PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (RULE 57-61) EXPN: SPL – cognizable only before the RTC since incapable of

pecuniary estimation
AIRRS EXPN to EXPN: In crim cases When there is joinder of causes of
Rule 57: Preliminary Attachment action
Rule 58 Preliminary Injunction Say: Seduction is cognizable with the MTC because of penalty
Rule 59 Receivership imposable. Support and SPL can be filed before the MTC with
Rule 60 Replevin acknowledgment of a child.
Rule 61 Support Pendente Lite
JURISDICTION ON SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE
Rule PromRem When to file Principal Action Remember that it cannot be taken cognizance of by the inferior
R. 57 Preliminary Commencemet – Attachment courts because support is an action which is incapable of pecuniary
Attachment b4 entry of (ex-parte or by estimation. Therefore, support pendente lite is only cognizable by
judgment motion) the RTC because support to which it adheres is incapable of
R. 58 Preliminary Commencment- Injunction pecuniary estimation. Exception: In criminal cases. Because the
Injunction before (Hearing is present rules on criminal procedure speaks that once a criminal
judgement mandatory; for case is filed, the civil aspect is deemed instituted with it under Rule
TRO no hearing 111.
required) Hence, if the action is criminal in nature but cognizable by the
R. 59 Appointment Commencement Receivership inferior court and the prosecution includes the civil action for
of a Receiver – even after (Hearing is support, then support pendente lite can be taken cognizance of by
execution of mandatory) the inferior courts.
judgement
R. 60 Replevin Commencement Recovery of Example: complaint for seduction which is cognizable by the
– before answer possession of inferior courts. And together with that you pray for the
personal property acknowledgment of the child (suppose merong anak) and you pray
(No hearing) for support pendente lite. In this instance the support pendente lite
R. 61 Support Commencement Support is taken cognizance of the inferior courts.
Pendente Lite – before final (Hearing is
(SPL) judgment mandatory) In Receivership: both inferior courts and RTC.

Nature of PromRev In Replevin: both inferior courts and RTC.

In Injunction: both inferior courts and RTC.
Being provisional remedies, they are dependent, contingent, or
adhere to a principal action. So that you cannot find an action for
In Attachment: both inferior courts and RTC depending now on the
preliminary attachment. It must always be adhered to the principal
action. principal action to which the provisional remedy attaches.

Bo. Conciliation proceedings – n/a to PromRev REQUIREMENTS for PROMREV

GR:
What are the principal actions to which these provisional 1. Affidavit
remedies attach? 2. Bond
1. Preliminary attachment, the principal action is recovery of real Note:
or personal property. Peculiarity of rule 57 (Writ of Attachment). Unlike all other
If you try to look at Section 1 Rule 57, you will find out that all bonds which answer only for damages, it is only in Rule 57 will
the actions there are for recovery of either real or personal the bond answer for the judgment. So you underline the word
property. judgment. Kasi dito mo lang makikita yan sa Rule 57.
2. Preliminary injunction, the principal action is injunction Vs.
although these seldom find, in actual practice, an action for Because in Rules 58-61, the bond answers for damages only.
injunction because it always goes with some other actions. Like While in Rule 57, the bond answers for judgment.
for example specific performance and injunction plus damages Ano'ng ibig sabihin nun?
with prayer of preliminary injunction. Is there an action which Sometimes damages can be separated from judgment. But in
is injunction? Yes. Under Section 4 of Rule 39. most instances hindi. Let's say defendant is ordered to pay
3. Receivership, receivership is the principal action. The P20,000 as principal obligation and damages of P10,000, so
provisional remedy is appointment of a receiver. If you go and hiwalay. In other cases the bond or counter bond only
look at Section 4 of Rule 39, you will see that receivership is an answers for the P10,000.
action. But in preliminary attachment, the bond or counter bond
4. Replevin, the principal action is recovery of personal property. answers for the P30,000, judgment and damages.
In replevin, a foreclosure on mortgage is possible.
5. Support pendente lite, the principal action is support. Do not be misled therefore by cross-references to
Section 20 by the other rules.
Jurisdiction over these provisional remedies Do you notice that? di ba puro cross-references. Section
GR: where the principal action is pending 8 of Rule 58, Section 9 of Rule 59, and Section 10, Rule 60
cross-refer to Section 20, Rule 57. The cross-reference is

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 1

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 correct but the difference is that the bond and counter What are some grounds of irregularity in the issuance?
bond in all these provisional remedies answer only for A:
damages. But in writ of preliminary attachment because 1. Insufficiency of the bond. Remember that the requirement for
of its precedent section which is Section 19, which the issuance are affidavit and bond. So if the affidavit for
answers for any judgment. example did not contain the required statement as provided for
in Section 3 of Rule 57, then that is an irregularity. Or it contains
EXPN: SPL only verified complaint but it was untruthful. It was a lie, then it is irregular.
Or suppose the bond which was filed was very insufficient.
How do you secure, aside from these requirements, the writs for There was a claim for P20M and the bond was only P1M. So, the
these provisional remedies? issuance of the writ is irregular and improper.
A: 2. Or it was issued by the court on the ground not specifically
1. Preliminary attachment, you may secure it ex parte. Although stated in Section 1 of Rule 57. Because the 6 grounds there are
the writ cannot be implemented ex parte but it can be issued EXCLUSIVE.
ex parte.
2. Preliminary injunction, as a general rule you cannot secure it
ex parte under Section 5, Rule 58, although in cases of urgency, Claim for damages – Sec 20, Rule 57 – a general provision applicable
that injunctive relief for a period of 72 hours can be granted to all PROMREV except for SPL. Equivalent to SPL of claim for
summarily (meron pa din notice and hearing for due process). damages is restitution or reimbursement.
That is how stringent in applying for injunctive relief.
3. Replevin, you cannot get it ex parte. PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT (RULE 57)
4. Support pendente lite, there is a peculiar provision under
Section 2 (Rule 61) wherein the respondent, within a period of
- Putting the property under custody of the court
5 days from notice, is bound to file his comment. And if he does
not file his comment, the case will be heard on the application
When to file
only (Section 3) within 3 days.
At the commencement of the action or any time before
entry of judgment
How do you discharge the writ once the writ is granted or issued?
Why not apply for a writ of preliminary attachment when
A:
judgment has already been entered?
Preliminary 1. Sections 5, 12 2. a motion questioning
A:
attachment and 13 of Rule the propriety or
Because your remedy is not attachment but your remedy
57. Cash regularity of the
is execution under Rule 39. Remember in Sections 27-29
deposit or issuance of the writ
of Rule 39 (regarding redemption and redemptioner)
counter bond; (Section 13)
when a property was sold on attachment, there are
or
possible redemptioners because Section 1 says at the
commencement of the action, you already apply for the
preliminary counter bond* 1. Only remedy:
issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment. And if the
injunction does not file a motion
writ is issued and implemented, the sheriff, to whom the
replevin discharge a writ of questioning the writ is addressed, takes actual custody of the property if it
receivership preliminary propriety or regularity
is capable of manual delivery. In the case of replevin,
injunction, of the issuance of the
ibibigay ng sheriff sa applicant after 5 days if there is no
replevin or writ.
redelivery bond is filed. But in the case of preliminary
receivership attachment, kukunin niya yan for safe keeping. And it will
support No Bond. only be sold after judgment is rendered in favor of the
pendente lite SPL was discharged because there is no basis plaintiff (applicant).
to stand with
* The counter bond, in effect, automatically discharges the writ. Once a property has been replevined and again it was
attached, is it still valid?
Who files for the discharge of the writ? Yes. once the property is replevined it can still be
Party against whom the writ was issued. A is the plaintiff and B is attached. But if the property is attached it cannot be
the defendant. If A applies for preliminary attachment and it was replevined. Because in attachment, you may not take
issued, who seeks for the discharge? Siyempre si B. possession but in replevin you have to take possession.

Is it possible that A, plaintiff/applicant, in an instance, may also Jurisdiction:

seek the discharge of the writ? GR RTC
Ordinarily no, but if B as a counterclaim, which is permissive, B will EXPN: Court that has jurisdiction over the case. Hence if there is a
ask for a writ of preliminary attachment against A. Thus A may also case before the MTC you file writ of PA before the MTC.
seek the discharge the writ. A can file for a counter bond.
Normally attachment is for big cases. It would be impractical to
Section 5 speaks of a cash deposit or a counter bond. The counter avail of attachment for small cases since you will spend more than
bond will answer for the judgment. The cash deposit will also what you will get.
answer for the judgment,

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 2

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Purposes of Writ of PA. “performance thereof” is not yet in the Rules hence
1. Secure satisfaction of the favorable judgement not to the SC ruled in favour of the buyer.
secure favourable judgment. The latter is for the court to If DO Plaza was filed today the writ of PA is proper.
decide.
IF you secure the property the satisfaction of the v. Action against a person who tries to dispose the
judgement is almost assured. You are not going to property guilty of fraud
sale on execution but on sale on attachment.
Say:
2. Forcing the adverse party to come into the negotiating A businessman who was engaged in buying and
table. – this is unwritten purpose and not in the Rules. selling. So when he owed somebody a sum of money,
Say: You a businessman you can attach the property of a that somebody filed a case against this businessman
sari-sari store. The sari-sari store shall be forced to and applied for a writ of preliminary attachment on
negotiate to avoid attachment. the ground that the businessman was disposing his
property in fraud of creditors.
3. To covert the action strictly in personam to quasi-in rem. Ruling: Writ is not proper. He is disposing his property
The court acquires jurisdiction over the res. in line of his business precisely he is in buy and sell. If
Once the court acquires jurisdiction over the res you could he does not dispose his property, how will he ever be
proceed over the case even if no jurisdiction over the able to pay you. The attachment was invalid.
defendant.
Limitation: Once you execute judgment you are limited only as Vs
to the res since the court has no jurisdiction over the
defendant. A businessman who had a sari-sari store. A case was
filed against him for a sum of money and a writ of
2 Basic Requirement of the Writ of PA (Sec 3, R 57) preliminary attachment was applied for. The
1. Affidavit businessman is selling the goods in the middle of th
NOTE: The 4 requirements must be contained in an affidavit. night.
So your affidavit is pro forma or insufficient if it does not allege Ruling: Writ of preliminary attachment was validly
these 4 basic requirements as enumerated under Section 3. issued because there was disposal of the property in
fraud of creditors. Even if the disposal was made in
4 REQUIREMENTS (GECS) line of his business, the SC held that the disposal was
a. Valid grounds – as enumerated in section 1 Rule 57. Note made at midnight and through the backdoor. So there
these grounds are exclusive! (MEMORIZE!!!) is fraud.

6 GROUNDS (Sec 1, Rule 57) (SETIRO) vi. When the defendant is outside the country and who
A-C – action for vs. D-F action against can be served the summon through publication.
i. Action for the recovery of sum of money and This ground is peculiar because it speaks about his
damages, excluding moral and exemplary damages, situation or residence. So in this instance, any person
arising from law, contracts, quasi contracts, delict and who left the country and temporarily reside there,
quasi delict directed against a party who is to depart you file an action and you can apply for a writ of
from the Philippines with intent to defraud. preliminary attachment.
But take note of the last phrase there and those who
ii. Action for the recovery of money or property may be served by publication. So you cross-refer that
embezzled by the defendant who is a public officer, to Section 15-17 of Rule 14 on Summons, who must
officer of a corporation, attorney, factor, broker, be served through publication. It applies only on
agent, or clerk. actions in rem or quasi in rem. Actions which are
there must be a fiduciary relationship between the strictly in personam, summons by publication is not
applicant and the respondent. allowed.

iii. Action for recover of possession of property unjustly Who are these persons who may be served
taken against a party who removed, disposed, or does summons through publication? (possible mid-term –
not disclose it, or who hid these properties atty brondial 1st sem AY 2017-2018)
Not mentioned in Sec 1, Rule 57. So you go back to
iv. Action against the person who is guilty of fraud in Section 15-17 of Rule 14,Extra-territorial service.
contracting a debt or incurring obligation upon which But we said that even if summons by publication is
the action is brought or in the performance thereof allowed, that is only in cases where the action is not
strictly in personam (quasi in rem). Sabi natin, so
Note: DO Plaza Case no longer applicable. contradictory apparently. Why? Because you are
Contract of sale wherein the buyer shall pay 50% and asking precisely for a writ of preliminary attachment
the balance is secured by post dated checks. After it on that ground but you cannot serve summons to a
bounced. (no BP 22 yet) a collection suit was filed by person if your action is strictly in personam.
the seller and the plaintiff for writ of PA claiming that Sabi natin, hindi. Ang explanation diyan is that in the
the party was guilty of fraud in contracting obli and application for the writ of preliminary attachment,
the performance thereof. However before the there are three stages. Yung una hindi mo kailangan
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 3
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 ng summons. So you can already apply, on the basis 1. Not around
that the defendant is outside of the country. You 2. Committed fraud in the performance of the obli
apply irrespective whether the summons can be 3.
issued or not because it can be issued ex parte. But
dito lang sa issuance. Pero pag hawak na yan ng Issue: WON SB abuse its discretion
sheriff, i-implement na niya under Section 7, levy on SC: When the cause of action is grounded in the same
attachment, hindi ka pwede mag-levy on attachment ground as in the application for the writ of prelim
if the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the attachment you cannot discharge the writ of PA
person of the defendant. Kaya nakalagay diyan, prior through a mere motion under Section 13 otherwise
or contemporaneous. Prior is Mangila case. you are resolving the principal action through a mere
Contemporaneous sabay na ng pag implement ng writ motion and this is going through the back door.
of preliminary attachment ang service of summons. Here the principal action is recovery of sum of money
due to fraud which is the same ground as the writ.
Note: Hence, if the SC resolved the writ, as if they are
One of the objectives of a writ of preliminary deciding the principal case. SC ruled that the only
attachment is to convert an action which is strictly in remedy is post a bond under Section 12.
personam to an action quasi in rem. Once you convert
it, then you can now serve summons through 3 Stages in Writ of PA
publication. 1. Issuance of the order – no need of jurisdiction
over the defendant
CASE DOCTIRNES 2. Issuance of Writ - no need of jurisdiction over the
Mangila v. CA (2001 BAR) defendant
Doctrine: There are three stages in the Writ of PA 3. Implementation of writ – court must acquire
1. Issuance of the order jurisdiction after the defendant.
2. Issuance of the writ
3. Implementation of the writ NOTE: The first two stages may be done ex parte. But
• In the first two stages, the court need not have to the last stage must always be with prior or
acquire jurisdiction over the person. However, in contemporaneous service of summons. Hence, you
the third stage the prior or contemporaneous can avail of paragraph f of Section 1 of Rule 57 in
service of summons over the person of the converting the action in to an action in rem. Because
defendant is necessary for the court to acquire the writ of preliminary attachment can be issued even
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. without service of summons.

Here, SC ruled that the implementation of the writ of In the application for the writ of preliminary
PA was wrong since there was no earnest effort in attachment, there are three stages. Yung una hindi
serving summons despite the fact that Mangila is mo kailangan ng summons. So you can already apply,
outside the country. on the basis that the defendant is outside of the
When the writ was implemented Mangila was already country. You apply irrespective whether the
in Guam. She was here before the writ was summons can be issued or not because it can be
implemented. The post service after her return would issued ex parte. But dito lang sa issuance. Pero pag
not cure the jurisdictional error. hawak na yan ng sheriff, i-implement na niya under
Section 7, levy on attachment, hindi ka pwede mag-
levy on attachment if the court has not acquired
Chuidian v. SB (BAR MATTER)
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Kaya
Doctrine: Discharged of prelim attachment and the
nakalagay diyan, prior or contemporaneous. Prior is
property under the writ becomes in custodia legis to
Mangila case. Contemporaneous sabay na ng pag
await satisfaction of judgment.
implement ng writ of preliminary attachment ang
Chuidian is a crony of Marcos and was able to secure service of summons.
a loan from Phil Guarantee in million of dollars
alleging to be used in the Phils. Business but actually 3 ways to lift Writ of PA
was invested by Chuidian in Silicon Valley, California. 1. Posting of bond or cash deposit
For failure to pay, they entered into a compromise 2. Motion assailing the propriety of the issuance of
agreement. A letter of credit was issued in favour of writ
Chuidian granting him letters of credit which he could 3. Sec 5 – means to lift is through cash deposit or
withdraw USD100K per month. counter-bond – writ has issued but not yet
After EDSA revolution, PCGG filed a case before SB to implemented
recover the letters of credit. PCGG applied for a writ Vs.
of PA which was issued by SB. Sec 5 – means to lift is through cash deposit or
When Chuidian returned to the Phils, he filed a counter-bond – writ has issued and implemented
motion assailing the issuance of the writ of PA under Vs.
section 13. Section 13 – motion to lift the writ assailing the
SB ruled the following against him propriety of the issuance.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 4

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Note: be cash either on the part of the plaintiff or the defendant as
A. The bond is different from cash deposit. the case may be.
However, you cannot use property deposit to
discharge the writ since it is not in the Rules. Torres v. Satsatin (2009 case)
B. If you avail Section 12, you can still apply section Doctrine: Bonding company must be accredited by the SC
13 even you already availed of section 12 since otherwise the posting of bond is null and void which is
Sec 12 is not a bar to avail Sec 13. In Sec 12 fatal to the grant of promrev.
immediately the writ is discharge and you
recover possession of the property again. Sibling sold a property through an agent, Satsatin, worth
However, you can still avail Section 13 to P35million. However, Satsatin only remitted P9million to
question propriety of the issuance of the writ. the Torreses. Hence, they sought to recover the balance
The purpose of Section 13 is to release the bond and in the process they ask for the issuance of the writ of
not the return of the property since already PA. Torresses learned that after the sale of the property,
released using Section 12. Satsatin was able to acquire numerous properties and
posted the bond.
Note: You cannot attach a property belonging to the estate. What Satsatin questioned the bond since it was posted before
you can attach is the interest of the heirs or one who is entitled to the issuance of writ. Satsatin also posted the counterbond.
the property because the property itself is in custodial egis already.
SC ruled that the bonding company is not accredited by
b. Value of the prop. Sought to be recovered must be equal the SC and only accredited in Makati, Pasig and Pasay and
to the sum prayed for in the order less all other counter not accredited in Dasmarinas Cavite where the property is
claim. located. Hence, the bond is nothing and the issuance of
Meaning if you are securing P1M be sure to attach the writ of PA is null and void.
property at least P1million. In actual case you attach
property much more than the obli. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
If the property is not sufficient, attach more property and - ONLY Before finality of judgment otherwise claim is deemed
there is no limitation as long as the order prayed for must waived.
be equal to the order. - Not including moral and exemplary damages
c. There must be a valid cause of action - Unlike in other promRev, it is only in Writ of PA that the bond
d. There must be no sufficient security answers not only for the damages but also for the judgement
If there is security there is no need of attachment since unfavourable for the applicant.
already secured by mortgage.
It can happen in such a way that during the proceeding, it was
Say: Prop is 2B and the claim is 1b. The remaining P1B can established that the issuance of the writ was irregular and
still be attached by other creditors subsequent to your improper. And what does the rule provide?
lien. The rule provides that if this happens right there and then
before entry of judgment, you already have to file for
Can a 3rd party can deal with the property that has been damages. You cannot file that after entry of judgment because
attached. Suppose it was mortgaged with a bank after it you are considered to have waived your right. And remember
has been attached, is it possible? Section 46 of Rule 39, you can file now a case against the
A: Yes. The mortgage becomes a lien subsequent to the surety even without impleading the principal. In like manner,
lien under which the property was sold if ever the plaintiff provided there is notice, you can go after the surety if it is a
wins in the case. counter bond or surety bond.
Since the prop is attached before the finality of judgment
other parties has sufficient time to attach the remaining Why other that moral and exemplary damages?
value of the property. That’s why you can still attach the A: There is no basis. The basis must be personal, wounded feelings
remaining portion of the property. Like in the example etc.
above, the remaining P1B can still be subject to
subsequent lien. You cannot do attachment after the How about a 3rd party claim, which you find in Sec. 14 of Rule 57?
entry of judgement since the remedy is execution of A:
judgment. Likewise, due to limited time, other parties If there is a 3rd party claim, the same provision as you find in
cannot subsequent attach the same properties since Section 16 of Rule 39 applies. The 3rd party claimant executes an
during that period the winning party definitely will affidavit, gives it to the sheriff and then the sheriff will deliver back
execute the judgement and leaving no time for the the property, which has been attached, to the 3rd party claimant
subsequent party to attach the same property. unless the applicant secures the sheriff with another bond.
vs
2. Bond – Applicant must post the bond that is duly accredited Pareho rin yan sa Replevin, Section 7 of Rule 60 and Section 16 of
otherwise it is null and void. Even the writ is null and void. Rule 39.

