TRO. They allege that they have been members of BOD since 1985 of St. John Hospital
which was incorporated in 2005. Accordingly, Calleja forcibly usurped the powers which supposedly
belonged to Panday. RTC Br 58 referred the case to RTC Naga due to improper venue but the EJ refused
to give the records of the case alleging that improper venue is not a ground for transferring a quo
warranto case to another admin jurisdiction. Hence, RTC 58 proceeded to issue summons. Respondent
answered and alleged lack of jurisdiction, improper venue and wrong remedy. RTC Br 58 ordered that
the jurisdiction is within SEC and /or within the respective territorial jurisdiction of the parties – RTC
Naga. Later, AC 8-01 was issued by SC directing to transfer all cases from regular RTC to RTC specially
designated to her cases in accordance to AM 00-11-03-SC. This made basis for Br 58 to remand case to
RTC Naga. WON under the circumstances, Certiorari under R45 is proper
 The order is interlocutory hence certiorari under R45 is not the proper remedy. In this case, the basic
issue of which court has jurisdiction over cases previously cognizable by SEC and the propensity of
parties to resort to violence behoove the Court to look beyond the technical lapses that R65 should
have been used.

Prior to RA 8799, R66 is limited to public officials, as to corporations, jurisdiction falls to SEC. When
RA 8799 was passed, jurisdiction has been transferred to courts of general jurisdiction (RTC).
However, R66 is still exclusive to public officials. For the private corporations, the Interim Rules of
Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under RA 8799 governs. The jurisdiction is vested
to the Special court where the principal address of business is located. In this case, Br 58 has no
jurisdiction. A court not designated as Special Commercial Court is not vested with jurisdiction over
cases previously cognizable by the SEC and does not have the requisite authority or power to order
the transfer of cases erroneously filed with it to another branch of the RTC—the only action that it
could take on the matter is to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction Calleja vs Panday 438 SCRA

72. Certiorari and mandamus was filed by Lokin to question COMELEC resolution issuing IRR that provide
a ground for the substitution of a party-list nominee not written in RA 7941. CIBAC manifested intent
to participate in the 2007 national party list election. Its president submitted a list of 5 nominees from
which its representatives would be chosen, a certificate of acceptance by the nominee, and the
certificate of nomination. This list was published. However, prior to election, it’s President submitted
a substitution of its nominees. Before closing of polls, its President submitted to COMELEC a signed
petition confirming the withdrawal. Later, CIBAC filed to seek proclamation for Lokin as second

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 28
 nominee. This was opposed by its President. COMELEC failed to act on the matter prompting its
president to seek confirmation. WON court has jurisdiction considering the contention of COMELEC
that once a proclamation has been done, protest is under EJ of HRET
 Court has jurisdiction. An election protest proposes to outs a winning candidate form office. The
controversy invoking Lokin is neither an election protest nor an action for quo warranto, it concerns a
specific and distinct situation. Lokin has correctly brought this certiorari against COMELEC to seek the
review of the resolution it issued notwithstanding the proclamation of Gonzales. SC held that he is not
guilty of forum shopping. The authority to make IRR is not a power exclusively legislative in character
but an administrative in nature. The challenged Sec 13 of Resolution 7804 pursuant to BP 881 was
published accordingly. However, COMELEC added another mode of allowing substitution which is
beyond the ambit of the law which it seeks to implement. An election protest proposes to oust the
winning candidate from office. It is strictly a contest between the defeated and the winning candidates,
based on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities, to determine who between them has
actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast and is entitled to hold the office. It can only be
filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for in the preceding
elections. A special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the State, or of
ineligibility of the winning candidate. The objective of the action is to unseat the ineligible person from
the office, but not to install the petitioner in his place. Any voter may initiate the action, which is, strictly
speaking, not a contest where the parties strive for supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated
even if the respondent may be unseated. Certiorari, not an election protest or quo warranto, is the
proper recourse to review a COMELEC resolution approving the withdrawal the nomination of its
original nominees and substituting them with others, even if the substitute nominees have already
been proclaimed and have taken their oath of office. SC ordered proclamation of Lokin. Lokin Jr. vs
COMELEC, 621 SCRA

73. Lonzanida and Antipolo were candidates for Mayor in Zambales in 2010 election. Lonzanida filed COC
on Dec 2009, this was petitioned by Rodolfo to be declared disqualified due to violation of 3 term limit
rule. COMELEC cancelled the COC. MR was filed, pending the case, election ensued and she was
declared Mayor. Her VP took oath of office as acting Mayor pending the resolution of the case. Later,
MR was denied and COMELEC en banc confirmed the disqualification. Antipolo filed a motion to
intervene seeking a right to be proclaimed as Mayor due to disqualification of Lonzanida. (Lonzanida
is already disqualified prior to Election Day and that there is already an order to strike off his name in
the ballots. COMELEC proclaimed Antipolo as Mayor. ) May Antipolo, the second place be declared the
Mayor
 Yes, the DQ of Lonzanida exist prior to day of election and even before filing of COC. IN effect, she was
never a candidate and can never be vote. Any votes cast on her favor is a stray vote. Second place is the
winner. After being elected and serving for three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot
seek immediate reelection for the same office in the next regular election because he is ineligible.
Aratea vs COMELEC, 683 SCRA

74. De Castro wanted to oust Carlos from Assistant General Manager for Operations (AGMO) post for
MMDA. PGMA appointed him ass AGMO and was concurred by members of MMC in MMDA. Took his
oath before Bayani Fernando. Meanwhile, Executive Secretary Ochoa issued OP Memo 2, S2010 re:
non-CESO employees occupying CESO posts. Hence, MMDA issued order designating an OIC in AGMO
and De Castro was reassigned to Legal office. Later, Carlos was designated as OIC of AGMO. De Castro
seek clarification from CESB as to proper classification of the AGMO. In reply, AGMO was not yet
classified as CES, he is not co-terminus and is not covered by OP Memo. May the Quo warranto prosper?
 No. A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to use or exercise a
franchise or an office and to oust the holder from the enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-
founded, or if his right to enjoy the privilege has been forfeited. — Where the action is filed by a private
person, in his own name, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted position, otherwise,
respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the office. Career service is characterized by
the existence of security of tenure, as contradistinguished from non-career service whose tenure is
coterminous with that of the appointing authority; or subject to the latter’s pleasure; or limited to a
period specified by law or to the duration of a particular project for which purpose the appointment

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 29
 was made. In a quo warranto proceeding, the person suing must show that he has a clear right to the
office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent a showing of that right, the lack of qualification or
eligibility of the supposed usurper is immaterial.—It is inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly
replaced by another non-CESO eligible.

AGMO is a career position that enjoys security of tenure subject to civil service laws and regulations.
CES positions must be a presidential appointee and those determined by CESB. AGMO is not a CES
position. However, this was slater on reclassified as CES because AGMO performs functions that are
managerial in character, exercises management over people, resource and/or policy; and assumes
functions like planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling and overseeing the activities of
MMDA. The position requires the application of managerial or supervisory skills necessary to carry
out duties and responsibilities involving functional guidance, leadership and supervision. Since De
Castro is not eligible, his appointment is coterminous. De Castro vs Caros, 696 SCRA April 16 2013

75. Velasco filed mandamus against Speaker Belmonte alleging that he is the winner in 2013 elections in
accordance with COMELEC resolution. Tan (voter) filed a case to cancel COC of Reyes (rival of Velasco
for Congressman post due to misrepresentations. COMELEC granted the petition and cancelled the
COC. Despite receipt of COMELEC EB resolution, on May 18, Reyes was proclaimed winner. Velasco
filed an election protests on the 31st with HRET including a Q.W. Ad Cautelam. COMELEC later on
declared finality of order after lapse of appeal period. Meanwhile, Speaker administered oath to Reyes.
Velasco filed certiorari to COMELEC assailing proceedings of PBOC proclaiming Reyes as winner.
Efforts were made by Velasco to execute the order but was futile that lead him to file the mandamus
case. Is mandamus tenable?
 Yes. Based on the facts, this is a remedy for mandamus and not a quo warranto. What is prayed in this
case is merely the enforcement of clear legal duties and not to try disputed title. SC enforced the
decision and declared Velasco as winner. 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 and to oust the holder from its enjoyment,
if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. A petition for
mandamus will prosper if it is shown that the subject thereof is a ministerial act or duty, and not purely
discretionary on the part of the board, officer or person, and that the petitioner has a well-defined,
clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof. Velasco vs Belmonte, 780 SCRA 81, January 12
2016

RULE 67: Expropriation

76. Manila enacted an ordinance authorizing expropriation in some lands of Tondo which would be sold
and distributed pursuant to Land Use Development Program. Among those land were owned by Guia.
Later several transfers were made. Manila filed to RTC expropriation subjecting the land now owned
by Serrano’s. They refuted the expropriation claiming that it is exempt. RTC ordered deposit of amount
equivalent to the land and later issued writ of possession. Serranos appealed and cited RA 7279
wherein properties less than 300 square meters is exempt. CA held that the land is not exempt but still
enjoined expropriation following the doctrine in Filstream International vs CA. Accordingly, Manila
failed to show that it had tried other modes of acquiring lands. Decide
 Decision of CA must be reversed. Upon compliance with the requirements for expropriation, issuance
of writ of possession becomes ministerial Expropriation proceedings consists of two stages: first,
condemnation of the property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a public purpose or
public use and, second, the determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of private
property to be made by the court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners. A writ of
execution may be issued by a court upon the filing by the government a complaint for expropriation
sufficient in form and substance and upon deposit made by the government of the amount equivalent
to the assessed value of the property subject to expropriation. Once complied, issuance of writ of
possession becomes ministerial. The judgment made by CA citing Filstream case is premature. CA
decision is reversed. RTC order for writ of possession is upheld and ordered further proceedings. City
of Manila vs Serrano, 359 SCRA

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 30
 77. Antonio Pobre owns a land which was later on subdivided. Later, the Commission on Volcanology
declared that thermal mineral water and steam were present in the land. NPC leased 11 of these lands
for 1 year (1972). Later, (1977), NPC filed expropriation case against Pobre which was approved.
During the pendency of the case, NC started its operations, in so doing, it dumped waste materials
beyond the site agreed upon. Pobre complained but NPC did not bother. Later, another expropriation
was filed. NPC deposited 10% of the FMV of the lot and entered the property upon RTC order of writ
of possession. Pobre filed MTD and claimed compensation for all the lots affected by NPCs actions and
for damages. RTC ordered payment of compensation and to transfer the ENTIRE property to NPC
which NPC refuted. Should the decision be sustained?
 Yes. Expropriation is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain. In expropriation cases
under Section 3 of Rule 67, the motion to dismiss took the place of the answer. The power of eminent
domain is subject to limitations. A landowner cannot be deprived of his right over his land until
expropriation proceedings are instituted in court. The court must then see to it that the taking is for
public use, there is payment of just compensation and there is due process of law. If the propriety of
the taking of private property through eminent domain is subject to judicial scrutiny, the dismissal of
the complaint must also pass judicial inquiry because private rights may have suffered in the
meantime. In the event of dismissal of the expropriation case, the claim for damages may be made
either in a separate or in the same action. If the government takes property without expropriation and
devotes the property to public use, after many years the property owner may demand payment of just
compensation. This principle is in accord with the constitutional mandate that private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation. National Power Corp vs CA 436 SCRA

(It is not Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 ROC that is applicable to this case but Rule 67 of the same Rules, as well
as jurisprudence on expropriation cases. Rule 17 referred to dismissal of civil actions in general while Rule 67
specifically governed eminent domain cases.)
78. Ismael Andaya is an owner of land with a perpetual easement for public highways, irrigation, ditches,
etc. at no cost to the government except only the value of the improvements existing thereon that may
be affected. The government negotiated to Andaya but failed. Hence, it instituted a suit to enforce the
easement. RTC issued Writ of possession and constituted a BOC to determine just compensation. Later,
an Order of Expropriation was made. The board reported a discrepancy as to the expropriation that
led to reduction of the easement from 60 mtrs to 10 mtrs. Moreover, it recommended payment for
consequential damages as a result of the easement. RTC ordered payment of 2.8M+ for severance
damages. Andaya demanded for the value of the whole property. May Republic is required to pay (for
the whole lot) just compensation in enforcing easement
 Yes. Sec 112 of PLA provides that lands granted by patent shall be subject to a right-of-way not
exceeding 60 meters in width for public highways, irrigation ditches etc. free of charge expect only for
the value of the improvements. However, when portion of the land become unusable and
uninhabitable, payment of consequential damages is warranted. In this case, SC based the award on
the definition of “taking”. Accordingly, the just compensation must be neither more nor less than the
money equivalent of the land. However, the just compensation must be based ono the affected areas
and not on the totality of the whole lot. Taking, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, occurs
not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property
or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value
of his property. Andaya is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor
less than the monetary equivalent of the land. Republic vs Andaya, 524 SCRA
NB: Just Compensation is determined at the time of taking.

79. The government is to expropriate a building property where such was constructed on land which it
already owned. Republic filed an expropriation case with RTC with an application for special raffle. It
seek to take immediate possession of NAIA 3 facilities. On its petition, Republic averred that it already
made a deposit of 3B to LBP. On the same day of filing, an order of writ of possession was also issued.
However, pursuant to RA 8974 amending Rule 67, it was ordered that Republic is required to make
immediate payment to the property and not a mere initial deposit. It likewise prohibited the Republic
to perform acts of ownership until full compliance of order. Is RTC correct?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 31
  Yes, because the law now mandates full payment. As the revised Rules now stand, a petition for
certiorari may be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be
assailed. The filing by the AEDC of its petition for mandamus 20 months after its supposed right to the
project arose is evidently beyond reasonable time and negates any claim that the said petition for the
extraordinary writ was the most expeditious and speedy remedy available to AEDC. Asia’s Emerging
Dragon vs DOTC, 552 SCRA

80. RA 8794 should be applied in the instant expropriation case and not Rule 67.
 Yes. At the very least, Rule 67 cannot apply in this case without violating the 2004 Resolution. Even
assuming that Rep. Act No. 8974 does not govern in this case, it does not necessarily follow that Rule
67 should then apply. After all, adherence to the letter of Section 2, Rule 67 would in turn violate the
Court’s requirement in the 2004 Resolution that there must first be payment of just compensation to
PIATCO before the Government may take over the property. It is the plain intent of Rep. Act No. 8974
to supersede the system of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of “immediate payment” in cases
involving national government infrastructure projects. Republic vs Gingoyon 481 SCRA 457 [GR No.
166429 December 19, 2005]

81. Pending an unlawful detainer case between Filhomes Realty Development Corporation (FRDC) and
Magdiwang Realty Corporation (MRC) against Abad, Paranaque filed an expropriation case over the
land. RTC issued a Writ of Possession and a certificate of turnover was given. Meanwhile, MeTC decided
in favor of the FRDC and MRC. Ordered to vacate the property and payment of compensation starting
2002 (when suit was filed). In this case, Abad, as a defense used the writ of possession. MeTC denied
the defense because accordingly the beneficiaries of such expropriation has to be determined first. May
an expropriation proceedings filed bars jurisdiction of a lower court to adjudicate claims of possession
or ownership
 Yes. When the Government seeks to acquire, through purchase or expropriation proceedings, lands
belonging to any estate or chaplaincy (cappellania), any action for ejectment against the tenants
occupying said lands shall be automatically suspended, for such time as may be required by the
expropriation proceedings or the necessary negotiations for the purchase of the lands, in which latter
case, the period of suspension shall not exceed one year. To avail himself of the benefits of the
suspension, the tenants shall pay to the landowner the current rents as they become due or deposit
the same with the court where the action for ejectment has been instituted.

In this case, Abad did not avail of the remedy provided. Mere issuance of writ of possession in
expropriation proceedings does not transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the City. An issuance of
expropriation order does not automatically vest them the right to be a guaranteed beneficiary because
certain requirements are still to be complied. A local government unit may, through its chief executive
and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose,
or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant
to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent
domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner,
and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately
take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a
deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property
based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That the
amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the
fair market value of the property.

In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State expropriates private property for public use
upon payment of just compensation. A socialized housing project falls within the ambit of public use
as it is in furtherance of the constitutional provisions on social justice. Abad vs Fil- Homes Realty, 636
SCRA

82. NPC seek to expropriate a land by YCLA to construct transmission lines. It filed for expropriation of
land for the acquisition of an easement of right-of-way over areas that would be affected by the

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 32
 construction of transmission lines. MTD was filed by YCLA for failure to state the public purpose nature
of the expropriation. RTC ordered constitution of a Board of Commissioners to determine just
compensation. Meanwhile, RTC, issued a writ of possession in favor of NPC. Subsequently, BOC
submitted its Report fixed the amount of just compensation at ₱500.00 per sq m. YCLA objected. Later,
BOC fixed the JC to ₱1,000.00 per sq m. RTC adopted the report and ordered NPC to pay. WON RTC
and the CA had sufficient basis in arriving at the questioned amount of just compensation of the subject
properties.
 It is settled that the amount of just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which
usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. In this case, JC
determination was relied heavily on the BOC report However, BOC report is based on FMV. In this
report, FMV is based on 2003 rules while the expropriation was filed in 1997. The determination of JC
is on the time the case is filed. Recommendation of BOC must always be based on evidence, otherwise
it would be erroneous to adopt such recommendation. NPC vs YCLA Sugar Development Crp, 712 SCRA
550

83. Agricultural land were subjected to RA 6657. The owner filed a complaint for the fixing of just
compensation in RTC and prayed that DARAB valuation be set aside and declared null and void. DARAB
conducted a summary admin proceeding but affirmed the valuation. Later, it filed again a case with
RTC impleading LBP and DAR through PARO to set aside the valuation of DARAB. In response, a MTD
was filed alleging that the decision of DARAB is already final and executory prior to the certiorari. RTC
granted the MTD. Pursuant to Section 60 of RA 6657, the decision became final because an appeal by
petition for review was not taken from the decision of the RTC as the SAC within 15 days from notice
of the decision considering further that there was no proof of service on the CA of a copy of the petition
as required by Section 3, Rule 45 of the ROC and Circular No. 19-91, thereby warranting the outright
dismissal of the petition. Is the action proper?
 No, petitioner should not be prevented from assailing the dismissal by petition for certiorari provided
her resort complied with the requirements of the ROC for the bringing of the petition for certiorari.
Certiorari was a proper remedy despite the availability of appeal. CA correctly dismissed the case
because of the failure to appeal within the 15 days reglementary period. However, it was reversed by
SC following LBP vs Sunday. SC harmonized the conflicting past decisions and followed PVB case
alleging that while a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the
agrarian reform adjudicators’ decision but an original action, the same has to be filed within the 15 day
period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicator’s decision will attain finality.
Limkaichong vs LBP, 799 SCRA 139 August 2, 1016

RULE 68: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

84. Ramirez mortgaged 2 lands as security for a loan. REM provides that all correspondence relative to the
mortgage including notifications of extrajudicial actions shall be sent to Ramirez in his given address.
Bank filed a foreclosure of the REM. During auction sale, MBC won. A certificate of sale was issued and
it demand Ramirez to vacate the property. Ramirez sued bank for annulment of sale and of the COS
alleging that he was not notified of the foreclosure and the auction sale. RTC granted the prayer of
Ramirez but CA reversed the decision. Is personal notice to mortgagor by the mortgagee is an
indispensable requirement for the foreclosure of REM.
 No. Unless the parties stipulate, personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings
is not necessary because Section 3 of Act No. 3135 only requires the posting of the notice of sale in three
public places and the publication of that notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Costs shall be
allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course unless otherwise provided in the ROC. However, in
this case, SC set aside the CA ruling because of provision in the Rem where personal notice to Ramirez
became mandatory. The REM is a contract that binds parties. It is the law that governs them.

Act No. 3135 only requires (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public places, and (2) the
publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation. Personal notice to the mortgagor is not
necessary.— Section 3, Act No. 3135 reads: “Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale
for not less than twenty days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the
property is situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 33
 be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
the municipality and city.” Ramirez vs Manila Banking Corporation, 712 SCRA December 2013

85. Anita Marquez extended a loan to Gutierrez. As security, a REM was executed. Extrajudicial foreclose
was made, sale was thereafter made and Anita won. Upon failure to redeem, title was consolidated in
favor of Anita. However, this title bore an annotation of adverse claim by Sps Alindog. This claim was
copied from an earlier annotation made only after the mortgage by Anita. Later, Alindog filed a case
for annulment of REM and COS with damages against Anita and a certain Gonzales. RTC issued Writ of
possession and a notice to vacate against Gutierrez. May an injunctive writ be granted for a claim based
on a sale which was annotated on a title acquired as a result of consolidation from a foreclosure of REM
 Yes. 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 registration of sale. He is entitled to the possession of the
property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the
issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. However, Sec 33, R39, ROC provides an exception
where unless a third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or right i.e. when he who is
actually holding the property adversely to a judgment obligor, a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary.
These holders are not merely successor or transferee of the right of possession of another co-owner
or the owner of the property. He is a possessor who has claim a right superior to that of the original
mortgagor. In this case, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Anita is merely ministerial.
Marquez vs Alindog, 714 SCRA January 2014

86. LZK Holdings obtained a loan from PDB for 40M secured by REM. Later, extrajudicial foreclosure – sale
– PDB won – COS was registered. LZK filed annulment of foreclosure and sale, with TRO and WPI to
enjoin consolidation of title RTC Makati. PDB applied for writ of possession in RTC San Fernando. RTC
Makati issued TRO for enjoining consolidation and later issued WPI. Later, RTC Makati declared the
foreclosure and sale null and void which was affirmed by CA.
Is the issuance of Writ of possession requires a hearing? May an injunction order bars the issuance of
the writ of possession
 No, the issuance of a writ of possession is an ex parte and a summary in nature that benefits only the
petitioner. RTC San Fernando should have acted on the ex parte petition. The injunction order is of no
moment because it should be understood to have merely stayed the consolidation of title. Injunction
is not allowed to prohibit the issuance of writ of possession. Neither does pending case for annulment
of foreclosure sale, mortgage contract, PN and damages stay the issuance of the writ. No hearing is
required prior to the issuance of a writ of possession. LZK Holdings vs Planters Development Bank,
714 SCRA January 2014

87. Goldenway Merch. Corp. (GMC) executed a REM in favor of Equitable PCI bank over a property n
Bulacan for 2M loan. Default – foreclosed REM – auction sale – COS – registered. Later, an offer to
redeem was made tendering 3.5M (same as auction price) but became impossible because COS was
already registered and title was already consolidated. Case for specific performance with damages
was filed alleging that redemption under Act 3135 is 1 year and not RA 8791 (S47) because accordingly
if this is applied, there would result impairment of obligation of contract. Moreover, it avers that bank
failed to furnish copy of SOA nor filed one with COC of RTC. Is the action for specific performance
tenable?
 No. RA 3135 applies in REM as amended by Act 4118. It provides a 1 year redemption period which is
counted from the date of registration of the COS. In RA 8791 (GBL of 2000), Sec 47 amended Act 3135.
It provides that redemption is within 1 year from date of sale and purchaser may seek possession of
the property immediately after sale provided that a bond shall be constituted over the property.
Paragraph 2 provides that notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons have right of redemption until
registration which in no case shall be more than 3 months from foreclosure whichever is earlier. The
allegation that the implementation of RA 8791 would result in impairment of contract is wanting of
merit. Impairment is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract. Sec 47 is constitutional. It
did not remove right to redeem, it merely set a shorter period. The difference in the treatment of
juridical persons and natural persons was based on the nature of the properties foreclosed―whether
these are used as residence, for which the more liberal 1-year redemption period is retained, or used

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 34
 for industrial or commercial purposes, in which case a shorter term is deemed necessary to reduce the
period of uncertainty in the ownership of property and enable mortgagee-banks to dispose sooner of
these acquired assets. Golden way Merchandising Corp vs Equitable PCI Bank 693 SCRA March 13,
2013

88. Mateo obtained a loan from bank – Rem + PN – default – foreclose REM extrajudicial – auction sale –
bank won – COS issued and registered. Mateo signified exercise of right to redeem through his lawyer
by sending faxed letters. ON last day of redemption, case was filed with TRO and PI with RTC.
Meanwhile, consolidation was made and TCT was issued. During PTC, redemption offer was made but
bank refused and instead wanted to proceed trial. RTC allowed redemption. Is mere tender and
consignation of an insufficient amount may merit redemption
 No. In this case, SC sustained that redemption is not proper. Considering that the petitioner is a bank,
the redemption price should have been governed by S78, RA 8791. In this case, parties agreed that
redemption is supposed to be based on the foreclosed amount. Mateo offered a deficit amount before
filing the complaint. The amount at which the foreclosed property is redeemable is the amount due
under the mortgage deed, or the outstanding obligation of the mortgagor plus interest and expenses
in accordance with Section 78 of the General Banking Act. In several cases decided by the Court where
the right to repurchase was held to have been properly exercised, there was an unequivocal tender of
payment for the full amount of the repurchase price. Otherwise, the offer to redeem is ineffectual. Bona
fide redemption necessarily implies a reasonable and valid tender of the entire repurchase price,
otherwise the rule on the redemption period fixed by law can easily be circumvented. Allied Bank vs
Mateo, 588 SCRA

89. Yapcinco – Rem – Marcelo. Marcelo transferred his rights to Cruz. Yapcinco defaulted – Cruz judicially
foreclosed REM. MTC ordered to pay Cruz or foreclose after 90 days from date of decision if not paid.
Cruz won – Certificate of absolute sale – took possession but did not register the COS, no judicial
confirmation. Cruz donated land to grandchildren. However, one of the GC falsified a DOAS where he
made it appear that the land was sold to him ALONE by Yapcinco. TCT was cancelled, new TCT was
issued in favor of the GC and other co-vendees. Later, other GC donee’s filed a complaint for
nullification of the DAS, cancellation of title and reconveyance against the GC and other co-vendees.
Another case was filed later on by the heirs of Yapcinco claiming that although the property was
mortgaged, no foreclosure was made and per Entry No. 32-2182 REM was released. Is registration of
COS or court confirmation in judicial foreclosure is mandatory to vest title to the purchaser
 No because registration of COS is only required in extrajudicial foreclosure of REM to determine the
reckoning date from which right of redemption may be exercised. Only the equity of redemption is
granted to the mortgagor in a judicial foreclosure, except in mortgages with banking institutions. The
failure of a purchaser to obtain judicial confirmation only prevents the title to the property from being
transferred to him BUT does NOT redirect the property back to the mortgagor unless redeemed. RTC
decision restored. The equity of redemption is the right of the defendant mortgagor to extinguish the
mortgage and retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt within the ninety (90)-day
period after the judgment becomes final, or even after the foreclosure sale but prior to the confirmation
of the sale. Robles vs Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75

90. CPR Promotions – loan from MBTC covered by PN and REM over land – 1 land 6.5M other 3 land is
2.5M. Note that 1 land is named under CPR, all the rest under Sps Reynoso (President and Treasurer
of the CPR). Defaulted – extrajudicial foreclosure of REM – 2 actions were made – MBTC won. However,
proceeds is insufficient. Hence collection suit was filed. RTC allowed collection. CA reversed the
decision and ordered refund as to the excess of proceeds over principal. Is CA correct?
 Yes. A claim for recovery of the excess in the bid price vis-a-vis the amount due should be interposed
as a compulsory counterclaim in an action for recovery of a deficiency filed by the mortgagee against
the debtor-mortgagor. However, respondents failed to timely raise the issue. A compulsory CC must
be alleged in the Answer, otherwise it will now be barred. In this case, the CC was filed in the
Appellant’s Brief filed before the CA. In ascertaining the deficit amount, Sec. 4, Rule 68 of the ROC is
elucidating, to wit: Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale.—The amount realized from the
foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be paid to the

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 35
 person foreclosing the mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or residue, after paying off the
mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be
ascertained by the court, or if there be no such encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue after
payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it. In
this case, the petition itself contained an admission that the 11M+ is already inclusive of interest. SC
deleted refund and denied collection of deficit amount due to failure to substantiate claim. In
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, where the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay the debt,
the mortgagee has the right to recover the deficiency from the debtor. Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Co. vs CPR Promotions and Marketing Inc. 760 SCRA 59

RULE 69: Partition

91. Emilia instituted a partition case over a lot inherited from her ancestors with annulment of Affidavit
of Self-Adjudication, DOAS and reconveyance of eastern half portion of the Lot whom Emilia seeks to
partition. RTC ordered partition, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages dismissed, affidavit of
self-adjudication, DOAS, TCT declared null and void. However, RTC did not rule on the partition. On
Appeal, CA rendered judgment in favor of Emilia partitioning the Lot 707 (note that only one lot was
partitioned) as to her share. Appointed a commissioner to prepare a project partition. Emilia appealed
claiming that partition should be for the whole estate (3 lots). when there still exist a question as to
the totality of the estate to be portioned, is partition proper?
 No because the ownership must be established first prior to partition. In this case, what has been
established is the existence of co-ownership to Lot 707 by Emilia. The other lots were not yet
determinable as to ownership but court resolve the same in this case. The affidavit of Self-adjudication
does not prejudice a share of a co-owner because it is not legally possible for one to adjudicate unto
himself an entire property he was not the sole owner of. The first stage in an action for partition is the
settlement of the issue of ownership; it would be premature to effect a partition until and unless the
question of ownership is first definitely resolved. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the
Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. The certificate
cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. A co-owner is entitled to sell his
undivided share; hence, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other
co-owners is not null and void and only the rights of the co-owner/seller are transferred, thereby
making the buyer a co-owner of the property. Vda de Figuracion vs Figuracion – Gerilla, 690 SCRA

92. Rufo mortgaged a land he own as security to a loan. – Foreclosed – sold to bank – COS was issued,
registered no redemption was made – new TCT was issued. When Sebastiana died, her children
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dividing the property equally among them and in this
EJS, a Recognition of the REM was manifested. 3 years after, they bought back the property from the
bank. Sale was successful. May EJS recognizing co-ownership must still be recognized despite the lapse
of the redemption period where the EJS was based on?
 No co-ownership. In this case, there was a complete transfer of ownership of the lot prior to the death
of Sebastiana. The lot never become part of the estate of the deceased. When they executed the EJS, the
lot is already completely transferred of ownership. Hence, reacquisition of the lot is a different
transaction over the estate. The purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership. Balus vs Balus,
610 SCRA

93. When Antonio Feliciano passed away, he left a land evidenced by a tax declaration. He has 5 children,
2 were deceased. Amongst the remaining children, an EJS was executed. Later, the 4 children sold their
share. Years later, the heirs of the 2 deceased children filed a case for nullity of title, recovery and
damages alleging that the EJS was void because they were excluded claiming representation for the 2
deceased children. RTC declared the EJS null and void including the sale and ordered partition. May
prescription set in to annul the EJS?
 Yes. Nullification of Documents and Titles is imprescriptible. However, in an action for annulment of
EJS on the ground of fraud, the PP is 4 years from date of discovery of fraud. SC sustained CA decision
because this case was filed 16 years after registration. Feliciano vs Canosa, 629 SCRA

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 36
 94. Brobio died intestate leaving land and some bank deposits survived by wife, 4 LC and 3 IC. A EJS was
executed with waiver from the 3 ICs that in exchange for the waiver, they will pay them for their share.
Carmela, one of the IC’s agreed. Later on, Pacifico, one of the LC, asked Carmela to sign a copy of the
Deed with waiver but Carmela refused because according to her, she was promised an additional
amount but was never materialized. She demanded a 600k additional. Since Pacifico did not have
money anymore, he executed a PN but this was not encashed. Carmela filed a case for specific
performance. Decide.
 Denied. However the proper remedy is NOT partition but annulment of contract. Contracts are
voidable where consent thereto is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or
fraud. An action for partition implies that the property is still owned in common. Considering that the
heirs had already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and waived their shares in favor of
respondent, the properties are no longer under a state of co-ownership; there is nothing more to be
partitioned, as ownership had already been merged in one person. Mangahas vs Brobio, 634 SCRA

RULE 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

95. Carmencita bought a land from the Heirs of Vicente which was occupied by the heirs of Claudia – Felix
and Marilou, a co-heir of Vicente, Carlos and Asuncion who inherited a lot from a deceased ascendant.
Accordingly, the Heirs of Vicente sold the land to Carmencita and as buyer, she caused the ejectment
of the occupant. The occupant seek to dismiss the complaint alleging that the partition executed by
their ascendant is void because of a document executed by Vicente waiving their share on the lot. May
a complaint for UD prosper in the above facts?
 No. In this case, the proper remedy should be an action reinvindicatoria because what is being sought
to as relief is an issue of ownership and not of possession. Carmencita had not amply alleged and
proven that all the requisites for UD are present.

Registered owner of real property is entitled to its possession. — However, the owner cannot simply
wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property. To recover possession,
he must resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he is required to
satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper.” Jurisdictional Facts That Must Be Alleged
and Sufficiently Established in a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer. When the complaint fails to aver
facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was
effected or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or
accion reivindicatoria. Suarez vs Emboy Jr 718 SCRA 677 March 12, 2014

Accion interdictal comprises 2 distinct COA, FE (detentacion) and UD (desahuico). FE and UD are distinct actions. FE is when one is
deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat strategy, or stealth. In UD, one unlawfully
withholds possession thereof after expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. In
FE, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. In UD, the
possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess, hence the issue of rightful
possession is decisive for, in such action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiffs COA is the termination of the
defendant’s right to continue in possession.

Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when
dispossession has lasted for more than 1 year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty
independently of title.

Accion reinvindicatoria is an action to recover ownership in RTC in an ordinary civil proceeding.

In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following key jurisdictional facts must be alleged and sufficiently established:
a. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
b. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of
possession;
c. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
d. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

96. As a result of a litigation where the lawyer’s client lost, a demolition order was issued. Appeal was
made to RTC and pending appeal, a Writ of execution was issued by MTCC. According to the lawyer, he
did not receive a copy of the decision denying his MR. Despite of such fact, the Sheriff went ahead to

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 37
 execute the demolition. An altercation happened later between the Sheriff and the lawyer. Hence, this
case. May the sheriff should be admonished for executing the order despite a pending TRO and appeal
filed by the lawyer
 As to execution of order to demolish, No. But as to the failure of the Sheriff to observe the courtesy and
diligence in the conduct of his duty, Yes.

