CIV REV (1-5) Flashcards
(22 cards)
Ong Chia vs. Republic
(APPLICABILITY)
Ong Chia was born in China and lived in the PH since he was 9 yrs. old.
He filed for a petition for naturalization, which the RTC granted. The OSG, however, opposed the petition because Ong chia failed to state in the petition the names and pseudonyms which is a mandatory requirement; failure to support his petition with appropriate documentary evidence, among others
SC ruled that the rule on formal evidence is not applicable in this case because this involves petition for naturalization. The suppletory applicability of the rules only applies in cases when it is “practicable and convenient”. The SC in this case ruled that res judicata does not apply in
naturalization cases.
DOCTRINE: The rule on evidence shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for,
except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. The rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to the present case involving a petition for naturalization. The only instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in such cases is when it is “practicable and convenient.
RULE 1 , SEC 3
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. (1a, R2) A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
Tan, Jr. vs. CA
(RETRO APPLICATION)
Tan executed a deed of absolute sale over the subject property in favor of Sps. Magdangal. One of the conditions in the agreement is that Tan is given 1 year to redeem the subject property.
However, Tan failed to redeem said property until his death.
Tan’s heirs filed a suit against the spouses for reformation of instrument alleging that the real intention of the deed of absolute sale was an equitable mortgage.
The respondents alleged that the 120-day period of redemption of the petitioner has expired.
On June 10, 1996, the trial court allowed the petitioner to redeem the lot in question. It ruled that the 120-day redemption period should be reckoned from the date of Entry of Judgment in the appellate court or from March 13, 1996.
SC ruled that generally RoC have retroactive effect being a procedural rule.
However, said rules does not apply if doing so would not be feasible or would work injustice.
In this case, petitioner had been fighting to recover the lot since 1998. In the words of SC, to lose it because of a change of procedure on the date of reckoning of the period of redemption is iniquitous.
Colmenar vs. Colmenar
(RETRO APPLICATION)
Frank Colmenar for declaration of nullity of deeds of extrajudicial settlement of estate, deeds of sale, cancellation of titles, and damages against respondents
Pending the proceeding, the 2019 amendments took effect, which allows the court to motu proprio resolve the affirmative defense within 30 calendar days.
Then, RTC dismissed the complaint against the defendants. SC ruled that RTC erred in dismissing the complaint by applying the 2019 amendments.
In this case, records show that when the trial courts motu proprio resolve the affirmative defense, the 30-day period had already expired. Thus, it should have not applied the 2019 amendments because the same was no longer feasible. Further, RTC ignored the injustice by applying the amendments, whereby plaintiff lost his substantial right to be heard on the common affirmative defense.
“The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern all cases filed after their effectivity on May 1, 2020, and also all pending proceedings, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.”
Sablas vs. Sablas (LIBERAL APPLICATION)
Petitioner spouses were served with summons and a copy of the complaint, they filed a motion for extension of time requesting an additional period of 15 days, or until November 5, 1999, to file their answer.
However, they were able to file it only on November 8, 1999. While the trial court observed that the answer was filed out of time, it admitted the pleading because no motion to declare petitioner spouses in default was filed.
SPOUSES WERE DECLARED IN DEFAULT
Issue:
Whether there was a valid declaration of default?
Held:
No, Where There Is No Motion, There Can Be No Declaration of Default, the elements of a valid declaration of default are:
- the court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defending party either by service of summons or voluntary appearance;
- the defending party failed to file the answer within the time allowed therefor and
- a motion to declare the defending party in default has been filed by the claiming party with notice to the defending party.
RULE 2, SEC 2
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another
RULE 2, SEC 5
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: (CoNDiP)
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall Comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall Not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to Different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are Principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Marilag vs. Martinez (splitting a single cause of action)
There was a loan contract between Rafael Martinez (debtor) and Marilag (creditor) secured by a Real Estate Mortgage.