Bond is required of the applicant. Counter bond is required of NOTE: Common error of the students think that since the 3rd party
the person against whom the application was filed. Deposit can claimant files his claim, then the 3rd party claimant should file for
the bond. Atty. Brondial corrects that it is not. The applicant for the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 5
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
writ who should file the bond without prejudice, of course, to a without saying that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior
filing a case against the 3rd party claimant who filed a 3rd party to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant -
claim frivolously and fraudulently. And that case can be threshed issuance of summons, order of attachment and writ of
out in the same action or even in a separate action. attachment - these do not and cannot bind and affect the
defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is
CASE Digests eventually obtained by the court, either by service on him of
summons or other coercive process or his voluntary submission
Mangila vs. CA, 387 SCRA to the court’s authority.” Furthermore, we have held that the
Mangila, an exporter of sea foods and doing business under the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three
name and style of Seafoods Products, entered into a contract with stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application;
PR Guina, the President and General Manager of Air Swift second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order
International, a single registered proprietorship engaged in the granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. For the
freight forwarding business, for shipment of the sea foods to initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the
Guam. Petitioner requested for seven days within which to pay person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the
private respondent. However, for the next three shipments, March implementation of the writ commences, the court must have
17, 24 and 31, 1988, petitioner failed to pay private respondent acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such
shipping charges amounting to P109, 376.95. Despite several jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any
demands, petitioner never paid private respondent. A case for manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court
collection of sum of money was filed. Summons was not served on will not bind the defendant. In the instant case, the Writ of
petitioner because, as found by the sheriff, she was had left the Preliminary Attachment was issued on September 27, 1988 and
Philippines for Guam. Construing petitioner’s departure from the implemented on October 28, 1988. However, the alias summons
Philippines as done with intent to defraud her creditors, private was served only on January 26, 1989 or almost three months after
respondent filed a Motion for Preliminary Attachment. On the implementation of the writ of attachment. Note: Private
September 26, 1988, the trial court granted the application and the respondent should have resorted to summons by publication since
following day, it issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. On petitioner was temporarily out of the country.
October 28, 1988, Sheriff Alfredo San Miguel of RTC Pampanga
served on petitioner’s household help in San Fernando, Pampanga, Preliminary attachment involves three stages: order, issuance and
the Notice of Levy with the Order, Affidavit and Bond. Petitioner implementation. The first two stages may be done ex parte, but
filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment without during the third stage, the court must have already acquired
submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. She pointed jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
out that up to then, she had not been served a copy of the
Complaint and the summons. Hence, petitioner claimed the court Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, 349 SCRA
had not acquired jurisdiction over her person. The trial court Petitioner was alleged to be a dummy or nominee of Ferdinand
granted the Motion to Discharge Attachment on January 13, 1989 and Imelda Marcos in several companies said to have been illegally
upon filing of petitioner’s counter-bond. It was only on January 26, acquired by the Marcos spouses. He was able to obtain a
1989 that summons was finally served on petitioner. The trial court guarantee to a loan from PHILGUARANTEE amounting to 25 million
ruled in favor of the respondent which was upheld by the CA. dollars in favor of the Asian Reliability Company, Incorporated
(ARCI), 98% of which was allegedly owned by Chuidian. The
Whether the writ of attachment was properly issued and served? proceeds of the loan was invested in an IT company in the United
No. States. ARCI defaulted in the payment of the loan, thus,
PHILGUARANTEE undertook payments of the same. ARCI and
Petitioner’s arguments rests on the question of the validity of the Philguarantee entered into a compromise whereby petitioner
writ of attachment. Because of failure to serve summons on her Chuidian shall assign and surrender title to all his companies in
before or simultaneously with the writ’s implementation, favor of the Philippine government. It was further stipulated that
petitioner claims that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction instead of Chuidian reimbursing the payments made by
over her person and thus the service of the writ is void. Philguarantee arising from Chuidian's default, the Philippine
As a preliminary note, a distinction should be made between government shall pay Chuidian the amount US$5,300,000.00.
issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment. It is Accordingly, L/C No. SSD-005-85 was issued for the said amount by
necessary to distinguish between the two to determine when the Philippine National Bank. After the EDSA revolution, the PCGG
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired was created. PCGG exerted earnest efforts to search and recover
to validly implement the writ. This distinction is crucial in resolving money, gold, properties, stocks and other assets suspected as
whether there is merit in petitioner’s argument. having been illegally acquired by the Marcoses, their relatives and
A party to a suit may, at any time after filing the complaint, avail cronies. Petitioner Chuidian was among those whose assets were
of the provisional remedies under the Rules of Court. Specifically, sequestered by the PCGG. On May 30, 1986, the PCGG issued a
Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the Sequestration Order5 directing the PNB to place under its custody,
remedy "at the commencement of the action or at any time for and in behalf of the PCGG, the irrevocable L/C (No. SSD-005-85)
thereafter." This phrase refers to the date of filing of the complaint A civil case was filed by the PCGG in the SB against the Marcoses
which is the moment that marks "the commencement of the and individuals known to be their cronies including petitioner.
action." The reference plainly is to a time before summons is While the case was pending, on March 17, 1993, the Republic of
served on the defendant, or even before summons issues. the Philippines filed a motion for issuance of a writ of attachment
In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court over the L/C. The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution ordering the
clarified the actual time when jurisdiction should be had: "It goes issuance of a writ of attachment against L/C No. SSD-005-85 as
security for the satisfaction of judgment. Almost four (4) years
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 6
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
after the issuance of the order of attachment, Chuidian filed a investment house with the authority and license to extend credit.
motion to lift the attachment based on the following: First, he had Wee learned some news on Wincorp’s financial condition.
returned to the Philippines; hence, the Sandiganbayan's "most He then discovered that the company extended a loan equal
potent ground" for the issuance of the writ of preliminary to his total money placement to a corporation [Power Merge]
attachment no longer existed. Second, there was no evidence at with a subscribed capital of only P37.5M. This credit facility
all of initial fraud or subsequent concealment except for the originated from another loan of about P1.5B extended by
affidavit submitted by the PCGG Chairman citing mere "belief and Wincorp to another corporation [Hottick Holdings]. When the
information" and "not on knowledge of the facts. Third, Chuidian latter defaulted in its obligation, Wincorp instituted a case
denies that he ever disposed of his assets to defraud the Republic, against it and its surety. Settlement was, however, reached in
and there is nothing in the records that support the which Hottick's president, Luis Juan L. Virata (Virata), assumed
Sandiganbayan's erroneous conclusion on the matter. Fourth, the obligation of the surety. Petitioner's money placements
Chuidian belied the allegation that he was also a defendant in were transferred without his knowledge and consent to the
"other related criminal action," for in fact, he had "never been a loan account of Power Merge through an agreement that
defendant in any prosecution of any sort in the Philippines. Fifth, virtually freed the latter of any liability
the preliminary attachment was, in the first place, unwarranted
because he was not "guilty of fraud in contracting the debt or Wee filed an action for damages before RTC Manila. The trial court
incurring the obligation". ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against
the properties not exempt from execution of all the defendants in
Whether the issuance of the writ of attachment was proper? What the civil case subject, among others, to petitioner's filing of a
are the remedies of Chuidian against the attachment? P50M-bond. Tankiansee moved for the discharge of the
attachment, RTC denied. Co-defendants, Virata and UEM-MARA
Yes. There are two courses of action available to the petitioner. To Philippines Corporation (UEM-MARA) filed a Rule 65 before the CA,
file a counterbond or To quash the attachment on the ground CA denied. Tankiansee filed before the trial court another Motion
that it was irregularly or improvidently issued. It would appear to Discharge Attachment, re-pleading the grounds he raised in his
that petitioner chose the latter because the grounds he raised first motion but raising the following additional grounds: (1) that
assail the propriety of the issuance of the writ of attachment. By he was not present in Wincorp's board meetings approving the
his own admission, however, he repeatedly acknowledged that his questionable transactions; and (2) that he could not have connived
justifications to warrant the lifting of the attachment are facts or with Wincorp and the other defendants because he and Pearlbank
events that came to light or took place after the writ of attachment Securities, Inc., in which he is a major stockholder, filed cases
had already been implemented. against the company as they were also victimized by its fraudulent
It is clear that these grounds have nothing to do with the issuance schemes. RTC denied (since the same has been passed upon by the
of the writ of attachment. Much less do they attack the issuance CA); denied ensuing MR. Tankiansee filed a Rule 65 before the CA.
of the writ at that time as improper or irregular. And yet, the rule CA ruled in favor of Tankiansee and reversed RTC. Hence Wee filed
contemplates that the defect must be in the very issuance of the a Rule 45 before the SC.
attachment writ. For instance, the attachment may be discharged
under Section 13 of Rule 57 when it is proven that the allegations Whether or not there is basis for issuing a writ of attachment in
of the complaint were deceptively framed, or when the complaint favour of Wee? No.
fails to state a cause of action. Supervening events which may or
may not justify the discharge of the writ are not within the For a writ of attachment to issue under Section 1(d) of Rule 57 of
purview of this particular rule. In the instant case, there is no the Rules of Court: (d) In an action against a party who has been
showing that the issuance of the writ of attachment was attended guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation
by impropriety or irregularity. Apart from seeking a upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof,
reconsideration of the resolution granting the application for the the applicant must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of
writ, petitioner no longer questioned the writ itself. For four (4) the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred
long years he kept silent and did not exercise any of the remedies from the debtor's mere non-payment of the debt or failure to
available to a defendant whose property or asset has been comply with his obligation. The applicant must then be able to
attached. It is rather too late in the day for petitioner to question demonstrate that the debtor has intended to defraud the creditor.
the propriety of the issuance of the writ. In the instant case, petitioner’s affidavit is bereft of any factual
statement that respondent committed a fraud. Petitioner has not
[W/N Chuidian may raise the issue of fraud in his motion to lift the shown any specific act or deed to support the allegation that
attachment and in the ensuing MR] If fraud is not only one of the respondent is guilty of fraud.
grounds for the issuance of a preliminary attachment, but also a The affidavit, being the foundation of the writ, must contain such
cause of action in the main case, it is improper to ask for motion particulars as to how the fraud imputed to respondent was
questioning the regularity of the issuance because a hearing on committed for the court to decide whether or not to issue the writ.
such a motion would be tantamount to a trial of the merits of s the FRAUD IS NEVER PRESUMED.
action.
Fraud must be proven, cannot be merely inferred from non-
payment of debt.
Alejandro Ng Wee vs. Tankiansee, 545 SCRA
Wee, a valued client of Westmont Bank, made several money Torres vs. Satsatin, 605 SCRA
placements totalling P211 million with the bank’s affiliate, The siblings Torres own a track of land in Cavite. Their mother
WINCORP, a domestic entity engaged in the business of an agreed to sell the properties to Nicanor Satsatin. Nicanor offered
to sell the properties to solar which the latter agreed. Nicanor was
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 7
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
supposed to remit to Torres P28 million but only remitted P9 manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court
million. Hence, Torreses filed with the RTC a complaint for sum of will not bind the defendant. Thus, it is indispensable not only for
money and damages against Satsatin. They also filed an ex-parte the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
motion for the issuance of a writ of attachment (alleging that but also upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant
respondents are about to depart the Philippines, that they have of the complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of
properties in Metro Manila xxxxx). RTC directed Torreses to post a preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that prior or
bond in the amount of P7 million before the court issues the writ contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of attachment,
of attachment. When Toresses filed the said bond, RTC issued the service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the
writ directing the sheriff to attach the estate, real or personal, of application for attachment, the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and
the respondents. Summons was then served upon the Satsatins. the order must be served upon him.
Satsatins filed their answer (alleging, among others, the writ of
attachment was issued before the summons was received by the
respondents; the sheriff did not serve copies of the application for
attachment, order of attachment, plaintiffs’ affidavit, and
attachment bond, to the respondents) and a Motion to Discharge
Writ of Attachment which was denied by the RTC.
Satsatins filed an Urgent Motion to Lift/Set Aside Order which was
again denied by the RTC.
Satsatins filed a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition
with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
before the CA. The CA ruled in favor of Satsatins, ordered the lifting
of the writ of attachment. Hence, Torreses filed a Rule 45 before
the SC.

Whether the writ of attachment should be discharge/W/N the CA

was correct in lifting the writ of attachment? Yes.

This Court has long put to rest the issue of when jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant should be acquired in cases where a
party resorts to provisional remedies. A party to a suit may, at any
time after filing the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies
under the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary
attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the
commencement of the action or at any time before entry of
judgment." This phrase refers to the date of the filing of the
complaint, which is the moment that marks "the commencement
of the action." The reference plainly is to a time before summons
is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues. In
Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court
clarified the actual time when jurisdiction should be had: It goes
without saying that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior
to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant x x
x issuance of summons, order of attachment and writ of
attachment x x x these do not and cannot bind and affect the
defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is
eventually obtained by the court, either by service on him of
summons or other coercive process or his voluntary submission to
the court’s authority. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper
officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it
is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the
applicant’s affidavit and attachment bond, and of the order of
attachment, as explicitly required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also
the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of
the complaint x x x. In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, this Court held
that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves
three stages: 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.
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the
implementation of the writ commences, the court must have
acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such
jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 8
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
PRELIMIARY INJUNCTION (RULE 58) What is a multi-sala court?
Principal action – Injunction A: There is only one RTC Manila. But there are many salas, RTC
Seldom will you find an action filed specifically for injunction Branches 45-48, etc. Quezon City marami din yun. Yan ang
only. It is coupled always with other causes of action. Like tinatawag na multi-sala. Pag 2 na yan, multi-sala na yan.
damages, or recovery of property with injunction and prayer
for preliminary injunction and TRO The rules provide that when you apply for injunctive relief before a
multi-sala court, the executive judge, even before hearing the case,
Jurisdiction must give notice of raffle. Raffle pa lang, may notice na dapat. So
GR: RTC only that if there is no notice of the raffle date, it is already violative of
XPN: If on appeal, to the court where the case is pending the due process clause of the constitution.
While injunction can be availed of in any court, including the SC, but Vs
if you read cases and statements to the effect that you cannot file
for an action for injunction to the SC it is because it is not a court of Single Sala Court
original jurisdiction over this action except certiorari, prohibition, Kung single sala, wala na. Ang notice mo ay notice of hearing
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus because hearing is mandatory. But if it is in Metro Manila or if it is
a multi-sala court, 2 notices, Notice of raffle and notice of hearing.
EXPN: Joinder of causes of action. So ang ipapadala munang notice is when is the raffle date and your
Say: If you join with other civil action it depends. Like CPM, failure to attend after notice, you waive your right to be present at
they are concurrent jurisdiction in RTC, CA, SB and SC. the raffle. And then later on is notice of hearing.

Territorial Effect: Note: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION – no time frame; it is valid until

If issued by the RTC – only within its jurisdiction the resolution of the principal action of injunction
Vs.
If issued by CA/SB/SC – entire country 2 KINDS OF TRO
1. 72-HOUR TRO – effective upon issuance
Contrast this with Search Warrant – Why 72 hours?
If issued by RTC of QC and MLA – valid in the entire country Because it is equivalent to 3 days. If it was issued in Friday,
If issued by other RTCs- only within its jurisdiction Hearing can still be conducted on Monday whether or not to
If issued by SB/CA – entire country extend the TRO to 20 days or not.

2. 20-DAY TRO- effective upon receipt of notice.

2 KINDS OF PRELIM INJUCTION
Maximum days of TRO is 20 days
1. Prohibitory – seeks to maintain the status quo (wla gagalaw)
Max of 60 days for CA and SB
2. Mandatory – seeks to return to the status (ngalaw na or
IF SC : no time limit. DMCI case was filed before the SC
ginagalawan p din).
that’s why it has no time limit.
- Applies only when the act is continuing act. Since if it has
If the 72 hour TRO was extended to 20-day TRO, it is only
been done it cannot be undone anymore. Remedy is ask
extended for 17 days.
for damages.
What if the initial TRO was granted 20 days already. The
period shall begin to run from the date of receipt of notice.
Proper remedy if the house is already finished construction:
1. Destruction of the house; or
Why 20 days
2. Only damages
It is because this is roughly 3 weeks. And within a 3
week period, the court must hear whether or not to
Example: grant the writ of preliminary injunction. The court is
You go home tonight finding the home in total darkness because a very busy body and you cannot set it for hearing
electricity was cut. immediately because there are other cases filed
Use: Mandatory injuction – return to status quo (ibalik kuryente) before it.
Vs.
When you go home there is notice of disconnection.
Note: Whatever kind of TRO – it can be granted by the court EX-
Use: Prohibitory injunction – maintain the status quo (retain the
PARTE (Atty Brondial does not agree since it is a source of
electricity).
corruption).
GR: Notice and Hearing is mandatory prior to Writ of PI
May the court call for the hearing prior to issuance of TRO?
Because of its urgency, the Rule provides TRO to deter the possible
Yes. It is discretionary upon the court even if the court can grant
happening of adverse event.
the TRO ex-parte. So court can conduct a hearing and it is not grave
Can you get injunctive relief ex parte? abuse of discretion.
A: No. It must always be after hearing. You cannot get injunctive
relief ex parte. I would like to emphasize there as to where you are Now the executive judge of the multi-sala court can grant the TRO
applying because this has always been a case for discussion. If you ex-parte of conduct a summary hearing. Hearing is discretionary
apply for the writ for injunctive relief before a multi-sala court, not ministerial.
there are 2 notices necessary for issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction. Status quo – the last peaceful undisturbed situation.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 9
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 injunction has become permanent, it means that you already won
3 REQUIREMENTS FOR PI OR TRO (EVI) the case of injunction. But not the TRO, because the TRO is
1. Right in esse or substantial and existing actual right preparatory to preliminary injunction. That is why there is a time
Say: Your parents told you that their property shall be sold frame in the TRO which is 20 days in cases of the RTC and MTC and
since they are already old. But you object since you have a 60 days of CA.
share in the inheritance.
You cannot file prelim injunction since your right is not in How do you discharge the writ of PI
esse yet. You only have an inchoate right. You cannot discharge the writ through a counter bond. The only
way is to question the propriety or regularity of the issuance. But
2. Such right was violated or threatened to be violated even then, chances are it will just be denied. Kaya pag na issue ang
TRO for 20 days, wait ka na lang after that period. That's why it's
Idolor v. cA not that long because it is really to be threshed out whether there
Loan secured by mortgage and was not paid. was violation of the right, whether it will cause irreparable damage
Restructuring of loan was made however Idolor still failed or injury.
to pay. Forclosure of REM was made and the title was
consolidated after the right of redemption. One day after Case Digests
the consolidation. Idolor moved to invoke right of
redemption. Idolor vs. CA
Ruling: No more right in esse, hence, writ of PI cannot be Petitioner executed in favor of private respondent Gumersindo
invoked. De Guzman a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage with right of extra-
judicial foreclosure upon failure to redeem the mortgage. private
Bristo-Mayers Case respondent Iluminada de Guzman, wife of Gumersindo de
Doctrine: The purpose of the bond for the issuance of any Guzman, filed a complaint against petitioner Idolor before the
provisional remedy is not to answer the satisfaction of Office of the Barangay Captain of Barangay Ramon Magsaysay,
judgment but merely to answer for damages the adverse Quezon City, which resulted in a "Kasunduang Pag-aayos".
party may incur due to the issuance of the PromRev. Petitioner failed to comply with her undertaking; thus private
respondent Gumersindo filed a motion for execution before the
Here, even if there is still a pending labor case for illegal Office of the Barangay captain who subsequently issued a
dismissal it is proper to release the cash and surety bond certification to file action. Gumersindo De Guzman filed an extra
posted by Bristo-Mayor since the principal action of judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage pursuant to the
injunction was already denied by the court. Hence, the parties agreement set forth in the real estate mortgage dated
provisional remedy of prelim injunction automatically dies March 21, 1994. The mortgaged property was sold in a public
vis-à-vis there’s no more reason to retain the cash and auction to respondent Gumersindo, as the highest bidder and
surety bond posted by Bristo Mayer. consequently, the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale was registered with
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City on June 23, 1997. On June
Jenosa v. Deloriarte 25, 1998, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
Doctrine: You must come to court always with clean hands City, Branch 220, a complaint for annulment of Sheriff's
including in the application for writ of PI. Certificate of Sale with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction
Facts: against private respondents. The trial court issued a writ of
HS students who are members of frat were expelled. preliminary injunction. Spouses de Guzman filed with the
Parents and the school agreed that instead of expulsion respondent Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari seeking
the students shall leave the school annulment of the trial court's order dated July 28, 1998 which
Later on Jenosa questioned the agreement assailing granted the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The respondent
violation of rights and praying for mandatory injunction to court granted the petition and annulled the assailed writ of
admit the students preliminary injunction.
Ruling: Aside from academic freedom and estoppel, you
must come to court with clean hands. Since parents Whether the annulment of the preliminary injunction by the CA
entered into a compromise writ of prelim injunction is not is proper? Yes.
applicable. Whether Idolor has proprietary right over the foreclosed property
to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction. No.
3. Irreperable injury - The violation or threatened violation
will result in irreparable damage and injuries. 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)
NOTE:
there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be
1. Preliminary injunction is preparatory to injunction.
protected; 2) the act against which the injunction is to be directed
2. TRO is preparatory to preliminary injunction. And within that
is a violation of such right. Hence the existence of a right violated,
TRO is the 72 hour period of the TRO.
is a prerequisite to the granting of an injunction. Injunction is not
designed to protect contingent or future rights.
Preliminary injunction has no time frame. After trial that can
become permanent. But remember that a preliminary injunction is
Failure to establish either the existence of a clear and positive
a provisional remedy attached to injunction. So when a preliminary
right which should be judicially protected through the writ of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 10
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 injunction or that the defendant has committed or has attempted gross misconduct, gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the
to commit any act which has endangered or tends to endanger law, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.
the existence of said right, is a sufficient ground for denying the
injunction. The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial Whether a TRO (the first) can be issued without notice and
power to issue the writ is that the court may thereby prevent a hearing. No. Under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the 20-95], whenever an application for a TRO is filed, the court may
parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and act on the application only after all parties have been notified
advisedly adjudicated. It is to be resorted to only when there is a and heard in a summary hearing. In other words, a summary
pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot hearing may not be dispensed with.
be remedied under any standard of compensation. In the instant
case, we agree with the respondent Court that petitioner has no Whether a TRO (the second) can be issued in favor of the losing
more proprietary right to speak of over the foreclosed property candidate on the ground that "extreme urgency" and "grave
to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction. It appears injustice and irreparable injury will arise." No. Before an
that the mortgaged property was sold in a public auction to injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential that the following
private respondent Gumersindo on May 23, 1997 and the sheriff's requisites be present: (1) there must be aright in esse or the
certificate of sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds of existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which
Quezon City on June 23, 1997. Petitioner had one year from the injunction to be directed is a violation of such right. The onus
registration of the sheriff's sale to redeem the property but she probandi is on movant to show that there exists a right to be
failed to exercise her right on or before June 23, 1998, thus protected, which is directly threatened by the act sought to be
spouses de Guzman are now entitled to a conveyance and enjoined. Further, there must be a showing that the invasion of
possession of the foreclosed property. When petitioner filed her the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent
complaint for annulment of sheriff's sale against private and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious
respondents with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary damage.
injunction on June 25, 1998, she failed to show sufficient interest In this case, complainant had been duly proclaimed as the
or title in the property sought to be protected as her right of winning candidate for punong barangay. He had taken his oath
redemption had already expired on June 23, 1998, i.e. two (2) of office. Unless his election was annulled, he was entitled to all
days before the filing of the complaint. It is always a ground for the rights of said office. We do not see how the complainant's
denying injunction that the party seeking it has insufficient title exercise of such rights would cause an irreparable injury or
or interest to sustain it, and no claim to the ultimate relief sought violate the right of the losing candidate so as to justify the
- in other words, that she shows no equity. The possibility of issuance of a temporary restraining order "to maintain the
irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not status quo."
aground for an injunction.