In ejectment cases, the rulings of the courts are immediately executory and can only be stayed via
compliance with Section 19, Rule 70 of the ROC. Enforcement in ejectment cases requires the sheriff
to give notice of such writ and to demand from defendant to vacate the property within 3 days; a sheriff
who enforces the writ without the required notice or before the expiry of the 3-day period is running
afoul with the Rules. Sec. 19, Rule 70, a judgment on a forcible entry and detainer action is made
immediately executory to avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor.

The defendant in such a case may have such judgment stayed only by (a) perfecting an appeal; (b) filing
a supersedeas bond; and (c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or reasonable compensation for
the use and occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal. Alconera vs Pallanan 714
SCRA 204, January 2014

97. Teodoro filed an ejectment suit against his co-heirs over an undivided lot inherited from their
ancestors. His claim stemmed from a will that was executed by his ancestor. Despite such, he was
deprived of possession when in the exercise of his right to ownership, other co-heirs put a barricade
on the portion of the lot in dispute to deprive him of building a house thereon. May the act of
barricading the property in effect arose a right to sue for unlawful dispassion through forcible entry
 Yes. In the absence of an approved partition among the heirs, remains a community property over
which the legal heirs of Genaro have the right to inherit. All therefore are entitled to exercise the right
of dominion including the right of possession. Ownership issue in ejectment is inutile because in
ejectment, the only issue to be resolved is a question of possession. Teodoro vs Espino 715 SCRA 435
February 2014
Ground Rules in Forcible Entry Cases.—The ground rules in forcible entry cases:
a. One employs force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive another of physical possession of real property.
b. Plaintiff (Teodoro Teodoro) must allege and prove prior physical possession of the property in litigation until deprived thereof
by the defendant (herein respondents). This requirement implies that the possession of the disputed land by the latter was
unlawful from the beginning.
c. The sole question for resolution hinges on the physical or material possession (possession de facto) of the property. Neither a
claim of juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership by the defendant can, at the outset, preclude the
court from taking cognizance of the case.
d. Ejectment cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership, and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de
facto and undue deprivation thereof.

98. A case was file before the sala of the Judge Rabaca for ejectment. He decided in favor of YMCA and
ordered the occupant, Cano to vacate the premises. However, pending expiration of the time to appeal,
a notice of appeal was filed by Cano. Rabaca concluded that his perfected the appeal and vest the court’s
jurisdiction to appellate court. Later, a motion for immediate execution of judgment was filed by YMCA.
This was denied due to the perfected appeal. Decide on the motion.
 Grant. Order is Final and immediately executory unless a notice of appeal is filed plus a supersedeas
bond which was duly approved by the court. Judge should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for
immediate execution considering that the defendant did not file the sufficient supersedeas bond
despite having appealed. Granting the plaintiff’s motion for immediate execution became his
ministerial duty upon the defendant’s failure to file the sufficient supersedeas bond. Section 19, Rule
70, of the ROC clearly imposes such duty. The perfection of the appeal by the defendant in an ejectment
case does not forbid a favorable action on the plaintiff’s motion for immediate execution—only the
filing of the sufficient supersedeas bond and the deposit with the appellate court of the amount of rent
due from time to time, coupled with the perfection of the appeal, could stay the execution. Good faith,
or honest belief, or lack of malice, or lack of bad faith justifies a non-compliance only when there is an
as-yet unsettled doubt on the meaning or applicability of a rule or legal provision. Ferrer vs Rabaca
632 SCRA

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 38
 99. CGR Corporation, Herman and Alberto, leased several hectares of public land, mostly consisting of
fishponds, in Negros Occidental. Ernesto L. Treyes, Jr., with his men, forcibly entered the leased
properties and barricaded the entrance to the fishponds, set up a barbed wire fence along
the road going to CRG Corporation‘s fishponds, and harvested several tons of milkfish, fry and
fingerlings. CGR filed with the MTC in Sagay City separate complaints for Forcible Entry with TRO with
Preliminary Injunction and Damages and reserved a separate civil action. The MTC found Treyes and
his men guilty of forcible entry. CGR filed a separate complaint alleging therein that he
suffered damages for the actions of Treyes during and after the forcible entry. A claim for
additional damages which arose from incidents occurring after the dispossession by Treyes of the
premises was thereafter prayed for. The MTC awarded the claims of CGR. May additional damages can
be awarded resulting from events that took place after Treyes left the property
 No. The only form of damages that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry is the fair rental
value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property; other damages must
be claimed in an ordinary action. In a forcible entry case, court has no jurisdiction over claims for
damages other than the use and occupation of the premises and attorney’s fees. Filing of an
independent action for damages other than those sustained as a result of their dispossession or those
caused by the loss of their use and occupation of their properties could not be considered as splitting
of a cause of action. The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases refer to “rents” or
“the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises” or “fair rental value of the
property” and attorney’s fees and costs. CGR Corp vs Treyes 522 SCRA 765

100. Under Commonwealth Act No. 538, ejectment of tenant is suspended while expropriation
proceedings is pending but tenant must pay the rent and be entitled to suspension.—When the
Government seeks to acquire, through purchase or expropriation proceedings, lands belonging to any
estate or chaplaincy (cappellania), any action for ejectment against the tenants occupying said lands
shall be automatically suspended, for such time as may be required by the expropriation proceedings
or the necessary negotiations for the purchase of the lands, in which latter case, the period of
suspension shall not exceed one year. Abad vs Filhomes, 636 SCRA

101. Zacarias filed a complaint for Ejectment with Damages/UD against Anacay. MCTC dismissed
the complaint for failure to state the elements of UD as claimed. On appeal, Zacariass insisted that UD
is the proper remedy considering that there was a mere toleration of the Anacay’s stay in the premises
after demand to vacate was made upon them, and they had in fact entered into an agreement and she
was only forced to take legal action when they reneged on their promise to vacate after lapse of certain
period of time as agreed. RTC reversed and ordered to vacate. In the complaint, respondents failed to
aver that there was no entry through stealth and strategy but UD is still proper because of the failure
to accede on their promise to vacate the property in due time. RTC Decision became F&E. On the
hearing of the motion for issuance of a writ of execution, a manifestation was made that an Appeal to
CA was initiated. CA held that MCTC had no jurisdiction. Zacarias availed of the wrong remedy to
recover possession but nevertheless may still file an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria with
proper RTC. What is the proper remedy?
 Forcible entry. Complaint does not describe possession by the respondents being initially legal or
tolerated by the petitioner and which became illegal upon termination by the petitioner and which
became illegal upon termination by the petitioner of such lawful possession.
In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody statement of facts to bring the party clearly within
the class of cases for which Section 112 of Rule 70 provides a summary remedy, and must show enough
on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence. Such remedy is either forcible
entry or unlawful detainer. While in forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession of
his land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In illegal detainer, the
defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right thereto
under any contract, express or implied. To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that
the plaintiff’s supposed acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession
which is later sought to be recovered. Zacarias vs Anacay, 736 SCRA 508, 2014

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 39
 A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
a. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
b. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of
possession;
c. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
d. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

102. Manalang et. al (petitioners) were co-owners for lot and caused a relocation and verification
survey which showed that respondents had encroached on a portion of said lot. When the respondents
refused to vacate despite demands, the petitioners commenced this action for unlawful detainer. On
appeal RTC ordered the petitioners to conduct a relocation survey to determine their allegation of
encroachment, and also heard the testimony of the surveyor. RTC decided that there indeed exist an
encroachment. CA reversed RTC decision. According to CA, RTC’s act to ordering reconveyance is
tantamount to a reopening of trial, a complete disregard to S18 R70. Did RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction gravely abused its discretion?
 Yes because in R70, appeal of a case does not mean retrial or rehearing of the entire case. RTC shall
decide 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 RTC. In this case, the
proper remedy is either action reinvindicatoria or publiciana which is under RTC jurisdiction and
cannot be summarily hear. Boundary dispute is not about possession, but encroachment, that is,
whether the property claimed by the defendant formed part of the plaintiff’s property. Manalang vs
Bacani 745 SCRA January 12, 2015

103. Sometime in 1992 during their regular semi-annual visit, they saw two (2) houses built on
their lot without their knowledge and permission. Hence, an accion publiciana against Sps De Jesus,
Macario was filed with MTC. As per tax dec, value is at 39+k. No settlement was made at Lupong
Tagapamayapa. A criminal case was filed for violation of Anti-Squatting Law. RTC convicted
defendants. Pending appeal, Congress enacted RA No. 8368, An Act Repealing Presidential Decree No.
772 which paved way to the dismissal of the criminal case. Sps Supapo moved for the execution of the
civil liability, praying issuance of an order to vacate. A writ of execution was issued to vacate the
defendants. Aggrieved, they appealed to CA which granted the petition and held that with the repeal
of the Anti-Squatting Law, the criminal and civil liabilities were extinguished. Sps Supapo filed the
complaint for action publiciana to MeTC. Defendants argued that this case is barred by statute of
limitations and by prior judgment. MeTC denied the arguments. Hence, defendants filed a petition for
certiorari with the RTC. RTC granted the petition. Does MeTC have the jurisdiction to try the case for
accion publiciana
 Yes. MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction; The cause of action has not prescribed; and Complaint is not
barred by res judicata.
Sps Supapo duly complied with the jurisdictional requirements for MeTC based on the assessed value
of the land. The cause of action has not prescribed. Cause of action is imprescriptible when property
is registered and titled under the Torrens system. Section 47 of PD No. 1529 which states: the lawful
owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was
unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all.
The action is not barred by prior judgment. Res judicata is not present in this case. Philippines filed the
criminal case to protect and preserve governmental interests... there is no identity of parties between
the criminal complaint under the Anti-Squatting law and the civil action for accion publiciana. For this
reason alone, "collusiveness of judgment" does not apply.
Accion publiciana refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one (1) year from the accrual
of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.—It is an ordinary
civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independent of title.

SC has held that the objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not
ownership. Jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property is now
determined by its assessed value. The assessed value of real property is its fair market value multiplied

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 40
 by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. Supapo vs De Jesus, 756 SCRA 211 April 20,
2015

104. Antonio and Remedios are registered owners of a lot. Respondent occupied this lot based on
a MOA executed between him and one Don Mario. He claimed that the property was already sold by
Antonio to Don Mario who in turn sold the lot to him. Antonio filed ejectment case with MTCC which
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. RTC affirmed alleging that the facts of the case is not really
ejectment but an accion reivindicatoria. CA reversed the decision granting possession to Antonio and
ordered respondent to vacate. May the action be dismissed considering that the complaint avers
ejectment but the contents is really one for accion reinvindicatoria

Held:
Yes. SC reinstated MTCC decision dismissing the case due to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the complaint seek
to eject and determine ownership of the alleged lot. Forcible Entry; The one (1)-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. Where forcible entry occurred clandestinely, the one (1)-year prescriptive period should be counted
from the time the person who was deprived of possession demanded that the deforciant desist from
dispossession when the former learned about it. Dela Cruz vs Hermano, 754 SCRA 231

105. Sps Dumlao owned a low where the San Mariano Academy was built. This lot was brought
from an auction sale for EJForeclosure from Sps Erorita. Sps Dumlao agreed to allow continuance of
the school to operate. Sps Erorita appointed Hernan and Susan as administrator. Accordingly, Sps
Dumlao agreed to a monthly rental of 20k but Erorita failed to pay. Later, Sps Dumlao asked Eroritas
to vacate. Eroritas wanted to comply but they cannot immediately do it without clearance from DECS.
Sps Dumlao filed a case for recovery of possession to RTC which rendered decision on their favor.
Erorita appealed to CA arguing that it has no jurisdiction because the case is for unlawful detainer.
However, CA affirmed RTC decision. Does RTC has jurisdiction over UD case
 None, It is the MTC which has jurisdiction over RE and UD cases regardless of the assessed value of the
lot. Allegations in the complaint determine the nature of an action and jurisdiction over the case.

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) 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 (1) 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. Erorita vs Dumlao,
718 SCRA 551 January 25 2016

RULE 71: Contempt

106. A TRO was issued on the same day when upon request of certain stockholders of Interport
Resources Corporation, Sec Chariman Yasay, direct Ricalde to submit a list of stockholders. However,
despite the TRO, the meeting proceeded. Hence SEC declared respondents guilty of contempt. CA set
aside the declaration. Respondent argued that the TRO is invalid in light of a TRO issued by CA
restraining SEC to enforce its TRO. Is contempt criminal in character and that their exoneration from
a charge of contempt amounts to an acquittal from which an appeal would not lie
 Yes. In this case, the contempt is not civil in nature, but criminal, imposed to vindicate the dignity and
power of the Commission; hence, as in criminal proceedings, an appeal would not lie form the order of
dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of contempt. Yasay vs Recto 313 SCRA

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 41
 Civil contempt proceedings are generally held to be remedial and civil in their nature; that is, they are proceedings for
the enforcement of some duty, and essentially a remedy for coercing a person to do the thing required. In general, civil
contempt proceedings should be instituted by an aggrieved party, or his successor, or someone who has pecuniary interest
in the right to be protected. If the contempt is initiated by the court or tribunal exercising the power to punish a given
contempt, it is criminal in nature, and the proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the principles and rules
applicable to criminal cases. The State is the real prosecutor.

107. Salvador Sison, MDA enforcer filed a complaint against the Judge and the sheriff with grave
abuse of authority. This stemmed from an Order issued by the judge requiring him to explain a traffic
incident involving his driver-son. The driver’s license was confiscated due to swerving. This happened
while the son of the PJ is on official trip. He tried to negotiate but Sison proceeded to confiscate the
license for violation of traffic rule. Later an order was issued by the Judge requiring Sison to explain
within 24 hours why he should not be cited for indirect contempt. Sison failed to appear. Hence, Judge
ordered arrest and commitment of Sison. Without a warrant, he was arrested and detained. Later on a
hearing, he appeared and apologized under duress. Because of this, he was discharged. Note that the
traffic violation happened in Mandaluyong city and Judge seats in Las Pinas city. May the judge be held
administratibly liable?
 Yes. Judge exercised the power beyond his powers. Thus, the power to declare a person in contempt
of court and in dealing with him accordingly is an inherent power lodged in courts of justice, to be used
as a means to protect and preserve the dignity of the court, the solemnity of the proceedings therein,
and the administration of justice from callous misbehavior, offensive personalities, and contumacious
refusal to comply with court orders. Sison vs Caoibes Jr 429 SCRA 258

108. Sharcons bought from Evanswinda Morales a land in Dasmariñas. TCT was issued. However,
when workers tried to fence and take possession of the lot, they were prevented by the caretaker of
Sps Mapua. The caretaker claimed that Sps Mapua are the owners of the land. Sharcons verified the
status of the title and found that it was indeed registered in the names of Sps Mapua. Sharcons filed
with RTC a complaint for quieting of title, impleading as defendants were Sps Mapua, Morales, and the
RD. Judge Español, issued an Order stating that Sharcons have used a spurious certificate of title and
tax declaration when it filed quieting of title. Consequently, petitioner declared respondents guilty of
direct contempt of court and ordered their confinement for 10 days. Is the verdict proper?
 NO. Use of falsified and forged documents constitutes indirect (not direct) contempt.
Indirect or constructive contempt is one perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and may include
misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official
transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of
a court, or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or any unlawful interference with the
process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct tending
directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. Section 3, Rule 71, a
contemner may be punished only after a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity has been
given to the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. Espanol vs Formoso, 525 SCRA

109. P/Supt. Hansel M. Marantan is the respondent in G.R. No. 199462, a Criminal Case, where
Marantan and his co-accused are charged with homicide. Respondent Monique Cu-Unjieng La’O is one
of the petitioners in the said case, while respondent Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno is her counsel. The case
involves an incident where the son of La’O and his company were shot and killed by police officers at
Ortigas Center allegedly for carnapping. La’O, together with other petitioners filed that the resolution
for homicide be withdrawn; and that charges for murder be filed.

While case is pending, A shooting incident occurred in Quezon, where Marantan was the ground
commander in a police-military team, which resulted in the death of 13 men (Atimonan incident). The
encounter, according to Marantan, elicited much negative publicity, that respondents took advantage
of the incident. After a few consecutive days, La’O, her counsel, Atty. Diokno, and Ernesto Manzano,
organized and conducted a media press conference where they allegedly made malicious, intemperate
and unreasonable comments on the conduct of the Court in handling G.R. No. 199462, branding
Marantan and his co-accused guilty of murder in the Ortigas incident. Whether the sub judice rule

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 42
 restricting comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings infringe on freedom of
speech.
 No. The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in
order to avoid prejudicing the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.
IC is a form of contempt that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting
judicially. In the case, the comments are merely a reiteration of the respondents 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. The mere restatement of their argument in their
petition cannot actually, or does not even tend to, influence the Court. Marantan vs Diokno 716 SCRA
164 February 2014

110. Jill charged Judge Paredes with grave misconduct. Jill was a student of Judge Paredes in
Political Law Review. She averred that in 2010, in his class discussions, Judge Paredes named her
mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis (Judge Tormis) as one of the judges involved in the marriage scams in
Cebu City. Judge Paredes also mentioned in his class that Judge Tormis was abusive of her position as
a judge, corrupt, and ignorant of the law. In one session, Judge even said that Francis, son of Judge was
a court-noted addict. Is Judge Paredes is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge.
 Yes. To constitute misconduct, the act or acts must have a direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of his official duties. In this case, the alleged misconduct happened in a class discussion
and Judge is not in the exercise of his official duty. Hence he cannot be liable for misconduct not grave
misconduct. Subjudice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings
I order to avoid prejudicing the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.
Notably, when Judge Paredes discussed the marriage scams involving Judge Tormis in 2010, the
investigation relative to the said case had not yet been concluded. In 2010, he still could not make
comments on the administrative case to prevent any undue influence in its resolution. Commenting
on the marriage scams, where Judge Tormis was one of the judges involved, was in contravention of
the subjudice rule. Justice Diy was, correct in finding that Judge Paredes violated Section 4, Canon 3 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Tormis vs Paredes, 749 SCRA 505 February 4 2015

111. May filing of an Urgent Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, despite knowledge of the
pendency of a case, constituted forum shopping.
 No. Pascual et al. did not commit forum shopping. In this case, any action by the CA on Pascual et al.’s
motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 is provisional in nature, such that it can in no way constitute as res
judicata in CA-G.R. SP No. 61873. In CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 – it seeks the CA’s approval to execute the
RTC Decision pending final disposition of Pulumbarit’s appeal. In CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 - an action to
determine whether grave abuse of discretion was committed by RTC when it allowed execution
pending appeal. The grant by the CA of a motion for execution pending appeal, being provisional in
nature, could therefore not have rendered CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 moot and academic. Palumbarit vs CA
772 SCRA 244

112. Is finding of fact in the application for receivership constituted res judicata as to the issue of
the true agreement between the parties.
 No. There is “bar by prior judgment” when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered
and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes
of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second
action. Palumbarit vs CA 772 SCRA 244

113. Provincial Prosectutor downgraded the charges against Alandoni, Anwar and Balindong and
dropped the charges against Amar and Ali. Zenaida, the widow of the victim filed a petition for review
questioning the provincial prosecutor’s resolution before DOJ. Cuevas modified the resolution and
instructed filing of 2 frustrated murder with attempted murder, 2 for frustrated murder and attempted
murder. MR was filed – denied. 2nd MR was filed to new Secretary – Tuquero- denied. 3rd MR to Perez
– granted. Zenaida filed MR – denied. Hence, appealed to CA thru certiorari. CA set aside Perez
Resolution and affirmed previous resolutions issued by previous secretary.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 43
 RTC QC found PC. Accused filed a Motion to Re-Determine the existence or Non-Existence of PC which
may even warrant dismissal – Even to the appropriate charges of Homicide, Frustrated and Attempted
Homicides. Judge failed to issue Alias Warrant hence, Zenaida moved for inhibition of the Judge. Lee
granted the motion of the accused and voluntarily inhibited. After re-raffle, the new judge (Baclig)
denied the MR filed by the accused and vacated the order made by Judge Lee and set the arraignment.
Accused filed motion for inhibition of Judge Baclig but was denied.

Because of this events, OSG filed a special civil action for certiorari to CA questioning the order of judge
Lee granting the re-evaluation and the order of judge Baclig denying the re-evaluation. CA found Judge
Lee and Balindong guilty of indirect contempt. Is there a merit to contempt Judge Balut when it
deferred enforcement of arrest due to pending MR on the ground of judicial courtesy

 None. SC dismissed the contempt charge. A disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its
authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the courts
orders, but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law
into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice. The act of issuing the
warrant of arrest upon filing of the information and supporting papers implied that the judge has
determined the existence of probable cause for the offenses charged. Contempt of court is a defiance of
the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and
administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their
witnesses during litigation. Balindong vs CA 773 SCRA 27

114. With the death of 2 BOT, La Salle entered a MOA with SFS for supervision. La Salle appointed
supervisors to sit in BOT without voting rights. Bro. Oca stepped in and was appointed as Chairman
and President of SFS. Bro Magbanua was elected as Treasurer. Later, there was a disagreement as to
the administrative structure. Bro Oca and Bro Magbanua wanted to expand the supervisory matters to
include finances, admin, and operations which was opposed by Custodio. Custodio filed a case with
RTC praying for TRO to enjoin Bro Oca from calling a special membership meeting to remove her as
BOT. RTC appointed the cashier Ms. Reynante as authorized to collect and her as authorized to pay. An
order was issued directing turnover of matriculation funds. In a comment filed by custodia, she averred
that there are still funds not turned over. Hence, court issued another order directing turnover of the
funds still in their possession. However, the parties failed to comply to turn over the funds with
Custodio and Reynante. Hence, Custodio filed a contempt case. Defendants aver that they wanted
clarification as to the use of the funds because it is reserved for the retirement of teachers. In their
defense, the comment filed by Custodio should have been set for hearing but this did not materialize
hence they were denied of due process. RTC found defendants guilty of contempt for failure to adhere
to court orders. Is the verdict proper?
 Yes. This Court rules that petitioners Oca, Magbanua, Cirila, and Josefina are guilty of indirect
contempt. There is a contumacious refusal on their part to comply with the RTC’s Orders. Oca vs
Custodio, 832 SCRA 2017

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 44
 Direct contempt consists of “misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before it.”—
Direct contempt consists of “misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before it.”
It includes:
1. disrespect to the court,
2. offensive behavior against others,
3. Refusal, despite being lawfully required, to be sworn in or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition.
It can be punished summarily without a hearing.

Indirect contempt is committed through any of the acts enumerated under Rule 71, Section 3 of the ROC:
a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his [or her] official duties or in his [or her] 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;
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 [or her].

PART II — SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rule 72 to 109)

115. Beatriz died and was survived by 6 heirs - Sr., Edmundo, Edgardo, Jr., Neilia and Ligaya. Later,
settlement of estate was filed. Intestate Court (IC) appointed Edgardo as administrator who withdrew
thru a motion causing the appointment of Sr. as new administrator. Later, the heirs had several battles
as to who should be appointed as aadministrator. Jr filed claims that Sr’s appointment was
questionable. He was removed but was later on reinstated. Part of an order that was challenged
involves the sale made by Jr. in favor of Citrine of a parcel of land in Makati via a DOAS. Another land
in Makati was sold to Ocampo, which the latter sold to Zee. Individual titles were issued under the
buyers’ names. This happened during the interim where Jr was appointed as administrator and during
the time when Sr’s appointment was revoked by IC. Sr. sought the IC to declare the DOAS executed as
null and void. IC granted said motions. Jr. filed a consolidated petition for certiorari before the CA
challenging the reinstatement of Sr. as administrator, the denial of Jr.’s motion for inhibition, and the
declaration of nullity of the DOAS. CA denied the first 2 but granted the latter, thereby reversing IC’s
declaration of nullity. Hence, the instant petition (Rule 45). Is the reversal proper?
 No. The CA was correct in reversing the IC Decision. The court having jurisdiction over properties
under administration has the authority not only to approve any disposition or conveyance, but also to
annul an unauthorized sale by the prospective heirs or administrator. Court approval is necessary for
the validity of any disposition of the decedent’s estate. Sale by an administrator without the order of
the court is void and passes no title to the purchaser. Silverio vs Silverio

116. A case for settlement of the estate of Felicisimo who died in Muntinlupa but an incumbent
official of Laguna. Petition for LOA before the RTC of Makati City. Rodolfo San Luis, one of the children
of Felicisimo by his first marriage, filed a MTD on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a
COA. Decide.
 Denied. Sec. 1, Rule 73 of the ROC, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo
should be filed in the RTC of the province “in which he resides at the time of his death.” For purpose of
fixing venue under the ROC, the residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or
actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile
provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.—It is incorrect for petitioners to argue
that “residence,” for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo, is
synonymous with “domicile.” San Luis vs San Luis

117. Joaquin Agtarap died intestate in Pasay without any known debts or obligations. During his
lifetime, he contracted 2 marriages and left 2 lands in Pasay. Joseph, a grandson, put the lot to lease
and improvements and had been appropriating for himself P26, 000.00 per month since April 1994.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 45
 Eduardo asked to be appointed as administrator which was granted. Other heirs opposed and alleged
that the lots belong to the conjugal partnership of Joaquin with Lucia (1st marriage), and that, upon
Lucia’s death, they became the pro indiviso owners of the properties. RTC ordered Partition which was
appealed to CA questioning the RTC power and authority to determine questions of ownership. Decide.
 Granted. As held in several cases, a court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or
intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which
are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but
by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. However, this general rule is subject to
exceptions as justified by expediency and convenience. First, the 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 court and the rights of
third parties are not impaired, then the court is competent to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its
jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate,
such as the determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is
conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse. Agtarap vs Agtarap

118. Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay died intestate on 4 June 1990, survived by her spouse, Federico and
5 GC: 3 LGC, including respondent Isabel; and 2 ILGC, including petitioner Emilio III, all by Federico’s
and Cristina’s only child, Emilio A. Suntay (Emilio I) who predeceased. In 1965, the marriage between
Emilio I and Isabel Cojuancgo was declared null and void. The illegitimate children grew up with
Grandparents Federico and Cristina. The legitimates were raised by their mother, Isabel Cojuangco.
After Cristina’s death, Federico adopted his 2 ILGC. Isabel filed for an application for LOA. Federico
opposed in that he is the nearest of kin and the application did not include the 2 ILGC as heirs. Upon
his death, Emilio III was appointed as administrator. On appeal, the appointment was revoked and
Isabel was appointed administrator. Later, both were appointed as co-administrator. Both filed MR.
Who has better qualification?
 Partially Granted. Letter of Administration is issued solely to Isabel. In this case, Emilio III failed to
provide for a complete inventory of the properties as required by the court. He likewise committed
fraud in transferring the properties to different names. With this, the court sees that Isabel Emilio III
is unfit to administer the estate. The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator
over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator’s interest in the estate.― Sec. 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. Suntay III vs Cojuangco-Suntay

119. Rafael and Jose Ortaez were appointed as joint special administrators of their father’s estate.
They submitted an inventory which included shares of stock in Philinterlife. During its pendency, the
decedent’s wife claiming that she owned some shares of stock as her conjugal share in the estate, sold
said shares in favor of FLAG. Special Administrator Jose Ortaez acting in his personal capacity also sold
the remaining shares of stocks as his inheritance share in the estate in favor of FLAG. After being
appointed as Special Administratix, private respondent Enderes filed a motion to declare void ab initio
the DOAS of Philinterlife shares of stock. Did the intestate court committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or want of jurisdiction in declaring that the ownership of FLAG over the
Philinterlife shares of stock was null and void.
 NO. The jurisprudence is 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 court, there being no need for a separate action
to annul the unauthorized disposition. In a prevailing jurisprudence, 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. LEE VS RTC OF QC

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 46
 120. May the intestate court execute an order nullifying the invalid sale?
 YES. The intestate court has the power to execute its order with regard to the nullity of an unauthorized
sale of estate property, otherwise its power to annul the unauthorized or fraudulent disposition of
estate property would be meaningless. Enforcement is a necessary adjunct of the intestate or courts
power to annul unauthorized or fraudulent transactions to prevent the dissipation of estate property
before final adjudication. LEE VS RTC OF QC

121. Hilario M. Ruiz executed a holographic will naming his only son, Edmond, his adopted
daughter, Maria, and his 3 GC, all children of Edmond. The testator bequeathed to his heirs substantial
cash, personal and real properties and named Edmond Ruiz executor of his estate.

After his death, Edmond did not take any action for the probate of his father's holographic will. After 4
years, Maria filed probate and approval of the will and for the issuance of letters testamentary to
Edmond. Court ordered deposit of the rentals from one of the properties to which he complied. Later,
court admitted the will and ordered the issuance of LT to Edmond upon the filing of a bond. Edmond
Ruiz as executor, filed an "Ex-Parte Motion for Release of Funds - rent payments. Maria opposed and
prayed for the release of the rent to 3GC and for the distribution of the testator's properties. Court
ordered the release of the rent to the 3 GC and delivery of the titles to and possession of the properties.

May the court, after admitting the will to probate but before payment of the estate's debts and
obligations, has the authority:
(1) to grant an allowance from the funds of the estate for the support of the testator's
grandchildren;
(2) to order the release of the titles to certain heirs; and
(3) to grant possession of all properties of the estate to the executor of the will.

 No authority. Sec. 3 of Rule 83 of the Revised ROC expressly states "children" of the deceased which
excludes the latter's grandchildren. Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the substantive law
in force at the time of the testator's death, provides that during the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership, the deceased's legitimate spouse and children, regardless of their age, civil status or
gainful employment, are entitled to provisional support from the funds of the estate. Grandchildren
are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedent's estate.

 No authority. In settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the estate properties can only be
made:
1. after all the debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and
estate tax have been paid; or
2. before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a
sum fixed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations within such time as
the court directs, or when provision is made to meet those obligations.

Notably, at the time the order was issued the properties of the estate had not yet been inventoried and
appraised.

 No. As executor, he is a mere trustee of his father's estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are trust
funds and he is held to the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order. He cannot
unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents' properties and the fruits thereof without first
submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of the deceased, rendering a
true account of his administration, the expenses of administration, the amount of the obligations and
estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the court as to their veracity, propriety and
justness. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs Edmond Ruiz

122. Efraim (deceased) loaned from First Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC) for the payment
of Agricultural Tractors. Efraim died, leaving a holographic will which was probated. Edmund was

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 47
 appointed as the special administrator of the estate. In the meantime, FCCC assigned all its assets and
liabilities to Union Bank. Demand letters were sent by Union Bank to Edmund, but he refused to pay.
Thus, Union Bank filed a Complaint for sum of money against the heirs of Efraim. Is the action proper?
 NO, it is the probate court that has jurisdiction. Well-settled is the rule that a 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. The said court is
primarily concerned with the administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate. The filing of a
money claim against the decedent’s estate in the court is mandatory. Union Bank vs Santibanez

123. Eliseo – father, Lourdes– common law wife, Elise – daughter. When Eliseo died intestate, Elise
represented by her mother, Lourdes, filed a Petition for LOA in RTC to preserve the estate of Eliseo and
to prevent the dissipation of its value and prayed for appointment as Administratix. Amelia (legal wife),
together with her 2 children opposed on the ground of improper venue asserting that Eliseo was a
resident of Tarlac and not of Las Piñas City. Moreover, there are no factual and legal bases for Elise to
be appointed Administratix of Eliseo’s estate. RTC issued LOA to Elise upon posting the necessary
bond. CA affirmed. For purposes of fixing the venue the decedent was a resident of Las Piñas City. Is
venue proper? Is Elise qualified?
 YES. Under Sec. 1, Rule 73 of the ROC, the petition for LOA of the estate of a decedent should be filed
in the RTC of the province where the decedent ACTUALLY resides at the time of his death. Elise, as a
compulsory heir who stands to be benefited by the distribution of Eliseo’s estate, is deemed to be an
interested party. It is founded on her right as a compulsory heir, who, under the law, is entitled to her
legitimate after the debts of the estate are satisfied. Having a vested right in the distribution of Eliseo’s
estate as one of his natural children, Elise can rightfully be considered as an interested party within
the purview of the law. Garcia-Quiazon vs Belen

124. Maximino was married to Donata but their union did not produce any children. The heirs of
Maximino filed a complaint against the heirs of Donata for the partition, annulment, and recovery of
possession of real property alleging that Donata, as administratrix of the estate, through fraud and
misrepresentation, in breach of trust, and without the knowledge of the other heirs, succeeded in
registering in her name the real properties belonging to the intestate estate of Maximino. The heirs of
Donata as a defense alleged prescription. Accordingly, the heirs of Maximino knew his death and even
attended his wake. They did not offer any explanation as to why they had waited 33 years from death
before one of them, Silverio, filed a Petition for LOA. After learning that the intestate estate of Maximino
was already settled in a special proceeding, they waited another two years, before instituting a
complaint for partition, annulment and recovery of the real property belonging to the estate of
Maximino. Decide.
 Denied. Considering the circumstances in the afore-quoted paragraphs, as well as respondents’
conduct before this Court, particularly the belated submission of evidence and argument of new issues,
respondents are consistently displaying a penchant for delayed action, without any proffered reason
or justification for such delay. It is well established that the law serves those who are vigilant and
diligent and not those who sleep when the law requires them to act. The law does not encourage laches,
indifference, negligence or ignorance. On the contrary, for a party to deserve the considerations of the
courts, he must show that he is not guilty of any of the aforesaid failings.