Rafael failed to pay his loan, hence, Marilag filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure. RTC issued a decision (not yet final) ordering Rafael to pay Marilag P229,200.
Prior to the decision, respondent Marcelino (son of Rafael) agreed to pay Rafael’s obligations. Marcelino paid 400k (loan was P689k) evidenced by a promissory note.
Upon learning the decision, respondent refused to pay the rest prompting petitioner to file another complaint.
SC ruled that litis pendentia applies to the 2nd case. (Remember: 1st decision has yet to attain its finality).
further, there was a splitting cause of action in this case. (See definition of splitting above).
In this case, hat petitioner, as creditor mortgagee, instituted an action for judicial foreclosure
the availment of such remedy thus bars recourse to the subsequent filing of a personal action for collection of the debt, in this case, under the principle of litis pendentia, considering that the foreclosure case only remains pending as it was not shown to have attained finality.
Therefore, petitioner is now barred from availing ordinary action for collection.
DOCTRINE: Splitting a cause of action is a mode of forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers, where the ground of dismissal is litis pendentia or res judicata, as the case may be. In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against the debtor mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through the filing of a personal action for collection of sum of money or the institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative, not cumulative or successive, and each remedy is complete by itself
Riviera Golf, Inc. vs. CCA Holdings, (splitting a single cause of action)
There was a management contract between Riviera Golf and CCA Holdings (foreign corp.) for the management and operation of the former for 5 years.
Riviera initially paid the agreed fees, but defaulted the rest of its obligation prompting CCA to demand the amounts. The Management Agreement was pre terminated to alleviate financial crisis.
CCA demanded RG to settle its unpaid fees, but the latter refused because CCA violated the terms of the agreement prompting CCA to file a complaint for sum of money with damages.
During the pendency of the case, they executed a compromise agreement which the RTC approved.
Thereafter, CCA filed again another complaint but now based on the supposed profit of the unexpired 2-yr term of the Management Agreement hence they filed another complaint for sum of money.
SC ruled that the 2nd complaint is barred by res judicata. In both 1st and 2 nd complaints, CCA Holdings imputed the same wrongful act - the alleged violations of the terms and conditions of the Management and Royalty Agreements. Although differing in form, these two cases are ultimately anchored on Riviera Golfs breach of the Management and Royalty Agreements. Thus, they have identical causes of action.
There is res judicata when the following requisites are present:
1) the former judgment must be final;
2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties;
3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
4) there must be, between the first and second actions, (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter, and (c) identity of causes of action.
DOCTRINE: A cause of action may give action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be action can be filed. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided into two or more different actions. The ultimate test in determining the presence of identity of cause of action is to consider whether the same evidence would support the cause of action in both the first and the second cases
There is res judicata when the following requisites are present:
1) the former judgment must be final;
2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties;
3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
4) there must be, between the first and second actions, (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter, and (c) identity of causes of action.
RULE 3 , SEC 2
Section 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2))
RULE 3, SEC 7
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
RULE 3, SEC 8
Section 8. Necessary party. - A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. (8)
Resident Marine Mammals vs. Secretary Reyes, (environmental cases)
petitioners, resident marine mammals are the toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises and other cetacean species which inhabit the waters in and around the Tanon Strait , ), joined by Gloria Ramos and Rose Osorio collectively know as the stewards who seek the protection of these marine species
Petitioners sought to nullify the service contract which permits exploration, development and exploitation by Japan petroleum exploration within the Tanon Strait (protected seascape).
SC ruled that the petitioners have legal standing. The Resident Marine Mammals, through the Stewards, “claim” that they have the legal standing to file this action since they stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in this suit
right to sue for the faithful performance of international and municipal environmental laws created in their favor and for their benefit
, under the concept of stipulation pour autrui.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a right that does not even need to be stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
It is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species.
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order
Dr. Treyes vs. Larlar (heir as plaintiff)
Treyes died intestate and without a child. She has siblings and a husband.