Lagrosas vs. Bristol-Myers (565 SCRA)

Gustilo vs. Real (353 SCRA) Lagrosas was an employee of Bristol-Myers. He was terminated
Rimeo Gustilo was a candidate for punong barangay of Barangay after accidentally hitting his former girlfriend, who was his co-
Punta Mesa, Manapla, Negros Occidental in the 12 May 1997 employee, when he saw her with Menguito following a district
elections. His lone opponent was Weddy C. Libo-on, then the meeting in Alabang Town Center.
incumbent punong barangay and the representative of the Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter
Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) to the Sangguniang Bayan declared that the dismissal was illegal. On appeal, the NLRC
of Manapla and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Negros reversed the decision but it later reinstated the decision of the
Occidental. Both Gustilo and Libo-on garnered 819 votes during Labor Arbiter after a motion for reconsideration. The arbiter
the elections, resulting in a tie. The breaking of the tie by the issued a writ of execution. Bristol-Myers moved to quash the writ
Board of Canvassers was in Gustilo's favor and he was proclaimed of execution contending that it timely filed a petition for certiorari
duly elected punong barangay. On 20 May 1997, Libo-on filed an with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court gave due course to
election protest case before the MCTC of Victorias-Manapla, Bristol-Myers petition and issued a TRO enjoining the
Negros Occidental and sought the recounting of ballots in two enforcement of the writ of execution and notices of
precincts, preliminary prohibitory injunction, and damages. The garnishment. Upon the expiration of the TRO, the appellate
judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), after receiving court issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Bristol-Myers
the Lobo-on's evidence ex parte, and annulled the proclamation moved to release the TRO cash bond and injunction cash bond in
of complainant as the duly elected punong barangay of Punta view of the Decision dated January 28, 2005. On August 12, 2005,
Mesa, Manapla. Gustilo took his oath of office as punong the appellate court denied the motion as premature since the
barangay. That same day, he also filed a petition for certiorari decision is not yet final and executory due to Lagrosas appeal to
before the Regional Trial Court. The RTC lifted the TRO issued by this Court. The appellate court held that upon the expiration of
the Judge and declared as null and void the order nullifying the TRO, the cash bond intended for it also expired. Thus, the
Gustilo's proclamation as duly elected punong barangay. discharge and release of the cash bond for the expired TRO is
Believing that the Judge could not decide the case impartially, proper. But the appellate court disallowed the discharge of the
Gustilo moved for his inhibition. The Judge denied Gustilo's injunction cash bond since the writ of preliminary injunction
motion for inhibition and after hearing Libo-on's motion for was issued pendente lite. Since there is a pending appeal with
permanent injunction, issued a second TRO "to maintain the the Supreme Court, the Decision dated January 28, 2005 is not yet
status quo between the contending parties." In a verified final and executory. On 28 October 2005, the appellate court
complaint dated 15 June 1997, Gustilo charged Judge Real with resolved to reconsider and set aside its August 2005 resolution.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 11

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Whether the conditions of writ of preliminary injunction were Petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages
satisfied? Yes. assailing the Principal’s decision to order the immediate transfer
Whether the cash bond for the injunction should be released? of petitioner students as a violation of their right to due process
Yes. because the COSD was not convened. The trial court issued a
writ of preliminary injunction and directed respondents to
It is settled that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to admit petitioner students during the pendency of the case.
prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. Respondents alleged that
the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the case and that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping.
merits of the case can be heard fully. A preliminary injunction may Petitioners wrote the DepEd and asked that it direct the
be granted only when, among other things, the applicant, not University to release the report cards and other credentials of
explicitly exempted, files with the court where the action or petitioner students. The University replied that it could not
proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person release petitioner students’ report cards due to their pending
enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect disciplinary case with the COSD. Petitioners filed another
that the applicant will pay such party or person all damages complaint for mandatory injunction praying for the release of
which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary petitioner students’ report cards and other credentials. The CA
restraining order if the court should finally decide that the ruled in favor of the university.
applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the
requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued. Whether the mandatory injunction should be granted. No.

The injunction bond is intended as a security for No. In this case, we rule that the Principal had the authority to
damages in case it is finally decided that the injunction ought not order the immediate transfer of petitioner students because of
to have been granted. Its principal purpose is to protect the the 28 November 2002 agreement. Petitioner parents affixed
enjoined party against loss or damage by reason of the injunction, their signatures to the minutes of the 28 November 2002 meeting
and the bond is usually conditioned accordingly. and signified their conformity to transfer their children to another
By its Decision dated January 28, 2005, the appellate court school. Petitioners Socorro Canto and Nelia Duro even wrote a
disposed of the case by granting Bristol-Myers petition and letter to inform the University that they would transfer their
reinstating the Decision dated September 24, 2002 of the NLRC children to another school and requested for the pertinent papers
which dismissed the complaint for dismissal. It also ordered the needed for the transfer. In turn, the University did not anymore
discharge of the TRO cash bond and injunction cash bond. Thus, convene the COSD. The University agreed that it would no longer
both conditions of the writ of preliminary injunction were conduct disciplinary proceedings and instead issue the transfer
satisfied. Notably, the appellate court ruled that Lagrosas had no credentials of petitioner students. Then petitioners reneged on
right to the monetary awards granted by the labor arbiter and the their agreement without any justifiable reason. Since
NLRC, and that the implementation of the writ of execution and petitioners’ present complaint is one for injunction, and
notices of garnishment was properly enjoined. This in effect injunction is the strong arm of equity, petitioners must come to
amounted to a finding that Lagrosas did not sustain any damage court with clean hands. In University of the Philippines v. Hon.
by reason of the injunction. To reiterate, the injunction bond is Catungal, Jr., a case involving student misconduct, this Court
intended to protect Lagrosas against loss or damage by reason ruled: Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must
of the injunction only. Contrary to Lagrosas claim, it is not a apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is
security for the judgment award by the labor arbiter. so because among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks
equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must
Jenosa vs. Delariarte (630 SCRA) come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim
Some students of the University of San Agustin, among them which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done
petitioners Niño Carlo Jenosa, Patrick Canto, Cyndy Apalisok, Clint inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be
Eduard Vargas, and Nonell Gregory Duro were caught engaging in denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct
hazing outside the school premises. A meeting between school has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or
authorities and the students’ parents was conducted. The parties deceitful as to the controversy in issue.
agreed that, instead of the possibility of being charged and found
guilty of hazing, the students who participated in the hazing Discipline in education is specifically mandated by the 1987
incident as initiators, including petitioner students, would just Constitution which provides that all educational institutions shall
transfer to another school, while those who participated as "teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and
neophytes would be suspended for one month. spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline."
The parents of the apprehended students, including petitioners, Schools and school administrators have the authority to maintain
affixed their signatures to the minutes of the meeting to signify school discipline and the right to impose appropriate and
their conformity. In view of the agreement, the University did not reasonable disciplinary measures. On the other hand, students
anymore convene the Committee on Student Discipline (COSD) to have the duty and the responsibility to promote and maintain the
investigate the hazing incident. The parents of petitioner students peace and tranquility of the school by observing the rules of
(petitioner parents) sent a letter to the University President discipline.
urging him not to implement the 28 November 2002 agreement.
According to petitioner parents, the Principal, without convening Solid Builders, Inc. vs. China Banking Corporation
the COSD, decided to order the immediate transfer of petitioner During the period from 1992 to 1996, China Banking Corporation
students. (CBC) granted several loans to Solid Builders, Inc. (SBI), which
amounted to P139,999,234.34, exclusive of interests and other
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 12
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 charges. To secure the loans, Medina Foods Industries, Inc. (MFII) the owner of the subject agricultural land. The decision became
executed in CBC’s favor several surety agreements and contracts final and executory and Barbara's successors, Guillermo Lustiva,
of real estate mortgage over parcels of land. In a letter addressed Eleodora Vda. de Martinez and Vicky Sayson Goloseno, have
to CBC, SBI requested the restructuring of its loans, a reduction of continued occupying the property. On 14 September 1999,
interests and penalties and the implementation of a dacion en Vidal’s son and daughter-in-law, the spouses Plaza, filed a
pago of the New Cubao Central property. CBC sent SBI a letter Complaint for Injunction, Damages, Attorney’s Fees with Prayer
dated stating that the loans had been completely restructured for the Issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
effective March 1, 1999 in the amount of P218,540,646.00. On Temporary Restraining Order against Lustiva, et al. and the City
the aspect of interests and charges, CBC suggested the updating Government of Butuan. They prayed that Lustiva, et al. be
of the obligation to avoid paying interests and charges. enjoined from unlawfully and illegally threatening to take
Subsequently, in a letter dated September 18, 2000, CBC possession of the subject property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
demanded SBI to settle its outstanding account within ten days of Butuan City, Branch 5, reconsidered its earlier order, denied
from receipt thereof. Claiming that the interests, penalties and the prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and ordered that
charges imposed by CBC were iniquitous and unconscionable and the possession and occupation of the land be returned to Lustiva,
to enjoin CBC from initiating foreclosure proceedings, SBI and et al.
MFII filed a Complaint "To Compel Execution of Contract and for Through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65, the
Performance and Damages, With Prayer for Writ of Preliminary petitioners challenged the RTC’s order before the CA.
Injunction and Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order" in the While the petition for review on certiorari was pending before the
RTC of Pasig City. The trial court granted the application of SBI CA, the spouses Plaza filed an action for specific performance
and MFII for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for against the City Government of Butuan, claiming that the latter
they were able to sufficiently comply with the requisites for the should issue them a certificate of sale.
issuance of an injunctive writ. In its 24 October 2005 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling,
CBC sought reconsideration but the trial court denied it. found the petitioners guilty of forum shopping, dismissed the
Subsequently, CBC filed a "Motion to Dissolve Injunction Order" case, and referred the case to the Court and to the Integrated Bar
but this was denied. Aggrieved, CBC filed a Petition for Certiorari of the Philippines for investigation and institution of the
in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition appropriate administrative action. On 6 April 2006, the CA
of CBC, set aside the Orders of RTC and dissolved the injunctive rejected the spouses Plaza's motion for reconsideration. Hence,
writ issued by the RTC of Pasig City. Hence this petition. the petition for review on certiorari.

W/N the SBI and MFII failed to satisfy the requisites for the Whether spouses Plaza are entitled to the writ. No. As the lower
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Yes courts correctly found, Tuazon had no ownership to confer to the
petitioners despite the latter’s reimbursement of Tuazon’s
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which purchase expenses. Because they were never owners of the
must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial property, the petitioners failed to establish entitlement to the
rights. A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the writ of preliminary injunction. "[T]o be entitled to an injunctive
status quo ante, upon the applicant’s showing of two important writ, the right to be protected and the violation against that
requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists right must be shown. A writ of preliminary injunction may be
prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be
of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. When the
prevented would cause an irreparable injury. There is no clear complainant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, he does not
right that warrants the extraordinary protection of an injunctive have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive
writ has been shown by SBI and MFII to exist in their favor. Here, relief is not proper."
SBI and MFII basically claim a right to have their mortgaged
properties shielded from foreclosure by CBC on the ground that Whether the question of issuance of the writ has become moot
the interest rate and penalty charges imposed by CBC on the and academic. Yes. Likewise, upon the dismissal of the main case
loans availed of by SBI are iniquitous and unconscionable. As by the RTC on August 8, 2013, the question of issuance of the writ
debtor-mortgagors, however, SBI and MFII do not have a right of preliminary injunction has become moot and academic. In
to prevent the creditor-mortgagee CBC from foreclosing on the Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, the Court ruled that a
mortgaged properties simply on the basis of alleged "usurious, case becomes moot and academic when there is no more issue
exorbitant and confiscatory rate of interest. Neither has there between the parties or object that can be served in deciding the
been a showing of irreparable injury. An injury is considered merits of the case.
irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that Upon the dismissal of the main action, the question of the non-
no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law, issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction automatically died
or where there is no standard by which their amount can be with it. A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy;
measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible it is auxiliary, an adjunct of, and subject to the determination of
of mathematical computation. The provisional remedy of the main action. It is deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the
preliminary injunction may only be resorted to when there is a main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding.
pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot
be remedied under any standard of compensation.

Plaza vs. Lustiva

On 28 August 1997, the CA ruled that among the Plaza siblings
(Aureliano, Emiliana, Vidal, Marciano, and Barbara), Barbara was
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 13
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Who may be appointed?
RECEIVERSHIP (Rule 59) Not necessarily the applicant. It is not a guarantee that simply
because you applied for the appointment you will be
Principal action – Receivership appointed. It is discretionary on the part of the court.
PromRev – Appointment of the Receiver A receiver is not necessarily an individual person, it may also
be a corporation.
When to file:
commencement of action even after the execution of It is not only in replevin that the bond is called for twice, it is also
judgment applicable in receivership!
Why this long?
Because the property subject of the action might be injured, What are the duties and responsibilities of a receiver?
dissipated or lost. So that at the time you will deliver it the Sec. 6 Rule 59 a receiver shall have the power to:
property is remains in-tact. a. bring and defend actions in his own name;
It has the longest time of all the types of promrev. b. to take and keep possession of the property in
Must be verified petition (under oath) controversy;
c. to receive rents;
Jurisdicition: d. to collect debts due to himself as receiver or to the fund,
GR: RTC property, estate, person, or corporation of the same;
EXPN: Joinder of causes of action it can also before the MTC, etc. e. to make transfers;
f. to pay outstanding debts; to divide money and other
Grounds for the Application for Appointment of Receiver property that shall remain among the persons legally
Sec1 Rule 59 entitled to receive the same.
a. When it appears from the verified application, and such other
proof as the court may require, that the party applying for the However, funds in the hands of the receiver may only be invested
appointment of a receiver has an interest in the property or only upon order of the court and upon written consent of all the
fund which is the subject of the action or proceeding, and that parties to the action.
such property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or No action may be filed by or against a receiver without the leave of
materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to administer the court which appointed him.
and preserve it;
b. When it appears in an action by the mortgagee for the Can a receiver sue or be sued? How is it related to Sec. 1 Rule 3?
foreclosure of a mortgage that the property is in danger of Yes, cross referring it to Rule 3 Sec. 1 who may be a party? A party
being wasted or dissipated or materially injured, and that its is one who may be benefited or prejudiced by the suit. A receiver
value is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt, shall not be damage or prejudiced by the suit nor benefited
or that the parties have so stipulated in the contract of thereto. He is not a party in interest, so why can he sue and be
mortgage; sued? Because he will fall under an entity authorized by law just like
c. After judgment, to preserve the property during the pendency an executor or administrator, he has no interest on the estate so he
of an appeal, or to dispose of it according to the judgment, or is not a party in interest actually. But he is authorized, he has what
to aid execution when the execution has been returned we call legal standing.
unsatisfied or the judgment obligor refuses to apply his
property in satisfaction of the judgment, or otherwise carry the Remedy of the receiver if the adverse party failed to deliver the
judgment into effect; property under litigation to him – ask the court to cite such party in
d. Whenever in other cases it appears that the appointment of a contempt
receiver is the most convenient and feasible means
Look Par D of Sec 1 2 Types of bond
1. Applicant for the appointment of the receiver
Purpose: By mere application damage may be incurred already.
Take note of 3 words (PAD)
1. PRESERVATION, Say: A depositor may apply for the appointment for the
2. ADMINISTRATION – because the prop is mismanaged and receiver of the bank (BDO). The mere fact you apply for
it might get lost, materially injured hence you need to the appointment, before the receivership is issued you
preserve or administer it must file a bond. Mere application somehow damage the
3. DISPOSITION - name of the bank.