It is already settled in jurisprudence that an implied trust as opposed to an express trust is subject to
prescription and laches. The general rule is that an action for reconveyance of real property based on
implied trust prescribes 10 years from registration and/or issuance of the title to the property. The rule
on non-prescription of action for partition of property owned in common does not apply to the case at
bar. —In this case Donata had never recognized respondents as co-owners or co-heirs, either expressly
or impliedly. An action to annul an order or judgment based on fraud must be brought within four years
from the discovery of the fraud. PILAPIL VS HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES

125. A case for ejectment was filed. During this time, Sabidong is a COC II of the Court. During the
pendency of the case, Sabidong goffered to buy the lot in case the parties to the case refused to buy it
as they are preferred for being the first occupant. Later, the occupants refuse to buy the lot hence

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 48
 Sabidong purchased it with court approval. Years later, the new EJ received a complaint alleging that
Sabidong is not qualified to buy the property because he is a court employee. He was awarded a
forfeiture of salary for 6 months, which shall be deducted from his retirement benefits. Is the award
proper?
 NO.Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from
acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. The rule is
that as long as the order for the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate
proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated. ―Court loses jurisdiction of an estate under
administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs
entitled to receive the same. For the prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the property must
take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Where the property is acquired
after the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
In this case, when Sabidong purchased the lot, the case has been long decided. Sabidong vs Solas
The approval of the inventory and the concomitant determination of the ownership as basis for inclusion or exclusion from the inventory
were provisional and subject to revision at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings. The final judgment rule embodied
in the first paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 41, ROC, which also governs appeals in special proceedings, stipulates that only the judgments, final
orders (and resolutions) of a court of law “that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these
Rules to be appealable” may be the subject of an appeal in due course.

Multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings as a practical recognition of the possibility that material issues may be finally
determined at various stages of the special proceedings.— Sec. 1, Rule 109 of the ROC enumerates the specific instances in which multiple
appeals may be resorted to in special proceedings, viz.: Sec. 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken.

An interested person may appeal in special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court, where such order or judgment:
(a) Allows or disallows a will;
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the distributive share of the estate to which such person is entitled;
(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the
estate in offset to a claim against it;
(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;
(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or
guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from
the appointment of a special administrator; and
(f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial rights of the person appealing, unless it be an order
granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration.

126. Emigdio died intestate, survived by his 2nd wife - Teresita, and 5 children; and his 2 children
by his 1st marriage: Franklin and Thelma. During his lifetime, he assigned his real properties in
exchange for corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, Cebu to Mervir
Realty. Thelma filed a petition for the appointment of Teresita as the administrator which was
granted– LOA was issued. Teresita submitted an inventory. Claiming that Emigdio had owned other
properties that were excluded, Thelma asked RTC to direct Teresita to amend the inventory, and to be
examined. Thelma opposed the approval of the inventory, and asked leave of court to examine Teresita
on the inventory. RTC issued order finding and holding that the inventory had excluded properties that
should be included. Teresita, joined by other heirs, sought reconsideration on the ground that one of
the real properties affected had already been sold to Mervir Realty. CA reversed the RTC decision
insofar as the inclusion of land at Cebu and the various land in the revised inventory. Did RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the inclusion of certain properties in the inventory
notwithstanding that such had been either transferred by sale or exchanged for shares by the decedent
during his lifetime?
 No. The CA's conclusion of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC was unwarranted and
erroneous. The court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of properties for purposes of
their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be submitted by the administrator, but its
determination shall only be provisional unless the interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or
the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction
by the court and the rights of third parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction extends to matters
incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the determination of
the status of each heir and whether property included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive
property of the deceased spouse. Aranas vs Mercado

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 49
 127. Pedro died intestate. Heirs of his first wife allege that their co-heirs from the second marriage
sold the properties to the Sps., Francisco and Maria without their knowledge and consent. Upon
inquiry, RD of Nasugbu had no record of any sale. A notice of an extrajudicial settlement was published.
Because of this, respondents caused the annotation of their adverse claims and filed their complaint
praying for the annulment of all documents conveying the subject properties to the petitioners and
certificates of title issued to Sps. Francisco and Maria. They denied the allegation for lack of knowledge
and for being a buyer in good faith. RTC nullified the transfer due to irregularities. Sps., Francisco and
Maria filed MR raising RTC's lack of jurisdiction alleging that when the Complaint for Judicial Partition
with Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession was filed, there was yet no settlement of estate.
Hence, Court should have acted by appointing an administrator for the settlement of estate and not to
rule on the action for partition. Decide.
 Deny. Sps Francisco and Maria is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents' causes of action
pertaining to the properties left behind by the decedent Pedro, his known heirs, and the nature and
extent of their interests thereon, may fall under an action for settlement of estate. However, a complete
reading of the complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of the suit, the allegations
therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title
and recovery of possession. The general rule is that when a person dies intestate, or, if testate, failed to
name an executor in his will or the executor so named is incompetent, or refuses the trust, or fails to
furnish the bond required by the ROC, then the decedent’s estate shall be judicially administered and the
competent court shall appoint a qualified administrator in the order established in Sec. 6 of Rule 78 of the
ROC. —Except: Sec. 1 of Rule 74 wherein the heirs of a decedent, who left no will and no debts due from
his estate, may divide the estate either extrajudicially or in an ordinary action for partition without
submitting the same for judicial administration nor applying for the appointment of an administrator
by the court. Butiong vs Plazo G.R. No. 187524. August 5, 2015.

RULE 91: Escheats

128. Fermina A. Lopez, a widow, was an awardee of Lots and the winning bidder at auction sale by
BOL. She executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication and Transfer of Rights over Lot 5 in favor of Amelita,
who agreed to assume all the obligations, duties, and conditions imposed upon Fermina. Document of
transfer was filed with BOL which approved the same. Consequently, an OCT was issued in the name
of Amelita and her husband. Petitioner filed for reconveyance against Amelita claiming that Fermina
donated the land to him and immediately thereafter, he took possession. Decide.
 Deny. Execution of public documents, as in the case of Affidavits of Adjudication, is entitled to the
presumption of regularity. Even assuming that respondent Amelita Sola acquired title to the disputed
property in bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of PLA.
CASTORIO ALVARICO vs SOLA

129. Eusebio sold a land to Eliseo during the 5-year prohibitory period (violating Sec. 118 of the
Public Land Act). Eusebio died. Norberta and her children filed a Complaint for Nullity of Title and
Reconveyance of Title against Eliseo and the RD. Is the sale of an agricultural land by a free patent
during the 5-year prohibited period result to its automatic reversion as part of the public domain?
 The sale of a parcel of agricultural land covered by a free patent during the five-year prohibitory period
under the Public Land Act is void. Reversion of the parcel of land is proper. However, reversion under
Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act is not automatic. OSG must first file an action for reversion. The purpose
of reversion is "to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed to private individuals or
corporations to the mass of public domain. The five (5)-year period prohibiting the sale of land obtained
under homestead or free patent is provided under Sec. 118 of the Public Land Act (PLA).— Except in favor
of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, or legally constituted banking
corporations, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to
encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of 5 years
from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period; but the improvements or
crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.
Maltos vs Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 50
 Note:
Sec. 29 of the Public Land Act is an exception to the rule that reversion is not automatic (meaning, reversion can be automatic).

Sec. 29 provides:
After the cultivation of the land has begun, the purchaser, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, may convey
or encumber his rights to any person, corporation, or association legally qualified under this Act to purchase agricultural public lands,
provided such conveyance or encumbrance does not affect any right or interest of the Government in the land: And provided, further,
That the transferee is not delinquent in the payment of any installment due and payable. Any sale and encumbrance made without the
previous approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall be null and void and shall produce the effect of annulling the
acquisition and reverting the property and all rights to the State, and all payments on the purchase price theretofore made to the
Government shall be forfeited. After the sale has been approved, the vendor shall not lose his right to acquire agricultural public lands
under the provisions of this Act, provided he has the necessary qualifications.

130. Valbueco, Inc. filed an action for Annulment of the Free Patents, CTC and Damages against
Narcise, et al., DENR and RD of Bataan alleging that he is the possessor of the subject lots in an actual,
peaceful, adverse and peaceful possession. From 1977 until 1999, OCT, FP and TCT covering the lots
in question were issued for petitioners. Is the instant case actually a reversion case?
 No, annulment of title is the proper remedy. An action for reversion, a remedy provided under
Commonwealth Act No. 141, seeks to cancel the original certificate of registration, and nullify the
original certificate of title, including the transfer of certificate of title of the successors-in-interest
because the same were all procured through fraud and misrepresentation.

An action for annulment of free patents and certificates of title also seeks for the cancellation and
nullification of the certificate of title, but once the same is granted, it does not operate to revert the
property back to the State, but to its lawful owner. In such action, the nullity arises not from fraud or
deceit, but from the fact that the director of the Land Management Bureau had no jurisdiction to bestow
title; hence, the issued patent or certificate of title was void ab initio.

The action is one of annulment of patents and titles. The allegations in the complaint show that
respondent asserts its ownership over the subject properties by acquisitive prescription. Acquisitive
prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership of a real or immovable property by possessor through
the requisite lapse of time. In order to ripen into ownership, possession must be in the concept of an
owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. The possession contemplated as foundation for
prescriptive right must be one under claim of title or adverse to or in prescription. Narcise vs Valbueci
Inc 831 SCRA 319 July 2917

Note:
An action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in
possession of the property subject of the fraudulent acts. (Lausa vs. Quilaton, 767 SCRA 399 [2015]

The Solicitor General may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State in sales of real estate
to aliens incapable of holding title thereto. (Ang vs. Estate of Sy So, 799 SCRA 266 [2016])

General Guardians and Guardianship

131. A Petition for Letters of Guardianship” over the person and properties of her sister Julieta was
filed on the grounds of old age, general debility, and a “mini”-stroke which she suffered in the United
States. Goyena opposed alleging that Julieta is competent and sane and there is absolutely no need to
appoint a guardian. RTC awarded the guardianship. Is the award proper?
 In the selection of a guardian, a large discretion must be allowed the judge who deals directly with the
parties.— As a rule, when it appears that the judge has exercised care and diligence in selecting the
guardian, 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. Goyena vs Ledesma-Gustilo

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 51
 132. Carmen Cañiza, a retired pharmacist was declared incompetent and her niece, Amparo
was appointed as her legal guardian. Sometime, her guardian commenced an ejectment suit against
Sps.Pedro. MeTC favored the guardian. May a legal guardian bring action for ejectment in behalf of the
ward? Can this representation be continued despite death of the ward?
 Amparo had authority. Amparo Evangelista was appointed by a competent court the general guardian
of both the person and the estate of her aunt, Carmen. By that appointment, it became Evangelista's
duty to get possession of, and exercise control over, Cañiza's property, both real and personal.
 Evangelista may continue to represent Cañiza. While it is indeed well-established rule that the
relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the
ward, the rule affords no advantage to the Estradas. Amparo, as niece of Carmen Cañiza, is one of the
latter's only two (2) surviving heirs, the other being Cañiza's nephew, Ramon. Cañiza vs CA

133. Neri had 7 children: 2 from her 1st marriage with Gonzalo (Eutropia and Victoria) and 5 from
her 2nd marriage with Enrique (Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda, Douglas and Rosa). Neri died intestate.
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
DOAS, adjudicating themselves the properties, and conveyed them to the Sps. Hadji. The children of
Gonzalo filed a complaint for annulment of sale of the said properties against Sps. Hadji before the RTC,
assailing validity for having been sold within the prohibited period. Is the extrajudicial settlement of
the estate is valid?
 No. Execution of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale in favor of Sps.
Uy, all the heirs of Anunciacion should have participated. Considering that Eutropia and Victoria were
admittedly excluded and that then minors Rosa and Douglas were not properly represented therein,
the settlement was not valid and binding upon them. Neri vs Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy

134. Nilo Oropesa’s, petition for guardianship over the properties of his father, Cirilo Oropesa. A
petition (guardianship) for Cirilo praying Nilo and Ms. Ginez to be appointed as guardians over the
property of their father on grounds of old age and impaired memory. Nilo filed his Opposition and
presented his evidence – his self, his sister, and a former nurse’s testimony but failed to file his written
formal offer of evidence. May Nilo be considered incompetent and if he is, who should be appointed as
his guardian?
 No.The only medical document on record is the Report of Neuropsychological Screening. Said report,
was ambivalent at best, although had negative findings regarding memory lapses on the part of
respondent, it also contained finding that supported the view that respondent on the average was
indeed competent. Sec. 2, Rule 92 of the ROC tells us that 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. Sec. 2. “Incompetent.” includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who
are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of
unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by
reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of
themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.
Oropesa vs Oropesa

135. Eduardo filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of Maura with RTC
and alleged that he is Maura's nephew. Leonardo opposed the Appointment alleging that he is also a
nephew and that he was not notified of the pendency of the petition. Biason prayed that he be
appointed since he was previously granted by the latter with a SPA. RTC appointed Biason. Pending
the resolution of the instant petition to SC, Biason died. May guardianship still be awarde despite
demise of Maura?
 No, 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. Abad vs Biason

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 52
RULE 98: Trustees
Under the Trust Receipts Law, intent to defraud is presumed when (1) the entrustee fails to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods
covered by the trust receipt to the entruster; or (2) when the entrustee fails to return the goods under trust, if they are not disposed of in
accordance with the terms of the trust receipts.—There are two obligations in a trust receipt transaction. The first is covered by the
provision that refers to money under the obligation to deliver it (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold. The second is
covered by the provision referring to merchandise received under the obligation to return it (devolvera) to the owner.

In all trust receipt transactions, both obligations on the part of the trustee exist in the alternative—the return of the proceeds of the sale or
the return or recovery of the goods, whether raw or processed.

Elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation with Sec. 13 of the Trust Receipts Law.—In
order that the respondents “may be validly prosecuted for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation
with Sec. 13 of the Trust Receipts Law, the following elements must be established:
a) they received the subject goods in trust or under the obligation to sell the same and to remit the proceeds thereof to [the
trustor], or to return the goods if not sold;
b) they misappropriated or converted the goods and/or the proceeds of the sale;
c) they performed such acts with abuse of confidence to the damage and prejudice of Metrobank; and
d) Demand was made on them by [the trustor] for the remittance of the proceeds or the return of the unsold goods.”

136. Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC) executed in favor of Landbank trust
receipts to secure the purchase of construction materials. When the trust receipts matured, ACDC
failed to return to LBP the proceeds of the construction projects or the construction materials subject
of the trust receipts. After several demands went unheeded, LBP filed a complaint for Estafa or
violation of Art. 315, par 1(b) of the RPC, in relation to PD 115, against the respondent officers of ACDC.
WON the disputed transaction is a trust receipt or a loan?
 TRUST RECEIPT. There are two (2) obligations in a trust receipt transaction:
a) Covered by the provision that refers to money under the obligation to deliver it (entregarla)
to the owner of the merchandise sold.
b) Covered by the provision referring to merchandise received under the obligation to return it
(devolvera) to the owner.

The fact that LBP had knowingly authorized the delivery of construction materials to a construction
site of two government projects, as well as unspecified construction materials. As a government
financial institution, LBP should have been aware that the materials were to be used for the
construction of an immovable property, the ownership of whatever was constructed with those
materials would presumably belong to the owner of the land, under Article 445 of the Civil Code. In
contrast with the present situation, it is fundamental in a trust receipt transaction that the person who
advanced payment for the merchandise becomes the absolute owner of said merchandise and
continues as owner until he or she is paid in full, or if the goods had already been sold, the proceeds
should be turned over to him or her. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Perez

RULE 99: Adoption and Custody of Minors

137. Atty. Jose was married to Rosario. Unfortunately, they separated. They have 2 daughters: Rose,
died after 9 days from birth and Joanne (Petitioner). A petition for adoption of Jed and Regina was
instituted by Atty. Jose alleging that they were his IC with Lilibeth. After a Home Study Report, the
petition was granted. Disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Jose for remising to provide
support to his daughter Joanne for the past 36 year; that she single-handedly raised and provided
financial support while Jose had been showering gifts to his driver and alleged lover and even went to
the extent of adopting Larry’s two children without her and Joanne knowledge and consent. Upon
death of Atty. Jose, Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for annulment of judgment to rescind the
adoption. Decide.
 Adoption should be annulled for extrinsic fraud. Jose’s actions prevented Rosario and Joanne from
having a reasonable opportunity to contest the adoption. RA 8552 requires that the adoption by the
father of a child born out of wedlock obtain not only the consent of his wife but also the consent of his
legitimate children. (Art. III, Sec. 7, RA 8552). As a rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition
for adoption. The law, however, provides for several exceptions to the general rule, as in a situation
where a spouse seeks to adopt his or her own children born out of wedlock. In this instance, joint

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 53
 adoption is not necessary. But, the spouse seeking to adopt must first obtain the consent of his or her
spouse. The law also requires the written consent of the adopter’s children if they are 10 years old or
older (ART. III, Sec. 9, RA 8552). Castro vs Gregorio

138. Herbert and his wife begot three children. Later, Anna learned of an alleged extra marital affair
of her husband. Hence, Anna filed for a legal separation. Granted and ordered support. Herbert left for
USA. He filed a divorce against Anna. US court awarded the custody of the children to Anna and ordered
Herbert to send monthly support and remarried thereby acquiring US citizenship. Not long after, he
divorced anew. Clavano, Anna’s brother and sister-in-law, filed for an adoption case in Cebu. Annexed
an affidavit of consent of the eldest child, Keith (14 y/o), and of the mother Anna. Accordingly, the
father had already abandoned the kids and since she will be leaving for US to work, the care and
custody of the children will be best left to the Clavanos. Herbert opposed. Pending the adoption case,
custody of the children were awarded to Herbert. Adoption was granted. CA affirmed. Should the
consent of the father necessary in the adoption of the three children and if there is an abandonment
 Yes, consent is necessary. Written consent of the natural parent to the adoption has remained a
requisite for its validity. This can be dispensed with if the parent has abandoned the child or that such
parent is insane or hopelessly intemperate. In this case, Herbert substantially proved that he did not
abandon his children. Cang vs CA

139. Surviving spouse of deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob and was appointed Special Administratix for
the various estates of the deceased by virtue of a reconstructed Marriage Contract between herself and
the deceased. Legally-adopted son of Alfredo presented an Order granting the petition for adoption
filed by deceased Alfredo in favor of Pedro Pilapil. May the decree of adoption be admitted to seek
appointment?
 No. The burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person claiming such relationship. This
Pilapil failed to do. Moreover, the evidence presented by petitioner shows that the alleged adoption is
a sham. Vda De Jacob vs CA

140. Sps. Jaime and Zenaida Caranto filed a petition for the adoption of Midael C. Mazon, 15 years
old, who had been living with Jaime since he was 7 years old. OSG opposed the petition insofar as it
sought the correction of the name of the child from Midael to Michael. He argued that although the
correction sought concerned only a clerical and innocuous error, it could not be granted because the
petition was basically for adoption, not the correction of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108
of the ROC. May a petition for adoption include a correction of an entry?
 Yes BUT publication is mandatory. The local civil registrar must be impleaded as an indispensable
party, without whom no final determination of the case can be had. Republic vs CA

141. Eugenio owner of a land adjudicated by virtue of an extrajudicial settlement among the heirs
following the death of his parents. A case was filed to DARAB for annulment of contract by Leonida
alleging that they are the legal heirs of Godofredo, who was the lawful and registered tenant of
Eugenio. Eugenio averred that no tenancy relationship exist. Godofredo’s occupation was based on the
former’s mere tolerance and accommodation. PARAD favored Leonida. Moreover, the status of
Leonida was collaterally attacked due to infirmities of her adoption. Can there be collateral attack in
this case?
 No. The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of defense or as a collateral issue in another
action for a different purpose. The necessity of an independent action directly impugning the
legitimacy is more clearly expressed in the Mexican code (article 335). In Braza v. City Civil Registrar
of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, the Court stated that legitimacy and filiation can be questioned
only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack. Reyes vs
Mauricio

142. Honorato Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor IC Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia
praying that the middle name Astorga be changed to Garcia, her mother's surname, and that her
surname Garcia be changed to Catindig, his surname. The trial court denied the petitioner's request as
there was no law that allowed an adopted child to use the surname of the child's biological mother as

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 54
 the child's middle name. The petitioner argued that adoption is for the benefit and best interest of the
adopted child, hence the child's right to bear a proper name should not be violated. In addition,
permitting the child to use her mother's surname as her middle name avoids the stigma of her
illegitimacy. May an IC use the surname of her mother as her middle name when she is subsequently
adopted by her natural father.
 Yes. The Court held that there is no law expressly prohibiting the child to use the surname of her
natural mother as her middle name and what is not prohibited by law, is allowed. It is customary for
every Filipino to have a middle name, which is ordinarily the surname of the mother. While not set out
in law this custom has been recognized during the lawmaking process. In fact, the Family Law
Committees had agreed that the initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede the
surname of the father. In the Matter of Stephanie Nathy Astorga-Garcia

143. Monina Lim married Primo Lim. They were childless. Lucia Ayuban entrusted them 2 minor
child whose parents were unknown. Lim registered the child to make it appear that they were the
parents. The children were named Michelle P. Lim (Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael). Upon
death of Lim, Monina married Angel Olario (Olario), an American citizen. Monina decided to adopt the
children by availing of the amnesty given under Republic Act No. 85526 (RA 8552) to those individuals
who simulated the birth of a child. At the time of the filing of the petitions for adoption, Michelle was
25 years old and already married, while Michael was 18 years and seven months old. Should the
adoption be joint?
 NO. It is undisputed that, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner had already
remarried. She filed the petitions by herself, without being joined by her husband Olario. We have no
other recourse but to affirm the trial court’s decision denying the petitions for adoption. The law is
clear. There is no room for ambiguity. Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions for
adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. In Re: Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim

144. Nery engage in the services of Atty. Sampana for the annulment of her marriage and for her
adoption by an alien adopter. This was granted. As for the adoption, Sampana asked Nery if she had an
aunt, whom they could represent as the wife of her alien adopter. Thereafter, Nery paid Sampana in
installment and did not ask for receipts. Later, Nery inquired about the status of the petition for
adoption and discovered that there was no such petition filed in the court. IBP found Sampana guilty
of malpractice. May Nery can be legally adopted.
 NO. There was no proof that the adoption may be granted for under the Rules on Adoption A.M no. 2-
06-02 SC under Sec 5 (Domestic Adoption) and Sec 29 (Inter-country Adoption), petitioner does not
in any of those that are enumerated by the law. There was no valid proof or evidence to justify the
adoption proceedings. 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. —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. Nery vs Sampana

145. John is a legally adopted child of Cornelio (Great Grandfather). Cornelio died when John was
only Four (4) years of age. When John was already independent, he was employed as an electrician
(Seaman) of Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. He was enrolled under the government’s Employees’
Compensation Program (ECP). He died due to an accident while on board the vessel Maersk Danville
while it was in Brazil. John was, at the time of his death, childless and unmarried (Single). Thus,
petitioner Bernardina, John’s biological mother and, allegedly, sole remaining beneficiary, filed a claim
for death benefits. SSS denied the claim on the ground that Bernardina was no longer considered as
the parent of John since the latter was legally adopted by Cornelio. As such, it is Cornelio who qualifies
as John’s primary beneficiary, not petitioner. Is the death of the adopter during the adoptee’s minority
results to the AUTOMATIC restoration of the parental authority to the biological parents of the latter?
 Yes. It is automatic. Biological parents retain their rights of succession to the estate of their child who
was the subject of adoption. While the benefits arising from the death of an SSS covered employee do
not form part of the estate of the adopted child, the pertinent provision on legal or intestate succession
at least reveals the policy on the rights of the biological parents and those by adoption vis-à-vis the

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 55
 right to receive benefits from the adopted. In the same way that certain rights still attach by virtue of
the blood relation, so too should certain obligations, which, the Court ruled, include the exercise of
parental authority, in the event of the untimely passing of their minor offspring’s adoptive parent.
Cornelio’s adoption of John, without more, does not deprive petitioner of the right to receive the
benefits stemming from John’s death as a dependent parent, given Cornelio’s untimely demise during
John’s minority. Since the parent by adoption already died, then the death benefits under the
Employees’ Compensation Program shall accrue solely to herein petitioner, John’s sole remaining
beneficiary. Bartolome vs SSS

RULE 101: Proceedings for Hospitalization of Insane Persons

RULE 102: Habeas Corpus
146. Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer married Erlinda Kalaw and lived together for 30 years and had
6 children but separated from bed and board. Upon Potenciano’s arrival from US, he stayed with
Erlinda for 5 months in Antipolo. Their children, Sylvia and Erlinda Ilusorio-Bildner, alleged that
during this time, their mother gave Potenciano an overdose of 200 mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft, an
antidepressant drug prescribed by his doctor. As a consequence, Potenciano’s health deteriorated.
Later, Erlinda filed a petition for guardianship due to his advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight, and
impaired judgment. After attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano did not return to
Antipolo and instead lived in Makati with his children. Erlinda filed with the CA a Petition for Habeas
Corpus to have the custody of her husband. May a wife may secure a Writ of Habeas Corpus to compel
her husband to live with her in their conjugal dwelling
 No. A 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. To justify the grant of the
petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.
The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral. The evidence
showed that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of Potenciano Ilusorio’s liberty
that would justify the issuance of the Writ. Ilusorio vs Bildner

147. Atty. Serapio was charged with plunder together with Former President Estrada and Jinggoy.
He is a member of the BOT and legal counsel of Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. He allegedly received,
on behalf of the said foundation, millions of pesos coming from illegal activities. Ombudsman
recommended the filing of a case against him. Warrant was issued. Upon learning of the said warrant
he voluntarily surrendered to the PNP and filed an Urgent Motion for Bail but is opposed by the
prosecution alleging that he should be arraigned first. The bail hearing was reset several times due to
various pleadings filed by petitioner and the prosecution. Due to this, petitioner filed a petition for
habeas corpus; the prosecution launched an endless barrage of obstructive and dilatory moves to
prevent the conduct of the bail hearings; and, on the failure of the People to adduce strong evidence of
his guilt. Should the petition habeas corpus should be granted?
 No. SC finds no basis for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. General rule applies. “Petition for
habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting ones right to bail. It cannot be availed of
where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and the latter
has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even exercised said discretion. The
proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the court where the criminal case is pending and
to allow hearings thereon to proceed.”
 The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A
person charged with a capital offense is not absolutely denied the opportunity to obtain provisional
liberty on bail pending the judgment of his case. However, as to such person, bail is not a matter of right
but is discretionary upon the court. Had the rule been otherwise, the Rules would not have provided for
an application for bail by a person charged with a capital offense under Rule 114, Sec. 8. In exceptional
circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the courts even when the person concerned is detained
pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntary surrender; Writ issued where the deprivation of liberty while
initially valid under the law had later become invalid.—As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will
not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty in custody of an officer under a process
issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so. For this writ of liberty is recognized as “the
fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 56
 action” due to “its ability to cut through the barriers of form and procedural mazes.” Serapio vs
Sandiganbayan

148. Estrada was arrested by virtue of a warrant in connection with the criminal case for plunder.
Several hundreds of policemen were deployed to effect his arrest. Supporters of Estrada hold camp
outside his residence to prevent his arrest. Meanwhile, PGMA, was faced with "angry and violent mob
armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons" assaulting
and attempting to break into Malacañang. PGMA declared that there was a state of rebellion.
Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the "rebellion" were effected.
Aggrieved by the warrantless arrests several petitions were made. Can there be a valid legal arrest
without warrant when there exist a declaration of "state of rebellion" by the President?
 Petitions were dismissed. PGMA upon lifting the order made the case moot and academic. In quelling
or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons
suspected of rebellion, as provided under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the ROC, if the circumstances so warrant.
The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not based on the declaration of a "state of
rebellion." Resort to the extraordinary remedies of mandamus and prohibition not justified since an
individual subjected to warrantless arrest is not without adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law.
— Such an individual may ask for a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the ROC, where he
may adduce evidence in his defense, or he may submit himself to inquest proceedings to determine
WON he should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court. Mandamus will not
issue unless the right to relief is clear at the time of the award. Lacson vs Perez

149. Anisah filed petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and the release of
Lovely who was detained in the Cebu City Jail for violation of Sec. 5, Article 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165. PDEA planned an entrapment operation leading to the arrest of Adam. Inquest prosecutor
recommended the dismissal of the case but was disapproved by the City Prosecutor. An information
was filed against Adam. On review, DOJ Secretary found no probable cause due to absent of payment.
Is the arrests valid?
 No, the arrest is not valid. 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. The singular function
of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty.— A 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. Sangca vs City Prosecutor of Cebu

150. Anita Mangila and 4 other were charged with syndicated estafa as well as violations of
Republic Act 8042 for illegal recruitment. After PI, judge ordered the arrest without bail, and the
records transmitted to the City Prosecutor for further proceedings. Averring that Judge had no
authority to conduct PI, and the issuance of the warrant was without any justification or probable
cause, Mangila filed a petition for habeas corpus. She argues that habeas corpus is available to her as
she had no adequate remedy in law since the records of the case were already forwarded to the Office
of the City Prosecutor who had no authority to recall the warrant of arrest. Decide.
 Dismiss the HC case. Habeas corpus is a summary remedy. It is analogous to a proceeding in rem when
instituted for the sole purpose of having the person of restraint presented before the judge in order
that the cause of his detention may be inquired into and his statements final. The writ of habeas corpus
does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged
to be the unlawful authority. Hence, the only parties before the court are the petitioner (prisoner) and
the person holding the petitioner in custody, and the only question to be resolved is whether the
custodian has authority to deprive the petitioner of his liberty. The writ may be denied if the petitioner
fails to show facts that he is entitled thereto ex merito justicias. Sec. 4, Rule 102 of the ROC explicitly
states that 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

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 57
 shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order.
Mangila vs Pangilinan

151. Raquel filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and demanded immediate issuance of the
special writ, directing Ma. Hazelina to produce before the court her biological daughter, minor Criselda,
and to return her the custody. This was issued. However, the sheriff was unsuccessful in personally
serving the petitioner copies of the petition. Sheriff left copies at her Caloocan residence, as witnessed
by her counsel and barangay officials. Nevertheless, petitioner failed to appear. Later, petitioner filed
for guardianship over the child which was dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. A criminal case
of kidnapping against the petitioner was filed. Petitioner moved quashal and prayed for the dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction over her person for not personally served with summons. Rule on the MTD.
 Denied. RTC acquired jurisdiction. Service of summons is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it
under Rule 102 of the ROC or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC A writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat
comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Sec. 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and Rule 102 of the
ROC requires that the HC must be filed with the Family Court and enforceable within its judicial region
to which the Family Court belongs. Petition was filed before the family court of Caloocan City. Since
Caloocan City and Quezon City both belong to the same judicial region, the writ issued by the RTC-
Caloocan can still be implemented in Quezon City. Tujan-Militante vs Cada Deapera

152. Datukan went to Saudi Arabia. He learned that police officers in Maguindanao suspected him
to be Butukan, one of the accused of 57 counts of murder. He went to the police station to clear himself.
He presented his passport, airline boarding passes and other documents to prove his absence from the
country during the incident. Police destroyed his passport, arrested him and detained him. A petition
for HC was filed. RTC released him. CA reversed the decision stating that the proper remedy is quashal
of information. Decide.
 The return of the writ may be held by a court apart from that which issued the writ. Should the court
issuing the writ designate a lower court to which the writ is made returnable, the lower court shall
proceed to decide the petition and determine the merits. The decision is appealable to the court that
has appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the lower court. If the accused avails himself or herself
of a motion to quash, the accused “hypothetically admits the facts alleged in the information.” If the
motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by
amendment, the court shall order the amendment of the complaint or information. If the motion to quash
is based on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint or information do not constitute an offense,
the trial court shall give the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. Datukan
Malang Salibo vs The Warden

153. DU30 issued Proclamation 216 declaring martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus in Mindanao on the ground of rebellion and necessity of public safety pursuant to Article VII,
Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution. Is it mandatory for Congress to convene and vote jointly to approve
and for the Proclamation to be valid?
 No. Congress is not constitutionally mandated to convene in joint session except to vote jointly to
revoke the President's declaration or suspension. Congress is only required to vote jointly to revoke
the President's proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person arrested or detained shall be
judicially charged within 3 days, otherwise he shall be released. Padilla vs Congress of the Philippines
832 SCRA (July 2017)

RULE 103 Cross reference to Rule 108: Change of Name

Republic Act No. 9048 march 22, 2001 - Authorizing Civil Registrar or the Consul General to correct a
clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first name or nickname WITHOUT need of
a judicial order, amending Articles 376 and 412 NCC

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 58
Republic Act No. 10172 – Amending RA 9048
Republic Act No. 10172 IRR - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1, SERIES OF 2012
154. Ma. Lourdes Eleosida filed a petition with RTC to correct some entries in the birth certificate
of her son, Charles Christian – surname (Borbon to Eleosida), date of wedding to be blank. No
opposition was made to this petition. RTC dismissed it on the basis that only clerical errors (CLERICAL
ERRORS) of a harmless and innocuous nature like misspelled name, occupation of the parents, etc. may
be subject of judicial order authorizing changes or corrections and not as may affect the civil status,
nationality or citizenship of the person (substantial/material change/error) involved. Is the dismissal
proper?
 No, Rule 108 of the Revised ROC 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. (Note: CLERICAL -SUMMARY;
SUBSTANTIAL- ADVERSARIAL) If all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 (Notice and
publication) (Note: Adversarial) have been followed, it was therefore error for the trial court to dismiss
the petition motu propio without allowing the petitioner to present evidence to support her petition
(and all the other persons who have an interest over the matter to oppose the same). 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.—Rule 108 of
the Revised ROC provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.
Substantial changes are now allowed under Rule 108 in accordance with the ruling in Republic vs.
Valencia provided that the appropriate procedural requirements are complied with. Eleosida vs Civil
Registrar of QC

155. Carlito Kho and his family applied for the correction of various details in their birth certificate.
Carlito petitioned for 1) change of citizenship of his mother from “Chinese” to “Filipino”; 2) delete
“John” from his name; 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. The petition from a non-adversarial nature of the change is premised
on RA 9048, which allows first name and nickname in the birth certificates without judicial order. The
Municipal officer approved the change. The Solicitor General objected to the correction on the ground
that the correction is not merely clerical but requires an adversarial proceeding. The CA favored with
Kho. Is CA correct?
 Denied. The petition is adversarial. It cannot be gainsaid that the petition, insofar as it sought to
change the citizenship of Carlito’s mother as it appeared in his birth certificate and delete the “married”
status of Carlito’s parents in his and his siblings’ respective birth certificates, as well as change the date
of marriage of Carlito and Marivel involves the correction of not just clerical errors of a harmless and
innocuous nature. Rather, the changes entail substantial and controversial amendments. For the
change involving the nationality of Carlito’s mother as reflected in his birth certificate is a grave and
important matter that has a bearing and effect on the citizenship and nationality not only of the
parents, but also of the offspring. Further, the deletion of the entry that Carlito’s and his siblings’
parents were “married” alters their filiation from “legitimate” to “illegitimate” with significant
implications on their successional and other rights. Clearly, the changes sought can only be granted in
an adversary proceeding. Republic vs Kho
Grounds Held Valid for a Change of Name. — Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are:
(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
(b) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;
(c) when the change will avoid confusion;
(d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
(e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and
(f) 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.

156. Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his mother Anna, filed a petition for
change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry to drop his middle name and have his

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 59
 registered name changed to Julian Lin Wang as they plan to stay long in Singapore wherein middle
names are not carried, they anticipate that he will be discriminated because of his current registered
name. Julian and his sister might also be asked whether they are brother and sister since they have
different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language since they do not have
the letter "R" but if there is, they pronounce it as "L." RTC – denied the petition. Are the grounds
mentioned meritorious to grant the petition?
 No, State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification,
and that a change of name is 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 or
reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request
should be denied. To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper
or compelling reason therefore but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official
name. The only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience.
Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim Carulasan

157. Ma. Cristina Torres and Pablo Braza were and had 3 children. Pablo died in an accident. During
the wake, Lucille introduced Ma. Cristina and Pablo’s alleged child, the minor Patrick Alvin Titular
Braza. To confirm the truth, she obtained a copy of Patrick’s birth certificate and a copy of marriage
contract of Lucille and Pablo. She found out that indeed there exist such document. Hence, Ma.Cristina
and her 3 children filed a petition to the RTC to correct the entries in the birth record of Patrick in the
Local Register as Patrick could not have been legitimated due to the marriage between Lucille and
Pablo. RTC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It held that in a special proceeding for correction of entry,
the court is not acting as a Family Court; and thus, has no jurisdiction over an action to annul the
marriage between Lucille and Pablo, impugn Patrick’s legitimacy, or order the DNA testing. Said
controversies must be done in an ordinary adversarial action. Is the RTC correct?
 Yes. In Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no
jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation. Doctrinally, 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; An action seeking the declaration of marriage as void for being
bigamous and one impugning a child’s legitimacy are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC and Art. 171 of the Family Code, respectively, and the petition should be filed in a Family Court. Braza
vs Civil Registrar of Negros Occidental

158. May a petition for change of name be granted as a result of body transformation due to
sex reassignment?
 No, sex reassignment cannot be considered as ground for change of name and sex in the civil registry.
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. For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and
appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to
sex in the civil registry for that reason. Republic vs Silverio

REPUBLIC vs CAGANDAHAN
G.R. No. 166676. September 12, 2008.*

159. May a person suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) petition for change of
name and gender? May filing a petition for change of name can be granted without impleading the local
civil registrar?
 Yes. SC considered “the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as
variations which should not be subject to outright denial.” The SC made use of the available evidence
presented in court including the fact that private respondent thinks of himself as a male and as to the
statement made by the doctor that Cagandahan’s body produces high levels of male hormones
(androgen), which is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.” Republic vs
Cagandahan

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 60
 160. A Petition for Correction of Entry was filed where it was only the Local Civil Registrar of
Gingoog City was impleaded. She alleged that she was born on February 8, 1952 and is the IC of Sy Ton
and Sotera Lugsanay. Her Certificate of Live Birth shows that her full name is "Anita Sy" when in fact
she is allegedly known to her family and friends as "Norma S. Lugsanay." She further claimed that her
school records, Professional Regulation Commission Board of Medicine Certificate, and passport bear
the name "Norma S. Lugsanay." She also alleged that she is an IC considering that her parents were
never married, so she had to follow the surname of her mother. She also contended that she is a Filipino
citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos. However,
NSO records did not bear such changes. Hence, the petition before the RTC. Is the petition meritorious?
 Denied. The changes are substantial. Respondent should have impleaded and notified not only the
Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected
by the changes or corrections respondent wanted to make. The fact that the notice of hearing was
published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not
change the nature of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sec. 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the ROC shows that
the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named
in the petition and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless
may be considered interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the
purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and
due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.
Republic vs Uy

161. Fujiki, a Japanese national married Marinay, a Filipina. However, Fujiki’s parents did not allow
Marinay to go to Japan. Eventually, they lost contact. Marinay then met Maekara, Japanese, and married
Marinay. However, Marinay suffered physical abuse from Maekara so she left him and reconnected
with Fujiki. Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the
marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. Fujiki filed a petition in the
RTC for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage). May a
husband or wife of a prior marriage file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the
subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy? If so,
may RTC take recognizance of such decision?
 Yes. Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may be
made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule
108 of the ROC. Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court
judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. RTC can recognize the foreign judgment
under Rule 108. Petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute
for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the
substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and
other related laws. However, this does not apply in a petition for correction or cancellation of a civil
registry entry based on the recognition of a foreign judgment annulling a marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of the foreign country. Fujiki vs Marinay

162. OLAYBAR, discovered that she was already married to Sune, a Korean, on June 24, 2002, at the
MTCC. She denied having contracted the marriage and claimed that she did not know the alleged
husband; she did not appear before the solemnizing officer; and, that the signature appearing in the
marriage certificate is not hers. OLAYBAR filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage
Contract. Respondent impleaded the Local Civil Registrar, as well as her alleged husband. During trial,
OLAYBAR testified that: She was then in Makati working as a medrep. She denied having known the
supposed husband, but she revealed that she recognized the named witnesses to the marriage as she
had met them while she was working as a receptionist in Tadels Pension House. Her name was used
by a certain Johnny Singh, who owned a travel agency, whom she gave her personal circumstances in
order for her to obtain a passport. Is Correction of Entries under R108 applicable in this case?
 NO. Rule 108 of the ROC provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
registry. The proceedings may either be summary or adversary. In this case, the entries made in the
wife portion of the certificate of marriage are admittedly the personal circumstances of OLAYBAR. A

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 61
 petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to
invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and
procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related
laws. People vs Olaybar

163. A petition for correction of entries in his BC filed in RTC with CR as sole respondent. He alleged
that he is IC of his parents Guillermo A. Onde and Matilde DC Pakingan, but his birth certificate stated
that his parents were married. His birth certificate also stated that his mother's first name is Tely and
that his first name is Franc Ler. He prayed that: Date and place of marriage of his parents - December
23, 1983/ Bicol to not married; First name of his mother - Tely to Matilde; and His first name - Franc
Ler to Francler. RTC ruled that first name and his mother’s first name can be done in the civil registrar.
The marriage status correction is a substantial issue requiring adversarial proceeding. Is the ruling
proper?
 Yes. Sec. 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. Substantial correction that will affect legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an
illegitimate one is adversarial. Onde vs Civil Registrar of Las Pinas

164. Petitioner used the surname Almojuela over the past 60 years. However, upon request of BC
from BSO, he was surprised that he was registered as “Felipe Condeno,” instead of “Felipe Almojuela.”
Thus, he filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in his NSO birth certificate before the RTC. He was born
in Catanduanes and is the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (Jorge), former governor,
and Francisca B. Condeno (Francisca), both deceased who were not married. Said surname was used
in all of his official and legal documents. OSG opposed due to defective publication and contending that
the caption or title of a petition for change of name should state: (a) the alias or other name of
petitioner; (b) the name he seeks to adopt; and (c) the cause for the change of name. CA reversed and
set aside RTC Decision for failure to strictly comply with the requirements when he omitted to implead
the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings, who stand to be affected by the corrections prayed for,
as parties. Is CA correct?
 Yes for failure to strictly comply with notice and impleading indispensable parties RTC has no
jurisdiction. A reading of Sec. 4 and 5 shows that the Rule mandates two (2) sets of notices to potential
oppositors: one given to persons named in the petition, and another given to other persons who are
not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties i.e. the local
civil registrar. Change of family name in the birth certificate of Felipe C. Almojuela as appearing in the
records of NSO

165. Emelita Basilio Gan was born out of wedlock to Pia and Basilio. Her registered name in NSO is
Emelita Basilio. A petiton to change the full name indicated in her BC from “Emelita Basilio” to “Emelita
Basilio Gan.” Claimed that she had been using the name in her records. RTC ordered petitioner to
amend the petition in lie with Rule 108. OSG filed notice of appearance and authorized the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor to appear and assist in the proceedings. RTC granted the petition. OSG opposed
for failed to adduce evidence that she was duly recognized by her father, which would have allowed
her to use the surname of her father.CA reversed and set aside the RTC Order. May an IC may use his
fathers name without proof of recognition or acknowledgement of filiation?
 No. A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right; a proper and reasonable cause must exist
before a person may be authorized to change his name. Articles 366 and 368 of the Civil Code do not
give to an illegitimate child or a natural child not acknowledged by the father the option to use the
surname of the father. Republic vs Gan

Prerogative Writs

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 62
 Sec. 6 of the Rule of the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of
a writ of habeas data.—Sec. 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material allegations of ultimate facts in a
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data: “
a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party;
c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in
control of the data or information, if known;
e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or
information or files kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the
act complained of; and
f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.”

166. Sps. Sanson filed with MCTC a complaint for forcible entry and damages with a prayer for the
issuance of a WPMI against the Daniel Masangkay Tapuz et. al. over a land at Aklan. That the threats to
the life and security of the poor indigent and unlettered petitioners continue because the private
respondents Sansons have under their employ armed men and they are influential with the police
authorities owing to their financial and political clout. Is a petition of Habeas Corpus and Writ of
Amparo proper?
 No for both petitions for writ of amparo and habeas data.
Writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings
and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address
these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty
or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing
Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminary satisfied
with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail
the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the aggrieved party was or is being
committed. The writ of amparo should not issue when applied for as substitute for the appeal or certiorari
process, or when it will inordinately interfere with these processes. When recourses in the ordinary
course of law fail because of deficient legal representation or the use of improper remedial measures,
neither the writ of certiorari nor that of amparo—extraordinary though they may be—will suffice to
serve as a curative substitute. Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for rules on the institution of
separate actions, for the effect of earlier-filed criminal actions, and for the consolidation of petitions
for the issuance of a writ of amparo with a subsequently filed criminal and civil action.

Allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires rendering the petition fatally
deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to
privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much less
demonstrated, any need for information under the control of police authorities other than those it has
already set forth as integral annexes. Tapuz vs Del Rosario
As to what constitutes “enforced disappearance,” the Court in Navia v. Pardico, 673 SCRA 618 (2012), enumerated the elements
constituting “enforced disappearances” as the term is statutorily defined in Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851 to wit:
a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;
c) that it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or
whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,
d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

167. Christina had an amorous relationship with Marcelino and eventually became pregnant.
Christina misled Marcelino into believing that she had an abortion when in fact she proceeded to
complete the term of her pregnancy and intended to have the child adopted. Baby Julian was born. She
voluntarily surrendered Baby Julian to DSWD where he was “matched” with Sps. Medina. Later,
Christina changed her mind, wrote a letter to DSWD asking for suspension of adoption. DSWD, sent a
Memorandum informing her that the certificate declaring Baby Julian to be legally available for
adoption had attained finality which terminated her parental authority and made Baby Julian a ward
of the State. Christina filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo before the RTC seeking to
obtain custody of Baby Julian from DSWD. Rule.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 63
  No. There was no enforced disappearance in this case because DSWD officers never concealed Baby
Julian’s whereabouts. In fact, Christina obtained a copy of the DSWD’s Memorandum explicitly stating
that Baby Julian was in the custody of the Medina Sps. when she filed her petition before the RTC.
Besides, she even admitted in her petition that the respondent DSWD officers presented Baby Julian
before the RTC during the hearing. There is therefore, no “enforced disappearance” as used in the
context of the Amparo rule as the third and fourth elements are missing.

Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and “enforced
disappearances,” its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats
thereof.—Sec. 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides as follows: SEC. 1. Petition.—The petition
for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
or threats thereof. In the landmark case of Secretary of National Defense, et al. v. Manalo, et al., 568
SCRA 1 (2008), this Court held: “Extralegal killings” are “killings committed without due process of
law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings.” On the other hand, “enforced
disappearances” are “attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a
person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or
indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of
the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons
outside the protection of law.

Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child custody and the exercise
of parental rights over a child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been legally considered a ward of the
State, the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied.— To reiterate, the privilege of the writ of amparo is
a remedy available to victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a
similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official
or employee or a private individual. It is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the right to life,
liberty and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life. Caram vs Segui

168. Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresa’s College (STC) uploaded on her Facebook
profile several pictures of her and her classmates (Nenita Julia Daluz and Julienne Suzara) wearing
only their undergarments. The photos were taken while they were changing into their swimsuits for a
beach party they were about to attend. Some of their classmates reported said photos to their
computer teacher. Later, some seniors posted pictures online. Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s
students logged in to their personal Facebook accounts and showed her photos of the identified
students drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar and some wearing that show
virtually the entirety of their black brassieres. Escudero, through her students, viewed and
downloaded the pictures. STC found Angela, Julia and Julienne, et. al. to have violated the student’s
handbook and barred them from joining their graduation ceremonies. Despite a TRO granted by RTC,
STC still barred the students to join the commencement exercises. Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares,
mother of Julia, and the other parents of the minors filed a Petition for the issuance of the Writ of
Habeas Data against STC. Invoking right of privacy because accordingly the FB is set to friends only.
Prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft and printed copies of the
subject data and have such data be declared illegally obtained in violation of the children’s right to
privacy. RTC denied. Is the petition proper?
 YES it is proper but in this case, it will not prosper. Petition for writ of habeas data can be availed of
even if this is not a case of extralegal killing or enforced disappearance; and writ of habeas data can be
availed of against STC even if it is not an entity engaged in the business of “gathering, collecting, or
storing data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party”. The writ will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information
about a person. It can be availed of as an independent remedy to enforce one’s right to privacy, more
specifically the right to informational privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can
include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files
in possession or in control of respondents. STC did not violate the students’ right to privacy as the

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 64
 subject digital photos were viewable either by the minors’ Facebook friends, or by the public at large
because its privacy settings is set to public. VIVARES et.al vs ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE et.al

169. Engineer Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the
Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, together with Kunnong, an IDB scholar,
arrived in Jolo by boat from a seminar in Zamboanga City. They immediately checked-in. Tagitis asked
Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day. When Kunnong returned, Tagitis
was no longer around. This was reported to the Jolo Police Station. More than a month later, May Jean,
filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo directed against Lt. Gen. Yano; Gen. Razon,; Gen. Doromal; Sr.
Supt. Espina; Gen. Goltiao; and Gen. Rafael with the CA. On the same day, the CA immediately issued
the Writ of Amparo and set hearing. MTD was filed alleging that the requirement that the pleader
must state the ultimate facts, i.e. complete in every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation
of a victim’s rights, is indispensable in an amparo petition. Decide.
 No. However, it must contain details available to the petitioner under the circumstances, while
presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty and security
through State or private party action.
May the presentation of substantial evidence by the petitioner to prove her allegations sufficient for
the court to grant the privilege of the writ.
 Yes
May the writ of amparo determines guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the alleged enforced
disappearance of the subject of the petition for the writ.
 No.

The Writ of Amparo—a protective remedy against violations or threats of violation against the rights to life,
liberty and security—does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance; rather, it
determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance; Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been
established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced
disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the
appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts; Accountability refers to
the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced
disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who
are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or
those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the
enforced disappearance

While, as in any other initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause
of action, omitting the evidentiary details, in an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be read in light
of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of uncertainty—the petitioner may not
be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or
arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because these information may purposely be hidden or covered
up by those who caused the disappearance. Where the petitioner has substantially complied with the requirement
by submitting a verified petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon, the strict need for the sworn statement
that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled. Sec. 5(e) is in the Amparo Rule to prevent the use of a petition—
that otherwise is not supported by sufficient allegations to constitute a proper cause of action—as a means to
“fish” for evidence. The characteristics of the Amparo Rule of being summary and the use of substantial evidence
as the required level of proof reveal the clear intent of the framers to have the equivalent of an administrative
proceeding, albeit judicially conducted.

The Court believes and so holds that the government in general, through the Philippine National Police (PNP) and
the Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (PNP-CIDG), and in particular, the Chiefs of these organizations
together with Col. Kasim, should be held fully accountable for the enforced disappearance of Tagitis—the Court
holds these organizations accountable through their incumbent Chiefs who, under this Decision, shall carry the
personal responsibility of seeing to it that extraordinary diligence, in the manner the Amparo Rule requires, is
applied in addressing the enforced disappearnce of Tagitis. The Court holds Col. Kasim accountable for his failure

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 65
to disclose under oath information relating to the enforced disappearance, and for the purpose of this
accountability, he is impleaded as a party to this case. Razon vs Tagitis

170. Melissa Roxas become a member of BAYAN- USA. After doing work in Tarlac, She and her
companions rested in the house of Mr. Paolo and while resting, 15 heavily armed men in civilian clothes
forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van. When they alighted from the van, she was
informed that she is being detained for being a member of CPP -NPA. She was then separated from her
companions and was brought to a separate room. She was interrogated and tortured for 5 days. She
was informed by a person named ―RC that those who tortured her came from the ―Special Operations
Group and that she was abducted because her name is included in the ―Order of Battle. Later, She was
provisionally released and was given a phone. Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo
and Habeas Data before the SC, impleading the high-ranking officials of military and PNP. SC issued the
writs and referred the case to the CA for hearing. CA granted but absolved the respondents. Roxas filed
an appeal.
Is Command responsibility applicable in Amparo cases
 No. Application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more
aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo
proceeding. The obvious reason lies in the nature of the writ itself: The writ of amparo is a protective
remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and
directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation
of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. While the principal objective of its proceedings is
the initial determination of whether an enforced disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof
had transpired, the writ does not, by so doing, fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats,
whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law. The
doctrine of command responsibility is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and by this
account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition; The
doctrine is used to pinpoint liability. However, commanders may be impleaded—not actually on the basis
of command responsibility—but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.

May public respondents liable based on allegations of petitioner

 No. In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of
military involvement depends largely on the availability or non-availability of other pieces of evidence
that has the potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence
of identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence based on patterns
and similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true identity and
affiliation of the perpetrators. An amparo court cannot simply leave to remote and hazy inference what
it could otherwise clearly and directly ascertain.

May prayer for return of belongings be granted

 No. A persons right to be restituted of his property is already subsumed under the general rubric of
property rights which are no longer protected by the writ of amparo. Sec. 1 of the Amparo Rule, which
defines the scope and extent of the writ clearly excludes the protection of property rights. An order
directing the public respondents to return the personal belongings of the petitioner is already equivalent
to a conclusive pronouncement of liability. Regardless of whether there is sufficient evidence to hold
public respondents responsible for the abduction. Order itself is a substantial relief that can only be
granted once the liability has been fixed in a full and exhaustive proceeding.

May inspection order be granted

 No. An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or strengthen the claim of a
petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid the court before making a decision. A basic
requirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to be inspected is
reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party seeking the order. While the Amparo Rule
does not require that the place to be inspected be identified with clarity and precision, it is,
nevertheless, a minimum for the issuance of an inspection order that the supporting allegations of a

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 66
 party be sufficient in itself, so as to make a prima facie case. This, as was shown above, petitioner failed
to do.

May Habeas Data will be granted

 No. Habeas data was conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially
the right to informational privacy of individuals. The writ operates to protect a persons right to control
information regarding himself, particularly in the instances where such information is being collected
through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. It requires substantial evidence, of an
actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In the case,
petitioner failed to do. Roxas vs GMA

171. A resolution referring the case to CHR to continue investigation of Jonas for abduction was
ordered by the court with an obligation to report its findings and recommendations. This was
necessary as the investigation by the PNP–CIDG, AFP Provost Marshal, and even the initial CHR
investigation had been less than complete. In all of them, there were significant lapses in the handling
of the investigation. CHR submitted its Investigation Report resulting in the violation of constitutional
rights to life liberty and security by the Government. A member of the AFP was positively identified by
a new witness. As a result a new petition for issuance of a WHC was referred to CA. Meanwhile, in an
interview with Chairman of UMDJ, he revealed that the male abductor of Jonas appearing in the
cartographic sketch was among the raiders who abducted him and four others, identified as Jim, Jose,
Ruben and Dennis otherwise known as ERAP FIVE. Unfortunately, The Judge Advocate General (TJAG)
turned down the request of the Team for a profile of the operatives in the so–called “Erap 5” on the
ground of relevancy and branded the request as a fishing expedition.
May the Writ of Amparo may be issued anew by means of the newly discovered evidence
 NO, The beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served. The writ merely embodies the
Court’s directives to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the enforced
disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. It is
curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and
remedial action that it directs. The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking
of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo
proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings seek to achieve.

While the Rule on the Writ of Amparo accords the Court a wide latitude in crafting remedies to address
an enforced disappearance, it cannot (without violating the nature of the writ of Amparo as a summary
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief) grant remedies that would complicate and prolong rather
than expedite the investigations already ongoing. Court’s role in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely
to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or
accountable; and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.

As to the documents from a Resolution from General Roa of the Office of the Judge Advocate General,
AFP, it may be accessed by CHR to allow them the opportunity to ascertain the true identities of the
persons depicted in the cartographic sketches. The documents shall be examined and compared with
the cartographic sketches of the two abductors of Jonas, without copying and without bringing the
documents outside the premises of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the SC. Burgos vs Esperon

172. Dolot filed a petition for continuing mandamus, damages and AF with the RTC. They protested
the iron ore mining operations being conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines
Development Corporation and TR Ore in Matnog. Those mining operators did not have permit to
operate; on which they’ve acquired their small scale mining permit from Sorsogon Governor and his
predecessor Sally which they did not have authority to issue. DENR despite knowledge did not do
anything. However, the case was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed in
Sorsogon and not in Matnog. May it be dismissed outright by RTC Sorsogon?
 No. Sec 21(1) of BP 129 vest RTC jurisdiction over CPM. Sec. 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, provides the rule of
venue where the territory shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned. At most,
the error committed by the petitioners is filing the case with the RTC of Sorsogon which is improper

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 67
 venue. The concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay; Similar to the procedure under Rule 65 of the ROC for SCA for CPM, Sec. 4, Rule 8 of the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) requires that the petition filed should be
sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further action; otherwise, the court may dismiss
the petition outright. It must be verified and must contain supporting evidence as well as a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioner must be one who is aggrieved by an act or omission of the
government agency, instrumentality or its officer concerned. Petition must contain substantive
allegations specifically constituting an actionable neglect or omission and must establish, at the very
least, a prima facie basis for the issuance of the writ. It may be availed of “to compel the performance of
an act specifically enjoined by law.” The petition should mainly involve an environmental and other
related law, rule or regulation or a right therein In essence is a command of continuing compliance with
a final judgment as it “permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the
successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s decision.” Failure to furnish a copy of
the petition to the respondents is not a fatal defect that merits dismissal. Dolot vs Paje

173. In 4 June 2008, a letter addressed to Lim (an admin. clerk in MERALCO) was posted at the door
of the metering office of the Admin. Bldg. of MERALCO in Bulacan, as well as in the individual lockers
of MERALCO Linesmen. The letter reads as follows:“Cherry Lim: MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN LAHAT NG
BIYAYA NG MERALCO, NGAYON NAMAN AY GUSTO MONG PALAMON ANG BUONG KUMPANYA SA MGA
BUWAYA NG GOBYERNO. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO, LUMAYAS KA RITO, WALANG UTANG NA LOOB…”; HR
transferred Lim to Alabang Office; Lim sent a letter to HR VP asking for substantiation and an
opportunity to confront the accusations and threats against her that led to her transfer, which she
argues to be essentially “punitive” in character. Receiving no response, she filed a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas data against MERALCO before RTC Bulacan. MERALCO countered by
arguing that the dispute involved a labor issue and not a proper subject of the privilege of the writ of
habeas data; RTC granted the TRO and the petition for issuance of the writ of habeas data based on the
principle that the privilege extends not only to political activists and extra-legal killings but also to
ordinary citizens whose rights to life and security are jeopardized. Does RTC have jurisdiction?
 No. Privilege of the writ was meant to “protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
information of an individual” and to “provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to
informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty
and security against abuse in this age of information technology”. Limiting its scope to exclude private
rights. The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial
concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful—
employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution.
Meralco vs Lim

174. Neri, a police officer, filed a petition for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Data against Dr. Lee,
her former common law partner. According to Ilagan, Dr Lee has a digital camera owned by him
containing a sexual video. When confronted, He denied the video and demanded the return of the
camera, but Lee refused. They had an altercation where Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a
wall and then walked away. This prompted Lee to file several cases against Ilagan, including a case for
violation of Republic Act 9262 and administrative cases before the Napolcom. Ilagan claimed that Lee’s
acts of reproducing the subject video and threatening to distribute the same violated not only his right
to life, liberty, security, and privacy but also that of the other woman. RTC granted the privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Ilagan. RTC disregarded Lee’s defense that she is not engaged in the
collection, gathering and storage of data. Is the award proper?
 Petition must adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy, and the right to
life, liberty or security. Corollarily, the allegations in the petition must be supported by substantial
evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of
the victim. In this relation, it bears pointing out that the writ of habeas data will not issue to protect
purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions
therefor are vague and doubtful. In this case, Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to
privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction and
threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 68
 suppression of this video – which he fears would somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in
the internet for public consumption – he failed to explain the connection between such interest and
any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. Lee vs Ilagan

175. In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground on an area near the Tubbataha Reefs
which prompted the petitioners to seek for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO from the SC.
Among those impleaded are US officials. Decide on the petition for writ of Kalikasan.
 Denied. The application and non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US
personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
and beyond the province of the petition for a writ of Kalikasan. Damages cannot be granted which have
resulted from a violation of environmental laws, the rules allows the recovery of damages, collection
of administrative fines in a separate civil suits or charging the same violation of an environmental law.
Petition has become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined (under rule 7)
or restrained had already been accomplished. Respondents is entitled to the relief sought as far as the
directives of the respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef structures and marine habitat
adversely affected by the grounding incidents, however the US and Philippine government both
express readiness to negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation for the damage caused by USS
guardian, and the US government is closely coordinating to assessed the extent of damage and
appropriate methods of rehabilitation, more so, exploring avenues for settlement of environmental
cases is not proscribed by the rules. Arigo vs Swift
Due to the extreme urgency of the matter at hand, the present case is an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan allow the parties to raise, on appeal, questions of fact — and,
thus, constitutes an exception to Rule 45 of the ROC The power to approve or disapprove projects within the Subic Special
Economic Zone (SSEZ) is one such power over which the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority’s (SBMA’s) authority prevails over
the Local Government Unit’s (LGU’s) autonomy.

In exceptional cases, a writ of kalikasan may be availed of to challenge defects in the Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC). —In general, the proper procedure to question a defect in an ECC is to follow the appeal process provided in DAO
2003-30 and the Revised Manual. After complying with the proper administrative appeal process, recourse may be made
to the courts in accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. In exceptional cases, it may be
availed of to challenge defects in the ECC provided that
1. the defects are causally linked or reasonably connected to an environmental damage of the nature and
magnitude contemplated under the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan, and
2. the case does not violate, or falls under an exception to, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and/or primary jurisdiction. Paje vs Casino

176. SBMA, and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation (TCC) entered into a MOU to build a
coal-fired power plant. SBMA Ecology Center issued SBFZ Environmental Compliance Certificate. TCC
assigned all its rights and interests under the MOU to Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy).
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Olongapo City issued Resolution 8, expressing objection to the coal-fired
power plant. DENR issued ECC. RP Energy decided to include additional components in its proposed
coal-fired power plant. Due to the changes RP Energy requested the DENR Environmental
Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) to amend its EC which was granted. Hence, Hon. Casiño filed a
Petition for Writ of Kalikasan. RTC issued the writ and directed the case to CA for reception of evidence.
CA denied the writ for failure to prove that its constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
was. violated or threatened. Did CA erred in denying the writ?
 No, the petitioner failed to satisfy provisions under Sec. 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be
present to avail of this extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises
from an... unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
(3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
 A party who invokes the writ based on alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC must
not only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or, at least,
a reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the actual
or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude
contemplated under the Rules.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 69
  Approval of the concerned sanggunians over the subject project would not lead to or is not reasonably
connected with environmental damage but, rather, it is an affront to the local autonomy of LGUs.
Violations could be the subject of appropriate remedies before the proper administrative bodies (like
the NCIP) or a separate action to compel compliance before the courts, as the case may be. However,
the writ of kalikasan would not be the appropriate remedy to address and resolve such issues. Paje vs
Casino

177. The Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) for the exploration, development, and exploitation of
petroleum resources within Tañon Strait was entered by the Government with JAPEX (SC-46). EMB of
DENR granted an ECC. A case was filed to nullify the Service contract and the ECC with the resident
marine mammals as parties. Does petitioners have legal standing? (Procedural Issue)
 NO. The general rule is that only natural and juridical person can only be the real party-in interest in
any case. However, Recently, the Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, which allow for a "citizen suit,"(Sec 5) and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our
courts for violations of our environmental laws. Although this petition was filed in 2007, years before
the effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held that
rules of procedure "may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time of
their passage and will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected,
inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure." (NB: IN this case, SC did not really decide
WON mammals have a standing but the case pursued because they are represented by the citizens and
allowed the case using citizens suit) Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait
vs Angelo Reyes, et. Al

178. FPI C operates two pipelines 1) the White Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System and 2) the Black Oil
Pipeline (BOPL) System. In May 2010, a leakage from one of the pipelines was suspected after the
residents of West Tower Condominium (West Tower) started to smell gas within the condominium. A
search made within the condominium premises led to the discovery of a fuel leak from the wall of its
Basement 2. West Tower's management reported the matter to the Police Department of Makati City,
which in turn called the city's BFP. What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stages became a 15-
20 drum a day. A Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of the residents of West
Tower and in representation of the surrounding communities in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City was
filed. Petitioners prayed that FPIC and its BOD, and First Gen Corporation (FGC) and its BOD be directed
to: (1) permanently cease and desist from committing acts of negligence; (2) continue to check the
structural integrity of the pipeline and to replace the same; (3) make periodic reports; (4) rehabilitate
and restore the environment; and (5) to open a special trust fund to answer for similar and future
contingencies. Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan with a TEPO.
Does West Tower Corp. have the legal capacity to represent the other petitioners and whether the
other petitioners, apart from the residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal, are real parties-in-
interest;
 Yes. Petitioners who are affected residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal are real parties-in-
interest. In this case, there can be no quibble that the oil leak from the WOPL affected all the
condominium unit owners and residents of West Tower including nearby residents. While a
condominium corporation has limited powers under RA 4 726 it is empowered to pursue actions in
behalf of its members. Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not require
that a petitioner be directly affected by an environmental disaster. The rule clearly allows juridical
persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or threatened with violation.

Should the precautionary principle be applied?

 No, “When there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity
and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before
it." The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the causes that is the human
activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the environment, cannot be
established with full scientific certainty.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 70
 Should a special trust fund be opened by respondents to answer for future similar contingencies; and
 No, Sec. 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a trust fund is limited solely for
the purpose of rehabilitating or restoring the environment. The present ruling on petitioners' prayer
for the creation of a special trust fund in the instant recourse, however, is without prejudice to the
judgment/s that may be rendered in the civil and/or criminal cases filed by petitioners arising from
the same incident if the payment of damages is found warranted.

May FGC and the directors and officers of respondents FPIC and FGC may be held liable under the
environmental protection order.38
 No court did not rule on this matter. Court cannot grant the award of damages to individual petitioners
under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. However this can be
properly resolved in the civil and criminal cases now pending against them. West Tower Condominium
vs First Philippine Industrial Corporation

Evidence (Rule 128 – Rule 134)

179. A petition for naturalization was filed by Chia. He was born in China. He arrived in 1932 in
Manila and since then stayed in the Philippines where he found employment and eventually started
his own business, married a Filipina. At the age of 66, he filed a verified petition to be admitted as a
Filipino under C.A. No. 473. He testified as to his qualifications and presented 3 witnesses to
corroborate his testimony. The trial court granted the petition. OSG appealed based on documents
presented during appeal which were not offered during trial. Decision was reversed. Chia argued that
the documents presented is of no evidentiary value because of the rule prohibiting admission of
evidence which has not been formally offered. Decide.
 Affirmed. Rule 143 of the Rules of Court provides exception in non-application of strict procedures of
ordinary actions to ELNICO cases. Rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34) invoked by Chia is
not applicable to the case. The only instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily
is when it is "practicable and convenient." Reliance upon the documents presented by the State for the
first time on appeal, in fact, appears to be the more practical and convenient course of action
considering that decisions in naturalization proceedings are not covered by the rule on res judicata.
The reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence which has not been formally offered is
to afford the opposite party the chance to object to their admissibility. Petitioner cannot claim that he
was deprived of the right to object to the authenticity of the documents submitted to the appellate
court by the State. Ong Chia vs Republic.