This husband executed an affidavit of self-adjudication on the 14 properties as the sole heir of Treyes.
As such, the siblings filed an action for annulment of affidavits. The husband filed a motion to dismiss because they are not real parties in interest, that there is still a need for prior judicial determination of heirship.
SC said there is no need for prior judicial determination of heirship. As provided in Art. 777 of the Civil Code, the rights of succession are transmitted the moment the decedent dies. Therefore, the sibling of Treyes, being an intestate heirs, are real parties in interest in this case.
DOCTRINE: The establishment of right of the heirs is conferred by law and there is no need for judicial confirmation to establish petitioners as heirs. It was already established by the petitioners that they are heirs ipso facto jure, thus there is no need for any judicial confirmation.
Under the Civil Code, when the brothers and sisters of a deceased married sister survive with her widower, the latter shall be entitled by law to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters to the other half.
The Civil Code likewise states that this successional right of the legal heirs is vested in them from the very moment of the decedent’s death. Given that successional rights are conferred by the Civil Code, a substantive law, the question to be resolved here by the Court is whether a prior determination of the status as a legal or compulsory heir in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action seeking for the protection and enforcement of ownership rights given by the law of succession
Living @ Sense, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance (solidary liable party)
Living @ sense (main contractor); DMI(sub-contractor) for an underground open-trench work for the network project of Globe Telecom in Mindanao. Malayan (surety), so solidarily liable with DMI.
The excavation works were stopped because DMI’s work is unsatisfactory.
So living @ sense demanded indemnification, however, Malayan denied liability because DMI’s liability should be determined first.
So Living @sense filed an action for specific performance and breach of contract. Malayan filed a motion to dismiss because DMI was not impleaded as an indispensable party.
WON MALAYAN IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY?
SC said DMI is not an indispensable party. As provided in the Civil Code, creditor may proceed against any of the solidary debtors. In this case, Malayan is solidarily liable with DMI. As such, Living @sense can claim indemnity from either of the parties.
Even if assuming that DMI was indeed an indispensable party, the Regional Trial Court should not have dismissed the case but should have ordered the petitioner to implead the indispensable party, which can be done on motion of the party or on the court’s own initiative at any stage of the action.
DOCTRINE: Article 1216 of the Civil Code on solidary obligations allows petitioner, as creditor, to proceed against any of the solidary debtors. The nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not make one an indispensable party. An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined mandatorily either as plaintiffs or defendants.
The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, thus, without their presence to a suit or proceeding, the judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
Divinagracia vs. Parilla (illegitimate heir as indispensable party)
Conrado Nobleza, Sr. (Conrado, Sr.) owned parcel of land located , Iloilo City. During his lifetime, he contracted two marriages: 12 KIDS
(a) the first was with Lolita Palermo with whom he had two (2) children, namely, Cresencio and Conrado,
b) the second was with Eusela Niangar with whom he had seven (7) children, namely, Mateo, Sr., Coronacion, Cecilia, Celestial, Celedonio, Ceruleo, and Cebeleo, Sr
three (3) illegitimate children, namely, Eduardo, Rogelio, and Ricardo
He died thereafter, so some of the heirs sold their respective interests over the parcel of land. Now, this Santiago (the one who bought the shares), filed an action for partition, but did not implead the other heirs.
CA dismissed the action for partition because the decedent’s children are indispensable parties to the judicial partition, thus, non-inclusion would result in its dismissal.
SC said the action for partition was not proper because some of the heirs were not impleaded. Co-heirs are indispensable parties.
They have rights over the subject land. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
RULE 7 , SEC 4 (A-C)
Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
RULE 7, SEC 5
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and
(c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corp (counsel’s signature)
Kenrick built a concrete fence around some parts of the land behind the Civil Aviation Training Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO) which resulted to the dispossession of ATO
. However, the Registrar of Deeds reported that it has no record of them and that their ascendant title, allegedly in the name of Concepcion, was non-existent in their office.