If Receivership is called for: ALWAYS REMEMDER PAD. 2. Appointment of the receiver

If the applicant is the same person the court may dispense
Why ask the appointment of receiver posting of new bond.
In order to preserve the property, administer the property or Vs.
properly dispose the property (PAD) If the appointed receiver is not the same person as the
applicant, posting of bond is mandatory!
Why ask for the appointment of the receiver
The property might get lost, dissipated or injured that’s why you Koruga v. Arsenas Case.
need to appoint a receiver.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 14

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Doctrine: Jurisdiction over the application of receivership for the suspended the running of the ten-year prescriptive period in
financial institution is the Monetary Board of the BSP not the bringing actions. No.
regular courts pursuant to New Central Bank Act. For other entities,
you may go to the regular courts. No. In Provident Savings Bank vs. Court of Appeals, we further
stated that: When a bank is prohibited from continuing to do
Larrobis Jr. v. Phill Veterans Bank business by the Central Bank and a receiver is appointed for such
Doctrine: Prescriptive period is not tolled during the receivership. bank, that bank would not be able to do new business, i.e., to
Receiver has the duty to collect debts while in receivership. If he grant new loans or to accept new deposits. However, the
stop collecting debts during that period how can the bank be receiver of the bank is in fact obliged to collect debts owing to
rehabilitated. When the bank is placed under receivership, the the bank, which debts form part of the assets of the bank. The
bank cannot transact banking business like accepting deposits, etc. receiver must assemble the assets and pay the obligation of the
but the collecting of debts is not prohibited. This is provided under bank under receivership, and take steps to prevent dissipation
Sec 6 of Rule 59. Hence, failure to file action within the 10 yr period of such assets. Accordingly, the receiver of the bank is obliged
the cause of action already prescribed. to collect pre-existing debts due to the bank, and in connection
therewith, to foreclose mortgages securing such debts. In this
Spouses Larrobis secured a loan from PVB. During the pendency of case, it is not disputed that Philippine Veterans Bank was placed
the loan, the bank was placed under receivership. When the bank under receivership by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank
was rehabilitated, the management found out that the Larrobis has by virtue of Resolution No. 364 on April 25, 1985, pursuant to
not paid the loan resulting to the foreclosure of the REM. Section 29 of the Central Bank Act on insolvency of banks.
Larrobis invoked prescription since the bank filed a case after more “Section 29 of the Republic Act No. 265, as amended known
than 10 years. The bank assailed that the prescriptive period was as the Central Bank Act, provides that when a bank is
tolled during the period of receivership. forbidden to do business in the Philippines and placed under
receivership, the person designated as receiver shall
immediately take charge of the bank’s assets and
Chaves v. CA
liabilities, as expeditiously as possible, collect and gather
Doctrine: The appointment of receivership is not available for a
all the assets and administer the same for the benefit of its
simple collection suit. If the property is not lost, dissipated or
creditors, and represent the bank personally or through
injured there is no ground for the appointment of the receiver.
counsel as he may retain in all actions or proceedings for or
against the institution, exercising all the powers necessary
TERMINATION OF RECEIVER for these purposes including, but not limited to, bringing
When there is no more reason for its existence it has to be and foreclosing mortgages in the name of the bank.”
terminated. Unlike Provident Savings Bank, there was no legal prohibition
Therefore if the properties subject of receivership is no longer imposed upon herein respondent to deter its receiver and
in danger of being wasted, lost, damage, injured or value liquidator from performing their obligations under the law.
dissipated then receivership will terminate. Thus, the ruling laid down in the Provident case cannot apply in
the case at bar. There is also no truth to respondent’s claim that
Case Digest it could not continue doing business from the period of April
1985 to August 1992, the time it was under receivership. As
Larrobis Jr. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank (440 SCRA) correctly pointed out by petitioner, respondent was even able
On March 3, 1980, petitioner spouses contracted a monetary to send petitioners a demand letter, through Francisco Go, on
loan with respondent Philippine Veterans Bank, evidenced by a August 23, 1985 for "accounts receivable in the total amount of
promissory note and secured by a Real Estate Mortgage. The P6,345.00 as of August 15, 1984" for the insurance premiums
respondent bank went bankrupt and was placed under advanced by respondent bank over the mortgaged property of
receivership/liquidation by the Central Bank from April 25, 1985 petitioners. How it could send a demand letter on unpaid
until August 1992. The bank, through Francisco Go, sent the insurance premiums and not foreclose the mortgage during the
spouses a demand letter for "accounts receivable which pertains time it was "prohibited from doing business" was not
to the insurance premiums advanced by respondent bank over adequately explained by respondent.
the mortgaged property of petitioners.
More than fourteen years from the time the loan became due Chavez vs. Court of Appeals
and demandable, respondent bank filed a petition for Fidela Vargas owned a five-hectare of land and rice fields in
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage of petitioners’ property. Sorsogon. Evelina Chavez had been staying in a remote portion
The property was sold in a public auction by Sheriff Arthur of the land with her family, planting coconut seedlings on the
Cabigon with Philippine Veterans Bank as the lone bidder. land and supervising the harvest of coconut and palay. Fidela
Petitioners filed a complaint with the RTC, Cebu City, to declare and Evelina agreed to divide the gross sales of all products from
the extra-judicial foreclosure and the subsequent sale thereof to the land between themselves. Since Fidela was busy with her
respondent bank null and void. The RTC dismissed the law practice, Evelina undertook to hold in trust for Fidela her half
complaint. Petitioners’ MR was denied. Hence, the petition for of the profits. But Fidela claimed that Evelina had failed to remit
review, raising pure questions of law. her share of the profits and, despite demand to turn over the
administration of the property to Fidela, had refused to do so.
Whether the bank, through a receiver, can foreclose properties
during the period of receivership. Yes Consequently, Fidela filed a complaint against Evelina and her
Whether or not the period within which the bank was placed daughter, Aida C. Deles, who was assisting her mother, for
under receivership and liquidation was a fortuitous event which recovery of possession, rent, and damages with prayer for the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 15
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
immediate appointment of a receiver before the Regional Trial and motion before the CA, reiterating their application for a writ
Court (RTC) of Bulan, Sorsogon. In their answer, Evelina and Aida of preliminary injunction. The CA granted the preliminary
claimed that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject injunction. Hence, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
matter of the case since it actually involved an agrarian
dispute. After hearing, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack Whether the RTC has jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit that
of jurisdiction. Dissatisfied, Fidela appealed to the CA. She also seeks to place Banco Filipino under receivership. No. It is not the
filed with that court a motion for the appointment of a receiver. Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies, or
On April 12, 2006 the CA granted the motion and ordained Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on Receivership, that
receivership of the land, noting that there appeared to be a need would apply to this case. Instead, Sections 29 and 30 of the New
to preserve the property and its fruits in light of Fidela’s Central Bank Act should be followed. Crystal clear in Section 30
allegation that Evelina and Aida failed to account for her share is the provision that says the "appointment of a receiver under
of such fruits. this section shall be vested exclusively with the Monetary
Board." The term "exclusively" connotes that only the
Whether receivership is the proper remedy for the landowner's Monetary Board can resolve the issue of whether a bank is to
deprivation of her share of the land's produce. No. [A] petition be placed under receivership and, upon an affirmative finding,
for receivership under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil it also has authority to appoint a receiver. This is further
Procedure requires that the property or fund subject of the affirmed by the fact that the law allows the Monetary Board to
action is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, take action "summarily and without need for prior hearing."
necessitating its protection or preservation. Its object is the And, as a clincher, the law explicitly provides that "actions of the
prevention of imminent danger to the property. If the action Monetary Board taken under this section or under Section 29 of
does not require such protection or preservation, the remedy this Act shall be final and executory, and may not be restrained
is not receivership. Here Fidela’s main gripe is that Evelina and or set aside by the court except on a petition for certiorari on
Aida deprived her of her share of the land’s produce. She does the ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction
not claim that the land or its productive capacity would or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or
disappear or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. Nor does excess of jurisdiction." From the foregoing disquisition, there is
Fidela claim that the land has been materially injured, no doubt that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a
necessitating its protection and preservation. Because suit that seeks to place Banco Filipino under receivership. On
receivership is a harsh remedy that can be granted only in the strength of the provisions of Section 29 and 30 of the New
extreme situations, Fidela must prove a clear right to its Central Bank Act, it is the Monetary Board that exercises
issuance. But she has not. Indeed, in none of the other cases she exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings for receivership of
filed against Evelina and Aida has that remedy been granted her. banks.

Whether the Court of Appeals should have been more

retrospect in ordaining receivership, considering that RTC has no
jurisdiction over the case. Yes. Besides, the RTC dismissed
Fidela’s action for lack of jurisdiction over the case, holding that
the issues it raised properly belong to the DARAB. The case
before the CA is but an offshoot of that RTC case. Given that the
RTC has found that it had no jurisdiction over the case, it would
seem more prudent for the CA to first provisionally determine
that the RTC had jurisdiction before granting receivership which
is but an incident of the main action.
Korruga vs. Arcenas 590 SCRA
Koruga is a minority stockholder of Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank. She filed a complaint before the RTC against the
BOD of said bank alleging violation of Sections 31 to 34 of the
Corporation Code ("Code") which prohibit self-dealing and
conflicts of interest of directors and officers; Right of a
stockholder to inspect the records of a corporation (including
financial statements) under Sections 74 and 75 of the Code; and
Receivership and Creation of a Management Committee.
Arcenas, et al. filed their Answer raising, among others, the trial
court’s lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. They
also filed a Manifestation and Motion seeking the dismissal of
the case on the following grounds: (a) lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter; (b) lack of jurisdiction over the persons of
the defendants; (c) forum-shopping; and (d) for being a
nuisance/harassment suit. The motion was denied. This
prompted Arcenas, et al. to file before the CA a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. The CA issued a 60-day
TRO enjoining Judge Marella from conducting further
proceedings in the case. The RTC issued a notice of pre-trial
setting the case for pre-trial. Arcenas, et. al. filed a manifestation
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 16
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 But in the case of levy, levy on attachment who is the first attaching
Replevin (Rule 60) creditor. Kung may sobra ibabalik dun sa may owner. And you can
– IMMEDIATE possession of the personal prop. even be a redemptioner there because you are a subsequent
attaching creditor. So if there are 2 attachment, the 2nd attaching
Principal Action – Recovery of possession of personal property creditor is or maybe a redemptioner if the property is sold thru levy
in attachment.
When to file – at the commencement or before the answer
Why before answer? 4 REQUISITES OF REPLEVIN (OWAM) – Sec 2
When an answer is filed issues are joined and because issues 1. That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed,
are joined, the court already knows whether the applicant is particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession
entitled to the ownership or possession. So hindi na igagrant thereof;
ng court, kaya it must be before the answer because it is an 2. That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party,
immediate remedy. alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best
of his knowledge, information, and belief;
WRIT OF REPLEVIN UNLIKE PI IS VALID ANYWHERE IN PH!!! 3. That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
Jurisdiction: execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed
MTC or RTC depending upon the value of the property because under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such
technically replevin is only a provisional remedy. seizure or custody; and
4. That actual market value of the property is stated in the
Note: only receivership may only be a principal action but replevin affidavit.
will always be a provisional remedy.
ONLY PERSONAL PROPERTY
- Only allowed before answer. (the shortest time of all promrev) Say: You a buy a car in installment. The buyer is required to sign a
The issue is that you are entitled for the possession of the car chattel mortgage in favour of the seller stating “the right to
hence it is only before answer. judicially or extra-judicially foreclose the prop for failure to pay for
at least 3 months”.
Note: Once the answer is submitted, the issues are joined. The mortgagee can ask for the issuance for the writ of replevin.
Hence, there is controversy who is really the owner and the When the writ was issued you can immediately recover the car.
court will have to hear both sides and the writ of replevin is
n/a. It is unfair for the court to issue replevin upon answer Upon issuance of the writ, the sheriff may recover the car anywhere
since there is already justiciable issue. it may be found. NO JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION. Even if the writ
was issued in Manila and the car is in Mindanao the sheriff can still
- Opposite of redemption since the latter is only real prop. recover the car. Due to its nature the personal property can easily
- Even if you are the owner you can apply for replevin be transported.

POSSESSION – holding of a thing and enjoyment of the right Say:

A sold a lot to B, then B caused the titling of the property
Note: REPLEVIN VS. ATTACHMENT fraudulently in his favor can A ask for recovery of the property
Replevin as well as attachment is known as custodia legis. being entitled to the recovery of the property?
Property which has been attached can no longer be the subject No, because replevin only applies to personal property.
of replevin, but a property replevined can be the subject of
attachment minus/less delivery since in attachment you only REQUISITES:
need to make annotation in the property already replevined.. 1. Bond – twice the value of the property.
In both cases there are delivery, if replevin kinuha na, pero Say: The car is P1million. If you seek to recover the car you must
pwede mo pang iattach without delivery because in obtain a bond of P2million.
attachment you also take but first right sa replevin, di mo na When you speak of the bond, it is not cash deposit but merely a
pwede kunin yun. But you can attach, because attachment surety bond. You are only paying a premium not the entire value of
simply furnish him with the copy of the order. the prop which is between 3-15%. Hence, if the car is P1 million the
Who are you if the propery replevined was subsequent premium is only 200K if the premium is 10%. Hence, you can
attached? recover the car by merely paying 200K (bond twice the value) and
Subsequent lien holder. The attaching creditor shall be a not paying the cold cash P2M.
subsequent lien holder.
Why 2x
Can you replevin personal property already replevined – no First amount – for the value of the property
2nd amount – for the damages
Can you attach prop already attached? Yes, why? Because it
depends upon the value, if the value of the property for example a Orosa Doctrine: (Sec 9 of Rule 60)
100 square meter property in makati worth 2m and it was attached You cannot recover the car and the value of the car otherwise it is
for a debt worth 1m, it can again be attached. unjust enrichment.
Facts:

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 17

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Orosa bought a car, after 6 months a writ of replevin was filed Astorga failed failed in the re-evaluation performance. She was
against him. Orosa contested and sued the applicant for recovery transferred to another department. She refused the lateral transfer
and damages. resulting in dismissal due to insubordination.
The lower court ordered the return of the car and its value Illegal dismissal case was filed by the NLRC. SMART demanded for
Ruling: It is in alternative. You either get the value of the car or the the return of the car under the car plan program. Astorga refuses
car itself. Note that judgment must be in the alternative. to return the car and assailed that she will continue paying the car
on her own pocket but was denied by SMART since the car was only
2. Sheriff to keep the personal property for at least 5 days given to her due to employment.
otherwise he is administratively liable. Action for recovery of possession with prayer for writ of replevin
- 5 day period is mandatory, even if you put up a redelivery was filed in RTC of Makati. Astorga moved to dismiss the case for
bond but beyond lack of jurisdiction since there is a pending case before the NLRC
the 5 day period it will not have the effect intended for. due to ER-EE relationship. RTC granted SMART but was reversed by
the CA saying had it not been for the fact that Astorga was
Purpose of the 5-day period: employed the car cannot be granted be granted to her. Hence RTC
a. To determine the sufficiency of the bond otherwise it must has no jurisdiction for application of writ of replevin.
be returned to the possessor. Ruling:
J. Nachura said that it is no longer an ER-EE relationship but already
Note: If bond is insufficient the court must ask the a cr-dr relationship since she was already dismissed and there is no
applicant to satisfy the insufficiency of the bond, and only more ER –EE relationship.
when the order comes out and there is still no satisfaction
of the insufficiency of the bond then the property shall be How to discharge the replevin
delivered to the person to whom it was taken by the 1. Counter bond or redelivery
sheriff. 2. Section 13 : questioning the propriety of its issuance

b. await the possibility of posting the counter-bond or Agner Case:

redelivery bond. Demand is not necessary prior to issuance of replevin. Due to the
nature of the personal property the demand will only make the
Note: What is in the Rules of Court is mere bond. But the correct replevin futile since the possessor of the property can hide the
term should be a counter bond or redelivery bond. property after such demand.

Hao v. Andres (importance of 5-day period) BPI CASE:

The sheriff immediately deliver 6 cars to the applicant and due to It does not follow that once writ of replevin was issued you already
negligence lost the 3 cars in his custody. lose your right to collect sum of money. Writ of replevin gives you
Facts: an alternative: whether to execute the writ of replevin or file
The writ of replevin for 20 cars. Sheriff recovered only 9. Within the another action for the collection of sum of money. Filing another
5 day period the 3 cars lost when certain Nonoy entered the action is not multiplicity of suit since ROC provides such alternative.
property and made a key duplicate.
Ruling: Sheriff was suspended due to gross negligence. CASE Digests