180. Cecilia, the wife of Dr. Alfredo Martin, entered the clinic of her husband, and in the presence
of her mother, a driver and Dr. Martins secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet of her
husband’s clinic and took 157 documents belonging to private respondent, [i.e. Greeting cards,
cancelled checks, diaries, passport, and photographs], of Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours. 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. IS the
documents admissible?
 NO. The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable, except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescrbied by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section, shall inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The intimacies between husband and wife
do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking
them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed
his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever
available to him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses
by making it privileged. Zulueta vs CA

181. Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin testified that she saw Yatar, wearing a white shirt with collar
and black pants, descended from the 2nd floor and was pacing back and forth at the back of Isabel
Dawang’s house, Judilyn didn’t find this unusual since Yatar and his wife used to live therein. At 1:30
PM, Yatar called upon Judilyn, telling her that he would be getting the lumber. Judilyn noticed that

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 71
 Yatar is now wearing a black shirt (without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that his eyes were
“reddish and sharp”. Yatar asked her husband, as he wants to talk with him but her husband is not
around so Yatar left. In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found the lights of her
house turned off, the door of the ground floor opened, and the containers, which she asked Kathylyn
to fill up, were still empty. Upon ascending the second floor, Isabel found that the door was tied with
rope and upon opening with a knife, saw Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with some intestines
protruding out from it. Police came to the scene, they found Kathylyn’s clothes and undergarments
beside her body, a white collared shirt splattered with blood was also found 50-meters away from
Isabel’s house, semen has also been found upon examination of Kathylyn’s cadaver. When subjected
under DNA testing, results showed that the DNA is identical to Yatar’s genotype. There were no eye
witness. May the testimony of Judilyn and the result of DNA lead to Joel’s conviction? Decide.
 Yes. 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.
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 circumstantial evidence, three requisites must
concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) facts on which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to
exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence has been left. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
courts should consider the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures
were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

182. Daniela sold a parcel of land to her granddaughter, Nena. DOAS was executed. She declared
the property in her name for tax purposes and paid the taxes due for years 1972, 1973, 1975 to 1986
and 1988. However, possession remained with Daniela. Later, a sworn statement claiming that Daniela
had actually no intention of selling the property was executed; the true agreement between her and
Nena was simply to transfer title over the subject property to enable her to obtain a loan. Daniella later
died and was represented by her heirs. Carlos informed Nena that when Daniela died they discovered
the sworn statement she executed and demanded the return. Nena did not reply. Efforts to settle the
case amicably proved futile. Case for nullification of DOAS was filed. Nena denied any fraud or
misrepresentation. RTC decided against the Nena. CA affirmed. Decide.
 Reverse the decision. A contract is simulated if the parties do not intend to be bound at all (absolutely
simulated) or if the parties conceal their true agreement (relatively simulated). The primary
consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties. Such intention
is determined from the express terms of their agreement as well as from their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts. The evidence presented to declare the DOAS void is the sworn statement of Daniela.
There is no issue in the admissibility of the sworn statement. However, the admissibility of evidence
should not be equated with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance
and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade. 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. Affidavits are
classified as hearsay evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who
uses his own language in writing the affiant’s statements, which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to
cross-examine the affiant. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless
the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. Since Daniela is no longer
available to take the witness stand as she is already dead, affidavit should have not given probative
value for purposes of proving that the contract of sale between her and petitioner was simulated and
that, as a consequence, a trust relationship was created between them. Tating vs Marcela
183. Bolanon was stabbed near the Del Pan Sports Complex past midnight; that after stabbing
Bolanon, his assailant ran away; Bolanon managed to walk to the house of his uncle Rodolfo to seek
help; his uncle rushed him to PGH by taxicab; on their way to the hospital Bolanon told Estaño that it
was Salafranca who had stabbed him; that Bolanon eventually succumbed at the hospital at 2:30 am

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 72
 he was declared dead. RTC convicted Salafranca for murder. CA affirmed. May the ante-mortem
declaration of Bolanon meets the conditions of admissibility either as a dying declaration or as a part
of the res gestae, or both
 Yes for both. A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay
character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely: (a) that the
declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) that
at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death; (c)
that the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case
for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an
exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res
gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive
or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances. The term res gestae has been defined as “those circumstances which are the
undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such
act.” It refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude
the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae
is whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the
principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also
whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. People vs
Salafranca
184. SCC Chemicals Corporation obtained a loan from State Investment House Inc., (SIHI). To
secure the payment, Danilo and Leopoldo executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement binding
themselves jointly and severally. SCC failed to pay. Demand letters were sent. SIHI filed collection suit
with a prayer for preliminary attachment against SCC, Arrieta, and Halili. MTD was filed for lack of
cause of action contending that the PN was null, void, and of no binding effect for lack or failure of
consideration. SIHI presented one witness. The cross-examination of the witness was postponed
several times. The case was calendared several times nut was always postponed. SCC was declared to
have waived its right to cross-examine and the case was deemed submitted for decision. RTC favored
SIHI. On appeal, SCC contended that SIHI had failed to show, by a preponderance of evidence, that it
had a case against it. Competency of the witness was not established and had no personal knowledge
of the transaction. CA denied. Decide.
 Sustain. Non-appearance in hearings constitutes waiver of right to cross examine witness. R130S36 of
ROC mandates witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge
reliance on it is misplaced. As a rule, hearsay evidence is excluded and carries no probative value.
Except where a party failed to object to hearsay evidence, then the same is admissible. Reason is the
right of a litigant to cross-examine. Repeated failure of a party to cross-examine is an implied waiver
of such right. R129S4 of ROC, a judicial admission requires no proof. Nor will petitioner’s reliance on
the best evidence rule advance its cause. Respondent SIHI had no need to present the original of the
documents as there was already a judicial admission by petitioner at pre-trial of the execution of the
promissory note and receipt of the demand letter. SSS Chemical Corp vs CA

RULE 129: What Need Not Be Proved

185. Sps Vicente, are the registered owners of agricultural land in Camarines Norte. A portion was
compulsorily acquired by DAR pursuant to RA. 6657. The valuation was rejected that lead to a
summary administrative proceeding before PARAD which affirmed the LBP’s valuation. Dissatisfied,
Sps Vicente filed with the RTC a petition for determination of just compensation. In determining the
valuation of the land, the trial court based the same on the facts established in another case pending
before it. Is the act of taking judicial notice proper on the attended facts?
 NO. 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 same judge except in the
absence of objection and with the knowledge of the opposing party. ROC apply to all proceedings before

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 73
 the Special Agrarian Courts. R129S3 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is explicit on the necessity of a
hearing before a court takes judicial notice of a certain matter. LBP vs Banal

186. Felix and several other public officers of Zamboanga City, was kidnapped for ransom. They
were released after payment. 5 informations for kidnapping for ransom were filed before the RTC of
Zambaonga. Another 3 informations for kidnapping were also filed which set forth identical
allegations. 9 of 12 accused were apprehended and then the court found several of the accused
including Kulais guilty of 5 counts of kidnapping for ransom and 1 count of kidnapping a woman and
a public officer. Decision is based on the testimonies of victims and held that “no taint of evil or
dishonest motive was imputed or imputable to prosecution witnesses.” Later, several of the accused
filed their Joint notice of appeal. However, they withdrew it because of their application for amnesty,
except for Kulais who still seeks MR of the SC. One of the issue raised by the accused was that due
process was not observed in taking judicial notice of a material testimony GIVEN IN ANOTHER CASE
by Lt. Feliciano, who allegedly was the team leader of the government troops which allegedly captured
the accused-appellants in an encounter; thereby, depriving the accused-appellants their right to cross-
examine him. Should the appeal be granted?
 NO. The appeal of Kulais is bereft of merit. In this case, even if the court a quo did take judicial notice
of the testimony of Lt Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding the cases against him. Hence,
Kulais was not denied due process. His conviction was based mainly on the positive identification made
by some of the kidnap victims who were subjected to meticulous cross-examinations conducted by his
counsel. Trial court's mention of Lt Feliciano's testimony is a decisional surplusage which neither
affected the outcome of the case nor substantially prejudiced Kulais. Positive narration of prosecution
witnesses is given greater weight than to the negative testimonies of the defense. Victims testified in a
clear, straightforward and frank manner; and their testimonies were compatible on material points.
Moreover, no ill motive was attributed to the kidnap victims. Direct proof is not essential to prove
conspiracy. It may be shown by a number of infinite acts, conditions and circumstances which may
vary according to the purposes to be accomplished and from which may logically be inferred that there
was a common design, understanding or agreement among the conspirators to commit the offense
charged. People vs Kulais

187. Laureano was hired as a pilot by the Singapore Airlines, after 4 years, SAL was hit by recession
and so it had to lay off some employees including Laureano. Aggrieved, he filed a labor case for illegal
dismissal. Later, he withdrew the labor case and instead filed a civil case for damages due to illegal
termination of contract here in the Philippines. SAL moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction. Motion was denied. SAL alleged that the termination of Laureano is valid
pursuant to Singaporean law. Court ruled in favor of Laureano. SAL appealed the case raising the issue
of lack of jurisdiction, non-applicability of Philippine laws, and estoppel, among others. The CA
reversed the trial court. May the court take judicial notice on Singapore Laws on this case?
 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. 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 3 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. Hence claim is already barred by prescription. Laureano vs CA
Maquiling vs COMELEC, 700 SCRA
Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws, which must be presented as public documents of a foreign country and must be
"evidenced by an official publication thereof." Mere reference to a foreign law in a pleading does not suffice for it to be considered in
deciding a case.

188. Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen who lost it as a consequence of US naturalization. He
applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San
Francisco and took the Oath of Allegiance to the RP which was granted. Later, Arnado again took his
Oath of Allegiance to RP and executed an affidavit of renunciation of his foreign citizenship and run for
Mayor. Another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to DQ him and presented a record indicating

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 74
 that he has been using his US Passport in entering and departing the Philippines. Pending the
case, he won. Should he be DQ?
 Yes. Use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act
of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained
by repatriation but it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective
position. Basis: Section 5(2) of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. Renunciation
of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at any time, only to be violated
the next day. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a
full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the
citizenship. Maquiling vs COMELEC

189. RRCG bus was plying its usual southbound route. Around 6:30 to 7:30 in the evening, while
they were about to move out of the Guadalupe-EDSA southbound bus stop, 2 suspicious men rode.
Afterwards, Andales said he became more suspicious because both men kept on asking him if the bus
was going to stop at Ayala Avenue. Witness also noticed that the man at the back appeared to be
slouching, with his legs stretched out in front of him and his arms hanging out and hidden from view
as if he was tinkering with something. As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of Ayala
Avenue, the 2 men insisted on getting off the bus. Eventually, the bus driver gave in and allowed the 2
passengers. Moments after, Andales felt an explosion. He then saw fire quickly engulfing the bus. He
ran out of the bus towards a nearby mall. After a while, he went back to where the bus was. He saw
their bus passengers either lying on the ground or looking traumatized. A few hours after, he made a
statement before the Makati Police Station narrating the whole incident. Prosecution presented
documents furnished by DOJ, confirming that shortly before the explosion, the spokesperson of the
Abu Sayyaf Group announced over radio that the group had a Valentine’s Day "gift" for former PGMA.
After the bombing, he again went on radio and warned of more bomb attacks. Several accussed were
interviewed on television admitting participation. Bus conductor identified the accused and confirmed
that they were the 2 men who had entered the RRCG bus. On their arraignment for the multiple murder
charge (Crim. Case No. 05-476), Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea of guilty. On
arraignment for the multiple frustrated murder charge (Crim. Case No. 05-477), accused Asali pled
guilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan pled not guilty. Rohmat pled not guilty to both charges. On plea
bargaining, accused Baharan and Trinidad manifested their readiness for re-arraignment and
eventually pleaded guilty. May a plea of guilt be admitted despite insufficiency of searching inquiry
into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of plea
 Yes. All trial judges … must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused's plea of guilty, for while
justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it
that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an
inevitable conviction." Thus, trial court judges are required to observe the procedure under R116S3,
ROC. However, in this case, prior to the change of plea to one of guilt, accused made 2 confessions of
guilt – one through an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews), and judicial admission
(pretrial stipulation). Hence, it is now unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the "searching inquiry".
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. Convictions based on a plea of guilt are set
aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible
evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated not
merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.

R130S30 statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible only when made
during the existence of the conspiracy. However, if the declarant repeats the statement in court, his
extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both
conspirators. 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. R130S30, ROC 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. People vs Baharan

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 75
 190. PCGG filed a case in relation to the allegation of illegally manipulated the purchase of the major
shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.
(ETPI). This case docketed as Civil Case No. 0009 spawned numerous incidental cases, among them,
Civil Case No. 0130, a petition instituted by Victor Africa. IN this case, testimony of Mr. Bane (former
director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI) was taken by deposition upon oral examination (Bane
deposition) before Consul General Castro of the Philippine Embassy in London. The purpose was for
Bane to identify and testify on the facts set forth in his affidavit so as to prove the ownership issue in
favor of the petitioner and/or establish the prima facie factual foundation for sequestration of ETPI’s
Class A stock. In Civil Case No. 009, the petitioner wanted to adopt the deposition of Mr. Bane. This was
denied by SB because he was not available for cross-examination. Petitioners made its Formal Offer of
Evidence. However, the Bane deposition was not included. To rectifying this, they filed a 2nd motion
with for re-opening of the case and introduce additional evidence and requested the court to take
judicial notice of the facts established by the Bane deposition. This was again denied. A third motion
was filed by the petitioners seeking once more to admit the Bane deposition which the SB denied again
because the resolution has become final in view of the petitioner’s failure to file a MR or appeal. May
SB refuse the motion to re-open the case? Should the Bane deposition be admitted?
 The decision that the finality of the resolution as basis for refusal to re-open the case was legally
erroneous but did not constitute grave abuse of discretion due to the absence of a clear showing that
its action was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment affecting its exercise of jurisdiction. It
was only an error of judgment. The resolution interlocutory decision, petition for certiorari is still
premature since the rules of court provides that certiorari should be availed in a situation where
neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available
to the aggrieved party except if such remedy is inadequate or insufficient in relieving the aggrieved
party of the injurious effects of the order complained of. At the time of the 1st motion, the presentation
of evidence has not yet concluded. The remedy after the denial of the 1st motion should have been for
the petitioner to move for a reconsideration to assert and even clarify its position on the admission of
the Bane deposition. But upon denial of the 2nd motion, petitioners should have already questioned it
by way of certiorari since it effectively foreclosed all avenues available to it for the consideration of the
Bane deposition. Instead of doing so, however, the petitioner allowed the 60-day reglementary period,
under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to lapse, and proceeded to file its 3rd motion.

However, SB gravely abused its discretion in refusing to reopen the case for the purpose of introducing
and admitting in evidence the Bane deposition. The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party from
requesting the court to allow it to present additional evidence even after it has rested its case provided
that the evidence is rebuttal in character, whose necessity, for instance, arose from the shifting of the
burden of evidence from one party to the other; or where the evidence sought to be presented is in the
nature of NDE. At the time the petitioner moved to re-open its case, the respondents had not yet even
presented their evidence in chief. The respondents, would not have been prejudiced by allowing the
petitioner’s introduction of the Bane deposition, which was concededly omitted “through oversight.”

 Admissibility of the Bane deposition still needs to comply with the rules of court on the
admissibility. Depositions are not meant as substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party
or witness. Deponent must be presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing
otherwise, the adverse party may oppose it as mere hearsay. Cross-examination will test the
truthfulness of the statements of the witness; it is an essential safeguard of the accuracy and
completeness of a testimony. Depositions from the former trial may be introduced as evidence
provided that the parties to the first proceeding must be the same as the parties to the later proceeding.
In the present case, the petitioner failed to establish the identity of interest or privity between the
opponents of the two cases. Rule of judicial notice is not applicable in this case as it would create
confusion between the two cases. Rule 129 either requires the court to take judicial notice, inter alia,
of “the official acts of the judicial departments of the Philippines,” or gives the court the discretion to
take judicial notice of matters “ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.”
 Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof
because these facts are already known to them. The rule of judicial notice is not applicable in this case as
it would create confusion between the two cases. It is the duty of the petitioner, as a party-litigant, to

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 76
 properly lay before the court the evidence it relies upon in support of the relief it seeks, instead of imposing
that same duty on the court. Republic vs Sandiganbayan, 662 SCRA 152

191. Anecita filed a complaint for theft against Ligtas alleging that as an owner of abaca plantation,
one day, she asked Cabero, the plantation's administrator to harvest abaca however they were
surprised to find Ligtas harvesting abaca at the plantation. Ligtas was accompanied by three (3)
unidentified men. Allegedly, Ligtas threatened that there would be loss of life if they persisted in
harvesting the abaca. Cabero reported the incident to Anecita and the police. On the part of Ligtas, he
said that he had been a tenant. Meanwhile, Ligtas filed a Complaint before the DARAB for Maintenance
of Peaceful Possession. Subsequently, DARAB favored Ligtas. Is the conviction proper?
 No. Findings of or certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, or his authorized
representative, in a given locality concerning the presence or absence of a tenancy relationship between
the contending parties, are merely preliminary or provisional and are not binding upon the courts. Where
an accused's alibi is established only by himself, his relatives and friends, his denial of culpability should
be accorded the strictest scrutiny. Although the elements of theft was proved, the existence of the
DARAB Decision adjudicating the issue of tenancy negates the existence of the element that the taking
was done without the owner's consent. The DARAB Decision implies that petitioner had legitimate
authority to harvest the abaca. Ligtas vs People
RULE 130
Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
192. Police raided the residence of Malinlin in Sorsogon City with a search warrant. The search was
conducted in the presence of barangay Kagawad Delfin as well as Malinlin himself, his wife and his
mother, 2 plastic sachets of shabu and 5 empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels were
confiscated. He was charged under RA 9165 and pleaded not guilty. Forensic chemist who
administered the examination on the seized items, was presented as an expert witness. He confirmed
positive for shabu and further admitted that all seven sachets were delivered to the laboratory by the
arresting officer in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant was executed except that it was not
she but rather a certain Mrs. Garcia who received the items from the arresting officer. Accused was
convicted guilty. Is the compliance with the chain of custody rule
 None. 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
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. The presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the constitutional presumption
of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of
guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the innocence of the accused but by
obliterating all doubts as to his culpability. While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes
indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed
to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. People vs Malinlin

193. PO3 Almarez, posed as the buyer and when he handed the marked money to the Pagaduan, he
immediately apprehended him. Captain de Vera took the marked money, and then arrested him. PO3
Almarez, marked the sachet with his initials. Thereafter, Pagaduan was brought to Diadi Police Station.
At the police station, Captain de Vera prepared a request for laboratory examination. Pagaduan was
transferred to the Diadi Municipal Jail where he was detained. 2 days later, PO3 Almarez transmitted
the letter-request, for laboratory examination, and the seized plastic sachet to the PNP Crime
Laboratory, which was received by PO2 Dulnuan. Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Quintero, the Forensic
Chemist, conducted an examination and found it to be positive for shabu. Should he be convicted?
 No for non-compliance with chain of custody rule. It is important that the prosecution explain the
reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 77
 preserved. The justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume
what these grounds are or that they even exist. Section 21 requires: In a prosecution for illegal sale of a
prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that
establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal
transaction.

The required procedure is in S21(1), AII of R.A. No. 9165 - (1) physically inventory and photograph …
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and DOJ, and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy. This is
implemented by S21(a), AII of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. Strict compliance with the prescribed
procedure is required. In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation to
justify the failure of the police to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs. The apprehending team failed to show why an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence
had not been made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police station (as required
by the IRR in case of warrantless arrests). People vs Pagaduan

Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines "chain of custody" as
follows:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
194. Salas claimed that Matusalem is the father of her son Christian. Salas rented an apartment
where respondent stayed and shouldered all expenses in the delivery of their child, including the cost
of caesarean operation and hospital confinement. However, when she refused the offer of Matusalem
to take the child from her, he abandoned her and the child and left them to the mercy of relatives and
friends. Witness Grace testified. Matusalem was declared to have waived his right to present evidence.
Murillo corroborated Salas’ testimony. Decision fvored Salas. Is her testimony enough to warrant the
prayer of support?
 No. Under Article 175, FC illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children. Certificate of Live Birth of the child in which the name of petitioner
appears as his father but which is not signed by him is not competent evidence of paternity when there
is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the certificate. If the father did
not sign in the birth certificate. Testimonial evidence sufficient proof to establish his filiation to
petitioner. An illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by “any other
means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,” like his baptismal certificate, a judicial
admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his
pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under
R130,ROC Reviewing the records, we find the totality of respondent’s evidence insufficient to establish
that petitioner is the father of Christian Paulo. Salas vs Matusalem
Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states:
The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
1. The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
2. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
1. The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
2. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

195. Police authorities received information that drugs were being distributed in Misamis Oriental.
Buy-bust operation was conducted. Rosauro negotiated with the confidential agent and after the
transaction, Rosauro was arrested. Agent handed the sachet to an officer, who taped it, marked it with

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 78
 the marking “Exhibit A”, and placed it inside his pocket. He also took pictures of Rosauro and the drugs.
In the police station, he prepared Inventory and a Request for Laboratory Examination. Both the drugs
and Rosauro were turned over to the Crime laboratory. The Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime
Laboratory found positive result for shabu; while Rosauro and the marked money tested positive for
the presence of ultra-violet fluorescent powder. However, Rosauro claims he was merely a victim of
instigation. He testified that police asset went to his house 4 times and convinced him to do an errand
of buying a shabu. He refused because he did not know where to buy one. It was the confidential
informant who told him to buy the prohibited drug from a certain “Kael” and to deliver it to the
former’s house. It was also the informant who gave the money to Rosauro to buy the shabu. But
Rosauro was not able to meet or buy directly from Kael because it was a young man who got and
handed to him the shabu on the road. When Rosauro went to the house of the confidential informant
as instructed, he was arrested. The sachet of shabu was not even recovered from him but from the
confidential informant. Is there any irregularity in the chain of custody of the seized item?
 None. The chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical
inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. The IRR
of R. A. No. 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs states: x x x Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. People vs
Eric Rosauro

196. While PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez were on duty, a certain Edwin arrived at their office and
asked for police assistance regarding a shooting incident. They responded and found 2 bricks of
marijuana 997.9 grams in the vehicle. Turned it over to SPO3 Temena, police investigator at Bagong
Barrio Police Station for investigation. He marked the items with his initials and forwarded to crim lab.

Version of defendant: traffic mishap where the taxi he and his companion Rommel Reyes were riding
almost collided with another car and had a heat up argument with the police office. As a result, they
were arrested brought to police station. They were subjected to body frisking and their wallets and
money were taken. PO1 Mariano then prepared some documents and informed them that they will be
charged for drugs.

May the seized items be admitted in evidence in accordance to plain view doctrine.
 Admissible. The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence
obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s person and premises
under his immediate control. This is so because “objects in the ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.”
“The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused,
but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It serves to supplement the prior
justification – whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest,
or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the
accused – and permits the warrantless seizure. ”The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in
Calantiao’s situation because the police officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police
officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag, which was in Calantiao’s possession; they
deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident to Calantiao’s lawful arrest.

Did the arresting officers’ complied with the requirements for the proper chain of custody of the seized
dangerous drugs.
 Yes. People v. Ocfemia: Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR do not expressly specify the manner of
“marking” of seized items in warrantless seizures. Unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill
will, or tampering of the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been
preserved will remain. People vs Calantiao

197. At around 2:00 in the afternoon, P/Supt. Rodriguez, received a report from an informant that
a certain Jojit was selling illegal drugs. P/Supt. Rodriguez immediately formed a buy-bust group

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 79
 composed of SPO Taguiam, SPO2 Tamang, SPO1 Blaquera, PO Hernandez, and PO3 Domingo. PO3
Domingo was designated as the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust money, were dusted with fluorescent
powder and serial numbers were recorded. Around 8:00 in the evening of the same day, the team
proceeded to Caritan Centro, Tuguegarao City. PO3 Domingo positioned himself beside a street light
while the rest of the team hid behind a nearby concrete fence. After waiting for about 45 minutes,
Constantino arrived on board a tricycle. PO3 Domingo recognized Constantino as the Jojit described
by the CI. PO3 Domingo approached Constantino and asked him if he was Jojit. When Constantino
replied in the affirmative, PO3 Domingo next asked, "Mayroon ka bang stuff?" ("Do you have
stuff?") Constantino inquired of PO3 Domingo how much he wanted to buy. PO3 Domingo said he
wanted to buy P1, 000.00 worth of shabu, simultaneously handing over the buy-bust money to
Constantino, who, in turn, handed two plastic sachets to PO3 Domingo. PO3 Domingo turned his cap
backwards, the pre-arranged signal for the consummated sale. Upon seeing the signal, the other
members of the buy-bust team approached the scene at once and arrested Constantino, from whom
SPO2 Taguiam recovered the buy-bust money. Constantino was brought to the police station where
the recovered drugs and money were turned over to the investigator, SPO2 Tamang. The recovered
drugs were then marked at the police station. The incident was recorded in the police blotter with an
inventory of the recovered drugs and money. Later that evening, at around 10:00, P/Supt. Rodriguez
and SPO2 Tamang submitted to PNP Crime Laboratory Services, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao
City, a request for laboratory examination of two plastic sachets; as well as both hands of Constantino,
and the money. Should he be convicted despite inconsistencies of the testimonies of the arresting
officers?
 No. In this case, the arresting officer PO3 Domingo failed to properly mark the items seized. Instead,
he let another member of the buy bust team to have it marked not at the place of arrest but at the police
station in which at this early stage, the chain of custody is already destroyed. Moreover, the
inconsistencies of the testimonies of the arresting officers made the evidence dubious to warrant
integrity of the evidence. Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized
item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and the final disposition. People vs Constantino

198. At around 7:15 o'clock in the evening, PO3 Batobalonos, PO1 Reales, PO1 Bullido and their
civilian asset proceeded to Sitio Cogon. When the team went inside the interior portion, PO1 Reales
together with the civilian asset approached the house of Dela Cruz, while PO3 Batobalonos and PO1
Bullido were strategically hidden more or less 10 meters away. The civilian asset called Dela Cruz and
told her that they will buy shabu worth P200.00. Dela Cruz handed PO1 Reales a small plastic
containing white crystalline substance and in exchange he handed to the former the P200.00 bills.
Upon getting hold of the money, PO3 Batobalonos and PO1 Bullido, who saw the consummation of the
transaction rushed to the scene. When PO3 Batobalonos got hold of Dela Cruz, the latter shouted for
help and resisted arrest. Dela Cruz was able to run and so the team chased her, however, her neighbor
Ortega blocked their way. The team introduced themselves as policemen but Ortega did not listen, so
PO3 Batobalonos fired a warning shot as the people likewise started to gather around them. Dela Cruz
was able to evade arrest. The team arrested Ortega for obstruction of justice. There was no physical
inventory made on the seized item nor was it photographed. May there be conviction?
 Yes. Substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item" is
sufficient. 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 of 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 provided
for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.
People vs Mercury Dela Cruz

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 80
Object/Real Evidence
199. An informant reported to PCI Ojastro of PDEA that accused is selling marijuana. Based on the
tip, PCI Ojastro directed the conduct of a buy-bust operation. IO1 Briguel (team leader) was designated
as poseur-buyer. IO1 Jabano and IO1 Echavaria were assigned as arresting officers. They left at around
1:00AM of March 29, 2009 and stayed for a while in Sabang. IO1 Briguel, however, testified that they
arrived at Puerto Galera on March 30, 2009. Manny was arrested. IO1 Briguel frisked him and the
marked money was recovered. Accused was boarded into PDEA vehicle and while onboard, IO1 Briguel
marked the seized marijuana with his initials and the date of the arrest and testified that he placed the
suspect dried marijuana leaves in his pocket. The team went back to Calapan City (54 km away from
PG). IO1 Briguel conducted the Inventory witnessed by Barangay Chairperson Anacleto Vergara and a
media representative. Photographs were taken during the marking and inventory. IOI Briguel turned
over the item to PNP Crime Laboratory for forensic examination with a positive result. Accused appeal
based on the inconsistencies of the arresting officer’s statements. Decide on the conviction.
 Acquit for inconsistencies of dates on their testimony, failure to comply with the chain custody rule.
Prosecution failed to sufficiently comply with the chain of custody rule. In this case, the crime was
committed on March 29, 2009, then the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR shall apply.
The physical inventory of the confiscated drug and the photographs of the same where only done in
the presence of the accused-appellant, Brgy. Captain Vergara and media representative Nebrejo.
Representative of the DOJ, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, was not present during the
inventory of the seized item. Apprehending team did not immediately conduct the physical inventory
and the taking of the photographs at the time the suspected drug was confiscated or at the nearest
police station. Instead, they travelled 54km from Puerto Galera, the place of the seizure, to Calapan City
before they conducted the inventory of the seized drug. In this case, the prosecution failed to recognize
its procedural lapses and give a justifiable ground for the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165. They were not able to explain the absence of a representative of the DOJ and the distant conduct
of the inventory of the seized item. Moreover, the delivery of the confiscated item to the PNP Crime
Laboratory in Camp also provides doubt as it was not clear who received the confiscated drug. People
vs Manuel Dela Rosa
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was amended by R.A. No. 10640, which became effective on July 15, 2014, and essentially added
the provisions contained in the IRR. Apprehending team is now required to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
and photograph the same in
(1) the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel,
(2) with an elected public official and
(3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof.
*(4) DOJ representative

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
200. Sps. Silos obtained a revolving credit line from PNB, secured by a mortgage. The interest rate
was initially agreed upon at 19.5% but a Supplement to the Credit Agreement provided that the Bank
may modify the interest rate in the Loan depending on whatever policy the Bank may adopt in the
future, including without limitation, the shifting from the floating interest rate system to the fixed
interest rate system, or vice versa. The spouses were able to pay the interests on the loan up until their
last PN which covered the principal amount. Because of this their properties were foreclosed and sold
by auction to PNB. The spouses filed a petition to annul the foreclosure sale and for the accounting of
PNB’s credit. Lydia testified and according to her the contract is one of adhesion and there was no
proper relay of information to them because some were left blank when they signed it including the
interest rate. PNB argued that her testimony is inadmissible because of BER. Decide.
 Documentary evidence prevails over testimonial evidence. However, in this case the PN were declared
void not because of its contents but because of the circumstances as to the provisions it contain. The
testimony that the Credit Agreement, the Amendment to Credit Agreement, REM and the Supplement
were all prepared by PNB and were presented to her and her husband Eduardo only for signature. She
was told that PNB would fill up the interest rate portion. She was not informed about the applicable
spread that PNB would impose on her account; that the interest rate portion of all PN she and Eduardo
issued were always left in blank when they executed them, with respondent’s mere assurance that it

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 81
 would be the one to enter or indicate thereon the prevailing interest rate at the time of availment; and
that they agreed to such arrangement. A contract containing a condition which makes its fulfillment
dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of one of the contracting parties, is void. Any
modification in the contract, such as the interest rates, must be made with the consent of the
contracting parties. The minds of all the parties must meet as to the proposed modification, especially
when it affects an important aspect of the agreement. The unilateral action of the PNB in increasing
the interest rate on the private respondent’s loan violated the mutuality of contracts ordained in
Article 1308 of the Civil Code.