OSG Filed a complaint for revocation, annulment and cancellation of certificates of title in behalf of the Republic against Concepcion and Kenrick.
Kenrick filed an answer which was allegedly signed by its counsel Atty. Onofre Garlitos Jr. However, it was thereafter known, that the signature appearing above Garlitos’ name was not his, he did not authorized anyone to sign it in his behalf, and he did not know who finally signed it.
, Republic filed a motion to declare Kenrick and Concepcion in default for failure to file a valid answer because the person who signed it was not the counsel for the respondents. Thus, the answer was effectively an unsigned pleading.
SC ruled that Kenrick failed to file a valid answer because the pleading was unsigned by its counsel.
Under the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to these matters. The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the members of the legal profession.
Counsel may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not. The trial court correctly ruled that respondent’s answer was invalid and of no legal effect as it was an unsigned pleading. Respondent was properly declared in default and the Republic was rightly allowed to present evidence ex parte.
DOCTRINE: A signed pleading is one that is signed either by the party himself or his counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 is clear on this matter. It requires that a pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Therefore, only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed.
Counsel’s authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. He may not delegate it to just any person. The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
Bacolor, et al. v. Makabali Memorial Hospital (applicable tenets for non-compliance)
The case stemmed from an amended Complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims filed by Petitioners against the Respondents.
Allegedly, the Hospital engaged the Petitioners as resident physicians assigned in its ER for one year, Despite the expiration of their contracts, the Hospital continued to employ the Petitioners
Respondent then after instructed them to resign, and re-apply to the Hospital as resident physicians under a one year fixed term contract.
Res offered gratitude pay….eventually demoted them … the charged them with dishonesty
Petitioner received notices of termination from the Hospital. Petitioners contended that they were constructively dismissed when respondents demoted them
WON CA ERRED IN DISMISSING THEIR PETITION DUE TO DEFECT IN VERIFICATION / CERT AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING ? YES
CA failed to consider the concept of “substantial compliance” to the requirements of verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, as it has been shown that three of the six petitioners executed their own verification and certificate against forum shopping. The verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. It is intended to assure that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct. As such, the court may order the correction of unverified pleadings, or it may act on them and waive strict compliance with the rule
Torres vs. Republic (counsel signed the verification and certification against forum-shopping)
Solicitor General filed with the RTC of Davao City a Complaint for Cancellation of Titles against spouses Leonora R. Gaspar (Leonora) and Florencio Gaspar (Florencio) (collectively, Spouses Gaspar) and the Register of Deeds of Davao City praying for the cancellation of the free patents and the original certificates of titles (OCTs
Republic moved for the cancellation of all the derivative titles emanating from the free patents and OCTs of Spouses Gaspar
Petitioners alleged that they were not parties to the proceedings before the RTC; thus, the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over them as they are all living and working abroad. They also alleged that they were denied due process.
Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed by the Petitioners… petitioners argue that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for annulment of the RTC Order as it ordered the cancellation of their titles.
Republic alleges that the present petition is dismissible outright because the verification and the certification of non-forum shopping was signed not by petitioners but by their counsel.
SC RULED THAT THERE WAS COMPLIANCE WITH THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING.
A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
While it was petitioners’ counsel who signed the verification and certification against forum shopping, the Court finds that there is substantial compliance with the requirements stated under the above-quoted paragraphs 3 and 6. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation and that the pleading is filed in good faith. This was complied with by petitioners’ counsel when he stated the following in his verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the instant petition.
Petitioners are all living and working abroad and could not sign the certification against forum shopping, petitioners executed their respective Special Powers of Attorney designating their counsel on record to sign the certification against forum shopping on their behalf.
Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice; hence, it should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives. The requirement of strict compliance with the provisions on certification against forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature to the effect that the certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.