3. Third party claim (Section 7) Orosa vs. CA 329 SCRA

If there is a third party claim then the sheriff shall deliver the Orosa bought Ford Laser 1.5 Sedan from Fiesta Motor Sales
property to the third party claim. Corporation on installment basis. A PN and a chattel mortgage was
executed covering the subject vehicle. Fiesta Motor Sales assigned
Remedy of the applicant: the promissory note and chattel mortgage to private respondent
Posting another bond equivalent the value of the property. FCP Credit Corporation. Orosa failed to pay the installments. FCP
Hence, the applicant shall deliver 3x the value of the property. Credit demanded payment. When Orosa still failed to pay, FCP filed
a complaint with the RTC for replevin and damages. Orosa filed a
Navarro v. Escubido counterclaim. RTC dismissed the complaint and granted the
Doctrine: There is no necessity for the demand to recover counterclaim. It declared that private respondent was not entitled
possession of the car. It is contradictory to the very nature of the to the writ of replevin, and was liable to petitioner for actual
writ of replevin. If you required demand then the car will be damages under the replevin bond it filed. The trial court also
immediately lost. ordered payment of moral and exemplary damages against private
respondents. The decision was appealed to the CA. The decision of
the CA stated that the trial court erred when it ordered private
respondent to return the subject car or its equivalent considering
Smart Communication v. Astorga (POTENTIAL BAR)
that petitioner had not yet fully paid the purchase price. The CA also
Doctrine: ER-EE relationship can be converted into cr-dr
ordered that the award of damages and atty’s fees be deleted.
relationship upon dismissal of the employee as far as the writ of
replevin is concern.
Whether subject car should be returned or its equivalent be paid
since petitioner had not yet paid the purchase price? No. We also
Facts:
agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred when it
ordered private respondent to return the subject car or its
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 18
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
equivalent considering that petitioner had not yet fully paid the employer relations. As such, the dispute falls within the
purchase price. Verily, to sustain the trial court's decision would jurisdiction of the regular courts.
amount to unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals was correct
when it instead ordered private respondent to return, not the car Hao vs. Andres 555 SCRA
itself, but only the amount equivalent to the fourteen installments Hao was one of the defendants in a replevin case. Judge Renato A.
actually paid with interest. Fuentes issued an Order of Seizure against 22 motor vehicles
allegedly owned by the complainant. On the strength of the said
Smart Communications vs. Astorga 542 SCRA order, Andres was able to seize two of the subject motor vehicles
Regina M. Astorga was employed by respondent Smart on October 17, 2005; four on October 18, 2005, and another three
Communications. As such employee, she enjoyed a car plan benefit. on October 19, 2005, or a total of nine motor vehicles. In Hao’s
Then, SMART launched an organizational realignment to achieve complaint-affidavit, he alleged that sheriff Andres gave undue
more efficient operations. Part of the reorganization was the advantage to Zenaida Silver in the implementation of the order and
outsourcing of the marketing and sales force. Thus, SMART entered that Andres seized the nine motor vehicles in an oppressive manner.
into a joint venture agreement with NTT of Japan, and formed Hao also averred that Andres was accompanied by unidentified
SMART-NTT Multimedia, Incorporated (SNMI). Since SNMI was armed personnel on board a military vehicle which was excessive
formed to do the sales and marketing work, SMART abolished the since there were no resistance from them. Hao also discovered that
CSMG/FSD, Astorga’s division. the compound where the seized motor vehicles were placed is
To soften the blow of the realignment, SNMI agreed to absorb the actually owned by Silver (adverse party to the replevin case). On Oct
CSMG personnel who would be recommended by SMART. SMART 21, 2005, in view of the approval of the complainant’s counter-
then conducted a performance evaluation of CSMG personnel and replevin bond, the court ordered Andres to immediately cease and
those who garnered the highest ratings were favorably desist from further implementing the order of seizure, and to return
recommended to SNMI. Astorga landed last in the performance the seized motor vehicles including its accessories to their lawful
evaluation, thus, she was not recommended by SMART. SMART, owners. However, on Oct 24, 2005, eight of the nine seized motor
nonetheless, offered her a supervisory position in the Customer vehicles were reported missing. In his report, Andres stated that he
Care Department, but she refused the offer because the position was shocked to find that the motor vehicles were already missing
carried lower salary rank and rate. Despite the abolition of the when he inspected it on Oct 22, 2005. He narrated that on Oct 21,
CSMG/FSD, Astorga continued reporting for work. But on March 3, 2005, PO3 Rodrigo Despe, one of the policemen guarding the
1998, SMART issued a memorandum advising Astorga of the subject motor vehicles, reported to him that a certain "Nonoy"
termination of her employment on ground of redundancy. The entered the compound and caused the duplication of the vehicles’
termination of her employment prompted Astorga to file a keys. But Andres claimed the motor vehicles were still intact when
Complaint8 for illegal dismissal. SMART responded that there was he inspected it on Oct 21, 2005. After the OCA recommended that
valid termination. In the meantime, on May 18, 1998, SMART sent the matter be investigated, we referred the case to Executive Judge
a letter to Astorga demanding that she pay the current market Renato A. Fuentes for investigation, report and recommendation.
value of the Honda Civic Sedan which was given to her under the The investigating judge found Andres guilty of serious negligence
company’s car plan program, or to surrender the same to the in the custody of the nine motor vehicles. He recommended that
company for proper disposition. Astorga moved to dismiss the Andres be suspended from office. The OCA disagreed with the
complaint on grounds of (i) lack of jurisdiction; (ii) failure to state observations of Judge Fuentes. It recommended that Andres be
a cause of action; (iii) litis pendentia; and (iv) forum-shopping. The held liable only for simple neglect of duty and be suspended for one
Arbiter ruled that the termination was illegal. Subsequently, the RTC (1) month and one (1) day.
denied Astorga’s MTD. The NLRC and the CA ruled that the
termination was valid. The CA, in the replevin case, reversed the Whether Sheriff Andres complied with his duties under the writ of
decision of the RTC and granted the MTD. replevin. No.
Whether Andres is guilty? Yes (1 year and 6 months suspension w/o
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the replevin case for the pay).
recovery of the car which Astorga acquired as part of her
employment case. YES. First, the rules provide that property seized under a writ of replevin
is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff. In accordance
Replevin is an action whereby the owner or person entitled to with the said rules, Andres should have waited no less than five days
repossession of goods or chattels may recover those goods or in order to give the complainant an opportunity to object to the
chattels from one who has wrongfully distrained or taken, or who sufficiency of the bond or of the surety or sureties thereon, or
wrongfully detains such goods or chattels. It is designed to permit require the return of the seized motor vehicles by filing a counter-
one having right to possession to recover property in specie from bond. This, he failed to do. In Pardo v. Velasco, this Court held that:
one who has wrongfully taken or detained the property. The term Respondent as an officer of the Court is charged with certain
may refer either to the action itself, for the recovery of personalty, ministerial duties which must be performed faithfully to the letter.
or to the provisional remedy traditionally associated with it, by Every provision in the Revised Rules of Court has a specific reason or
which possession of the property may be obtained by the plaintiff objective. In this case, the purpose of the five (5) days is to give a
and retained during the pendency of the action. chance to the defendant to object to the sufficiency of the bond or
Contrary to the CA’s ratiocination, the RTC rightfully assumed the surety or sureties thereon or require the return of the property
jurisdiction over the suit and acted well within its discretion in by filing a counterbond.
denying Astorga’s motion to dismiss. SMART’s demand for
payment of the market value of the car or, in the alternative, the Likewise, Andres’ claim that he had no knowledge that the
surrender of the car, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It involves compound is owned by Silver fails to convince us. Regardless of who
the relationship of debtor and creditor rather than employee- actually owns the compound, the fact remains that Andres
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 19
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
delivered the vehicles to Silver prematurely. It violates the rule The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party
requiring him to safekeep the vehicles in his custody. The alleged in double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit
lack of facility to store the seized vehicles is unacceptable aforementioned, for the return of the property to the adverse party
considering that he should have deposited the same in a bonded if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse
warehouse. If this was not feasible, he should have sought prior party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the
authorization from the court issuing the writ before delivering the action.
vehicles to Silver. Second, it must be stressed that from the moment We see nothing in these provisions which requires the applicant
an order of delivery in replevin is executed by taking possession of to make a prior demand on the possessor of the property before
the property specified therein, such property is in custodia legis. As he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior demand is
legal custodian, it is Andres’ duty to safekeep the seized motor not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin. More
vehicles. Hence, when he passed his duty to safeguard the motor importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to claim that a prior
vehicles to Silver, he committed a clear neglect of duty. demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers
that he had received the letters that Karen Go sent him,
Navarro vs. Escobido 606 SCRA demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligations or return the
Navarro allegedly entered into a lease agreement with option to leased motor vehicles. Navarro’s position that a demand is
purchase with Karen Go, who was married to one Glenn Go and necessary and has not been made is therefore totally
doing business under the name of Kargo Enterprises which buys and unmeritorious.
sells motor vehicles, and paid postdated checks which were later on
dishonored. As a result, Karen T. Go filed two complaints before the Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.
RTC for replevin and/or sum of money with damages against Spouses Deo Agner and Maricon Agner executed a Promissory Note
Navarro. In these complaints, Karen Go prayed that the RTC issue with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc. The contract
writs of replevin for the seizure of two (2) motor vehicles in provides, among others, that: for receiving the amount of Php834,
Navarro’s possession. The complaint stated that Kargo enterprises, 768.00, petitioners shall pay Php 17,391.00 every 15th day of each
owned by Glenn O. Go, respondent’s husband, entered into a lease succeeding month until fully paid; the loan is secured by a 2001
agreement with option to purchase a Make/Type FUSO WITH Mitsubishi Adventure Super Sport; and an interest of 6% per month
MOUNTED CRANE with petitioner. As payment of the rentals, shall be imposed for failure to pay each installment on or before the
petitioner issued checks which were dishonored for lack of stated due date. On the same day, Citimotors, Inc. assigned all its
sufficient funds. The second complaint had essentially the same rights, title and interests in the Promissory Note with Chattel
assertions except that the Lease Agreement with Option to Mortgage to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc. (ABN AMRO), which, on
Purchase involved is dated October 1, 1997 and the motor vehicle 31 May 2002, likewise assigned the same to BPI Family Savings
leased is different. Bank, Inc. For failure to pay four successive installments, the bank,
through counsel, sent to the spouses a demand letter dated 29
Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense that the two August 2002, declaring the entire obligation as due and demandable
complaints stated no cause of action, since Karen Go was not a and requiring to pay Php576,664.04, or surrender the mortgaged
party to the Lease Agreements with Option to Purchase vehicle immediately upon receiving the letter. As the demand was
(collectively, the lease agreements) – the actionable documents on left unheeded, the bank filed on 4 October 2002 an action for
which the complaints were based. The RTC dismissed the complaint Replevin and Damages before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).
but reversed itself. The CA upheld said decision. Navarro, in his A writ of replevin was issued. Despite this, the subject vehicle was
appeal to the SC raised the issue that prior demand is necessary for not seized. Trial on the merits ensued. RTC ruled for the bank and
the filing of an action for replevin. ordered the spouses to jointly and severally pay the amount of
Php576,664.04 plus interest until fully paid, and the costs of suit.
Whether prior demand is a condition precedent to the issuance of The spouses appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but
a writ of replevin. No. the CA affirmed the lower court’s decision and, subsequently,
denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
In arguing that prior demand is required before an action for a writ
of replevin is filed, Navarro apparently likens a replevin action to an Whether demand is a condition precedent to an action for a writ of
unlawful detainer. For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the replevin. No. The Court ruled in in Navarro v. Escobido that prior
applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of
Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states: Sec. 2. Affidavit and replevin, since there is nothing in Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of
bond. The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some Court that requires the applicant to make a demand on the
other person who personally knows the facts: possessor of the property before an action for a writ of replevin
(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, could be filed.
particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party,
alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief;
(c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under
custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or
custody; and
(d) The actual market value of the property.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 20

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 application of AYA, granted support pendente lite for the child for
SUPPORT PENDETE LITE (Rule 61) P5K monthly.
Afterwards, judgement for the principal action was rendered
Principal Action - Support dismissing the case since the driver is not the father of Aya’s child.
What will happen then?
Jurisdiction – Restitution shall be made not reimbursement.
GR: RTC since it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Who will restitute?
XPN: Crim cases – civil action is deemed instituted in crim case in Aya. She will return all the payment made by the driver plus
order to avoid multiplicity of suit. interest.
XPN to XPN: Reservation, prior institution What about the reimbursement?
The true father shall reimburse Aya or the giver may directly ask for
Venue: since it is a personal action: where the plaintiff resides or reimbursement from the real father.
where the defendant resides or wherever he may be found at the IS The action for reimbursement with the same action?
option of the plaintiff No. Issue on jurisdiction.

When to file - commencement of the action or at anytime prior to Note: Judgment for Support (not the prom rev of support pendente
final judgment lite) never becomes final. It can be increased or reduced by the
Court. In amending a judgment for support there are
Hearing: Mandatory like in Prelim Injunction
Two Criterias:
Action of the court upon filing of the SPL 1. Capacity of the person to give support
The court shall issue an order directing the respondent to file 2. Necessity of the person to be supported.
a comment within 5 days (not answer). And with or without
comment, hearing must be held by the court. The hearing here People v. Manahan
is for the provisional remedy. (parang injunction, it cannot be Doctrine: Although support may be imposed against a married
granted without a hearing. In preliminary attachment pwede, man, the compulsory recognition of a child cannot be made against
kasi it can be granted ex parte but it cannot be implemented him since it is policy of the state to protect sanctity of marriage.
without prior or comtemporaneous service of summons). If he
failed to appear, court grant an order of support pendent lite, Manahan was charged for rape and it produced a child resulting for
here it is only provisional support and support pindente lite. Judgment was rendered in
favour of a woman.
- Of all provisional remedies – SPL HAS THE UNIQUE SC Ruled: There is a part error in the decision since the lower court
CHARACTERISTICS not present to other Prom Rev judgment requires recognition of the child.
1. No Bond – only verified complaint SC said that the married man cannot be forced to recognized the
2. Interlocutory order when granted by the court – only child.
instance that an interlocutory order is subject to
execution. De Asis v. CA
GR: Interlocutory order cannot be implemented since it is Doctrine: Res judicata is not applicable in action for support.
not yet final Furthermore, under the Civil Code waiver of future support is not
XPN: SPL when granted is subject to execution allowed.
3. JUDGEMENT OR ORDER IN SPL or even judgment for
support never becomes final hence no entry of judgment. Action for support with support pendente lite was filed by the
RES JUDICATA – never applies in judgement for support. woman against De Asis. Through intimidation of De Asis the
4. RTC has jurisdiction since incapable of pecuniary woman moved for the dismissal of the case. After several years
estimation. SC: Res Judicata is not applicable for action for support.
5. No damages in SPL but you may ask for restitution or
reimbursement.
Lim v. Lim
Restituion = must be in the same action
Doctrine: Support is not only the liability of the parents of the child.
Vs.
If the immediate parent has no capacity to provide support to his
Reimbursement –c an be in the same or separate action
child, the court may order the ascendants to provide support
depending on their capacity.
- N0 case yet that a husband filed for support. It is always a
woman or child.
Spouses Lim stayed in the house of the husband. The parents of the
husband were millionaires. Lim Jr. was employed in the company
Say: A prostitute, Aya, working in a night club. Due to familiarity of Sr with a salary of P6k but all household expenses including the
with the taxi driver, Aya got pregnant. Aya filed action for support expenses of 3 grand children are shouldered by the parents.
with prayer for support pendente lite before the RTC. The wife found the Lim Jr. has an affair with the midwife who’s
ROC: Within the period of 5 days to comment. taking care of the mother of the husband. Wife left the house
Note: Before answer there must be comment or opposition to the together with their 3 children.
application for pindente lite. Failure to do so, the court will render Wife then filed a case for action for support with prayer for support
a judgement on the application for support pendente lite. This against the husband and the parents in law for the benefit of the
judgement is not for principal action. Say: The RTC, pursuant to the children and herself.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 21
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Issue: Are grandparents liable to give support to grandchildren? Whether or not an action for support may be barred by res
Ruling: Yes, provided that you will be able to determine that the judicata. No.
father cannot give sufficient support while the grandparents can The right to receive support can neither be renounced nor
give support. transmitted to a third person. Article 301 of the Civil Code, the
SC directed that the P6k salary of the hushand and the balance shall law in point, reads: Art. 301. The right to receive support cannot
be shouldered by the grandparents. However, only the be renounced, nor can it be transmitted to a third person. Neither
grandchildren are entitled for the support not including the wife. can it be compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor. .
..
Vs. Furthermore, future support cannot be the subject of a
Heirs of Ruiz v. Ruiz compromise. Art. 2035, ibid, provides, that: No compromise upon
Note: Grandchildren are not entitled for support by the estate. IT is the following questions shall be valid:
only the widow and the children. In Lim v. Lim the action is regular (1) The civil status of persons;
support unlike in Heirs of Ruiz. (2) The validity of a marriage or legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation
Lim Lua v. Lim (4) Future support;
Doctrine: Support is not only for sustenance of the receipient such (5) The jurisdiction of courts;
as food but also includes household expenses, medical needs, etc. (6) Future legitime.
It is more than the capacity rather than the need in considering the The raison d' etre behind the proscription against renunciation,
amount of support. transmission and/or compromise of the right to support is stated,
thus: The right to support being founded upon the need of the
Here, the wife is asking for support initially at P500k a month as recipient to maintain his existence, he is not entitled to renounce
support pendente lite. The court reduced it to P250K a month. The or transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the
wife justified it is below her needs since she is undergoing voluntary giving up of life itself. The right to life cannot be
medication and going therapy. Hence, aside from P250K additional renounce; hence, support which is the means to attain the
support was granted by the Court. former, cannot be renounced. xxx xxx xxx 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
Note: Grandparents/ascendants are only liable for support the
the recipient to a public burden. This is contrary to public policy.
grandchildren only when the parents of the latter are not capable
In the case at bar, respondent minor's mother, who was the
enough and the grandparents have the capacity to give support.
plaintiff in the first case, manifested that she was withdrawing
the case as it seemed futile to claim support from petitioner who
Gutardo v. Buling:
denied his paternity over the child. Since the right to claim for
Support follows filiation.
support is predicated on the existence of filiation between the
Del Soccorro case: Bar Matter
minor child and the putative parent, petitioner would like us to
believe that such manifestation admitting the futility of claiming
CASE Digests
support from him puts the issue to rest and bars any and all future
complaint for support.
De Asis vs, CA (303 SCRA
Vircel D. Andres, (the herein private respondent) in her capacity
It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or paternity
as the legal guardian of the minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis,
must first be shown between the claimant and the parent.
brought an action for maintenance and support against Manuel
However, paternity and filiation or the lack of the same is a
de Asis, alleging that the defendant Manuel de Asis (the
relationship that must be judicially established and it is for the
petitioner here) is the father of subject minor Glen Camil Andres
court to declare its existence or absence. It cannot be left to the
de Asis, and the former refused and/or failed to provide for the
will or agreement of the parties. The new Civil Code provides
maintenance of the latter, despite repeated demands. In his
that the allowance for support is provisional because the amount
Answer, petitioner denied his paternity of the said minor and
may be increased or decreased depending upon the means of the
theorized that he cannot therefore be required to provide
giver and the needs of the recipient (Art. 297); and that the right
support for him. Both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to
to receive support cannot be renounced nor can it be
move for the dismissal of the case. Another Complaint for
transmitted to a third person neither can it be compensated
maintenance and support was brought against Manuel A. de Asis,
with what the recipient owes the obligator (Art .301). This being
this time in the name of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, represented
true, it is indisputable that the present action for support can be
by her legal guardian/mother, Vircel D. Andres. Petitioner moved
brought, notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against
to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of res judicata, alleging
the same defendant was dismissed. And it also appearing that the
that Civil Case C-16107 is barred by the prior judgment.
dismissal of Civil Case No. 3553, was not an adjudication upon
In the Order dated November 25, 1993 denying subject motion to
the merits, as heretofore shown, the right of herein plaintiff-
dismiss, the trial court ruled that res judicata is inapplicable in
appellant to reiterate her suit for support and acknowledgment
an action for support for the reason that renunciation or waiver
is available, as her needs arise. Once the needs of plaintiff arise,
of future support is prohibited by law. Petitioner filed with the
she has the right to bring an action for support, for it is only then
Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari. But the CA found that
that her cause for action is accrues.
the said Petition devoid of merit and dismissed the same.
Undaunted, petitioner found his way to this court via the present
petition
People vs. Manahan

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 22

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
RTC found Manahan guilty of rape and was sentenced to death. all school-bound. It is also undisputed that the amount of support
He was also ordered to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 as moral Edward is able to give to respondents, P6,000 a month, is
damages, pay the costs, and acknowledge and support the insufficient to meet respondents’ basic needs. This inability of
offspring of his indiscretion. Manahan appealed Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their children shifts
a portion of their obligation to the ascendants in the nearest
Whether Manahan should be ordered to support the child. Yes. degree, both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal lines,
On the matter of acknowledgment and support of the child, a following the ordering in Article 199.
correction of the view of the court a quo is in order. Article 345
of The Revised Penal Code provides that persons guilty of rape However, petitioners’ partial concurrent obligation extends only
shall also be sentenced to "acknowledge the offspring, unless the to their descendants as this word is commonly understood to
law should prevent him from doing so," and "in every case to refer to relatives, by blood of lower degree. As petitioners’
support the offspring." In the case before us, compulsory grandchildren by blood, only respondents (mga apo lang) belong
acknowledgment of the child Melanie Tibigar is not proper there to this category. Indeed, Cheryl’s right to receive support from
being a legal impediment in doing so as it appears that the the Lim family extends only to her husband Edward, arising from
accused is a married man. As pronounced by this Court in People their marital bond. Unfortunately, Cheryl’s share from the
v. Guerrero, "the rule is that if the rapist is a married man, he amount of monthly support the trial court awarded cannot be
cannot be compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime, determined from the records. Thus, we are constrained to
should there be any, as his child, whether legitimate or remand the case to the trial court for this limited purpose. [As to
illegitimate." Consequently, that portion of the judgment under the request of Lola/Lolo to maintain them (apos and manugang?)
review is accordingly deleted. In any case, we sustain that part in Makati residence, this cannot be allowed because this falls
ordering the accused to support the child as it is in accordance under the exception clause of Article 204 – the latter alternative
with law. cannot be availed of in case there is moral or legal obstacle
thereto, which is the infidelity of the Husband].
Lim vs. Lim
In 1979, respondent married Edward Lim, son of petitioners.
Cheryl bore Edward three children, respondents Lester Edward, Gotardo vs. Buling
Candice Grace and Mariano III. Edward’s family business, which Respondent Divina Buling filed a complaint for compulsory
provided him with a monthly salary of P6,000, shouldered the recognition and support pendente lite, claiming that the
family expenses. Cheryl had no steady source of income. On 14 petitioner is the father of her child Gliffze. In his answer, the
October 1990, Cheryl abandoned the Forbes Park residence, petitioner denied the imputed paternity of Gliffze. RTC dismissed
bringing the children with her (then all minors), after a violent the complaint for insufficiency of evidence proving Gliffze’s
confrontation with Edward whom she caught with the in-house filiation. CA reversed RTC’s decision.
midwife of Chua Giak. Cheryl sued petitioners, Edward, Chua Giak
and Mariano for support. The trial court ordered Edward to Whether Divina’s testimony that she had been sexually involved
provide monthly support of P6,000 pendente lite; then rendered only with one man, herein petitioner Charles, at the time of her
judgment ordering Edward and petitioners to "jointly" provide conception, is sufficient in establishing a prima facie case against
P40,000 monthly support to respondents, with Edward the latter. Yes. [f]iliation proceedings are usually filed not just to
shouldering P6,000 and clarified that petitioners and Chua Giak adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right associated
were held jointly liable with Edward because of the latter’s with paternity, such as citizenship, support (as in this case) or
inability to give sufficient support. Petitioners appealed to the inheritance. [In paternity cases, the burden of proof] is on the
Court of Appeals assailing, among others, their liability to support person who alleges that the putative father is the biological
respondents. Petitioners argued that while Edward’s income is father of the child." One can prove filiation, either legitimate or
insufficient, the law itself sanctions its effects by providing that illegitimate, through the record of birth appearing in the civil
legal support should be "in keeping with the financial capacity of register or a final judgment, an admission of filiation in a public
the family" under Article 194 of the Civil Code, as amended by document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by
Executive Order No. 209 (The Family Code of the Philippines). CA the parent concerned, or the open and continuous possession
affirmed the trial court. Hence this petition. of the status of a legitimate or illegitimate child, or any other
means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. We have
Whether there is basis to hold petitioners, as Edward’s parents, held that such other proof of one's filiation may be a "baptismal
liable with him to support respondents. (Should Lola/Lolo certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which his name
support their apos and manugang) Yes. has been entered, common reputation respecting [his] pedigree,
admission by silence, the [testimonies] of witnesses, and other
Although the obligation to provide support arising from parental kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court."
authority ends upon the emancipation of the child, the same
obligation arising from spousal and general familial ties ideally There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional
lasts during the obligee's lifetime. Also, while parental authority paternity action that parties have to face: a prima facie case,
under Title IX (and the correlative parental rights) pertains to affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical
parents, passing to ascendants only upon its termination or resemblance between the putative father and the child. We
suspension, the obligation to provide legal support passes on to explained that a prima facie case exists if a woman declares —
ascendants not only upon default of the parents but also for the supported by corroborative proof — that she had sexual
latter’s inability to provide sufficient support. relations with the putative father; at this point, the burden of
Here, there is no question that Cheryl is unable to discharge her evidence shifts to the putative father. We explained further that
obligation to provide sufficient legal support to her children, then the two affirmative defenses available to the putative father are:
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 23
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
(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.
In this case, the respondent established a prima facie case that
the petitioner is the putative father of Gliffze through testimony
that she had been sexually involved only with one man, the
petitioner, at the time of her conception. Rodulfo corroborated
her testimony that the petitioner and the respondent had
intimate relationship. On the other hand, petitioner did not deny
that he had sexual encounters with the respondent. Xxx
Since filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of
obligation; 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.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 24