Best Evidence Rule

201. MCMP Construction Corporation leased heavy equipment from Monark Equipment
Corporation for various periods in 2000, the lease covered by a Rental Equipment Contract. Monark
delivered 5 heavy equipment to the project site of MCMP evidenced by invoices as well as Documents
Acknowledgment Receipt. Despite demands after the lapse of the 30-day period, Monark failed to pay.
Hence, a collection suit was initiated. During trial, Monark presented Peregrino, its Senior Account
Manager who testified that there were 2 original copies of the Contract, one retained by Monark, while
the other was given to MCMP. That Monark's copy had been lost and that diligent efforts to recover the
copy proved futile. He presented a photocopy of the Contract which he personally had on file. MCMP
objected to the presentation of secondary evidence to prove the contents of the Contract arguing that
there were no diligent efforts to search for the original copy. Notably, MCMP did not present its copy
of the Contract notwithstanding the directive of the trial court to produce the same.May the
photocopied document be presented and admitted as evidence?
 Yes. BER, a basic postulate requiring the production of the original document whenever its contents
are the subject of inquiry, is contained in R130S3, ROC. MCMP's failure to present the same and even
explain its failure, not only justifies the presentation of secondary evidence in accordance with R130S6,
ROC, but it also gives rise to the disputable presumption adverse to MCMP under S3(e)R131, ROC that
"evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced." The examination of lower courts in
regards to evidence adduced during trial should be given respect and credence as SC is not a trial of
facts. Lower courts manifestation on evidence should not be questioned. MCMP Cons’t Corp. vs
Monark, Nov 10, 2014

202. Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services employed and assigned the petitioners as
janitors and leadsmen in various PLDT offices in Metro Manila area. Complaint for money claims was
filed alleging that they were not paid minimum wages, OT, HoL, premium, SIL, and 13th month pay.
They were made them sign blank payroll sheets. Later, amendment to complaints to include ID was
made. LA partially ruled in favor of the petitioners but denied the petitioners’ claims for backwages,
OT, HoL, and premium pay for failure to show that they rendered OT work and worked on HoL and RD
without compensation. The respondents insisted that they were not personally served with summons
and other processes. They also claimed payment and as proofs, they attached photocopied and
computerized copies of payroll sheets to their memorandum on appeal and maintained that the
dismissal was proper. An unverified supplemental appeal was filed with attached photocopied and
computerized copies of list of employees with ATM cards to the supplemental appeal with amounts of
deposit shown. May this attachment be admitted in evidence?
 No because they were estopped for failure to present the evidence on the first opportunity. Generally,
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. However, this liberal policy should still be subject to rules of reason and fair play.
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. Loon vs Power Master Inc. 712 SCRA
203. May a CTC of cadastral map be presented and admitted in evidence.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 82
  Yes. Generally, R130S3 (d), ROC only the original of the document is admissible in evidence. Except
R130S7 when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof and
R132S24 that the record of public documents be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody or the record. CTC of the cadastral map that was attested by 2 public officers having
custody of such records is admissible in evidence. Moreover, as to the hearsay rule, R130S44, ROC
provides that entries in official records are an exception to the rule on BER. The rule provides that
entries in official records made in the performance of the duty of 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. The necessity of this rule consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the
official's attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the course of his duty.
The document's trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official
duty. Dimaguila vs Monteiro, 714 SCRA

204. When may CA receive evidence in its exercise of its original and appellate jurisdiction?
 Under R6S3 of the Internal Rules of the CA, the CA may receive evidence in the following cases:
a) In actions falling within its original jurisdiction, such as (1) certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, (2)
annulment of judgment or final order, (3) quo warranto, (4) habeas corpus, (5) amparo, (6) habeas
data, (7) anti-money laundering, and (8) application for judicial authorization under the Human
Security Act of 2007;
b) In appeals in civil cases where the Court grants a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence,
pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court;
c) In appeals in criminal cases where the Court grants a new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence, pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule 124 of the rules of Court; and
d) In appeals involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies. Republic vs Mupas, 769
SCRA 384

205. State the Rule on BER and its exeptions.

 BER acts as an insurance against fraud. If a party is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds
it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally arises that the better
evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and defeat. The rule
likewise protects against misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional
introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings. Except:
a. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror
b. When the original is in the custody or under control of the party against whom the evidence
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice
c. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them
is only the general result of the whole; and
d. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office
Note that when a party invokes R130S3(c), he does not similarly invoke Section 3 (a), (b), and/or (d),
Rule 130 of ROC. He does not likewise claim that the original documents have been lost or
destroyed. The party merely asserts that the numerous documents cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and that the fact sought to be established from these documents is only the
general result of the whole. Republic vs Mupas, 769 SCRA 384
3. Parol Evidence Rule
206. A sale of 2 lands in QC for a consideration of P35, 000.00 and P20, 000.00, respectively was
made. Seller received payments but failed to deliver the titles. Demand for the titles were made but
seller refused on the ground that the title of the first lot is in possession of another person, and
acquisition of the title by the buyer of the other lot is subject to certain conditions. A complaint for

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 83
 specific performance was filed. In the Answer, seller alleged several oral conditions. Buyer objection
on ground of PER. May these conditions be admitted?
 No. Oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome
of the case, depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary
evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a
uniform language. Thus, under the general rule in R130S9, ROC, when the terms of an agreement were
reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence
of such terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. An exception to PER is when the
instrument does not show the true intent of the parties applies only Where the written contract is so
ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from
a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the
contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of the facts and circumstances surrounding
them when they entered into the contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper
interpretation of the instrument. In this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without any ambiguity,
mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof. Ortanez vs CA

207. Elias Tan, President of Lapulapu Foundation, Inc., obtained loan from ABC bank covered by
PN. Collection suit ensued. LFi contended that it is not liable because Tan borrowed money in her
personal capacity and not as president of LFI and maintained that it never authorized Tan to borrow
money in behalf of it. Tan admitted that he contracted the loans in his personal capacity. Averred that
bank employee required him to affix two signatures on every PN, assuring him that the loan documents
would be filled out in accordance with their agreement but it did not happen. Moreover, he denied
receiving any demand. Should Tan and LFI be held solidarily liable?
 Yes and in effect the testimony of Tan be inadmissible because of PER. Application for credit
accommodation, the signature cards of the two accounts in the name of petitioner Foundation, as well
as New Current Account Record, all accompanying the promissory notes, were signed by petitioner
Tan for and in the name of the petitioner Foundation establish that the loans were solidarily contracted
by the petitioner Foundation and petitioner Tan. PN is the law between the petitioners and the
respondent Bank. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not
admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract. While PER 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. Lapu-Lapu
Foundation vs CA

208. Maria Sta. Maria and Dominga Manangan were co-owners ¾ and ¼ pro-indiviso of a land. Sta.
Maria sold her share to Benigna Llamas. Upon death, she willed her share equally to her sisters
Alejandra Llamas and Josefa Llamas. Later, Josefa sold her own one-half share (subject property) to
the Leoveras and the Valdez, as evidenced by DOAS. An agreement was later executed in the nature of
partition. Later, Valdez asked RD for requirements to transfer the property but he learned that
Leoveras already obtained 2 TCT in his name including his portion. RD provided the following, copy of
TCT, Benigna Deed, Subdivision Plan, and Affidavit of Confirmation of Subdivision. Valdez seek to
nullify the Benigna Deed by presenting the death certificate of Maria and executing an Affidavit to
explain the true intent of their previous agreement. Should the Affidavit be admitted as evidence to
reflect the true intent of the agreement?
 NO. The parties’ Previous Agreement effectively partitioned the subject property. Valdez adequately
proved his ownership of the disputed property by virtue of the (i) Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
Josefa in favor of the parties; (ii) the parties’ Affidavit of Adverse Claim; and (iii) the parties’
Agreement, which cover the subject property. To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the
ROC allows a party to present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident,
which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 84
 At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol evidence, the alleged true intention of the
parties by presenting the Affidavit, which allegedly corrected the mistake in the previously executed
Agreement and confirmed his ownership of the parcels of land covered by his titles. It was the
petitioner’s staunch assertion that the respondent co-executed this Affidavit supposedly to reflect the
parties’ true intention. Since the Affidavit merely reflects what is embodied in the Benigna Deed, the
petitioner’s admission, coupled with the respondent’s denial of his purported signature in the Affidavit,
placed in serious doubt the reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the petitioner’s
defense. Leoveras vs Valdez

209. Lucia Paras (concessionaire of a sand and gravel permit) and Kimwa (construction firm)
entered into a contract denominated as "Agreement for Supply of Aggregates" where 40,000 cu. Mtrs.
of aggregates were allotted by Lucia as supplier to Kimwa for P240.00/truckload. However, after
hauling 10k cu mtrs., Kimwa stopped hauling and allegedly transferred to the concession area of a
certain Mrs. Remedios. Sps Paras sent demand letters to Kimwa but was unheeded. A complaint for
breach of contract with damages was filed. In its Answer, Kimwa alleged that it never committed to
obtain 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates and argued that the 40k cu mtrs is only the maximum
quantity that it could haul. It asserted that the expiration of the Special Permit of Lucia was never set
as a deadline. Invoking PER, it insisted that Sps Paras were barred from introducing evidence which
would show that the parties had agreed differently. Is there violation of PER? Is Kimwa liable?
 There is no violation of PER but Kimwa is liable for breach of contract. As exception to PER, 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; (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agree. There are 2 things must be established
for PER to be admitted: first, that the existence of any of the 4 exceptions has been put in issue in a
party's pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second, that the PER sought to
be presented serves to form as the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting party. In this
case, a mistake or imperfection in the Agreement, as well as the Agreement's failure to express the true
intent of the parties is alleged in the pleading. Paras vs Kimwa Construction Inc

210. Ligaya sued PNB for the recovery of a sum of money and damages alleging of having a peso
and $ time deposit accounts; both investment placements have matured; and when she sought to
withdraw her deposit money with interests, PNB refused due to existing loan. Ligaya denied obtaining
any loan. While conceding signing certain documents she professed not understanding what they
really meant. She agreed to affix her signature on these loan documents in blank or in an incomplete
state, she added, only because the PNB Sucat branch manager, and Customer Relations Officer, led her
to believe that what she was signing were related to new high-yielding PNB products. She also denied
re-lending the loan proceeds to Paolo. She asserted that the branch manager went to her residence
with a duly accomplished affidavit detailing the re-lending event and urged her to sign if she wished to
recover her placements. RTC decided in favor of Ligaya. Ca affirmed. Court decided based on the
testimony of Ligaya despite presentment of the notarized PN by PNB. Should her testimony be
admitted?
 No. When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing
all such terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no
evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing. The facts in the case
does not fall in any of the exeptions where evidence other than what is stated in the agreement may be
admitted. Burden of proof lies with the party who asserts a right and the quantum of evidence required
by law in civil cases is preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence. PNB vs Pasimio

Electronic Evidence (AM 01-07- SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence and E- commerce Law RA 8792)

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 85
 211. An ejectment suit was filed to order posseor by tolerance to vacate a land owned by petitioner.
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.
As evidence, they presented the Regional Director of the DENR which already upheld their possession
over the land when it ruled that they were the rightful claimants and possessors and were, therefore,
entitled to the issuance of a title. This certification was a facsimile. May it be admitted?
 No. It is a sham document, because the signature of the CENR officer is a mere facsimile. A facsimile or
fax transmission is a process involving the transmission and reproduction of printed and graphic
matter by scanning an original copy, one elemental area at a time, and representing the shade or tone
of each area by a specified amount of electric current. Pleadings filed via fax machines are not
considered originals and are at best exact copies. As such, they are not admissible in evidence, as there
is no way of determining whether they are genuine or authentic. In this case, the facsimile is the
signature of the RD of DENR. 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 refer to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.
Heirs of Sabanpan vs Comorposa
Certain Doctrines or Rules of Admissibility
1. Conditional admissibility -Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is
connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts
will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence given will be stricken out. This is subject to the qualification that there
should be no bad faith on the part of the proponent.
2. Multiple admissibility - Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be
admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility
therefore.
3. Curative admissibility - This treats upon the right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the
court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party
Three theories on curative admissibility:
1. American rule – the admission of such incompetent evidence, without objection by the opponent does not justify such
opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence.
2. English rule – if a party has presented inadmissible evidence, the adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence.
3. Massachusetts rule – the adverse party may be permitted to introduce similar incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain
and unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the other party’s evidence.

212. Torres received a letter of dismissal from the service. He filed with the CSC a Complaint against
PAGCOR and its Chairman for illegal dismissal, non-payment of backwages and other benefits. Because
of denials of actions in the lower courts, a petition for review under R43 was filed seeking to set aside
the twin resolutions issued by the CSC. CA found insufficient to merit consideration because the MR
filed was sent through a facsimile transmission. Assuming arguendo that a letter reconsideration was
indeed sent through a facsimile transmission, such facsimile transmission is inadmissible as electronic
evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. Rule.
 Sustain. The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic
Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission
cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the
Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. 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. Not considered as an electronic evidence under the
Electronic Commerce Act. Torres vs PAGCOR

213. Irish and Rustan were old sweethearts. Irish broke up with Rustan because he impregnated
another girl and was aout to marry. She changed her cellphone number but Rustan somehow managed
to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Irish received MMS a picture of a naked woman with spread
legs and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure. The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the
message, 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. An entrapment was conducted to recover the cellphone
containing the images and several sim cards and the operation was successful. Rustan was convicted
under RA 9262. May the MMS sent be admitted as evidence?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 86
  Yes. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an
electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided
under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC) is not tenable. Rustan is
raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit A, for the first time on appeal
is too late since he should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it
was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection. Rules
on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative
proceedings. Ang vs Republic

214. Enojas et. al were charged for Murder. P02 Gregorio testified that he was with P02 Pangilinan
when they saw a suspiciously parked taxi, of which the driver was Enojas, they invited the driver to
the police station for further questioning; Enojas voluntarily went with the police officers. However,
on their way, they stopped at a convenience store where an encounter ensued. Enojas fled. Suspecting
that Enojas was involved, the police officers searched the abandoned taxi and found a mobile phone
belonging to Enojas, of which they used to monitor and to communicate with the accused. Entrapment
was later conducted and was successful. They were convicted. The text messages was used as basis on
the conviction. Appeal was made alleging that the text messages must be inadmissible for failure to
authenticate as required by the rules. Decide.
 Sustain conviction. 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. Here, PO3 Cambi, exchanged text messages with the
other accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and
to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such messages and was
competent to testify on them. The arrest without a valid warrant cannot be a ground for acquittal but
may be a ground to reject any evidence that may have been taken. 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. Illegal arrest
cannot be a ground for acquitting (accused) them of the crime charged but for rejecting any evidence
that may have been taken from them after an unauthorized search as an incident of an unlawful arrest.
People vs Enojas

NB: A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Re: Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, September 24, 2002. The latter case does
not confront directly the obiter in Ang v. Court of Appeals, but the recognition of the 2002 resolution expanding the coverage of the
rules on electronic evidence in People v. Enojas is clear. The Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to criminal cases.
215. Syhunliong is the President of BANFF Realty and Development Corporation (BANFF)
while Rivera used to be the Accounting Manager of BANFF. She was hired and after 3 years tendered
her resignation. She turned-over the papers under her custody to Lumapas. Sometime in 2006, Rivera
called Lumapas and requested for the payment of her remaining salaries, benefits and incentives.
Lumapas informed Rivera that her benefits would be paid, but the check representing her salaries was
still unsigned, and her incentives were put on hold. Rivera sent text message to BANFF’s official CP
held by Lumapas: I am expecting that. grabe talaga sufferings ko dyan hanggang pagkuha ng last pay
ko. I don’t deserve this because I did my job when I was still there. God bless. Sana yung pagsimba niya,
alam niya real meaning. Another text, Kailangan release niya lahat [nang] makukuha ko diyan including
incentive up to the last datena nandyan ako para di na kami abot sa labor. Labor case was filed. Pending
the LC, Syhunliong filed a complaint for libel and used the text messages as evidence. As a defense,
Rivera said her text message falls squarely within the parameters of "Privileged Communication" or
the elements of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code are not fully established by the Prosecution’s
evidence. Thereafter, the lower court issued an Order on June 18, 2009 denying Rivera’s motion for
reconsideration of the foregoing. Should Rivera be convicted? Are the text messages a PC?
 No. The text message which Rivera sent to Lumapas falls within the purview of a qualified privileged
communication. The rule on privileged communication means that a communication made in good
faith on any subject matter in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning which he has a
duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding duty. Rivera's text message falls within
the ambit of a qualified privileged communication since she was speaking in response to duty, to
protect her own interest, and not out of an intent to injure the reputation of Syhunliong. Besides, there
was no unnecessary publicity of the message beyond that of conveying it to the party concerned. Note
that this case was dismissed because of prescription. Syhunliong vsRivera

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 87
 In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, the
following requisites must concur:
(1) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an
interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made;
(2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who
has the power to furnish the protection sought; and
(3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice

216. Ella M. Bartolome filed against Rosalie B. Maranan, Court Stenographer III, RTC for extortion,
graft and corruption, gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a court employee. Ella alleged that
Rosalie asked money from her for P200k, which was reduced to P160K for the filing of her case for
annulment of marriage. Moreover, Rosalie undertook to have the case decided in her favor without the
need of court appearances during the proceedings of the case. During the entrapment operation
Rosalie was apprehended inside the premises of the RTC in the act of receiving the money. Ella
attached to her affidavit-complaint the transcribed electronic communications (text messages)
between her and the respondent; a copy of an Electronic Psychiatric History form given to her by the
Rosalie for her to accomplish in filing the petition for annulment of marriage; a copy of the Imus Police
Station Blotter and a versatile compact disc (VCD) containing the video taken during the entrapment
operation. Decide.
 Affirm dismissal. Ephemeral electronic communications are now admissible evidence, subject to
certain conditions. “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text
messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. It may be proven by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the communications or has personal knowledge thereof. In the present
case, we have no doubt regarding the probative value of the text messages as evidence in considering
the present case. The complainant, who was the recipient of the text messages has personal knowledge
of these text messages. R11S1 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio, photographic and video evidence of
events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to
the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or
by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. Bartolome vs Maranan

217. May an unauthenticated text messages be admitted as evidence in a complaint for support and
violation of Ra9262?
 Yes. In the case of Justice Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, 469 SCRA 439 (2005), it is stated that any question
as to the admissibility of text messages as evidence is rendered moot and academic if the party raising
such issue admits authorship of the subject messages. Section 23(d) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC20 explicitly
prohibits compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence against women. Violence is not a
subject for compromise. A process which involves parties mediating the issue of violence implies that
the victim is somehow at fault. x x x. AM No. 10-4-16-SC,23, directs the referral to mediation of all
issues under the Family Code and other laws in relation to support, custody, visitation, property
relations and guardianship of minor children, excepting therefrom those covered by R.A. No. 9262.
Principle of estoppel finds application and it now bars BBB from making an assertion contrary to his
previous representations. He should not be allowed to evade a responsibility arising from his own
misrepresentations. He is bound by the effects of the legitimation process. CCC remains to be BBB’s
son, and pursuant to Article 179 of the Family Code, the former is entitled to the same rights as those
of a legitimate child, including the receipt of his father’s support.

218. Astorga and Repol Law Offices charged Alexander (Sheriff Villanueva) with “willful neglect of
duty and serious misconduct in office due to graft and corruption or extortion with a prayer of
dismissal. It arose upon a case it handled where ARL won. Special Sheriff to which Villanueva was
assigned met with Atty. Lugares and demanded P8,000.00 to execute the Decision. He allegedly stated:
“Sayang lang ang pagod ko dito, kung wala naman tayong makokolekta” and “E wala pang 50% ang
magagarnish natin diyan eh.” Atty. Lugares tried to bargain and lower the amount to P5,000.00. They
agreed. Sheriff Villanueva sent a text message at 4:27 p.m. to Atty. Lugares. “Cge po sir magCALL na
kau ngayon.” Atty. Lugares called Sheriff Villanueva on his cellular phone to confirm their appointment.
In the morning of November 26, 2008, Atty. Lugares sent a text message to Sheriff Villanueva to remind

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 88
 him of their appointment. At 7:23 a.m., he replied, “Dala mo ba mga colors?” Atty. Lugares asked Sheriff
Villanueva what he meant by “colors.” At 7:29 a.m., he replied, “Hauz pa po, nagcoffee breakfast lng, un
legal fees kako kung dala mo?” Atty. Lugares told Sheriff Villanueva to proceed with the meeting. At
7:44 a.m., he replied, “Bka puede bukas nlng sir, nag insist ang mga tga ChinaTrust mamya.” Atty.
Lugares insisted that they proceed with the garnishment since it was Sheriff Villanueva who set the
appointment. At 8:45 a.m., Sheriff Villanueva replied: “Patawagin mo nga c atty. astorga dto sa mobil
phone ko para magconfirm tau sa legal fees.” At 8:51 a.m., Sheriff Villanueva allegedly sent this text
message to Atty. Lugares: “Padala mo nlng khit lunch time un legal fees, khit kmi na bhala magpaserve
nina shf. Flora.” Atty. Lugares then assumed that since Sheriff Villanueva was not given the amount of
P5,000.00 he demanded, the issuance of the Notices of Garnishment did not take place. In the hearings,
Atty. Lugares failed to present the text messages that he sent to Sheriff Villanueva from his phone.
These outgoing text messages were automatically deleted since his phone could only store a hundred
messages at a time. EJ Pozon concluded that Sheriff Villanueva did not commit gross neglect of duty.
Should the sheriff be sanctioned?
 Yes. GR: findings of fact of an investigating justice must be accorded great weight and finality similar
with the weight. Except: If there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the
lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly
considered, would alter the result of the case. A review of the facts is called for when the finding of a
lack of administrative liability is premised on the supposed absence of evidence, but an examination
of the record shows that there is evidence to support the allegations. Administrative proceedings are
governed by the substantial evidence rule. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Text messages is admissible
as evidence and given probative value by this court. Court considers the content of the text messages
and the identification of the person sending them as substantial evidence to prove the commission of
administrative offenses. Astorga and Repol Law office vs Villanueva

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

1. Qualification of Witnesses
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
219. An Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property dated May 19, 1954 where Andres, Sr. donated a lot
to Andres, Jr. was presented as evidence. Believing that the affidavit is a forgery, the sisters, through
Assistant Fiscal Andres, requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit. The PNP handwriting
expert PO2 Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.’s signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard
signatures of Andres, Sr. were not written by one and the same person. After the pre-trial, a moved to
disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness was made. They argued that the RTC did not authorize the
handwriting examination of the affidavit. They added that presenting PO2 Alvarez as a witness will
violate their constitutional right to due process since no notice was given to them before the
examination was conducted. Decide on the admissibility of the testimony of PO2 Alvarez.
 Admissible. A witness must only possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided in the ROC. R130S20 in relation to S21 to S24, Rule 130 provides the rules on qualification of
witness, Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. S22
disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage. S23 disqualifies a witness by reason of death or insanity
of the adverse party. S24 disqualifies a witness by reason of privileged communication. S19 disqualifies
those who are mentally incapacitated and children whose tender age or immaturity renders them
incapable of being witnesses. S20 provides for disqualification based on conflicts of interest or on
relationship. S21 provides for disqualification based on privileged communications. Section 15 of Rule
132 may not be a rule on disqualification of witnesses but it states the grounds when a witness may be
impeached by the party against whom he was called. As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez
can surely perceive and make known her perception to others. We have no doubt that she is qualified
as a witness. She cannot be disqualified as a witness since she possesses none of the disqualifications
specified under the Rules. R130S49 is clear that the opinion of an expert witness may be received in
evidence. Marcos vs Heirs of Andress Alvarez

Mental Incapacity or Immaturity Case

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 89
 220. Evelyn is a mental retardate. When her mother, Amparo, left for Singapore to work, Evelyn
was entrusted to sister Jovita and her husband Salvador. Jovita left the conjugal residence to meet a
certain Rosing leaving Evelyn with Salvador who took advantage of the situation and raped Evelyn.
Evelyn told Jovita about what happened but she didn’t believe her. Later, it was discovered that she
was pregnant. A criminal complaint was filed by Evelyn, assisted by Lorna, against Salvador. May a
mental retard’s testimony be admitted in evidence?
 Yes. 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. A mental
retardate can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows. If his or her
testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in court. To be sure, modern rules on evidence have
downgraded mental incapacity as a ground to disqualify a witness and has become a modern trend of
evidence. People vs Golimlim
Marital Disqualification
221. Maximo Alvarez, an estranged husband of Esperanza Alvarez was filed with arson. Esperanza
was the 1st witness. Maximo objected on MDR. Pending resolution of the objection, the trial court
directed the prosecution to proceed with the presentation of the other witnesses. RTC DQ Esperanza.
Prosecution filed a MR but was denied hence this case. May Esperanza’s testimony admissible in
evidence?
 Yes. R130S22 is not applicable. Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is
no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based
upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such case, identity of interests disappears and the
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, the security and
confidences of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which through
their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. Alvarez vs Ramirez

222. Benjamin Manaloto was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Document. The
complaint was filed by his wife, Victoria. Benjamin falsified DOAS for the sale of house and lot belonging
to the conjugal partnership to Lacsamana, making it appear that his spouse gave her marital consent.
Is Victoria barred to testify?
 No. The wife can testify against the husband in a case for falsification of the wife’s signature in public
documents to sell share of wife in conjugal property because it is a crime committed by the husband
against the wife. The case is an exception to MDR. WHEN AN OFFENSE DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR
DIRECTLY AND VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE CONJUGAL RELATION, IT COMES WITHIN THE EXCEPTION to
the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime
committed (by) one against the other. People vs Castaneda
Death or Insanity
Razon vs CA 207 SCRA
223. Chuidian as an administrator demanded Razon to deliver certificates of stocks representing
the shareholdings of the deceased Juan in the E. Razon, Inc. Razon assails the decision on its alleged
misapplication of the dead man's statute rule. According to him, the "dead man's statute" rule is not
applicable for failure of the petitioner to object to his oral testimony regarding the oral agreement
between him and the deceased. May the testimony of Razon be admitted in evidence?
 Yes. R130S20(a), ROC PAP vs EAR not allowed. If persons having a claim against the estate were
allowed to testify as to the supposed statements made by him (deceased person), many would be
tempted to falsely impute statements to deceased persons. It is to "guard against the temptation to
give false testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party." In this
case, the testimony excluded by the court is that of the defendant to the affect that the late Juan, and
the defendant agreed in the lifetime of Juan that the 1,500 shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. are actually
owned by Razon unless the Juan opted to pay the same which never happened. The case was filed by
the administrator of the estate of the late Juan to recover shares. Hence, testimony of the petitioner is
not within the prohibition of the rule. The case was not filed against the administrator of the estate,

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 90
 nor was it filed upon claims against the estate. Respondent never objected to the testimony of the
Chuidian as regards the true nature of his transaction with Juan. The petitioner's testimony was subject
to cross-examination by the private respondent's counsel. Hence, granting that the petitioner's
testimony is within the prohibition, respondent is deemed to have waived the rule. Juan is declared
owner.

224. CA and RTC decided that a partnership existed between Chua and Sunga until Sunga’s death.
In the absence of any written document to show such partnership exists, courts were proscribed from
hearing the testimonies of respondent and his witness, Josephine, to prove the alleged partnership 3
years after Jacinto’s death. To support this argument, petitioners invoke the “Dead Man’s Statute” or
“Survivorship Rule” under R130S23, ROC. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse
party.– PAP, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against EAR 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 before the
death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.” Is the argument
correct?
 NO . The “DMS” provides that if one party to the transaction is precluded from testifying by death,
insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of
giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. But before this rule can be
successfully invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:
1. The witness is a PAP.
2. The action is against an EAR of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind;
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against person of unsound mind;
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind.
In this case, DMS is not applicable because, Petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim and with the
filing of their counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit of the
“Dead Man’s Statute”. When it is the EAR of the estate that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, may
testify to occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the Scounterclaim. The testimony of
Josephine is not covered by the “DMS”, she is not “PAP”. “”Assignor” of a party means “assignor of a
COA which has arisen, and not the assignor of a right assigned before any COA has arisen.” Sunga-Chan
vs Chua
225. A land is indispute. This land was adjudicated the the heirs of Sps Jayme where a house was
currently built and is occupied by Nicanor Jayme. Elena(heir) alleged that the lot was originally owned
by her paretns and that 1/3 was adjudicated to her thru partition. Portion of it is occupied by Nicanor
with her permission. Nicanor opposed stating that the land also covers the land adjudicated to him.
Elena successfully acaquired FP and OCT over the lot. This was disputed. RTC finding fraud cancelled
the FP and OCT. Hence this case, Elena contends that the testimonies given by the witnesses for Nicanor
which touched on matters occurring prior to the death of her mother should not have been admitted
by the trial court, as the same violated the dead mans statute. Rule.
 It is admissible. DMS does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming
to his knowledge in any other way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or
communication made by the deceased to the witness. Since the claim and the testimony of their
witnesses is based on the 1947 Deed of Extra-judicial Partition and other documents, and not on
dealings and communications with the deceased, the questioned testimonies were properly admitted
by the trial court. Bordalba vs CA
Privilege Communication
226. Annullment case was filed on ground of failure to care and support and that a psychiatrist
diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to incessant drinking and excessive use of prohibited drugs.
During the PTC, wife pre-marked the Philhealth Claim Form that husband 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." Wife

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 91
 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 accompanied by a
motion to "be allowed to submit in evidence" the records sought by subpoena duces tecum. Husband
opposed based on physician-patient privilege. Decide.
 Granted. The case presents a procedural issue, given that the time to object to the admission of
evidence, would be at the time they are offered. R132S36. Since the offer of evidence is made at the
PTC, Wife request for subpoena duces tecum is premature. She will have to wait for trial to begin before
making a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. It is when those records are produced
for examination at the trial, that husband may opt to object, not just to their admission in evidence, but
more so to their disclosure. Request may be appreciated as MOD under R27S1. But the right to compel
the production of documents has a limitation: the documents to be disclosed are "not privileged.”
Disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records—the results of tests that the physician
ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, and the advice or treatment he gave him—would be to
allow access to evidence that is inadmissible without the patient’s consent. R132S17 is misplaced
because trial in the case had not yet begun. Consequently, it cannot be said that husband had already
presented the Philhealth claim form in evidence, the act contemplated above which would justify wife
into requesting an inquiry into the details of his hospital confinement. Chan vs Chan

227. The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful
detainer against Barrientos. MTC favored Veneracion. Appeal to RTC ensued and case was raffled to
Judge Lacurom who reversed the decision. MR was filed with Motion for inhibition. Judge Lacurom
ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear and explain why she should not be held in contempt. Records show
that the undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this case. Nevertheless, Velasco-
Jacoba expressed willingness to apologize for whatever mistake may have committed. Velasco-Jacoba
was sentenced guilty of contempt and penalized with imprisonment for 5 days. MR filed and Velasco-
Jacoba alleged that on her way out of the house for an afternoon hearing, Atty. Jacoba stopped her and
asked her to sign the motion. Atty Jacoba questioned the answer being priviledge as part of MDR. Rule.
 Admissible. Marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the claimant to
object timely to its presentation or by any conduct that may be construed as implied consent. This
waiver applies to Jacoba who impliedly admitted authorship of the 30 July 2001 motion. Larucom vs
Jacoba

228. Atty. Valencia filed a case in the RTC for nonpayment of rentals, herein respondent, while
being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia,
Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC. May an attorney be
precluded from representing a new client whose interest is adverse to his former client upon the
termination of the attorney-client relationship
 YES for being violate of the Cannon laws, except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. 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. Termination of the relation of
attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of the former client. Samala vs Valencia

229. Ombudsman issued order for subpoena duces tecum requiring Rogado and Rivera, as chief
accountant and record custodian to produce all documents relating to Personal Services Funds and all
evidence. An anonymous and unsigned letter purportedly written by an employee, was sent to the
Secretary of Finance, with copies furnished to several government offices, including the Office of the
Ombudsman for allegations as to the misuse of funds. Ombudsman’s investigated. Is the order proper?
 YES. Governmental privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on
military, diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege is based upon public interest of such paramount

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 92
 importance as in and of itself transcending the individual interests of a private citizen, even though, as
a consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot enforce his legal rights. In this case, there is no claim that
military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the
personnel of the EIIB. Almonte vs Vasquez

Senate of the Philippines vs Ermita (448 SCRA)

G.R. No. 169777 April 20, 2006
Facts:
230. Public hearing to investigate anomalies of certain government projects were scheduled.
Department heads refused attendance. Subsequently, GMA issued EO 464 prohibiting Department
heads, senior officials of executive departments etc. from appearing in such hearings conducted by
Congress without first securing the president’s approval. 2 Generals attended that led to court martial
proceedings. Hence, this case. Is EO 464 a valid excuse of non attendance?
 Yes. When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they
are department heads. Only one executive official may be exempted from this power — the President
except through the power of impeachment. When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how
department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is
not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must
give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. When the inquiry in which Congress requires
their appearance is ‘in aid of legislation’ under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory. Senate vs
Ermita

231. Discusss the concept of Executive privilege

 Executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in
relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. While executive privilege is a
constitutional concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify
it and the context in which it is made. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive officials are
exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. Indeed, the
extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines
heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure. Senate vs Ermita

232. DOTC entered a contract with ZTE for NBN Project financed by China. Jose de Venecia III
testified that several high executive officials and power brokers were using their influence to push the
approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA. Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before
the Senate Blue Ribbon. He appeared in one hearing and admitted that Abalos of COMELEC tried to
bribe him with P200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that he
informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the
bribe. When probed further, Neri invoked executive priviledge. He was cited in contempt and ordered
his arrest and detention. Did he properly invoke executive priviledge?
 Yes. The communications are covered by executive privilege. The revocation of EO 464, does not in any
way diminish the concept of executive privilege. This is because this concept has Constitutional
underpinnings. The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of
inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such as the area of
military and foreign relations. Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege
on the ground that the communications elicited by the three (3) questions “fall under conversation and
correspondence between the President and public officials” necessary in “her executive and policy
decision-making process” and, that “the information sought to be disclosed might impair our
diplomatic as well as economic relations with China.” Neri vs Senate Committe

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 93
 Elements of presidential communications privilege:
1. The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.”
2. The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself.
The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
3. The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate
need, such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority

2. Testimonial Privilege
3. Admissions and Confessions
233. A case arise from a dispute of properties inherited by the grandchildren from their ascendants.
On dispute is the validity of an Extra Judicial Settelement and waiver. On Pre-trial conference, parties
entered into stipulations and admissions as well as identification of the issues to be litigated. Trial on
the merits ensued. RTC rendered a Decision finding that the parties are in pari delicto, whereby the
law leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either one of them. Parties who are equally guilty
cannot complain against each other. May stipulations and admissions during the pre-trial conference
be made as proper basis on which the application of the doctrine of in pari delicto?
 Yes. 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 R18S7, ROC, which
mandates that the contents of the PTO shall control the subsequent course of the action, thereby,
defining and limiting the issues to be tried. Constantino vs Heirs of Constantino

234. Rolando was convicted for raping a minor, Remelyn. Gaudia’s father offered money to
Remelyn’s mother to settle what his son has committed. This offer of compromise was used by Amalia,
the mother of the victim, against the Rolando to convict him. May the offer of compromise made by the
parents be taken against the accussed?
 NO – it is merely considered as a hearsay evidence. No probative value. Guilty of only simple rape. A
witness can only testify on facts which are based on his personal knowledge or perception. The offer
of compromise allegedly made by the appellant’s parents to Amalia may have been the subject of
testimony of Amalia. However, following the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet,
the actions of his parents cannot prejudice the appellant, since he was not a party to the said
conversation, nor was it shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise made by them to the
mother of the victim. Peoplevs Gaudia

235. Case for malversation of public funds were then filed against Doldol. Instead of pursuing
request for a re-audit, Doldol opted to refund the missing funds. However, he reneged on his promise
leading to this case. In his defense. Doldol averred that the funds 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. He was convicted. Is there
misappropriation of public funds?
 Yes. Except for his bare testimony, the petitioner offered no competent and credible evidence to prove
that the missing funds were actually cash advances of employees in the municipality. The petitioner
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, letter addressed to the Provincial Auditor for an offer
to refund is an implied admission of misappropriation of the missing funds. This is a case of admission
by silence. Doldol vs People

236. A case for illegal pillaging of public funds from PDAF of Sen. Revilla was filed. Accordingly, Sen.
Revilla, authorized the illegal utilization, diversion, and disbursement of his PDAF through his
endorsement of fraudulent NGO created and controlled by Napoles’ in relation to “ghost” PDAF-funded
projects, and for receiving “commissions” or “kickbacks”; Cambe, as Chief of Staff of Sen. Revilla made
the processing and had personally received his own “commission” or “kickback”. Napoles, as the
mastermind of the entire PDAF scam, for facilitating the illegal acts. Lim and De Asis, as staff employees
of Napoles, for assisting. Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, and Bare (Relampagos, et al.), as employees of the
DBM, for participating. Is there a probable cause against all petitioners that merits full blown trial?

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 94
  Yes, there exist an evidence as to find PC in this case that merits full blown trial. Only facts sufficient to
support a prima facie case against the accused are required, not absolute certainty.” Probable cause
can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay,
and that even an invocation of the rule on res inter alios acta at this stage of the proceedings is
improper.

R130S28 does not apply in PI because “such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally
adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.” “Under the doctrine of independently relevant
statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is
relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. R112S3, ROC
expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit a counter-affidavit, to
examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to
propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be
present but without the right to examine or cross-examine.”

Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause does not touch on the issue of guilt or innocence of the
accused. It is not the function of the Office of the Ombudsman to rule on such issue. All that the Office
of the Ombudsman did was to weigh the evidence presented together with the counter-allegations of
the accused and determine if there was enough reason to believe that a crime has been committed and
that the accused are probably guilty thereof.” Courts do not interfere in the Ombudsman’s exercise of
discretion in determining probable cause unless there are compelling reasons. Cambe vs Office of the
Ombudsman

Confessions
237. Antonio was charged with Parricide for stabbing his wife Norma who was found lifeless with
several puncture wounds on the bathroom floor of their home by their son. During police investigation,
Antonio informed police that 100K cash and jewelry were missing. He concluded that Miller (lover of
Norma) may have cause the crime. Later, Antonio confessed to the crime before the media. During trial,
Antonio interposed the twin defenses of alibi and denial, claiming coercion and intimidation on the
part of the police officers involved in the investigation of the crime. Accused denied having killed his
wife, alleging that she was alive the morning he left for work. May the EJC convict Antonio?
 Yes. A confession made before news reporters, absent any showing of undue influence from the police
authorities, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime confessed to by the accused. The fact that the
extrajudicial confession was made by Antonio while inside a detention cell does not by itself render such
confession inadmissible. It is well-settled that where the accused fails to present evidence of compulsion;
where he did not institute any criminal or administrative action against his supposed intimidators for
maltreatment; and where no physical evidence of violence was presented, all these will be considered as
factors indicating voluntariness. People vs Dacanay

238. Accused is a PNP member who had an altercation with Francisco that resulted to his
instantaneous death. He admitted that he shot the victim while the latter was attacking him. SB
convicted him. In his Counter-Affidavit, in which he had admitted to having fired the fatal shots that
caused the victims death was used as evidence against him. However, it found no evidence of treachery;
thus, it convicted him of homicide only. Is there an admission or confession?
 It is only an admission. 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. In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that
formed the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in
ignorance of the true state of facts. Ladiana vs People

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 95
 239. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 62 found appellant Feliciano Ulit y Tampoy guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape. In the same decision, the appellant was
convicted of two counts of acts of lasciviousness. Counsel objected to the admissibility of Lucelle’s
sworn statement on the ground that she was incompetent to give the same because of her mental
illness. The trial court admitted the sworn statement of Lucelle in evidence as part of her testimony. Is
the ground to strike the testimony proper?
 NO it is admissible. Mere identification of signatures in the statement qualifies the document as
admissible. 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. Although Lucelle did not testify on the
contents of her sworn statement the same were admissible in evidence as part of the res gestae.
As to the change of plea, as a rule, this Court has set aside convictions based on pleas of guilty in capital
offenses because of the improvidence thereof, and when such plea is the sole basis of the
condemnatory judgment. However, where the trial court receives, independently of his plea of guilty,
evidence to determine whether the accused committed the crimes charged and the precise degree of
his criminal culpability therefor, he may still be convicted if there is ample proof on record, not
contingent on the plea of guilty, on which to predicate conviction. People vs Ulit
240. Sayaboc was convicted for murder. During custodial investigation, an EJC was made but was
refutted because the PAO lawyer who was his counsel, was not a competent, independent, vigilant, and
effective counsel. He was ineffective because he remained silent during the entire proceedings. He was
not independent, as he was formerly a judge in NPC holding court inside the PNP Command. Should
the EJC be admitted?
 No. Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession cannot be used in evidence in this case for being violative of
Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The rationale for this requirement is to allay any fear
that the person being investigated would succumb to coercion while in the unfamiliar or intimidating
environment that is inherent in custodial investigations. Therefore, even if the confession may appear
to have been given voluntarily since the confessant did not file charges against his alleged intimidators
for maltreatment, the failure to properly inform a suspect of his rights during a custodial investigation
renders the confession valueless and inadmissible. EJC are presumed to be voluntary, however, is that
the prosecution is able to show that the constitutional requirements safeguarding an accused’s rights
during custodial investigation have been strictly complied with, especially when the extrajudicial
confession has been denounced.People vs Sabayoc

241. In a case for Estafa, Valentino, a member of the Internal Affairs Department of Metrobank,
testified that he conducted and interviewed the accussed; that in said interview, accussed admitted
having committed the allegations in the Informations, specifically forging the promissory notes; that
the proceeds of the loan were secured or personally received by the accussed although it should be the
client of the bank who should receive the same; and that all the answers of the accussed were contained
in a typewritten document voluntarily executed, thumbmarked, and signed by him. May the document
be admitted as evidence against him?
 Yes. Petitioner’s written statement is admissible in evidence. The constitutional proscription against
the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of
the Constitution, as correctly observed by the CA and the OSG, is applicable only in custodial
interrogation. Confession or admission is presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and the
confessant bears the burden of proving the contrary; Right to counsel for a statement applies only to
admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation
In the present case, while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled written statement
regarding an anomaly discovered in the branch he managed, the following are clear: (1) the
questioning was not initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely by an internal affairs manager
of the bank; and, (2) petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his liberty in any significant

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 96
 manner during the questioning. Right to counsel "applies only to admissions made in a criminal
investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation." Tanenggee vs People
242. Cebuana’s internal auditors conducted a surprise audit where it revealed that 156 pieces of
jewelry were missing, cash shortage of was likewise discovered.Case for Qualified theft was filed. RTC
convicted accussed based on an extrajudicial written confession. Decide.
 Convict. The petitioner wrote and signed the confession letter spontaneously. The language of the
confession letter was straightforward, coherent and clear. It bore no suspicious circumstances tending
to cast doubt upon its integrity and it was replete with details which could only be known to the
petitioner. Moreover, it is obvious that losing one’s job in an administrative case is less cumbersome
than risking one’s liberty by confessing to a crime one did not really commit. It is thus implausible for
one to be cajoled into confessing to a wrongdoing at the mere prospect of losing his/her job.

A confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, if voluntarily and freely made, constitutes

evidence of a high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no sane person or one
of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a
crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. The admissibility and validity of a confession,
thus hinges on its voluntariness, condition vividly present in this case. Fronteras vs People

243. A case for robbery with homicide was filed against the accussed. Accussed was arrested and upon
interrogation, he verbally confessed that he and his companions, "had just killed and robbed an old
couple." During cross-examination, PO2 Paule affirmed that accussed was not aided by a lawyer, nor
was his confession reduced into writing. Should convictin be sustained?
 Yes. Dela Cruz's extrajudicial confession without counsel at the police station without a valid waiver of
the right to counsel - that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel - is inadmissible in evidence. It is
undisputed that Dela Cruz was neither assisted by a lawyer nor was his confession reduced into
writing. Further, when the police officers informed Dela Cruz of his right to a lawyer, the latter did not
say anything. Even so, such silence did not constitute a valid waiver of his right to remain silent and to
have a competent and independent counsel. Any confession obtained (without Miranda doctrine) is
flawed and cannot be used as evidence not only against the declarant but also against his co-accused.
However, when several accused are tried together, the confession made by 1 of them during the trial
implicating the others is evidence against the latter. An accused is always a competent witness for or
against his co-accused, and the fact that he had been discharged from the information does not affect
the quality of his testimony, for the admissibility, the relevancy, as well as the weight that should be
accorded his declarations are to be determined by the Rules on Evidence. People vs Opiano

4. Previous Conduct as Evidence

Conduct and Character Cases
244. Victim of a firing incident identified accused Raul Santos and Mario Morales. After recovery, a
police line-up was conducted and he identified the accused. Police Aide Bohol was on duty and
witnessed the incident. Police line-up was also conducted and he positively identified the accused. This
identification was used to convict the accused. In defense, accused posted alibi. Decide.
 Convict. While evidence as to the identity of the accused as the person who committed the crime should
be carefully analyzed, . . .’where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not
appear to be biased against the man on the dock, his or her assertions as to the identity of the
malefactor should normally be accepted. And this is more so where the witness is the victim or his
near-relative, as in this case, because these (people) usually strive to remember the faces of the
assailants.’" Right to counsel is not available during police line-up.
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 2 particular streets in Manila was a good place to ambush a vehicle and its passengers.
Accused 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

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 97
 evidence. Exclusion of the Guerrero affidavit would not result in any change in the result reached by
the trial court. For that result is essentially and adequately based upon the positive identification of
accused as one of the gunmen. People vs Santos

245. May conviction be based on a testimony of a witness who is the victim but is proven as an
incorrigible liar?
 Yes. While lying may constitute a habit, the court believes that the falsehoods committed by the victim
assuming them for the moment to be true, are petty and inconsequential. They are not as serious as
charging one's own father of the sordid crime of rape, with all of its serious repercussions. Rule 130,
Section 34, of the Rules of Court provides that: "Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he did nor did not do the same or a similar thing at another
time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage, and the like." Minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as
they may even tend to strengthen rather than weaken their credibility. Inconsistencies in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the
substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. People vs Nardo

246. An annulment of irregularly issued FP was initiated. Investigator Isagani recommended filing
of civil case. OSG instituted the action. The alleged owner died pending investigation. Isagani’s
testimony was stricken down by curt for being a hearsay. In his testimony, Land Inspector Efren did
not conduct an investigation on the FP application of the alleged owner. Is the testimony of Isagani
considered hearsay?
 No. The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a
witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were
actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it
(a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact. A witness
may testify as to the state of mind of another person -- the latter’s knowledge, belief, or good or bad
faith -- and the former’s statements may then be regarded as independently relevant without violating
the hearsay rule. Portions of the report that consisted of his personal knowledge, perceptions and
conclusions are not hearsay. On the other hand, the part referring to the statement made by Recio may
be considered as independently relevant. Rp ve Heirs of Alejaga
5. Testimonial Knowledge
Hearsay Evidence Rule
247. Complaint for estafa was filed from non-remittance of sales collection. At pre-trial, no
stipulation of facts was had, and petitioner did not avail herself of plea bargaining. Branch manager
and auditor of the company was presented by prosecution ass witness. Based on the audit, a written
report denominated as "List of Customers Covered by Saleswoman LERIMA PATULA w/ Differences in
Records as per Audit Duly Verified March 16-20, 1997" was submitted to the branch manager; finding
that there exist indeed a misappropriation. Defense did not present any evidence. She was convicted.
May auditor’s testimony as to the ledgers and receipts (Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives,
inclusive) to prove petitioner’s misappropriation or conversion be admitted?
 It may be admitted but will not pose weight for being hearsay. Auditor conceded having no personal
knowledge of the amounts actually received by the accused from the customers or remitted by the
manager. Persons other than auditor prepared the Exhibits B to YY Accordingly, her being the only
witness who testified on the entries effectively deprived the RTC of the reasonable opportunity to
validate and test the veracity and reliability of the entries as evidence of petitioner’s misappropriation
or conversion through cross-examination by petitioner. Patula vs People
6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 98
 For a dying declaration to be deemed an exception to the hearsay rule, the following conditions must concur:
(a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death;
(a) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was conscious of his impending death;
(b) the declarant was competent as a witness; and
(b) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim.

In order for a statement to be considered part of res gestae, the following elements must concur:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(b) the statement was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
(c) the statement concerns the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances

248. Calinawan was charged with murder for killing Janice. Marigor (7 years old) daughter testified
that she saw thee accused stabbed her mother by mere identification of him being amputated but she
did not saw his face. The victim confessed to his brother that it was Calinawan who stabbed her. She
was hospitalized. Her husband also asked her in the hospital if who stabbed her and she said
Calinawan. After 3 days, she died. Decide.
 Convict. Denial and Alibi fails in light of Positive Identification. In criminal prosecution, the identity of
the accused must be established with moral certainty, but this did not necessarily require that the
witness must have seen the face of the accused. The test to determine the moral certainty of an
identification is its imperviousness to skepticism on account of its distinctiveness. To achieve such
distinctiveness, the identification evidence should encompass unique physical features or
characteristics, like the face, the voice, the dentures, the distinguishing marks or tattoos on the body,
fingerprints, DNA, or any other physical facts that set the individual apart from the rest of humanity.
Moreover, the identification of the victim of the accused was considered as dying declaration. People
vs Calinawan
Dying Declaration
249. One night, SPO3 Mendoza and PO1 Coronel were on board their patrol vehicle performing
their routine duty when they met 2 men, later identified as the accused, who were running at a fast
speed. The policemen, however, were unsuccessful in catching them and they continued patrolling the
area. There they saw Januario lying on the street. As he was severely injured, the policemen
immediately loaded Januario to the patrol vehicle and brought him to the Zigzag Hospital. While inside
the vehicle, SPO3 Mendoza asked Januario who hurt him. He answered that it was “Jay-R and his uncle”
who stabbed him. Subsequently, Januario died due to the fatal wounds he has sustained. Decide on
admissibility of the testimony.
 Not a dying declaration but a part of res gestae. In the case not all the requisites of a dying declaration
are present. From the records, it does not appear that the declarant was under the consciousness of
his impending death when he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a dying
declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be entered by the
declarant. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death
as certain impending. Thus, the utterances made by Januario could not be considered as a dying
declaration. Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declaration that grow out of the main
fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main
fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. When Januario gave the identity of the
assailants to SPO3 Mendoza, he was referring to a startling occurrence which is the stabbing by
accused and his co-accused. At that time, Januario and the witness were in the vehicle that would bring
him to the hospital, and thus, had no time to contrive his identification of the assailant. His utterance
about assailant and his co-accused having stabbed him, in answer to the question of SPO3 Mendoza,
was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely, the statement is
relevant because it identified the accused as the authors of the crime. Verily, the killing of Januario
perpetrated by accused, is adequately proven by the prosecution. People vs Gatarin

Exception to the hearsay rule: Entries in the course of business.

250. At around 6:40 in the morning of March 26, 2006, SPO2 Borre took his 5-month-old grandson
outside his residence. PO3 Zapanta, who slept at SPO2 Borre’s residence, was watching television when

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 99
 4 successive gunshots rang out. PO3 Zapanta looked through the open door of SPO2 Borre’s house and
saw 2 men armed standing a meter away from SPO2 Borre. He saw Palanas deliver the fourth shot to
SPO2 Borre, but he could not identify the other shooter. On the way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre told
Ramil and PO3 Zapanta that it was "Abe," "Aspog," or "Abe Palanas" who shot him. This statement was
repeated to his wife before he died. Decide.
 Convict. SPO2 Borre’s statements constitute a dying declaration, given that they pertained to the cause
and circumstances of his death and taking into consideration the number and severity of his wounds,
it may be reasonably presumed that he uttered the same under a fixed belief that his own death was
already imminent. This declaration is considered evidence of the highest order and is entitled to
utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false
accusation. Verily, because the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of
death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful
considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an
obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court. People vs Palanas

Declaration against Interest

before a document is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule under the Dead Man's Statute, the offeror must
show (a) that the declarant is dead, insane or unable to testify; (b) that the declaration concerns a fact cognizable
by the declarant; (c) that at the time the declaration was made, he was aware that the same was contrary to his
interest; and (d) that circumstances render improbable the existence of any motive to falsify.
Section 38, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence: With the deletion of the phrase pecuniary or moral interest
from the present provision, it is safe to assume that declaration against interest has been expanded to include all
kinds of interest, that is, pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal
Facts:
251. Kidnapping case was filed against Bernal, together with two other persons whose identities
and whereabouts are still unknown. Prosecution presented Enriquez who testified that Openda Jr. told
him that he had an illicit affair with Bernal’s wife and this was the motive behind the Bernal’s
kidnapping of Openda Jr. Accused assail the testimony of Enriquez being hearsay. Decide
 Admissible. It is a declaration against interest pursuant to R130S38. With the deletion of the phrase
“pecuniary or moral interest” from the present provision, it is safe to assume that “declaration against
interest” has been expanded to include all kinds of interest, that is, pecuniary, proprietary, moral or
even penal. A statement may be admissible when it complies with the following requisites, to wit: “(1)
that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that it relates to a fact against the interest of the
declarant; (3) that at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was
contrary to his aforesaid interest; and (4) that the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
declaration to be true.”
Declaration about Pedigree
252. Teodora died and left a parcel of land and an apartment. Her husband adjudicates the land to
him and consequently sold to Domingo. The nephews and nieces seek to inherit by right of
representation from the property presenting documentary evidence to prove filial relation but they
were never presented in court to identify the documents. Rule.
 Admissible. Testimony of Corazon, the baptismal, death and marriage certificates, the various
certifications from the civil registrar, a family picture, and several joint affidavits executed by third
persons all of which she identified and explained in the course and as part of her testimony which
proves the declaration of Teodora claiming filiation is a declaration about pedigree which is
admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule subject to the following conditions: (1) that the
declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is
the subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the declaration; and
(4) that the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only before the commencement of the
suit involving the subject matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has arisen thereon.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 100

 Where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant and declarant,
but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's estate, the relationship of the declarant to the
common relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be some independent proof
of this fact. As an exception, the requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of the
declarant as to the relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant
himself and not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other
member of the family. Tizon vs CA

Family Reputation
253. Monina presented a total of 11 witnesses as to her relationship with Francisco whom she
allegedly called “Daddy” since she was a child. She also presented certifications issued by the Local
Civil Registrar and her baptismal certificate all to prove her allegation that Francisco impregnated her
mother (deceased) Esperanza. However, Francisco refuted all the allegations of Monina. Are the
evidence presented is enough to establish filiation.
 Yes. Reliance to the certifications issued by the Local Civil registrar. A certificate of live birth
purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternity, when
there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates, and the
Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the
information of a third person. Certificate of live birth and the school records presented is being
competent merely to prove the administration of the sacrament of baptism on the date so specified.
However, despite the inadmissibility of the school records per se to prove paternity, they may be
admitted as part of MONINA’s testimony to corroborate her claim that FRANCISCO spent for her
education. The common reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in community, that is
a material element of evidence going to establish pedigree. Matters of pedigree may be proved by
reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree
in question is marriage which may be proved by common reputation in the community. Jison vs CA

254. 7 members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch when they were attacked by several
masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required
hospitalization. One of them, died from his injuries. An information for murder was filed against
several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity and separate informations were also filed against them
for the attempted and frustrated murder.
 Convict. Information is sufficient when the accused is fully apprised of the charge against him to enable
him to prepare his defense. The argument of appellants that the information filed against them violates
their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them is
untenable. The Court found no merit on the appellants’ arguments that the prosecution should not
have included the phrase “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the information since they
were presenting testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks
fell off. Evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible but have little persuasive value in this
case. People vs Feliciano

255. Accused interposed their alibis and claimed that the prosecution witnesses did not actually
see who shot the gun. Hence, they argued that their identification as killers was not positively made.
For proper identification to be positive, should there have to be made a witness who actually saw the
assailants?
 No. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes
as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or event itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any
premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. To conclude, the identification of a malefactor, to
be positive and sufficient for conviction, does not always require direct evidence from an eyewitness;
otherwise, no conviction will be possible in crimes where there are no eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy
circumstantial evidence can equally confirm the identification and overcome the constitutionally
presumed innocence of the accused.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 101

 Declaration or an utterance is thus deemed as part of the res gestae that is admissible in evidence as
an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (a) the principal act, the res
gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made before the declarant had time to
contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances. Court has distinguished two types of positive identification in People v.
Gallarde, namely: (a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to the very commission of the act;
and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with the victim
immediately before or after the crime. People vs Villarico

256. SPO2 MAMANSAL was shot and was killed. At the hospital, victim confessed that “Juany and
Tony Palmones” were the killers. Alice Villamor pointed to a passing motorcycle and told him that it
was the motorcycle the assailants were riding. He chased them and while on chase PO3 Aniceta called
him on the radio and told him that the assailants were Juany and Tony Palmones. Should conviction be
upheld?
 No. As a rule, a dying declaration is hearsay, and is inadmissible as evidence. Except when given under
the circumstances specified in Section 31, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. As such, the requirements
for the admissibility of an ante mortem statement are: (a) it must concern the crime and the
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time it was made, the declarant was
under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the
declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the decedent was
the victim.

In cases where an alleged dying declaration is sought to be admitted, it must be proven that that the
declaration was made “under a consciousness of impending death” which means simply that the
declarant is fully aware that he is dying or going to die from his wounds or injuries soon or imminently,
or shall have a complete conviction that death is at hand, or there must be “a settled hopeless
expectation.” While it is true that the law does not require that the declarant explicitly state his
perception that he has given up the hope of life, the circumstances surrounding his declaration must
justify the conclusion that he was conscious of his impending death.

Res gestae refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of a crime,
when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant
to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. In order to admit statements as evidence part of the
res gestae, the element of spontaneity is critical.

Entries in the Course of Business

257. Plaintiffs booked a plane ticket. Surprise when the tickets were cancelled hence they were
forced to take a bus to Manila. They filed a case for damages PAL presented as evidence the plaintiffs’
tickets with notation “late 4:04” and the passenger manifest which showed that 2 other passengers
who arrived earlier than plaintiffs, were not accommodated. Are the documents presented by PAL
admissible? Which should prevail the oral testimony of plaintiffs or the documentary evidence
presented by PAL?
 Admissible and the document has more weight than the oral testimony. The documentary evidence
presented by PAL to corroborate the testimonies of its witnesses are entries made in the regular course
of business which plaintiffs failed to overcome with substantial and convincing evidence other than
their testimonies. Consequently they carry more weight and credit. A writing or document made
contemporaneously with a transaction which are evidence of facts pertinent to an issue, when
admitted as proof of those facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative
force than the oral testimony of a witness as to such fact based upon memory and recollection. The
hearsay rule will not apply in this case as statements, acts or conduct accompanying or so nearly
connected with the main transaction as to form a part of it, and which illustrate, elucidate, qualify or
characterize the act, are admissible as a part of the res gestae. PAL vs Ramos

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 102

Entries in Official Records
258. Lao is the owner of a truck which was insured with respondent. While the policy was in effect,
an accident occurred. A claim with the insurance company for the proceeds from his policy was filed.
However, the claim was denied by the insurance company on the ground that when its adjuster went
to investigate the matter, it was found that the driver of the insured truck did not possess a proper
driver’s license at the time of the accident. Insurance cited the contents of the police blotter which
stated that it was Leonardo who drove the truck at time of incident. Claimant claims otherwise. He
presented the Motor Vehicle Accident Report stating that driver is not Leonardo. Can there be basis
for the claim?
 None. The police blotter was admitted under R130S33, ROC. Under the said rule, the following are the
requisites for its admissibility: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by another person,
specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his
duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; (c) that the
public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have
been acquired by him personally or through official information. Entries in police records made by a
police officer in the performance of the duty especially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the
fact therein stated, and their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by other
competent evidence. Although police blotters are of little probative value, they are nevertheless
admitted and considered in the absence of competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein. No
claim was awarded. Lao vs Standard insurance

259. A DQ case was filed for material misrepresentations and failure to comply with 1 year
residency requirement. Petitioner’s evidence are as follows: (1) his Income Tax Returns and
corresponding Official Receipts for the years 2007 and 2008; (2) Certification from the barangay
captain of Pinagtong-ulan; (3) Affidavit of his common-law wife, Bernadette; and (4) Affidavits from a
previous property owner, neighbors, Certificate of Appreciation from the barangay parish and
Memorandum from the local chapter of Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. COMELEC awarded DQ. Pending
MR, he was proclaimed winner. COMELEC en banc denied the MR. May a Certification issued by
Barangay Captain not sworn to before a notary public be admitted?
 YES. Even without being sworn to before a notary public, Certification would not only be admissible
in evidence, but would also be entitled to due consideration sanctioned ass Entries in Official Records.
Barangay Secretary is required by the Local Government Code to keep an updated record of all
inhabitants of the barangay. It is the business of a punong barangay to know who the residents are in his
own barangay. The Barangay Captain’s exercise of powers and duties concomitant to his position requires
him to be privy to these records kept by the Barangay Secretary.Sabili vs COMELEC

260. A copy of the Contrato Matrimonial which was issued by Iglesia Filipina Independiente church
was presented to prove parental filiation and alleged that it is a public document because it is required
by law to be recorded in the local civil registrar and the NSO. Possession a duplicate original of the
Contrato Matrimonial should be regarded as original. Granting that the Contrato Matrimonial is a
private document, they maintain that said document should be considered an ancient document which
is excluded from the requirement of authentication. May the marriage contract be sufficient to prove
the fact of marriage between Vicente and Benita.
 No because it is a private document. Church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made
subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no longer
public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials. They are private writings and
their authenticity must be proved. Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be
authenticated either by the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, or who after its execution, saw it and
recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously
confessed execution thereof. An unsigned and uncertified document purporting to be a carbon copy is
not competent evidence. It is because there is no public officer acknowledging the accuracy of the
copy." Ancient document as one that: 1) is more than 30 years old; 2) is produced from custody in

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 103

 which it would naturally be found if genuine; and 3) is unblemished by any alteration or by any
circumstance of suspicion. Cercado-Siga vs Cercado Jr.

Commercial Lists and the like

261. MEWA, the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of MERALCO
informed its intention to re-negotiate the terms and conditions of their existing CBA. However, despite
the series of meetings between the negotiating panels, the parties failed to arrive at “terms and
conditions” acceptable to both of them which prompted MEWA to file a Notice of Strike on the grounds
of bargaining deadlock and ULP. Labor Secretary resolved the dispute by ordering the grant of a 4,500
wage increase. MERALCO filed MR and warns that if the wage increase of 2,200 per month as ordered
by the Secretary is allowed, it would simply pass the cost covering such increase to the consumers
through increase in the rate of electricity.
 No. This is a non sequitur. Section 45 of Rule 130: "Commercial lists and the like. - Statement of matters
contained in a periodical may be admitted only "if that compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein." Report is a mere
newspaper account and not even a commercial list. At most, it is but an analysis or opinion which
carries no persuasive weight for purposes of this case as no sufficient figures to support it were
presented. Neither did anybody testify to its accuracy. It cannot be said that businessmen generally rely
on news items such as this in their occupation. MERALCO vs Quisumbing
Testimony or Disposition at a former proceeding
262. Accused was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and for estafa by means of false
pretenses in the same court. Cases were tried jointly. Only 1 complainant testified for IR. Prosecution
sought to prove that the 2 other complainants in the IR case, were also victimized and in lieu of their
testimonies, the prosecution presented as witnesses Lilia, the mother, and Victoria, the sister of the
victims. A representative of the POEA, who testified that accused was neither licensed nor authorized
to recruit workers for overseas employment was also presented. Accused was the sole witness for the
defense, denied the allegations and claimed that the payments made to her were solely for purchasing
plane tickets. Convicted. In convicting accused of illegal recruitment in large scale, the court adopted a
previous decision of another Branch for conviction of estafa. Decision attained finality. Is there
sufficient evidence to affirm conviction?
 No. R130S47 - Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. Accused in a criminal case is
guaranteed the right of confrontation. Such right has two purposes: first, to secure the opportunity of
cross-examination; and, second, to allow the judge to observe the deportment and appearance of the
witness while testifying. Except when sometimes impossible to recall or produce a witness who has
already testified in a previous proceeding, in which event his previous testimony is made admissible
as a distinct piece of evidence, by way of exception to the hearsay rule. The previous testimony is made
admissible because it makes the administration of justice orderly and expeditious. It is limited only to
the utilization of testimonies of absent witnesses made in previous proceedings, and does not include
utilization of previous decisions or judgments. People vs Ortiz

263. A criminal complaint was filed. Plaintiff cannot seek attendance in the Philippines due to
health issues. A motion to seek deposition abroad was made. May this be allowed despite objection of
the accused for violation of his right to confront the plaintiff?
 NO. Procedure for Testimonial Examination of an Unavailable Prosecution Witness is Covered Under
Section 15, Rule 119. The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open court.
This is true especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his right to a
public trial and to meet the witnesses against him face to face. The requirement is the "safest and most
satisfactory method of investigating facts" as it enables the judge to test the witness' credibility
through his manner and deportment while testifying. It is not without exceptions, however, as the
Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their depositions as
testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony. For purposes of taking the deposition in criminal
cases, more particularly of a prosecution witness who would foreseeably be unavailable for trial, the

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 104

 testimonial examination should be made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case
is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119. People vs Go.
Child Witness Rule:
264. May testimony of a child (minor) be admitted in evidence?
 Yes. With exceptions provided in the Rules of Court, 11 all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. That is even buttressed by the Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness which specifies that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. To
rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's competence. Only
when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu
proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child.What is important is that
in all narrations is consistently and clearly identified accussed as the perpetrators of the crime.
Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and the testimony in court do not militate against
witness’ credibility since sworn statements are generally considered inferior to the testimony in open
court. Lack of education and inability to read and tell time carry no weight and cannot overcome the
clear and convincing testimony of the child. People vs Ibanez

265. Carl or Muymoy, 5-year old son of the victim, testified that on the night of the incident, he, his
younger sister Cheche, and his mother and father, were sleeping on the ground floor of their house. He
saw accused, whom he calls "Nonoy," enter their house and stab her mother with a knife, while he
(Carl) peeped through a chair. Although there was no light at the ground floor, there was light upstairs.
After his mother got stabbed, his father chased the accused. Carl saw blood come out of his mother’s
lower chest. His father then brought her to the hospital. Carl positively identified the accused, a
neighbor who often goes to their house, as the one who stabbed his mother. On cross-examination, he
related that the accused took money from his father’s pocket. He likewise admitted that he did not see
very well the perpetrator tor because there was no light. Should conviction be upheld solely based on
the testimony of Carl, a 5-year old child witness
 Yes. The qualification of a person to testify rests on the ability to relate to others the acts and events
witnessed. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court makes clear who may and may not be witnesses in judicial
proceedings. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15 December 2000),
every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies
on the party challenging the child’s competency. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability
of the child to perceive ,remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty
to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency
examination of a child. People vs Esugon
7. Opinion Rule
Opinion Rule: Expert Witness
266. In a murder case, prosecutions presented a ballistics expert, and defense argued that (1) He is
ignorant about such ballistics instruments such as the micrometer, goniometer, and pressure
barrel. (2) He is not conversant with the required references concerning ballistics, particularly books
on the subject by foreign authorities. (3) He could not scientifically determine the caliber of a bullet. IN
effect, he lacked adequate training and expertise in ballistics, defense claim that his opinion that the
test bullets and cartridges matched the slugs and cartridges recovered from the scene of the crime was
not reliable. Moreover, accused also assail ballistics expert failure to take the necessary photographs
to support his findings. Should his testimony be admitted in evidence?
 Yes. The witness qualifies as a ballistics expert. An expert witness is "one who belongs to the profession
or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on
questions on which he proposes to express an opinion." There is no definite standard of determining the
degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that
the following factors be present: (1) training and education; (2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the
facts of the case; and (3) Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based. The
question of whether a witness is properly qualified to give an expert opinion on ballistics rests with the
discretion of the trial court. He is a licensed criminologist, trained at the Ballistics Command and

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 105

 Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, and in NBI. He had
previously testified as an expert witness in at least twenty-seven (27) murder and homicide cases all
over the country. An expert witness need not present comparative microphotographs of test bullets
and cartridges to support his findings. Examination under a comparison microscope showing that the
test bullet and the evidence bullet both came from the same gun is sufficient. A presumption of
regularity exist in this case. Proof of motive becomes essential to a conviction only where the evidence
of an accused’s participation in an offense is circumstantial. People vs Abriol

267. In a land dispute case, of land disputes, expert witnesses were presented who claimed that the
signature of Seller on the alleged DOAS and the fingerprint appearing on his Residence Certificate were
not his. On rebuttal, a witness who saw the acct that thee seller signed the DOAS was presented. RTC
disregarded the testimony of the expert witness. Is the testimonies of expert witnesses conclusive to
be a strong basis to nullify a duly executed and notarized Deed of Absolute Sale?
 No. Under R132S22, ROC, genuineness of handwriting may be proved: (1) by any witness who has seen
the person write; or he has seen writing; (2) by a comparison, made by the witness or the court. A duly
notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution as well as the
full faith and credence attached to a public instrument. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be
proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging
forgery. In the case, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and
fraud. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Although
such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity
of the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert. The
authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning, e.g.,
quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical nature.
Bautista vs CA

268. In a murder case, defense used the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Manalangsang
and Cañada and as to the inconsistencies between their statements and the findings of the medico-
legal and SOCO PSI Cabamongan as to the position of the gunman. Will it warrant conviction despite
inconsistencies?
 YES. Expert evidence is admissible only if: (a) the matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise,
and (b) the witness has been qualified as an expert. In this case, counsel for the petitioner failed to make
the necessary qualification upon presenting Cabamongan during trial. Jurisprudence further provides
that minor inconsistencies in immaterial details do not destroy the probative value of the testimony of a
witness regarding the very act of the accused. The allegations of petitioner cannot exculpate him from
criminal liability. Manalangsang unequivocally identified the petitioner as the gunman. This was
corroborated by the testimony of Cañada, an eye witness. Defense that Manalangsang’s testimony
contradicts with the medical findings, and should then be disregarded. Petitioner claims that
Manalangsang’s statements that Hispano was shot in a downward direction conflict with the findings
of the medico-legal that the trajectory of the bullets is in an upward direction. SOCO PSI Cabamongan
report as regards the position of the gunman when the assailant shot Hispano was not given merit.
Cabamongan asserted that the gunman was on board the owner-type jeep when Hispano was shot,
which is opposed to Manalangsang’s testimony. However, records reveal that Cabamongan was
presented as an ordinary witness. Slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness
hardly weaken their probative value. It is well settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not
discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused. As
long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor
inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Avelino vs People
Ordinary Witness
269. In a rape case, prosecution presented 3 witnesses, complainant AAA, complainants mother
BBB, and the attending medico-legal officer at Camp Crame. Accused filed a demurrer to the evidence,
but the trial court denied it. The defense thereafter presented its witnesses, accused, accused
roommates, and his wife. He was convicted. Accused questioned the victim’s mental age was not

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 106

 proven and argued that under Art. 335(2) of RPC, an essential element for the prosecution for rape of
a mental retardate is a psychiatric evaluation of the complainant’s mental age to determine if her
mental age is under twelve. May the testimony of the mother as to the sanity of her daughter sufficient
to convict accused being treated as tantamount to an opinion?
 Yes. R150S30- Opinion of Ordinary witnesses. – is proper basis when received regarding identity of a
person about whom he has adequate knowledge; a handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity; and the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. The mother of
an offended party in a case of rape, though not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental
condition of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and what her attainments are, is
competent to testify on the matter. It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to
the sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to
observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. Peple vs Duranan.

8. Character Evidence
270. Dominga Pikit-pikit was on her way home from work when suddenly a man appeared from
behind, looped his arm around her neck and warned her not to shout or else she would die. The man
dragged her through the banana plantation towards the cornfields. Dominga got a good look at the
man, who turned out to be Rafael Diopita, as he sat on her thighs and proceeded to divest her of her
belongings. Rape happened. In a police line-up, Dominga readily pointed to Diopita which was further
bolstered by the fact that when the police had him try the slipper, it easily fitted him. Among the
arguments is that he is a person of good moral character, holding as he does the position of “Ministerial
Servant” in the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that he is a godly man, a righteous person, a
responsible family man and a good Christian who preaches the word of God. May testimonies of the
accused of his good moral character is sufficient to acquit him of his charges.
 No. Religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who
succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of
his previous good moral character and exemplary conduct. Alibi cannot prevail over the clear and
positive identification of the accused as the very person who committed the crime. People vs Deopita

RULE 131 Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Burden of Proof vs Burden of Evidence
271. Chan, a current account depositor of FEBTC fraudulently withdrawn from Chan’s Current
Account due to an error in its computer system known as "system bug" whose nature had allowed
Chan to successfully withdraw funds in excess of his current credit balance. Chan denied liability. He
was convicted. May mere possession of the card warrant presumption of liability?
 NO. The CA ruled that FEBTC did not because – “After a review of the records of this case, we find the
totality of evidence submitted by FEBTC insufficient to establish the crucial facts that would justify a
judgment in its favor. His denial effectively traversed FEBTC’s claim of his direct and personal liability
for the withdrawals, that it would lose the case unless it competently and sufficiently established that
he had personally made the withdrawals himself, or that he had caused the withdrawals. Burden of
proof is a term that refers to two separate and quite different concepts, namely: (a) the risk of non-
persuasion, or the burden of persuasion, or simply persuasion burden; and (b) the duty of producing
evidence, or the burden of going forward with the evidence, or simply the production burden or the
burden of evidence. It is the duty of producing evidence at the beginning or at any subsequent stage of
trial in order to make or meet a prima facie case.

Preponderant evidence refers to evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the
evidence offered in opposition to it. It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of
the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Exclusive possession of the card alone did not
suffice to preponderantly establish that he had himself made the withdrawals, or that he had caused the
withdrawals to be made. The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because
mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it. Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must
prove. FEBTC vs CHAN
Presumptions: Conclusive Presumptions

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 107

 272. DOAS with assumption of Mortgage was executed. Extrajudicial foreclosure set in for failure
to pay. Auction was held, Provincial Sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale to the winner which was
registered. The certificate stated that the redemption period expires 2 years from the registration of
the sale. No notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure was given to the owner. Later, they offered to redeem
the foreclosed lots and tendered the redemption amount. However, Bank refused the redemption on
the ground that it had consolidated its titles over the lots. They alleged that the extra-judicial
foreclosure was null and void for lack of valid notice and demand upon them. Is redemption proper?
 Yes. Petitioner impliedly consented to the 2-year redemption period since it had time to object and did
not. Petitioner is estopped from asserting that the period for redemption was only one year and that
the period had already lapsed. Estoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts, representations or
admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable
negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on
such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.
IBAAN RURAL BANK INC. vs. CA and MR. and MRS. RAMON TARNATE

273. Complaint for unlawful detainer, with damages, against Sps Alcaraz over a residential building
without including the lot which such building stood. The lessor is the late Virginia who was the spouse
of Pedro while the lessee was petitioner. The lease contract was limited to the use and occupancy of
said building exclusive of the lot because said lot was owned by NHA. Lease is for 5 years but lessor
reneged. Hence, lessor sought to repossess the premises. However, lessee alleged that, they stopped
paying rents to original lessor but instead to the new owners who were Virgilio and Angelita. When
there is change of ownership, does a lease contract automatically terminates?
 No. Both parties knew that their contract pertained only to the lease of the house, without including
the land. R131S2, ROC provides as a conclusive presumption that: (a) Whenever a party has, by his
own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led 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; After recognizing the validity of the lease contract for 2 years,
the petitioner spouses are barred from alleging the automatic cancellation of the contract on the
ground that the respondents lost ownership of the house after Virgilio acquired title over the lot. Sps
Reynaldo Alcaraz vs Pedro Tangga-an et. al

274. Torres chaired 2 thrift banks. He acted as FISLAI's President, while his wife, Dolores, acted as
DSLAI's President and FISLAI's Treasurer. Upon Torres' request, BSP issued standby emergency credit
Later, University of Mindanao's VP for Finance, executed a deed of real estate mortgage over UM's
property in CDO in favor of BSP. "The mortgage served as security for FISLAI's PI.9 Million loan" It was
allegedly executed on UM's behalf accompanied by a Secretary's Certificate stating authority of the
chairman to appoint him in representation of the UM to transact, transfer, convey, lease, mortgage, or
otherwise hypothecate the subject properties. He executed another deed of real estate mortgage,
allegedly on behalf of University of Mindanao, over its two properties in Iligan City. This mortgage
served as additional security for FISLAI's loans. FISLAI and DSLAI eventually merged with DSLAI as
the surviving corporation in an effort to rehabilitate the thrift banks due to the heavy withdrawals of
depositors. DSLAI later became known as Mindanao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (MSLAI). MSLAI
failed to recover from its losses. BSP foreclosed the mortgaged properties. UM filed Complaints for
nullification and cancellation of mortgage. UM alleged that it did not obtain any loan from BSP and that
certification was anomalous. RTC ruled in favor of UM. Is UM bound to the REM?
 No. Acts of an officer that are not authorized by the board of directors/trustees do not bind the
corporation unless the corporation ratifies the acts or holds the officer out as a person with authority
to transact on its behalf.
No board resolution was passed. Being a juridical person, petitioner cannot conduct its business, make
decisions, or act in any manner without action from its BOT who must act as a body in order to exercise
corporate powers. Individual trustees are not clothed with corporate powers just by being a trustee.
Contracts entered into by persons without authority from the corporation shall generally be
considered ultra vires and unenforceable against the corporation. Conclusive presumptions are
presumptions that may not be overturned by evidence, however strong the evidence is. They are made

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 108

 conclusive not because there is an established uniformity in behavior whenever identified
circumstances arise. They are conclusive because they are declared as such under the law or the rules.
R131S2. Disputable, presumptions are presumptions that may be overcome by contrary
evidence. They are disputable in recognition of the variability of human behavior. Presumptions are
not always true. They may be wrong under certain circumstances, and courts are expected to apply
them, keeping in mind the nuances of every experience that may render the expectations wrong.
University of Mindanao vs BSP

Disputable Presumptions
275. A double sale of land was made thru 2 SPA’s. First one effectively transferred the property to
the buyer. Another SPA was made that transferred the land to another buyer. In the first sale, transfer
of title was not made, nor was any annotation effected. RTC held that when Luis executed the second
deed of sale in favor of Meridian, he was no longer the owner as he had already sold them to his
children by his first marriage. Luis lost his right to dispose of the properties to Meridian from the time
he executed the first deed of sale in favor of petitioners. CA reversed. It ruled that the first deed of sale
in favor of petitioners was void because they failed to prove that they indeed tendered a consideration.
It relied on the testimony of Lourdes that petitioners did not pay her husband. Second sale was valid
because the documents were notarized and, as such, they enjoyed the presumption of regularity.
 RTC is correct not CAA. The first sale is a valid sale. A public document executed with all the legal
formalities is entitled to a presumption of truth as to the recitals contained. In order to overthrow a
certificate of a notary public to the effect that a grantor executed a certain document and acknowledged
the fact of its execution before him, mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice. Disputable
presumptions operate against an adversary who has not introduced proof to rebut them. They create the
necessity of presenting evidence to rebut the prima facie case they created, and which, if no proof to the
contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The burden of proof remains where it is but, by the
presumption, the one who has that burden is relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in
support of the averment, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted. Bare
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court. Rather, the
evidence must (be) so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all reasonable dispute as to the falsity
of the certificate. When the evidence is conflicting, the certificate will be upheld. A notarial document
is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. (Ramirez vs. Ner, 21 SCRA 207). As such it …
must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns it shall not have presented strong,
complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaw or defect provided
against by law. Rosaroso vs Soria
HEIRS OF CIPRIANO TRAZONA, vs. HEIRS OF DIONISIO CANADA
276. It is true that notarized documents are accorded evidentiary weight as regards their due
execution. Nevertheless, while notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, this presumption
is disputable. They can be contradicted by evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely
preponderant. Here, contrary to the conclusion of the CA, we find clear and convincing evidence that is
enough to overturn the presumption of regularity of the assailed deed.
Uy vs Lacsamana, 767 SCRA 657
G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015
277. Presumption of marriage sufficiently overcome, the onus probandi of defendant Rosca shifted to
plaintiff Uy. It then became the burden of plaintiff Uy to prove that he and defendant Rosca, were legally
married. It became necessary for plaintiff Uy therefore to submit additional proof to show that they were
legally married. He, however, dismally failed to do so. A man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage."Semper praesumitur pro
matrimonio — Always presume marriage. Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant
evidence. Testimonial and Documentary evidence may be shown to prove marriage.
Diaz vs People, 776 SCRA
G.R. No. 208113, December 2, 2015
278.The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence, or "greater weight of the

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 109

 credible evidence," is required. Thus, an accused acquitted of estafa may still be held civilly liable where
the facts established by the evidence so warrant, as in this case. Legal presumption (R131S3(d),ROC) is
that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Natural presumption is that one does not sign a
document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. Further, under Section 3
(p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private transactions have been fair and regular. This
behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document before he signs and
delivers it. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting
evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will
prevail. In this case, petitioner failed to present any evidence to controvert these presumptions. Also,
respondent's possession of the document pertaining to the obligation strongly buttresses her claim
that the same has not been extinguished. Preponderance of evidence only requires that evidence be
greater or more convincing than the opposing evidence. All things considered, the evidence in this case
clearly preponderates in respondent's favor.
Suppression of Testimony
PEOPLE vs. ROBERTO PADRIGONE a.k.a. ROBERTO SAN MIGUEL
G.R. No. 137664. May 9, 2002
279.in rape cases where the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of 12 to 16, the
victims version of what transpired deserves credence, considering not only their relative vulnerability but
also the shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a court trial, where they are
called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, exposed them to. This is not to say
that an uncritical acceptance should be the rule. It is only to emphasize that skepticism should be kept
under control.
May non-presentation of Rowena (victim) in the witness stand deprives the accused of right to cross-examine
which is suppression of testimony against them.?

 No. The non-presentation of Rowena on the witness stand cannot be considered as suppression of
evidence. Under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that “evidence willfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced” does not apply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both
parties; (b) the suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and (d) the
suppression is an exercise of a privilege.
Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this case. First, the defense had the opportunity to subpoena
Rowena even if the prosecution did not present her as a witness. Instead, the defense failed to call her to the
witness stand. Rowena was certified to be suffering from “Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition” and thus
“cannot stand judicial proceedings yet.”
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY vs. CA and G.T.P. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 122899. June 8, 2000
280.Where facts are in evidence affording legitimate inferences going to establish the ultimate fact that the
evidence is designed to prove, and the party to be affected by the proof, with an opportunity to do so, fails
to deny or explain them, they may well be taken as admitted with all the effect of the inferences afforded.
The ordinary rule is that one who has knowledge peculiarly within his own control, and refuses to divulge
it, cannot complain if the court puts the most unfavorable construction upon his silence, and infers that a
disclosure would have shown the fact to be as claimed by the opposing party. METROBANK's failure to
bring before CA the current statement evidencing what it claims as "other unliquidated past due loans”.
when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in
his power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow the case made against him
if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the
evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case of his adversary. x x x" "No
rule of law is better settled than that a party having it in his power to prove a fact, if it exists, which, if
proved, would benefit him, his failure to prove it must be taken as conclusive that the fact does not
exist."

Official Duty

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 110

People vs Barte,819 SCRA 10, March 1, 2017
G.R. No. 179749. March 1, 2017.*

281. The presumption of regularity can be overturned if evidence is presented to prove either of two
(2) things, namely: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired
by any improper motive. The prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody of the
dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until it was presented in court as proof of
the corpus delicti. Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time or seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation
in court for destruction. Anything short of observance and compliance by the arresting lawmen with what
the law required meant that the former did not regularly perform their duties. When there is failure to
comply with the requirements for proving the chain of custody in the confiscation of contraband in a drug
buy-bust operation, the State has the obligation to credibly explain such noncompliance; otherwise, the
proof of the corpus delicti is doubtful, and the accused should be acquitted for failure to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Filomena g. Delos Santos et al.vs. COA represented by its Commissioners

G.R. No. 198457, August 13, 2013
282.Jurisprudence holds that, absent any showing of bad faith and malice, there is a presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the presence of an explicit
rule that was violated.

NO. Jurisprudence holds that, absent any showing of bad faith and malice, there is a presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the presence of an explicit rule
that was violated.
Court finds that the petitioners have equally failed to make a case justifying their non-observance of existing
auditing rules and regulations, and of their duties under the MOA. Evidently, petitioners’ neglect to properly
monitor the disbursement of Cuenco's PDAF facilitated the validation and eventual payment of 133 falsified
prescriptions and fictitious claims for anti-rabies vaccines supplied by both the VSMMC and Dell Pharmacy,
despite the patent irregularities borne out by the referral slips and prescriptions related thereto. Had there
been an internal control system installed by petitioners, the irregularities would have been exposed, and the
hospital would have been prevented from processing falsified claims and unlawfully disbursing funds from the
said PDAF. Petitioners cannot escape liability for failing to monitor the procedures implemented by the TNT
Office on the ground that Cuenco always reminded them that it was his money. Liable.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA
G.R. No. 191263 October 16, 2013
283. 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 their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
In this case, the prosecution witnesses were unable to show ill-motive for the police to impute the
crime against Cadidia. Trayvilla was doing her regular duty as an airport frisker when she handled the
accused who entered the x-ray machine of the departure area. There was no pre-determined notice to
particularly search the accused especially in her private area. The unusual thickness of the buttocks of
the accused upon frisking prompted Trayvilla to notify her supervisor SPO3 Appang of the incident.
The subsequent search of the accused would only show that the two female friskers were just doing
their usual task when they found the illegal drugs inside accused’s underwear. This is bolstered by the
fact that the accused on the one hand and the two friskers on the other were unfamiliar to each other.
Neither could they harbour any ill-will against each other. The allegation of frame-up and denial of the
accused cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of three prosecution witnesses who corroborated
on circumstances surrounding the apprehension.
Yuk Ling Ong vs CO 752 SCRA
G.R. No. 206653. February 25, 2015.*

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 111

 284.In court proceedings, there is no right more cherished than the right of every litigant to be given an
opportunity to be heard. This right begins at the very moment that summons is served on the defendant.
The Rules of Court places utmost importance in ensuring that the defendant personally grasp the weight
of responsibility that will befall him. Thus, it is only in exceptional circumstances that constructive
notification, or substituted service of summons, is allowed. If the server falls short of the rigorous
requirements for substituted service of summons, then the Court has no other option but to strike down a
void judgment, regardless of the consequences.

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, that is, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Annulment of
judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows a party-litigant another opportunity to reopen a
judgment that has long lapsed into finality but because it enables him to be discharged from the burden of being
bound to a judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with.

Cohabitation

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS EDUALINO

G.R. No. 119072. April 11, 1997

285.MEDICAL EXAMINATION, NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR THE PROSECUTION OF RAPE. — The Court has
repeatedly held that a medical examination of the victim is not a prerequisite in prosecutions for rape. A
person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim provided the testimony is
credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things.
MINOR INCONSISTENCIES; BADGES THAT THE WITNESSES WERE UNREHEARSED AND HONEST. — The
alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pertain to minor matters and are
even badges that the witnesses were unrehearsed and honest.
Moral character of a rape victim is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of the accused. The Court has
ruled that prostitutes can be the victims of rape. In the present case, even if accused-appellant's allegations that
the victim was drunk and under the influence of drugs and that she (the victim) cannot be considered a decent
and responsible married woman, were true, said circumstances will not per se preclude a finding that she was
raped. Accused-appellant cannot successfully argue that no rape occurred because no medical examination was
conducted to confirm the presence of spermatozoa in her private parts.

RULE 132
Presentation of Evidence

Order of Presentation of Evidence

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE

G.R. No. 146697. July 23, 2002
286.The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the witness is called. The
purpose of cross-examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness made on direct
examination. The party against whom the witness testifies may deem any further examination
unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or
on what would be believed is the perception of the court thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound to
give full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because he is not cross-
examined by the other party.
Leading and Misleading Questions
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS PEREZ y SEBUNGA

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 112

G.R. No. 142556. February 5, 2003

287.there is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper identification. Even without a police line-
up, there could still be a proper identification as long as the police did not suggest such identification to
the witnesses
As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a
child of tender years as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion.
Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips. In the case at bar, the trial court
was justified in allowing leading questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the
recall of events difficult, if not uncertain.

Impeachment
PEOPLE vs. JAIME CASTILLANO, SR. et al
G.R. No. 139412. April 2, 2003
288.In a case where self-defense is invoked by the accused, the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove,
with clear and convincing evidence, the following essential requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. There can be no complete or incomplete
self-defense unless the accused proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The inconsistencies
adverted to by the appellants pertained only to minor and collateral matters and not to the elements
of the crime charged; hence, they do not dilute the probative weight of the testimony. It bears
stressing that even the most truthful witness can make mistakes but such innocent lapses do not
necessarily affect his credibility. The testimonies of witnesses must be considered and calibrated in
their entirety and not by their truncated portions or isolated passages Before the credibility of a witness
and the truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior statements
which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or
the foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-
examined. The witness must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency
between his two statements and state the circumstances under which they were made.
In this case, the appellants never confronted Luz with her testimony during the preliminary examination and
her sworn statement. She was not afforded any chance to explain any discrepancies between her present
testimony and her testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn statement. The appellants did
not even mark and offer in evidence the said transcript and sworn statement for the specific purpose of
impeaching her credibility and her present testimony. Unless so marked and offered in evidence and accepted
by the trial court, said transcript and sworn statement cannot be considered by the court.
Reference to Memorandum - Present Memory Revived
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PLASENCIA
G.R. No. 90198 November 7, 1995
289.The initial assessment on the testimony of a witness is done by the trial court, and its findings still deserve
due regard notwithstanding that the presiding judge who pens the decision is not the one who
personally may have heard the testimony. The reliance on the transcript of stenographic notes
should not, for that reason alone, render the judgment subject to challenge. The continuity of the
court and the efficacy of its decision are not affected by the cessation from the service of the judge
presiding it or by the fact that its writer merely took over from a colleague who presided at the trial.
The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132,
of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 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 he 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

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 113

witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a 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.
Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the exercise
of that discretion has not been abused; the witness herself has explained that she merely wanted to be accurate
on dates and like details. Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca's appearing to be "jittery" on the witness
stand. Nervousness and anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those who are called
to testify for the first time. The real concern, in fact, should be when they show no such emotions.
Reference to Memorandum - Past Recollection Recorded
Rosella d. Canque vs. CA and Socor Construction Corporation
G.r. No. 96202. April 13, 1999
290.Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries, in that they are the best available evidence. Said a
learned judge: What a man has actually done and committed to writing when under obligation to do the
act, it being in the course of the business he has undertaken, and he being dead, there seems to be no
danger in submitting to the consideration of the court. The person who may be called to court to testify
on these entries being dead, there arises the necessity of their admission without the one who made them
being called to court be sworn and subjected to cross-examination. And this is permissible in order to
prevent a failure of justice. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. Where the
offer is general, and the evidence is admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another, the evidence
should be rejected. Likewise, where the offer is made for two or more purposes and the evidence is
incompetent for one of them, the evidence should be excluded. The reason for the rule is that it is the duty
of a party to select the competent from the incompetent in offering testimony, and he cannot impose this
duty upon the trial court. Where the evidence is inadmissible for the purpose stated in the offer, it must
be rejected, though the same may be admissible for another purpose.
Book of Collectible account is not really being presented for another purpose. Private respondent’s counsel
offered it for the purpose of showing the amount of petitioner’s indebtedness. He said: Exhibit “K,” your Honor
- faithful reproduction of page (17) of the book on Collectible Accounts of the plaintiff, reflecting the principal
indebtedness of defendant in the amount of P299, 717.75 and reflecting as well the accumulated interest of 3%
monthly compounded such that as of December 11, 1987, the amount collectible from the defendant by the
plaintiff is P616,435.72;
This is also the purpose for which its admission is sought as a memorandum to refresh the memory of Dolores
Aday as a witness. In other words, it is the nature of the evidence that is changed, not the purpose for which it
is offered. Be that as it may, considered as a memorandum, Exh. K does not itself constitute evidence.
Memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be
admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed
memory. In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been
refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative
evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly
by him.

B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Classes of Documents - Public Documents

YASUO IWASAWA, PETITIONER, vs. FELISA CUSTODIO GANGAN
G.R. No. 204169 September 11, 2013
291.As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution
and genuineness. Proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only
are said documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. And in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain
unrebutted since neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the
contrary.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 114

As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and
genuineness. Thus, the RTC erred when it disregarded said documents on the sole ground that the petitioner
did not present the records custodian of the NSO who issued them to testify on their authenticity and due
execution since proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only are
said documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. And in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain unrebutted since
neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the contrary.

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC vs. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC. (now Chartis Phil Insurance, Inc.)
G.R. No. 181163 July 24, 2013

292. Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) By
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Another private document need
only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. The requirement of authentication of a private
document is excused only in four instances specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within
the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of the
actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the
genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being
offered as genuine. The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents
may be presented as evidence in court.

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Private Documents - Offer of Evidence
LOMISES ALUDOS, deceased, substituted by FLORA ALUDOS vs. JOHNNY M. SUERTE
G.R. No. 165285 June 18, 2012
293.The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The offer of evidence is
necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly
upon the evidence offered by the parties. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the
court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties.
Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such document
is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered.

WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR

G.R. No. 194128 December 7, 2011

294.The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified. (Rule 132, sec. 34, rules of court). The offer of evidence is necessary
because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or
purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative
weight.

all the documents attached by Wincorp to its pleadings before the CA cannot be given any weight or evidentiary
value for the sole reason that these documents were not formally offered as evidence in the trial court. To
consider them now would deny the other parties the right to examine and rebut them.
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
Fortune Tobacco Corp. vs. Com of Int. Rev. 761 SCRA 173
G.R. No. 192024, July 01, 2015

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 115

 295.The rule is that evidence formally offered by a party may be admitted or excluded by the court. If a party's
offered documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request that it be attached to form
part of the records of the case. If the excluded evidence is oral, he may state for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. These
procedures are known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes
of appeal. If an adverse judgment is eventually rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign
as error the rejection of the excluded evidence.
RULE 133: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
RULE 134 : Perpetuation of Testimony

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DELFIN CALISO

G.R. No. 183830 October 19, 2011

296.The identification of a malefactor, to be positive and sufficient for conviction, does not always require
direct evidence from an eyewitness; otherwise, no conviction will be possible in crimes where there are no
eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy circumstantial evidence can equally confirm the identification and
overcome the constitutionally presumed innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIMON PATENTES y ZAMORA
G.R. No. 190178 February 12, 2014
297.The peculiar nature of rape is that conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely upon the word of the
private complainant because it is essentially committed in relative isolation or even in secrecy, and it is
usually only the victim who can testify of the unconsented coitus. Thus, the long standing rule is that when
an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
has indeed been committed. Since the participants are usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature
and the accused's conviction or acquittal virtually depends on the private complainant's testimony, it
must be received with utmost caution. It is then incumbent upon the trial court to be very scrupulous in
ascertaining the credibility of the victim's testimony. Judges must free themselves of the natural tendency
to be overprotective of every woman claiming to have been sexually abused and demanding punishment
for the abuser. While they ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation the rape victim goes
through as she demands justice, judges should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render
justice according to law.
Prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of establishing with moral certainty the truthfulness of the
charge that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will using threats, force or intimidation. The
testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity for
the charge can easily be concocted. Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape,
especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and who’s
conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting interpretations.
While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks
justice, they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law. The
numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of private complainant have created reasonable doubt in Our mind.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the presumption of innocence in favor of appellant must be upheld
considering that the evidence brought forth in trial falls short of the quantum of proof to support a conviction.
Test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with human knowledge,
observation and common experience of man. Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human
knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance.
Clear and Convincing Evidence
Supreme Court vs. Delgado 658 SCRA
G.R. No. 79672 February 15, 1990
298.The testimony of Rogelio Zamoras is not as patently absurd as contended by the appellant. It was natural
for Santos Zamoras, after he had stabbed Clemente, to realize the gravity of his act, sit on the concrete

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 116

 pavement, place one hand over the other, and press his head (obviously the forehead) on top of the two
hands. “From the mouths of children, we get the truth." Production of the preliminary investigation record
or any part thereof whenever the same shall be necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident
thereon may be ordered. It does not mean that because of its non- production, the appellant's self-serving
statements must be given credit. The trial court validly took judicial cognizance of the entries in the arrest
report and the transmittal letter as these form part of the records of the criminal case. They are official
documents reporting on whether or not the warrant of arrest was served and how the accused was turned
over to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Convict. For there to be legitimate self-defense, there must be three requisites as provided in paragraph 1 of
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) unlawful aggression (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. The appellant's claim of self-defense is further negated by other circumstances such as the absence of
any major injury on his body as against three severe wounds, any one of which would have been fatal, suffered
by the victim.
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION vs. OLALIA, JR
G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007

299.An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail
can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial
evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is
to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction.

Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process.
A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to
the demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process
of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable. In this case, there is no showing
that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case should
be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of
"clear and convincing evidence."
EXTRADITION, is defined as the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at
the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with
criminal investigation directed against him or execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal and
criminal law of the requesting state or government. Thus characterized as the right of the a foreign power,
created by treaty to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crimes within its territorial
jurisdiction, and the correlative obligation of the other state to surrender him to the demanding state. The
extradited may be subject to detention as may be necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of
time in the detention should be reasonable.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus ALFONSO FONTANILLA y OBALDO,

G.R. No. 177743 January 25, 2012

300.It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal
injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence
the justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability. Having thus admitted being the author
of the death of the victim, Fontanilla came to bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance to
the satisfaction of the court, and he would be held criminally liable unless he established self-defense by
sufficient and satisfactory proof
Preponderance of Evidence
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA
G.R. No. 158143 September 21, 2011

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 117

 301.Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto.
"Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the
credible evidence."
DRA, LEILA A DELA LLANO vs. REBECCA BIONG, under business name Pongkay Trading
G.R. No. 182356 December 4, 2013
302.In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. He who alleges has the burden of
proving his allegation by preponderance of evidence or greater weight of credible evidence. The reason
for this rule is that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In short,
mere allegations are not evidence.
Candao vs People, 659 SCRA (equipoise doctrine)
G.R. Nos. 186659-710. October 19, 2011.*
303. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the
accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand
therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. The equipoise rule
finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one
of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.
Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance
of an overt act leading to the crime committed; It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which
the offense was perpetrated.
Substantial Evidence
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs ANTONIO T. REYES,
G.R. No. 170512 October 5, 2011

304.Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of

behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected
with the performance of official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as
distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law
or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest. Corruption as an element of grave
misconduct consists in the act of an official who unlawfully or wrongfully uses his station or
character to procure some benefit for himself, contrary to the rights of others. In administrative
and quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is necessary to establish the case for or
against a party. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It is that amount
of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise
Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and is given an opportunity to
explain or defend himself; there need not be an actual trial proceeding. The case of Dept. of Health vs
Camposano provides the guidelines of due process in administrative proceedings : (1) the respondents right
to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit supporting evidence, must be observed;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have some basis to support
itself; (4) there must be substantial evidence; (5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented
at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) in arriving at a
decision, the tribunal must have acted on its own consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy and
must not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate; and (7) the decision must be rendered in such
manner that respondents would know the reasons for it and the various issues involved.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 118

In this case, the fifth requisite of administrative due process was not complied with as Reyes was not
properly apprised of the evidence offered against him. A judgment in an administrative case that imposes the
extreme penalty of dismissal must not only be based on substantial evidence but also rendered with due regard
to the rights of the parties to due process.
XAVIER C. RAMOS vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK INC. and/or ALFONSO L. SALCEDO, JR.
G.R. No. 203186 December 4, 2013

305.The requirement that the NLRC’s findings should be supported by substantial evidence is clearly expressed
in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides that "in cases filed before administrative or
quasi- judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."
First, as correctly observed by the NLRC, BPI Family was not able to substantially prove its imputation of
negligence against Ramos. Well-settled is the rule that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue. In this case, BPI Family failed to establish that the duty to confirm and validate
information in credit applications and determine credit worthiness of prospective loan applicants rests with
the Dealer Network Marketing Department, which is the department under the supervision of Ramos. Quite the
contrary, records show that these responsibilities lie with the bank’s Credit Services Department, namely its
Credit Evaluation Section and Loans Review and Documentation Section, of which Ramos was not part of.
Second, as similarly observed by the NLRC, Ramos merely followed standing company practice when he issued
the PO and ATD without prior approval from the bank’s Credit Services Department. The report further noted
that the practice has been adopted due in part to the stiff competition with other banks and lending institutions.
Resultantly, in 2005 alone, approximately 111 car loan applications were released ahead of the approval of the
credit evaluation section.
Based on the foregoing, it is readily apparent that Ramos’s action of issuing the PO and ATD ahead of the
approval of the credit committee was actually conformant to regular company practice which BPI Family itself
sanctioned. As such, Ramos cannot be said to have been negligent on his duties. To this end, it is well to note
that in loan transactions, banks are mandated to ensure that their client wholly comply with all the
documentary requirements in relation to the approval and release of loan applications. As BPI Family
"uncharacteristically relaxed supervision over its divisions," yielding as it did to the demands of industry
competition, it is but reasonable that solely bears the loss of its own shortcomings.
Prima Facie Evidence

JESSE U. LUCAS vs. JESUS S. LUCAS,

G.R. No. 190710 June 6, 2011
306.The Court ruled that “during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima
facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.” This simply means that:1. the trial court
must hold a hearing on whether DNA testing should be done or not;
2. during the hearing, the petitioner (the mother or the child) must present evidence to prove that there
is a reasonable possibility the man is the biological father; Evidence to prove possibility of paternity could
be testimonies of witnesses to the sexual or romantic relationship between the mother and the alleged
father, videos, pictures, letters, etc. The Court’s ruling protects the alleged father from mere harassment
suits.
The issuance of a DNA testing order is discretionary upon the trial court. The court may, for example,
consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of
evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its
discretion, disallow a DNA testing. IN A MOTION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT BASED ON LACK OF CAUSE
OF ACTION (FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION), THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR
DETERMINATION IS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE COMPLAINT TO
CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND NOT WHETHER THOSE ALLEGATIONS OF FACT ARE TRUE, FOR
SAID MOTION MUST HYPOTHETICALLY ADMIT THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE
COMPLAINT. The inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other. x x x The test of

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 119

 the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court
could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

Probable Cause
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. AMELIO TRIA and JOHN DOE
G.R. No. 193250 April 25, 2012

307.A manager’s check is one drawn by a bank’s manager upon the bank itself. It stands on the same footing
as a certified check, which is deemed to have been accepted by the bank that certified it, as it is an order
of the bank to pay, drawn upon itself, committing in effect its total resources, integrity and honor behind
its issuance. By its peculiar character and general use in commerce, a manager’s check is regarded
substantially to be as good as the money it represents. Indeed, as the bank’s own check, a manager’s check
becomes the primary obligation of the bank and is accepted in advance by the act of its issuance. Probable
cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, are such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the
existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which
he is to be prosecuted. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely
than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.

RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 185128, 30 January 2012
308.The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable
cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath
or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the
witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the
place to be searched and the things to be seized. According to petitioner, there was no probable cause.
Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[13] A finding of probable
cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and
that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less
than evidence which would justify conviction.
Having been established that the assistance of the barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities
who elected the searched warrant, the same barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of persons
in authority. One of the constitutional requirements for the validity of a search warrant is that it must be
issued based on probable cause which, under the Rules, must be in connection with one specific offense. In
search warrant proceedings, probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
Iota of Evidence
PEOPLE vs. ANTICAMARA
G.R. No. 178771 June 8, 2011
309.If as a consequence of illegal detention, the victim was raped and then killed, the crime committed is a
special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide. Rape will be considered as a component of this special
complex crime. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony
and decide to commit it. Well-settled is the rule that in conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement
is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, or after the commission of the
crime which, when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design, as the
proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances. Basic is the rule that for
alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 120

 that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility
refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place
where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least
chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. Between the
categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on
the other, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative
testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Alibi and denial, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of
weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because
they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted. Denial
cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill-
motive to testify against the appellants.

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the
main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient
to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, when analyzed and taken together, lead
to the inescapable conclusion that the appellants are responsible for the death of Sulpacio. In the case at bar,
although no one directly saw the actual killing of Sulpacio, the prosecution was able to paint a clear picture that
the appellants took Sulpacio away from the house of the Estrellas, tied and blindfolded him, and brought him
to another place where he was repeatedly shot and buried.

PEOPLE vs. DE OCAMPO

G.R. No. 185212 February 15, 2012
310.Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must constitute an
unbroken chain that inexorably leads to one fair conclusion: the accused committed the crime to the
exclusion of all others. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction made by the RTC based on
its findings that the accused was responsible for the murder of the Alolod couple based on circumstantial
evidence.

Celedonio vs People 761 SCRA

G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015
311.Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution sufficiently laid down
the circumstances that, when taken together, constituted an unbroken chain that led to a reasonable
conclusion that Celedonio was the perpetrator.

As pointed out by the trial court, these circumstances are: accused was a next door neighbor of private
complainant; he was seen by another neighbor going over the concrete fence separating their houses and
ransacking a room in complainant's house; during the time, no one was inside complainant's house as all of
them were at the wake of private complainant's recently demised husband; two (2) days after, most of the items
discovered to have been stolen that night were found in the compartment of the accused's motorcycle which
he was riding on when accosted by the police; the items recovered from him were identified by the complainant
as her stolen property; during the trial accused denied that the stolen items were found in his possession and
claimed that they were "planted" by the police investigators to frame him up of the robbery. In short, the
accused could not explain his possession of the recently stolen items found in his sole possession.

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 121

Alpredonotes/rem2/obra-brondial Page | 122