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
9 SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS ( I-DR-C-QEF-PU) *NOTE: This is the only rule where there is a section for a motion
to dismiss on the grounds provided by Rule 16. Defenses and
Rule Issuance of Responsive Jurisdiction objections, that is what is meant there.
the Court pleading
62 Order not 1. Comment 3. RTC or MTC
Interpleader* summons for the depending Why SCA?
order on the value Because the Rules specifically provided for that these rules shall
2. Answer of the apply. In case of conflict with the regular rules of procedure, these
for the property Rules shall apply. Regular procedures only supplement the SCA.
main case 4. RTC if
but you incapable of For example some special civil actions have no summons, the court
may pecuniary acquire jurisdiction over the respondent in a different manner but
include in estimation in ordinary actions summons is mandatory. Like in certiorari, there
the is no issuance of summons there, the court acquire jurisdiction by
answer the issuance of order to file a comment.
the
comment What to file (fr. Riano)
63 Declartory 1. RTC for Complaint (PIE-FUF) Petition
Relief and par.1 = Partition Declaratory Relief and other
Similar since it is Similar Remedies
Remedies incapable of Interpleader Review of Judgements
pecuniary Resolutions or Final Orders
estimation of COA or Comelec
for par. 1 Expropriation Quo-warranto
2. MTC or RTC Forcible entry Contempt
for par 2 - Unlawful detainer Certiorari Prohibition
depending Mandamus
on the Foreclosure of REM
assessed
value of the INTERPLEADER (Rule 62)
property for
similar Interpleader R19: Intervention
remedies SCA Ancillary Action
64 Review of Order not Comment SC only Plaintiff must have no int. in the Person must have int. in the
Judgment and summons subject matter subject matter
Final Sec1:
Resolutions and Whenever there are conflicting
Orders of COA claims over one subject matter
and Comolec against a person who has no int
65 CPM Order not Comment RTC, CA, SC over the subject matter being
summons concurrently, claimed by several individuals, the
SB, CTA one who has no interest will have
66 Quo Order Answer RTC, CA, SC, SB to file the interpleader for the
Warranto but not CTA conflicting claimants to
Venue: Where interplead. And ask the conflicting
respondent claimants to interplead between
resides and among then.
*If OSG – At least 2 defendants with There can be 1 defendant.
always MLA. conflicting claims
67 Order of Answer not RTC regardless There is no action yet There is already a pending
Expropriation Expropriation necessary. of the amount action
Mere since it is
defences incapable of Subject matter: Real or personal prop or performance of the
and pecuniary obligation
objections estimation.
are Jurisdiction:
sufficient GR: Value of the prop over which persons have conflicting claims
68 Foreclosure XPN: Performance of obli since incapable of pecuniary estimation.
of REM
69 Partition Purpose of Judgement:
70. Unlawful,
Forcible Entry
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 25
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
The judgment shall be a declaration as to who is entitled or who is Doctrine: Interpleader is a compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory
the legitimate or entitled to the real or personal property or of the counterclaim when not raised is deemed waived (Sec 2 Rule 9).
performance of the obligation. XPN: Sec 2 of Rule 11 – in case of inadvertent oversight, excusable
negligence = you can still amend the complaint
Docket Fees:
Still required. Interpleader cannot be dismissed merely on the non- When Tan filed a case against Wakwak knowing already that there
payment of docket fees. But even no payment of docket fee it is still is another claimant, it could have and it should have filed a
allowed but the unpaid docket fee shall constitute as a lien in the compulsory counterclaim of interpleader. For not doing so, it is
judgment. considered that it had waived its right to any action against the
defendant.
Say: A found a wallet and 3 are the claimants. What to do?
File an action for interpleader for the 3 claimants to interplead Golf certificates were being caused to be registered in the name of
between and among them. Tan and Won. Tan assailed that the share shall be registered in his
A classic case of the interpleader. name pursuant to a deed of assignment by the British Company.
Where to file. MTC because of the value wallet and what’s Won assailed to be registered in his name due to judgement by the
there. Court. Wack-wack filed action for interpleader.

Say: A bank account was being claimed by three persons. SC: Action for interpleader was dismissed since there is already a
A as the widow judgement which Wack-wack is also a party defendant and the
B. claiming that the account was donated to him shares was already awarded to one of the claimants.
C – she is the paramour
Where to file? MTC or RTC depending on the value of the account. Q: Can there be a compulsory intervention?
A: Yes it can happen.
Court shall issue summonses for the defendants to file the answer
who has the better right for the action for interpleader for the Bank Of Communication (Bar Matter: 2015 Decision)
judgment of interpleader. If interpleader is a complusary counter claim, can it be a compulary
cross claim
Q: After an action of interpleader is filed, what happens next? SC: Yes
A: The court shall order the respondents to file their answer.
After filing an answer and once the issues are joined then you go to BAR MATTER
the regular rules of court which is you go to pretrial then trial. Can an interpleader can be also be a compulsory cross claim is he
can be a compulsory counterclaim. YES.
Remedy for the judgment of Interpleader
Appeal, MNT, etc. Pasricha v. Don Realty Case
Contract over apartment units. Pasricha, lessee, stop paying rentals
Ethernal Gardens v. IAC (BAR PROBLEM) since she does not know where to pay due to issue on the owners.
Doctrine: Court may order that the subject matter be paid or Hence a case was filed for unlawful detainer. Pasricha assailed that
delivered to court. And the person who filed the interpleader non-payment was due to confliction claims of owners.
having no interest over the subject matter should be ordered by SC There are remedies available but Patricia did not avail it. Hence,
the court to do so. ejectment case is proper.

The development of Ethernal Gardens in Bulacan. There was a joint Alternative remedy for interpleader?
venture between Ethernal and Mission Realty Corp (MRC). The JUDICIAL CONSIGNATION.
agreement was that 60% of the proceeds from sale shall go to
Ethernal and the 40% to MRC, the owner of the lot. Can NLRC can take cognizance with the recovery of personal
Maysilo Estate then write Ethernal claiming that they are the owner property in connection with illegal dismissal case?
of the land not MRC. Ethernal then filed action for interpleader. In Yes but there must be a pending illegal dismissal case otherwise it
the course of the proceedings, MRC assailed that why the proceeds should be with the regular courts. (But pls take note of the SMART
already amounting to P20m not deposited to escrow account but Case stating that er-ee relationship is converted to cr-dr
to the account of Ethernal, the latter getting the interest from the relationship upon termination of employment.
account. Take note that all cases involving er-ee relationship is cognizable
with the NLRC.
SC: The P20m should be deposited with the court. Ethernal has no
interest in the subject matter. Hence, Ethernal has no interest over
Case Digests
the subject matter.
Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Won, 70 SCRA
Q: What if the action is for the performance of an act, can you ask
for its deposit? Lee E. Won claims ownership of Wack Wack’s membership fee
A: No, the person who is obliged to perform will not stay there. It certificate 201, by virtue of the decision rendered in civil case
is only applicable to real or personal property. 26044 of the CFI of Manila, entitled "Lee E. Won alias Ramon Lee
vs. Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc." and also by virtue of
membership fee certificate 201-serial no. 1478 issued on October
Wack-wack Case
17, 1963 by Ponciano B. Jacinto, deputy clerk of court of the said
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 26
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
CFI of Manila, for and in behalf of the president and the secretary It is well settled, both by reasons and authority, that one
of the Corporation and of the People's Bank & Trust Company as who asks the interposition of a court of equity to compel others,
transfer agent of the said Corporation, pursuant to the order of claiming property in his hands, to interplead, must do so before
September 23, 1963 in the said case. putting them to the test of trials at law. Yarborough v.
On the other hand, Bienvenido A. Tan claims to be lawful owner Thompson, 3 Smedes & M. 291 (41 Am. Dec. 626); Gornish v.
of its aforesaid membership fee certificate 201 by virtue of Tanner, 1 You. & Jer. 333; Haseltine v. Brickery, 16 Grat. (Va.) 116.
membership fee certificate 201-serial no. 1199 issued to him on The remedy by interpleader is afforded to protect the party from
July 24, 1950 pursuant to an assignment made in his favor by the annoyance and hazard of two or more actions touching the
"Swan, Culbertson and Fritz," the original owner and holder of same property or demand; but one who, with knowledge of all
membership fee certificate 201 the facts, neglects to avail himself of the relief, or elects to take
Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc.  filed an action for the chances for success in the actions at law, ought to submit to
interpleader praying for: (a) an order be issued requiring Lee and the consequences of defeat. To permit an unsuccessful
Tan to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims; and (b) defendant to compel the successful plaintiffs to interplead, is to
judgment. be rendered, after hearing, declaring who of the two increase instead of to diminish the number of suits; to put upon
is the lawful owner of membership fee certificate 201, and the shoulders of others the burden which he asks may be taken
ordering the surrender and cancellation of membership fee from his own. ....'
certificate 201-serial no. 1478 issued in the name of Lee.
Won and Tan  filed separate MDs upon the grounds of res
judicata, failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, and In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the
bar by prescription.  RTC  granted MDs; dismissed the Corporation had already been made independently liable in civil
complaint.  Wack-Wack  appealed. The CA (?) held that the trial case 26044 and, therefore, its present application for
court erred in dismissing the complaint, instead of compelling the interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final
appellees to interplead because there actually are conflicting judgment in the said civil case; the appellee Lee had already
claims between the latter with respect to the ownership of established his rights to membership fee certificate 201 in the
membership fee certificate 201, and, as there is not Identity of aforesaid civil case and, therefore, this interpleader suit would
parties, of subject-matter, and of cause of action, between civil compel him to establish his rights anew, and thereby increase
case 26044 of the CFI of Manila and the present action, the instead of diminish litigations, which is one of the purposes of an
complaint should not have been dismissed upon the ground of interpleader suit, with the possiblity that the benefits of the final
res judicata. judgment in the said civil case might eventually be taken away
from him; and because the Corporation allowed itself to be sued
Whether the action for interpleader was timely filed. No. to final judgment in the said case, its action of interpleader was
filed inexcusably late, for which reason it is barred by laches or
Has the Corporation in this case acted with diligence, in view of unreasonable delay.
all the circumstances, such that it may properly invoke the
remedy of interpleader? We do not think so. It was aware of the Eternal Gardens vs. IAC, 165 SCRA
conflicting claims of the appellees with respect to the Eternal Gardens entered into a contract with private respondent
membership fee certificate 201 long before it filed the present North Philippine Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day
interpleader suit. It had been recognizing Tan as the lawful owner Adventists (MISSION for short) whereby the former undertook to
thereof. It was sued by Lee who also claimed the same introduce and construct at its own expense and responsibility
membership fee certificate. Yet it did not interplead Tan. It necessary improvements on the property owned by private
preferred to proceed with the litigation (civil case 26044) and to respondent into a memorial park. Out of the proceeds from the
defend itself therein. As a matter of fact, final judgment was sale, private respondent is entitled to receive 40% of the net gross
rendered against it and said judgment has already been collection from the project to be remitted monthly by Eternal
executed. It is [not-sic???] therefore too late for it to invoke the Gardens to MISSION through a designated depositary trustee
remedy of interpleader. bank. All went well until Maysilo Estate asserted its claim of
It has been held that a stakeholder's action of interpleader is too ownership over the parcel of land in question. Confronted with
late when filed after judgment has been rendered against him such conflicting claims, petitioner as plaintiff filed a complaint
in favor of one of the contending claimants, especially where he for interpleader against private respondent MISSION and
had notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of the Maysilo Estate, alleging among others, that in view of the
judgment and neglected the opportunity to implead the adverse conflicting claims of ownership of the defendants (MISSION and
claimants in the suit where judgment was entered. This must be Maysilo Estate) over the properties subject matter of the
so, because once judgment is obtained against him by one contracts, over which Eternal Gardens has no claim of ownership
claimant he becomes liable to the latter. except as a purchaser (? JOV: kala ko developer) thereof, and to
To now permit the Corporation to bring Lee to court after the protect the interests of plaintiff corporation which has no interest
latter's successful establishment of his rights in civil case 26044 in the subject matter of the dispute and is willing to pay whoever
to the membership fee certificate 201, is to increase instead of to is entitled or declared to be the owners of said properties, the
diminish the number of suits, which is one of the purposes of an defendants should be required to interplead and litigate their
action of interpleader, with the possibility that the latter would several claims between themselves. The presiding judge ordered
lose the benefits of the favorable judgment. This cannot be done the defendants to interplead. MISSION file a motion to dismiss for
because having elected to take its chances of success in said civil lack of cause of action while the Maysilo estate filed its Answer.
case 26044, with full knowledge of all the fact, the Corporation MISSION filed a motion for the placing on judicial deposit the
must submit to the consequences of defeat. amounts due and unpaid from petitioner. The trial court denied
the motion but ordered the petitioner to deposit to the court
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 27
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
the amounts it paid to respondent. The trial court eventually Whether petitioners refusal to pay the monthly rentals is
dismissed the order for interpleader and for the petitioner to justified? No.
comply with its contract with MISSION. The Supreme Court in Whether Pasricha should have availed of the remedy of
another case involving the same parties, ordered that the private Interpleader considering their defense that they did not know to
respondent to deposit whatever amounts are due from it under whom payments are due – Yes
the Land Development Agreement of October 6, 1976 with a
reputable bank to be designated by the respondent court to be What was, instead, clearly established by the evidence was
the depository trustee of the said amounts to be paid to whoever petitioners’ non-payment of rentals because ostensibly they did
shall be found entitled thereto. The petitioner filed a motion for not know to whom payment should be made. However, this did
reconsideration which was allowed by the Court. not justify their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they
were not without any remedy. They should have availed of the
[Gayle’s issue] W/N MISSION correctly resorted to an provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines on the
interpleader??? [Other issue: W/N Eternal should deposit the consignation of payment and of the Rules of Court on
amount] in both issues - Yes, petitioner admitted in its complaint interpleader. Moreover, Section 1, Rule 62 of the Rules of Court
in Interpleader that it is still obligated to pay certain amounts to provides: Section 1. When interpleader proper. – Whenever
private respondent, that it claims no interest in such amounts due conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be
and is willing to pay whoever is declared entitled to said amounts. made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the
Under the circumstances, there appears to be no plausible reason subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not
for petitioner's objections to the deposit of the amounts in disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the
litigation after having asked for the assistance of the lower court conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate
by filing a complaint for interpleader where the deposit of their several claims among themselves.
aforesaid amounts is not only required by the nature of the Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the
action but is a contractual obligation of the petitioner under the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals should be
Land Development Program (Rollo, p. 252). As correctly observed made due to conflicting claims on the property (or on the right
by the Court of Appeals, the essence of an interpleader, aside to collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person
from the disavowal of interest in the property in litigation on against double liability but to protect him against double
the part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the property or funds vexation in respect of one liability. Notably, instead of availing of
in controversy with the court. it is a rule founded on justice and the above remedies, petitioners opted to refrain from making
equity: "that the plaintiff may not continue to benefit from the payments.
property or funds in litigation during the pendency of the suit at
the expense of whoever will ultimately be decided as entitled Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 681 SCRA
thereto." [P20 million pesos are involved, interest alone for RCBC owned 2 sets of Central Bank (CB) bills amounting to 70m.
savings or time deposit would be considerable, now accruing in These 2 sets were eventually negotiated to PDB, and later on, on
favor of the Eternal Gardens; deposit was required to avoid different negotiations involving several banks, BOC acquired
wastage of funds.] them.
In 1994, upon learning of the transfer involving the CB bills, PDB
Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA requested the BSP to record its claim in the BSP books, explaining
Petitioners and Respondent entered into Contract of Lease. that its non-possession of the CB bills was due to “imperfect
Petitioners agreed to lease several units of the respondent in San negotiations”. PDB contended that the subsequent transferees of
Luis Building, located at 1006 M.Y. Orosa cor. T.M. Kalaw Streets, the CB bills were not holders in due course.
Ermita. While the contracts were in effect, petitioners dealt with BSP denied the request, invoking that CB Circ. 28 (the existing
Francis Pacheco, then General Manager of private respondent. regulations of BSP) - which requires that the owner of the
Thereafter, Pacheco was replaced by Roswinda Bautista. registered bond must have with him the possession of the bonds
Petitioners religiously paid the monthly rentals until May 1992. before entry on the records could be made.
After that, however, despite repeated demands, petitioners To this, PDB filed with the RTC petitions for mandamus,
continuously refused to pay the stipulated rent. Consequently, prohibition, and injunction against BSP and BOC.
respondent was constrained to refer the matter to its lawyer BOC filed his answer-praying for the dismissal of the case, alleging
who, in turn, made a final demand on petitioners for the payment that PDB has no cause of action considering that PDB is no longer
of the accrued rentals amounting to P916,585.58.12 Because the owner of the bills. Alternatively, BSP, in his answer
petitioners still refused to comply, a complaint for ejectment was (counterclaim), asked that an interpleader be allowed between
filed by private respondent through its representative, Ms. and among the claimants to the subject bills on the position that
Bautista. One of the arguments posited by petitioners was that while it is able and willing to pay the bills, it is duty bound to
their refusal to pay was justified because of the internal squabble ensure that payment is made to the rightful owner.
in respondent company as to the person authorized to receive In the meantime, PDB and BOC entered into an escrow
payment. The MTC dismissed the complaint (held that agreement, whereby BSP released the maturity proceeds of CB
petitioners’ non-payment of rentals as unjustified, but dismissed bills by crediting the accounts of each of them with 50/50
the complaint because of Ms. Bautista’s alleged lack of authority proceeds of the amount in escrow. RTC granted the BSP’s motion
to sue on behalf of the corporation) but the reversed RTC (also to interplead, but PDB questioned the RTC’s jurisdiction over the
held that there is unjustified refusal to pay rent but upheld Ms. alternative or additional counterclaim.
Bautista’s authority to represent the company) and the CA W/N a motion for interpleader may be made an alternative
affirmed. defense in an answer – Yes, the remedy of interpleader, as a
special civil action, is primarily governed by the specific provisions
in Rule 62 of the Rules of Court and secondarily by the provisions
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 28
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
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
Rules of Court 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.
What is quite unique in this case is that the BSP did not initiate
the interpleader suit through an original complaint but through
its Answer. This circumstance becomes understandable if it is
considered that insofar as the BSP is concerned, the PDB does not
possess any right to have its claim recorded in the BSP’s books;
consequently, the PDB cannot properly be considered even as a
potential claimant to the proceeds of the CB bills upon maturity.
Thus, the interpleader was only an alternative position, made
only in the BSP’s Answer.
Apart from a pleading, the rules allow a party to seek an
affirmative relief from the court through the procedural device of
a motion. While captioned "Answer with counter
complaint/cross-claim for interpleader," the RTC understood this
as in the nature of a motion, seeking relief which essentially
consists in an order for the conflicting claimants to litigate with
each other so that "payment is made to the rightful or legitimate
owner" of the subject CB bills.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 29

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Rule 63: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies Vs
Sabitsana v. Muertegui (This is Obiter only!)
Any person interested in any deed contract will or any instrument All cases for declaratory relief shall be filed with the RTC. Take note
or any person whose rights are affected by any statute, order or the words “declaratory relief” not including other similar remedies
ordinance before the breach shall file a declaratory relief. which is paragraph 2 since in quieting of title or reformation of
instruments or consolidation of title the jurisdiction of the court is
2 parts based on the assessed value of the property.
1. Par 1 – Declaratory relief proper - RTC
2. Par 2 – Similar remedies – MTC or RTC depending on the Before Breach
assessed value. You have read the prayer assailing the Constitutionality of the law
-Refers to 3 kinds of actions (1) quieting title (2) reformation of how to distinguish it?
instrument; 3. Consolidation of title If the law is existing only it cannot be declaratory relief
since you are merely invoking the Constitutionality and
Jurisdiction: RTC – incapable of pecuniary estimation there is already breach.
Declaratory relief is only proper prior to the effectivity of
Venue the law
If personal action, where the plaintiffs or respondents resides at the
option of the plaintiff. Say: Ordinance was passed prohibiting smoking starting Jan 2018.
What to file?
Subject Matter Prior to Jan 2018 – DR
Any contract, will, deed, or other instruments or whose rights are After effectivity – You only question the constitutionality of
affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or ordinance not DR
any other governmental regulation.
Republic v. Orbecido
When to file? H filed a declaratory relief after his wife married to someone after
Before breach of contract or violation of the statute. If there is the decree of divorce was obtained by the latter.
already violation in the contract or statute then declaratory relief is
no longer applicable. Almaeda v. Bathala Marketing
Six requirements for DR
Q: Suppose you’ve already filed an action before breach, then 1. There must be Justiciable controversy
pending action there is already breach, then what happens? 2. There must Adverse int.
A: Then the action shall be converted into an ordinary action. 3. Ripe for judicial determination
4. No breach yet of the statute or of the written instrument
Q: How do you convert the action? 5. The subject matter for DR is limited to deed contract will
A: File a motion to amend action with leave of court. or other written instrument of ordinance law or order
6. No appeal of other remedies available (i.e., MR or MNT)
Example a regulation of a school was issued stating that by the
school year 2018-2019 starting June tuition fees shall be raised by Note:
120%. There was already a circular to that effect. Declaratory relief Q: Is the court bound to make a judgment in an action of
was filed, pending action 2018 came. The increase was already declaratory relief?
collected from the students so you convert your action for A: No, another peculiarity here is that the court is not bound to
declaratory relief to what kind of action? make a judgment.
A: Convert is to collection of sum of money. Q: When is it not bound to make a judgment?
A: When there will be no finality in the resolution of the rights and
privileges
2013 Doctrine: Malana v. Tappa
- It did not overturn the doctrine in Sabitsana v. Muertegui since When to use Declaratory Relief or Constitutionality of the Law is
the latters doctrine is merely obiter, hence, follow the Malana proper?
doctrine (per Atty. Brondial). 1. Declaratory Relief – if it is BEFORE breach
Vs.
Second paragraph of Sec 1 Rule 63 shall be read in conjunction with 2. Constitutionality of the law – if there is already breach
Judiciary Act. declaratory relief is not proper.
Here, the case was filed before the RTC even if the value of the
property is less than P20k. CASE Digests
SC Ruled that the 1st paragraph is different with 2nd paragraph, the
latter is similar remedies and reading it in conjunction with Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Ind., 542 SCRA
Judiciary Act the quieting of tile, reformation of instrument or Bathala Inc., as lessee renewed its Contract of Lease with
consolidation of title hence the determinant of jurisdiction is the Ponciano L. Almeda, as lessor, husband of petitioner Eufemia
assessed value of the property. Hence the case should be filed with and father of petitioner Romel. Under the said contract,
the MTC not RTC. Ponciano agreed to lease a portion of the Almeda Compound
SC ruled that the word “may” located in Makati City for a monthly rental of P1.107 million for

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 30

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
a term of 4 years xxx. During the effectivity of the contract, to petitioners even during the pendency of the present suit.
Ponciano died. Almedas then wrote to Bathala that the former There is no showing that respondent committed an act
shall assess and collect Value Added Tax on its monthly rentals. constituting a breach of the subject contract of lease. Thus,
Bathala contended that VAT may not be imposed as the rentals respondent is not barred from instituting before the trial court
fixed in the contract of lease were supposed to include the VAT the petition for declaratory relief.
therein, considering that their contract was executed on May 1,
1997 when the VAT law had long been in effect. Almedas Petitioners claim that the instant petition is not proper because
informed Bathala that its monthly rental should be increased by a separate action for rescission, ejectment and damages had
73% pursuant to condition no. 7 of the contract xxx. Bathala been commenced before another court; thus, the construction
opposed petitioners’ demand and insisted that there was no of the subject contractual provisions should be ventilated in the
extraordinary inflation to warrant the application of Article 1250 same forum. We are not convinced.
xxx. Bathala refused to pay the VAT and adjusted rentals but
continued to pay the stipulated amount set forth in their It is true that in Panganiban v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
contract. Corporation we held that the petition for declaratory relief
Bathala instituted an action for declaratory relief (DR) for should be dismissed in view of the pendency of a separate action
purposes of determining the correct interpretation of condition for unlawful detainer. However, we cannot apply the same
Nos. 6 and 7 of the lease contract to prevent damage and ruling to the instant case. In Panganiban, the unlawful detainer
prejudice before the RTC Makati. case had already been resolved by the trial court before the
Almedas in turn filed an action for ejectment, rescission and dismissal of the declaratory relief case; and it was petitioner in
damages against respondent for failure of the latter to vacate that case who insisted that the action for declaratory relief be
the premises. Also, Almedas filed a motion to dismiss the preferred over the action for unlawful detainer. Conversely, in
declaratory relief case for being an improper remedy the case at bench, the trial court had not yet resolved the
considering that respondent was already in breach of the rescission/ejectment case during the pendency of the
obligation and that the case would not end the litigation and declaratory relief petition. In fact, the trial court, where the
settle the rights of the parties. RTC denied the motion to dismiss rescission case was on appeal, itself initiated the suspension of
and ruled in favor of Bathala. On appeal, the CA affirmed with the proceedings pending the resolution of the action for
medication the RTC decision hence this petition (Rule 45) before declaratory relief.
the SC. Given all these attendant circumstances, the Court is disposed
to entertain the instant declaratory relief action instead of
Whether Bathala correctly resorted to a petition for declaratory dismissing it, notwithstanding the pendency of the
relief considering the allegation of the Almedas that the former ejectment/rescission case before the trial court. The resolution
has already breached the contract of lease – Yes, Declaratory of the present petition would write finis to the parties' dispute,
relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed, as it would settle once and for all the question of the proper
will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or interpretation of the two contractual stipulations subject of this
resolution, to determine any question of construction or controversy.
validity arising from the instrument, executive order or
regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights and Republic vs. Orbecido, 472 SCRA
duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such a 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at
petition is the question of construction or validity of provisions the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis
in an instrument or statute. Corollary is the general rule that City. Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter.
such an action must be justified, as no other adequate relief or 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing along
remedy is available under the circumstances. Decisional law their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that
enumerates the requisites of an action for declaratory relief, as his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. Sometime
follows: in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained
1) the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley.
contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for
or regulation, or ordinance; authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the
2) the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the
doubtful and require judicial construction; petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein
3) there must have been no breach of the documents in petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
question; sought reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition
4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the for declaratory relief under Rule 63. [The OSG contends that
"ripening seeds" of one between persons whose interests are Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not applicable to
adverse; the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed
5) the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino
6) adequate relief is not available through other means or citizen and an alien. The proper remedy, according to the OSG, is
other forms of action or proceeding. to file a petition for annulment or for legal separation.5
It is not true that respondent was already in breach of the Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs
contract when the petition was filed. After petitioners respondent’s situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of
demanded payment of adjusted rentals and in the months that legislation and not of judicial determination. Cipriano’s
followed, respondent complied with the terms and conditions argument: when his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce
set forth in their contract of lease by paying the rentals decree which capacitated her to remarry, he is likewise
stipulated therein. Respondent religiously fulfilled its obligations
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 31
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
capacitated by operation of law pursuant to Section 12, Article II
of the Constitution.] Whether an action to quiet title to real property or remove
clouds (JOV: this two actions are made equivalent to DR –
WON declaratory relief was proper? [At the outset, we note that pursuant to Rule 63 first and second paragraph (see below))
the petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial court therefrom is the correct remedy considering that the Malana
actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief.] - YES. has already demanded but the Tappa et. al. refused to vacate
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides: Who may file the property – No, accion publiciana or an accion
petition—Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or reivindicatoria is the proper remedy and not an action for
other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a declaratory relief/to quiet title to real property or remove
statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or other clouds therefrom
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court No, An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person
to determine any question of construction or validity arising, interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written
and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. The instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an
requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought
(1) there must be a justiciable controversy; under this remedy includes the interpretation and
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests determination of the validity of the written instrument and the
are adverse; judicial declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder.
(3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the Petitions for declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the
controversy; and Rules of Court. The RTC correctly made a distinction between
(4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination. the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the
This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 Rules of Court.
to a marriage between two Filipino citizens where one later
acquired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and First paragraph Second paragraph
remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests of the parties are Any person interested under An action for the
also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty a deed, will, contract or other reformation of an
to protect the institution of marriage while respondent, a written instrument, or whose instrument, to quiet title to
private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry. rights are affected by a real property or remove
Respondent, praying for relief, has legal interest in the statute, executive order or clouds therefrom, or to
controversy. regulation, ordinance, or any consolidate ownership
The issue raised is also ripe for judicial determination inasmuch other governmental under Article 1607 of the
as when respondent remarries, litigation ensues and puts into regulation may, before Civil Code, may be brought
question the validity of his second marriage. breach or violation thereof, under this Rule. [These
bring an action in the three remedies are
appropriate Regional Trial considered similar to
Malana vs. Tappa, 600 SCRA Court to determine any declaratory relief because
During the lifetime of Anastacio Danao, he had allowed question of construction or they also result in the
Consuelo Pauig (Consuelo), who was married to Joaquin Boncad, validity arising, and for a adjudication of the legal
to build on and occupy the southern portion of the subject declaration of his rights or rights of the litigants, often
property. Anastacio and Consuelo agreed that the latter would duties, thereunder. without the need of
vacate the said land at any time that Anastacio and his heirs execution to carry the
might need it. Danao died. Malana are the Owners of a parcel of judgment into effect]
land (TCT T-1279373 situated in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan).
They inherited the subject property from Danao, who died It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of
intestate. Malana demanded against Consuelo’s family Court does not categorically require that an action to quiet title
members (Tappa, etc.) to vacate the same, as they need the be filed before the RTC. The use of the word "may" in a statute
land. Tappa refused. Malana referred land dispute to the Lupong denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Annafunan West for conciliation. mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. VERSUS the
Tappa asserted they owned land. Malana filed Complaint for mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
Reivindicacion, Quieting of Title, and Damages with RTC (Branch 1980, as amended, uses the word "shall" and explicitly requires
3, Tuguegarao City). RTC dismissed Complaint on the ground of the MTC to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil
lack of jurisdiction (BP 129, as amended by RA 7691), where RTC actions which involve title to or possession of real property
with jurisdiction over real actions, where the assessed value of where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00.
the property involved exceeds P20,000.00. It found that the
subject property had a value of less than P20,000.00. Malana An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been
filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that their principal no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising
cause of action was for quieting of title; the accion reivindicacion thereunder. Since the purpose of an action for declaratory relief
was included merely to enable them to seek complete relief. RTC is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and
denied Motion for Reconsideration. Malana filed another obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or contract for
pleading, simply designated as Motion, for RTC to set aside their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance
dismissal. RTC denied Motion. Malana filed Petition for therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with the Supreme breach thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach
Court. or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to which it refers.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 32
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for Whether the Supreme Court correctly took cognizance of the
ending controversies that have not reached the state where petition considering that it is for declaratory relief. Yes, at any
another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need rate, due to its serious implications, not only to government
for a form of action that will set controversies at rest before they processes involved but also to the sanctity of the Constitution,
lead to a repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a the Court deems it more prudent to take cognizance of it. After
commission of wrongs. In other words, a court has no more all, the petition is also for prohibition under Rule 65 seeking to
jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject enjoin Congress from sending two (2) representatives with one
has already been infringed or transgressed before the (1) full vote each to the JBC.
institution of the action.
Sabitsana vs. Muertegui, 703 SCRA (8/5/13)
W/N quieting of title falls under the jurisdiction of RTC pursuant Garcia executed an unnotarized Deed of Sale in favor of Juanito
to sec 1 of Rule 63? No, it falls under MTC. Since petitioners Muertegui (Juanito) over a 7,500-square meter parcel of
averred in the Complaint that they had already been deprived of unregistered land (the lot) located in Dalutan Island, Talahid,
the possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is Almeira, Biliran, Leyte del Norte covered by Tax Declaration (TD)
the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, No. 1996 issued in 1985 in Garcia’s name. Juanito’s father,
not a case for declaratory relief. Jurisdiction over such an action Domingo Muertegui, Sr. (Domingo Sr.) and brother Domingo Jr.
would depend on the value of the property involved. Given that took actual possession of the lot and planted thereon coconut
the subject property herein is valued only at P410.00, then the and ipil-ipil trees. They also paid the real property taxes on the
MTC, not the RTC, has jurisdiction over an action to recover the lot for the years 1980 up to 1998. Garcia sold the lot to the
same. Muertegui family lawyer, Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. (Atty.
Sabitsana), through a notarized deed of absolute sale. The sale
was registered with the Register of Deeds.
Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona departed on 29 May 2012. TD No. 1996 was cancelled and a new one, TD No. 5327, was
Former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez was nominated in issued in Atty. Sabitsana’s name. Although Domingo Jr. and Sr.
the Judicial and Bar Council as CJ Corona’s potential successor, paid the real estate taxes, Atty. Sabitsana also paid real property
he failed to manifest his acceptance of his recommendation to taxes in 1992, 1993, and 1999. In 1996, he introduced concrete
the position of Chief Justice. Chavez filed petition (certiorari, 65) improvements on the property, which shortly thereafter were
with the Supreme Court. destroyed by a typhoon.
In his initiatory pleading, petitioner asked the Court to
determine 1] whether the first paragraph of Section 8, Article When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs applied for
VIII of the 1987 Constitution allows more than one (1) member registration and coverage of the lot under the Public Land Act or
of Congress to sit in the JBC; and 2] if the practice of having two Commonwealth Act No. 141. Atty. Sabitsana, in a letter dated
(2) representatives from each House of Congress with one (1) August 24, 1998 addressed to the Department of Environment
vote each is sanctioned by the Constitution. JBC filed comment. and Natural Resources’ CENRO/PENRO office in Naval, Biliran,
Congress  Sen. Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Rep. Niel C. opposed the application, claiming that he was the true owner of
Tupas Jr. filed comments through Office of the Solicitor General the lot. He asked that the application for registration be held in
(OSG). SC granted petition and held that “The current numerical abeyance until the issue of conflicting ownership has been
composition of the Judicial and Bar Council is declared resolved.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Judicial and Bar Council is hereby
enjoined to reconstitute itself so that only one (1) member of Juanito, through his attorney-in-fact Domingo Jr., filed Civil Case
Congress will sit as a representative in its proceedings, in for QUIETIN OF TITLE and preliminary injunction, against herein
accordance with Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 petitioners Atty. Sabitsana and his wife, Rosario, claiming that
Constitution”. Respondents filed an MR. they bought the lot in bad faith and are exercising acts of
possession and ownership over the same, which acts thus
Whether the petition is one for certiorari under Rule 65. No, constitute a cloud over his title. VERSUS Sabitsana: asserted
pursuant to the rule that the nature of an action is determined mainly that the sale to Juanito is null and void absent the marital
by the allegations therein and the character of the relief sought, consent of Garcia’s wife, Soledad Corto (Soledad); that they
the Court views the petition as essentially an action for acquired the property in good faith and for value; and that the
declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Complaint is barred by prescription and laches. They likewise
Procedure. The Constitution as the subject matter, and the insisted that the Regional Trial Court (RTC- BILIRAN) did not have
validity and construction of Section 8 (1), Article VIII as the jurisdiction over the case, which involved title to or interest in a
issue raised, the petition should properly be considered as that parcel of land the assessed value of which is merely P1,230.00.
which would result in the adjudication of rights sans the Respondent counters that a suit for quieting of title is one whose
execution process because the only relief to be granted is the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and thus
very declaration of the rights under the document sought to be falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. RTC Decided in favor of
construed. It being so, the original jurisdiction over the petition the Muerteguis, declaring that their deed of sale is valid and
lies with the appropriate Regional Trial Court (RTC). preferred. Sabitsana appealed to CA. CA denied the appeal
Notwithstanding the fact that only questions of law are raised hence this petition (Rule 45) before the SC.
in the petition, an action for declaratory relief is not among
those within the original jurisdiction of this Court as provided W/N RTC has jurisdiction over cases of quieting of title? Yes, the
in Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of
title. On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the Rules
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 33
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
that an action for quieting of title may be instituted in the RTCs, of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and
regardless of the assessed value of the real property in dispute. require judicial construction; third, there must have been no
Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court an action to quiet title to breach of the documents in question; fourth, there must be an
real property or remove clouds therefrom MAY be brought in actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one
the appropriate RTC. It must be remembered that the suit for between persons whose interests are adverse; fifth , the issue
quieting of title was prompted by petitioners’ August 24, 1998 must be ripe for judicial determination; and sixth, adequate
letter-opposition to respondent’s application for registration. relief is not available through other means or other forms of
Thus, in order to prevent a cloud from being cast upon his action or proceeding.
application for a title, respondent filed Civil Case No. B-1097 to
obtain a declaration of his rights. In this sense, the action is one Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court observes
for declaratory relief, which properly falls within the jurisdiction that while the first, second, and third requirements appear to
of the RTC pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules. exist in this case, the fourth, fifth, and sixth requirements,
however, remain wanting.

Republic vs. Roque, 706 SCRA (9/24/13) As to the fourth requisite, xxx no actual justiciable controversy
Roque filed a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC, or the “ripening seeds” of one exists in this case. A justiciable
assailing the constitutionality of the following sections of RA controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is
9372 ("An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is
Terrorism," otherwise known as the Human Security Act of conjectural or merely anticipatory. A perusal of private
2007): respondents’ petition for declaratory relief would show that
(a) Section 3, for being void for vagueness; they have failed to demonstrate how they are left to sustain or
(b) Section 7, for violating the right to privacy of communication are in immediate danger to sustain some direct injury as a
and due process and the privileged nature of priest-penitent result of the enforcement of the assailed provisions of RA 9372.
relationships; Not far removed from the factual milieu in the Southern
(c )Section 18, for violating due process, the prohibition against Hemisphere cases, private respondents only assert general
ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, the Universal Declaration interests as citizens, and taxpayers and infractions which the
of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and government could prospectively commit if the enforcement of
Political Rights, as well as for contradicting Article 125 of the the said law would remain untrammeled. As their petition would
Revised Penal Code, as amended; disclose, private respondents’ fear of prosecution was solely
(d) Section 26, for violating the right to travel; and based on remarks of certain government officials which were
(e) Section 27, for violating the prohibition against unreasonable addressed to the general public. They, however, failed to show
searches and seizures. how these remarks tended towards any prosecutorial or
Republic moved to suspend the proceedings, averring that governmental action geared towards the implementation of RA
certain petitions (SC petitions) raising the issue of RA 9372’s 9372 against them. In other words, there was no particular, real
constitutionality have been lodged before the Court. RTC or imminent threat to any of them. [the Court dismissed the SC
granted the motion. SC promulgated its Decision in the Southern petitions in the Southern Hemisphere cases on the basis of,
Hemisphere cases and thereby dismissed the SC petitions. among others, lack of actual justiciable controversy (or the
Republic filed motion to dismiss, contending that Roque, et al. ripening seeds of one), the RTC should have dismissed private
failed to satisfy the requisites for declaratory relief. respondents’ petition for declaratory relief all the same.]
Likewise, they averred that the constitutionality of RA 9372 had
already been upheld by the Court in the Southern Hemisphere Also, the private respondents lack the required locus standi to
cases. Roque filed Comment/Opposition. RTC denied motion to mount their constitutional challenge against the
dismiss, finding that the Court did not pass upon the implementation of the above-stated provisions of RA 9372
constitutionality of RA 9372 and that Roque’s petition for since they have not shown any direct and personal interest in
declaratory relief was properly filed. Hence Republic filed the the case. [JOV: even though transcendental public importance
Petition for certiorari (65) with the Supreme Court. dispenses with the locus standi requirement, there must still be
a closer judicial scrutiny of locus standi]
W/N the petition for declaratory relief was sufficient/Was there As to the fifth requisite for an action for declaratory relief,
compliance to the requirements of declaratory relief to warrant neither can it be inferred that the controversy at hand is ripe for
the case? No. The Court, in Southern Hemisphere, did not make adjudication since the possibility of abuse xxx remain highly-
any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of RA 9372. The speculative and merely theorized. xxx a question is ripe for
certiorari petitions in those consolidated cases were dismissed adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct
based solely on procedural grounds, namely: (a) the remedy of adverse effect on the individual challenging it. Finally, as
certiorari was improper; (b) petitioners therein lack locus standi; regards the sixth requisite, the Court finds it irrelevant to
and (c) petitioners therein failed to present an actual case or proceed with a discussion on the availability of adequate reliefs
controversy. Therefore, there was no grave abuse of discretion since no impending threat or injury to the private respondents
(JOV: dismissal was proper in view of the said procedural exists in the first place.
grounds).
In relation to Southern Hemisphere case, 632 SCRA 10/5/2010
The following are the requisites for an action for declaratory RA 9372 ("An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People
relief: first , the subject matter of the controversy must be a from Terrorism," otherwise known as the Human Security Act of
deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, 2007) was signed into law on March 6, 2007. RA 9372
executive order or regulation, or ordinance; second , the terms
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 34
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
subsequently became effective. Petitioners filed petitions for
certiorari and prohibition.

Whether declaratory actions characterized by “double

contingency” are within the ambit of judicial review. No, the
Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the
occurrence of a perceived threat to any constitutional interest
suffices to provide a basis for mounting a constitutional
challenge. This, however, is qualified by the requirement that
there must be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently
adjudicate the issues.
Herein petitioners have failed to show that the challenged
provisions of RA 9372 forbid constitutionally protected conduct
or activity that they seek to do. No demonstrable threat has
been established, much less a real and existing one. Petitioners’
obscure allegations of sporadic "surveillance" and supposedly
being tagged as "communist fronts" in no way approximate a
credible threat of prosecution. From these allegations, the Court
is being lured to render an advisory opinion, which is not its
function. Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions
have become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the Court
has no original jurisdiction. Then again, 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. The possibility of abuse in the
implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take the present
petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined.
Such possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of
any power granted by law may be abused. Allegations of abuse
must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 35

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power
Rule 64: Relief fr Judgment, Final Orders and Reso of Commission due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical,
on Audit (COA) and COMELEC arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an
evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law
Subject Matter: Judgements, Final Orders or Resolutions of COA or or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck
COMELEC ONLY down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the
abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. ANAD was
Jurisdiction: ONLY SC already given the opportunity to prove its qualifications during
Remember: COA and COMELEC are two of the six tribunals where the summary hearing of 23 August 2012, during which ANAD
you can only file a case directly with SC: submitted documents and other pieces of evidence to establish
Other four are SB, CTA, CA, Shariah Appellate District Court said qualifications. The Comelec could, as in fact it did, readily
resort to documents and other pieces of evidence previously
Any decision final order, resolution of COA and COMELEC, you can submitted by petitioners in re-appraising ANAD’s qualifications.
assail that only under Rule 64 directly to SC As to ANAD’s averment that the COMELEC erred in finding that
it violated election laws and regulations, we hold that the
ONLY one remedy: Certiorari which is the certiorari under Rule 65 COMELEC, being a specialized agency tasked with the
supervision of elections all over the country, its factual
Certiorari (R. 64) Certiorari (R. 65) findings, conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered on
Only applies to COA and No specific agency matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered
COMELEC with by this Court in the absence of grave abuse of discretion
SC Jurisdiction only Concurrent jurisdiction of RTC, or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law. As found by the
CA, SC, SB (in its appellate COMELEC, ANAD, for unknown reasons, submitted only three
jurisdiction). nominees instead of five, in violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 7941.
Timeframe: 30 days from 60 days from receipt of order Such factual finding of the COMELEC was based on the
receipt of the copy of order denying the appeal/MR/MNT Certificate of Nomination presented and marked by petitioner
Fresh period rule is not Neypes Doctine (fresh period during the 22 and 23 August 2012 summary hearings. Xxx factual
applicable rule) or the Balance of the findings of administrative bodies will not be disturbed by the
courts of justice except when there is absolutely no evidence or
Same with Rule 62, 16 and 12 period of 5 days whichever is
no substantial evidence in support of such findings should be
Hence: If MR or MNT was filed higher is not applicable in Rule
against the order of COA or 65 since Rule 65 is only applied with greater force when it concerns the COMELEC, as
the framers of the Constitution intended to place the COMELEC
Comelec you only have the applicable when there is no
– created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution
balance of the period of 30 appeal nor no other plain,
itself – on a level higher than statutory administrative organs.
days but not less than 5 days adequate and speedy remedy
(tie up will 22 on the The COMELEC has broad powers to ascertain the true results of
the election by means available to it. For the attainment of that
computation of time).
end, it is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence.
Case Digests
W/N COMELEC committed an error in finding that petitioner
submitted only three nominees and that it failed to submit its
Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. COMELEC, 705
Statement of Contributions and Expenditures in the 2007
SCRA 340, 9/10/2013
Elections; whether such matters may be raised in a Rule 64
The COMELEC En Banc promulgated a Resolution canceling
petition. No, (see respect accorded to COMELEC when it comes
petitioner’s Certificate of Registration and/or Accreditation on
to its factual findings, conclusions, rulings and decisions as
the following grounds:
mentioned above, as to the matters w/c can be raised thru Rule
1. Anad is does not represent the marginalized sector;
64 petition - the only question that may be raised in a petition
2. Anad failed to submit list of at least 5 nominees;
for certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is
3. Failed to submit Statement of Contributions and
whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
Expenditures for the 2007 Elections
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction).
ANAD can be classified as a sectoral party lacking in well-defined
As empowered by law, the COMELEC may motu proprio cancel,
political constituencies, its disqualification still subsists for
after due notice and hearing, the registration of any party-list
violation of election laws and regulations, particularly for its
organization if it violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
failure to submit at least five nominees, and for its failure to
regulations relating to elections. Thus, we find no grave abuse
submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the
of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it issued the
2007 Elections.
assailed Resolution dated 11 May 2013.
ANAD went before this Court under rule 64 on certiorari
contending that Comelec gravely abused its discretion.

W/N the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in promulgating

the assailed Resolution without the benefit of a summary
evidentiary hearing mandated by the due process clause – No,
for a petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear
showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of
discretion. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 36

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Rule 65: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus (100% BAR) 2. Board; or 4. Person or
Ex.: ERC 5. Corp
Distinguish Rule 65 with Rule 45 3. Officer (ex. For person - this is not ordinary
In special civil actions in Rule 65 it says there that the tribunal, body, CIR) individual person but a person
board, officer, corporation are only nominal parties and under exercising quasi-judicial function.
regulations now of the SC, circulars, the tribunal, corporations Remember that quasi judicial
under or impleaded as respondent are not suppose to appear and bodies as we have studied does
not suppose to file pleadings, let the private respondentsdo that not belong to the judiciary and a lot
for them. of them falls under the executive
branch of
That is why in certiorari, you say petition for certiorari Juan De la the government and that includes
Cruz vs RTC branch 45 manila then name of respondent. The the NLRC. The NLRC is not a judicial
principal respondent there is the tribunal court or bodies, but they body but it exercises quasi judicial
become nominal in the process. functions.
Grounds 1. Lack of jurisdiction 1. Neglect in the
- Jurisdiction over the subject performance
Rule 45 Rule 65
matter not over the person of duty
Mode of appeal SCA
enjoined by
Error of judgment Error of jurisdiction
Say: MTC rendered a judgment law; or
Grounds: Grounds
on an issue which the subject is 2. Excludes
1. Insufficiency of evidence for Certiorari and Prohibition:
not capable of pecuniary someone from
2. Judgment is not according 1. Lack of jurisdiction
estimation. This is lack of the enjoyment
to the facts 2. Excess of jurisdiction
jurisdiction since it is under RTC. of office of
3. Damages awarded is 3. Grave abuse of discretion
franchise
contrary to law amounting to lack or excess of
2. Excess of jurisdiction
jurisdiction
Overstepping the authority – You can join
For Mandamus
going beyond your authority petition for
1. Neglect in the performance
mandamus and
of duty imposed by law
Say: quo-warranto
2. Exclusion from enjoyment of
1. A judge handling the
an office
prosecution of seduction and Say: Mayor
Correctible by appeal Correctible by certiorari
you imposed a penalty of Estrada removed
reclusion perpetua even if the city engr and
Jurisdiction you MTC judge who can his place
RTC, CA, SC, SB, CTA (City of Manila v. Judge Cuerdo) imposed max penalty of 6 appointed his
But apply the 3 principles in remedial law yrs. Here you are son.
1. Hierarchy of courts overstepping your authority. Mandamus for
2. Transcendental importance Penalty of prision Erap
3. SC is not trier of facts mayor is under the RTC Quo-warranto for
hence if imposed by the son.
When does the court acquires jurisdiction over the person? the MTC it is beyond its
1. Plaintiff –upon filing of the petition jurisdiction.
2. Defendant – upon receipt of the court order directing the
defendant to file comment within 10 days from receipt 2. What if the RTC judge
thereof. imposed penalty of < 6 years,
is it in excess of jurisdiction?
6 Issues under Rule 65 No. Under the
1. Who are the petitioners for CPM Indeterminate
2. Who is the respondents for CPM Sentence Law, the RTC
3. What are the grounds for the petition for CPM judge may imposed
4. What functions did the respondents in the petition for CPM penalty lower than 6
5. What is the common condition in the petition for CPM yrs.
6. What is the prayer in the petition for CPM 3. Grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of
Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus jurisdiction
Sec 1 Sec 2 Sec 3 - The most common ground
Petitioner Aggrieved party used by lawyers (this catch all
How? provision)
Due to the actuation of the respondents - Amounts to gross violation of
Responde May either be May either be (TBO-PC) the rules
nts (TBO) 1. Tribunal - If you look at jurisprudence
1. Tribunal – ex. 2. Board; or there is only one description
MTC, RTC 3. Officer using four adjectives:
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 37
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 a. Whimsical Can you file certiorari without jurisdiction over the person?
b. Capricious GR: No. However, in certiorari upon receipt of order of the court
c. Arbitrary – even before submitting comment, the court already acquires
d. Despotic – jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Always go in twos: Can you file certiorari without jurisdiction over the issue?
1. whimsical and capricious – Yes. Remember jurisdiction over the issue is waivable by the
no basis, unwarranted, parties.
baseless, the law does not
provide. Q: What is grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack of
jurisdiction?
2. arbitrary and despotic - done A: It is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment and despotic
out of passion, out of or arbitrary exercise thereof.
revenge, out of hatred or out Certiorari is always questioned in the bar or at least it is always
of love. mentioned. So if you are asked a question about certiorari and you
Remember despotic pa rin do not know whether it is excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
yan kahit out of love. jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction, just remember 4
Relationships, maraming adjectives – whimsical, capricious, despotic and arbitrary. When
jurisprudence dyan, kaya you see any of these words, it is grave abuse of discretion because
lawyers always file motion in all jurisprudence involving certiorari, these are the words often
for inhibition. used by the SC. But there may be a case wherein it does not use the
Ex. Judgement more than specific words, kaya dapat alam nyo ang meaning and synonyms of
what the plaintiff prayed for. these terms.
Functions Discretionary Both Ministerial
- When one 1. Ministerial; function What if RTC judge rendered judgment of P250K in a collection suit,
has given an or - No option is certiorari proper?
option 2. Discretiona No. Remember there is still appeal/MR/MNT. Certiorari is not an
(ex. ry alternative in remedy.
Application of
Indeterminate TUAZON v. Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan
sentence Law) Doctrine: Certiorari will only lie against tribunal exercising
Discretionary – different food judicial/quasi-judicial function.
Vs.
Ministerial – only one food Mr. Tuazon, a retired public school teacher, used his retirement pay
Cannot be brought against legislative or executive to buy a lot in Caloocan. However, through PD Marcos annulled the
function title of the buyers including that of Tuazon and was subsequently
Applicable for Judicial or Quasi judicial functions only distributed by Marcos to his Presidential Security Guard.
– ex. Creation of executive branch like HLURB, DARAB After EDSA, Tuazon filed certiorari to nullify the PD issued by
can be subjected to certiorari in the exercise of quasi- Marcos. OSG assailed that Marcos is an executive officer and does
judicial function. not perform judicial function hence certiorari is not available.
Conditions No appeal or any other adequate, speedy remedy in SC: Certirorari is valid. He is a usurper of judicial function hence the
the ordinary courts of law more certiorari has a valid ground.
Or in simple terms
No appeal, No MR, No MNT = hence neypes Remington Doctrine
doctrine (fresh period rule) or the balance of the Where one party these two remedies (certiorari and appeal) are
period or 5 days whichever is higher is not allowed since two remedies are directed to different orders of the
applicable since CPM is only proper if no court
appeal/MR/MNT
A filed a case against B and C. B and C filed a motion to dismiss but
- Certiorari and appeal are mutually exclusive was denied. Note M2D is an interlocutory order. B then filed
- EXPN: directed to different orders of the certiorari against interlocutory order. When a judgment was
court rendered while the certiorari is still pending, C then filed an appeal.
Prayer Nullify the final Cease and To do or perform As to C who filed an appeal for the judgment – this is valid
judgement, or desist from (take note As to B – he filed petition for certiorari is still valid
final orders, or doing mandamus is
resolutions something merely Say: A files a case against B and M2D was filed. When that is
ministerial granted, the order is final. Hence, your remedy is appeal. But if it
function) plus was denied, the order is interlocutory order since there is
damages, if any something to do. The remedy is certiorari.
-Hipus Sr. V. Bay
Damages No claim for damages Damages is
allowed.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 38

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Say. Collection suit for P250k filed with the RTC but a decision was
rendered. Certiorari is not available since appeal or other remedies Facts: UP student who applied for scholar ng bayan but in his 4th
are available. year it was discovered that there was misrepresentation on the
part of Nadal. UP Committee recommended for his expulsion in UP
Hipus Sr. v. Bay (he cannot enter in any school). MR was filed but was denied.
Doctrine: Mandamus will not lie for discretionary function of the Hence, he appealed to UP Board of Regents and honourable
judge. dismissal was only released. But Nadal went to court for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus.
Upon the filing of information in court, and upon motion for This landed to Judge Tilan and ruled in favour of Nadal. UP was
reinvestigation which was granted by Judge Bay there was a finding directed to accept Nadal for enrolment.
of no probable cause. Resulting in the petition to withdraw the SC: CPM will not apply. In mandamus, SC reiterated the case of
information. Judge Bay denied the withdrawal. Arellano v. Cui is academic freedom. The school has the right whom
SC: Judge Bay is correct it is discretion of the judge, hence, cannot to accept and whom not to accept. However, mandamus is not
be subjected to mandamus since the latter is only ministerial proper since the school has discretion in the exercise of academic
function. freedom.
WON the Mandamus will prosper in Motion to Dismiss the
Information Sections 4 to 9 of Rule 65 – common provisions applicable to CPM
Yes, if ministerial No, if discretionary
No. of copies
If the judge did not act on the It is discretionary if the judge not anymore 18 but five copies with only two copies with
motion regardless of the already acted on the motion and complete anexes for SC pursuant to efficient use of paper
decision of the judge – WON to grant or deny the motion to rule
grant or deny the motion dismiss. Hence, mandamus will For CA – instead of 7 it is now 3 copies with only one copy
not prosper. with complete annexes
For Lower courts – only one copy
Atienza Case: All single space
Depot in STa Mesa removing the depot mandamus was filed. The Font 12
petition is proper since it is only ministerial for it is merely in
compliance with the ordinance which was upheld by the court as When you file any of the CPM the court will not issue summons.
valid. Refusal of Atienza to implement it is ministerial function. It is How does the court acquires jurisdiction over the persons of the
neglect in the performance of once duty enjoined by law. respondents since no issuance of summons?
- If the petition if valid in form and substance the court shall
Say: Writ of Execution – a ministerial function and mandamus is issue an order to file comment or opposition not M2d
allowed. - Upon receipt of order the court already acquires
Then why there is a motion for writ of execution – it is only to jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent
determine if the matter is really executory. After determination of - CPM can be dismissed by minute resolution
such, the issuance of writ is purely ministerial already leaving the - Note the court still acquires jurisdiction over the
court no choice but to issue respondent even if it was dismissed upon the receipt of
notice of dismissal.
PROHIBITION vs. INJUNCTION - The court can render judgment upon receipt of comments
PROHIBITION INJUNCTION but he court can ask for the filing of other pleadings like
(Note: No such thing memoranda and the court may even ask for oral
as mandatory arguments. These are matters of discretion on the part of
prohibition) the court which can be the basis for judgment
Grounds Limited to 3 grounds: 3 Requisites must be
1. Lack of jurisdiction complied (EVI) REMEDY AGAINST ORDER OF JUDGMENT OF CPM
2. Excess of 1. There must be right 1. Rule 45 to SC; or
jurisdiction in esse (valid and 2. Rule 65 also (CPM) to a higher court -remember that
3. Grave abuse of existing right) certiorari is a concurrent jurisdiction
injunction 2. There must be There is no prohibition that a certiorari can be certioraried
violation of such
right Note: The court is a nominal party. It is not really the party in
3. Violation results to interest. While the court is the principal respondent, it is not
injury enough to only file the cae against the court but you need to
Nature SCA Ancillary remedy include also the private respondent.
(regular action)
Say A v. B. Judgement was rendered in favour of A. B filed rule 65
due to grave abuse of discretion. Who is the respondent.
UP BOARD OF REGENTS v. Ligo-Teylan
Not only MTC but also the party in interest which in this case is B.
Doctrine: Board was considered as a body exercising discretionary
That’s why the judge is only a nominal party and prohibited to
function, in effect quasi judicial. Even in an administrative bodies, a
participate. The filing of memorandum, etc is to be directed against
school board, when it rules that a student is not entitled to be
the adverse party not the judge.
enrolled in said school due to some grounds.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 39
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Note: CPM is not a matter of right = SC can dismiss it in a minute official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or dismiss
resolution. investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by
public officers. Plainly, the Ombudsman has "full discretion,"
CASE Digests based on the attendant facts and circumstances, to determine
the existence of probable cause or the lack thereof. On this score,
Ampil vs. Ombudsman, 703 SCRA, 7/31/13 we have consistently hewed to the policy of non-interference
SB Realty Corporation (ASB) and Malayan Insurance Company with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutionally mandated
(MICO) entered into a Joint Project Development Agreement powers. The Ombudsman’s finding to proceed or desist in the
(JPDA) for the construction of a condo building, the Malayan prosecution of a criminal case can only be assailed through
Tower. However, ASB was unable to perform its obligations to certiorari proceedings before this Court on the ground that such
MICO under the JPDA and the Contract to Sell due to obvious determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion which
financial difficulties. ASB and MICO executed their third contract, contemplates an abuse so grave and so patent equivalent to lack
allowing MICO to assume the entire responsibility for the or excess of jurisdiction. However, on several occasions, we have
development and completion of the Malayan Tower. At the time interfered with the Ombudsman’s discretion in determining
of the execution of the MOA, ASB had already paid MICO probable cause:
P427,231,952.32 out of the P640,847,928.48 purchase price of the (a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
realty. RD Pasig City (Espensin) issued Condominium Certificates (b) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to
of Title (CCTs) for 38 units and the allotted parking spaces in the avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
name of ASB, and another set for the same units, with MICO as (c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
registered owner thereof. ASB wrote Espenesin calling his (d) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
attention to the supposed amendment in the CCTs which he had authority;
originally issued in ASB’s name. RD replied that, believing it was a (e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
simple error and on representation of the person we came to know regulation;
and considered the representative of both parties (Atty. Serrano), (f) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
he erased the name ASB Realty Corporation on those specified (g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
titles and placed instead the name MICO. Ampil wrote Yuchengco (h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
and Cheng, President and Chief Financial Officer of MICO, (i) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
respectively, introducing himself as an (AMPIL is an) unsecured lust for vengeance.23 (Emphasis supplied).
creditor of ASB Holdings, Inc., one of the corporations forming The fourth circumstance is present in G.R. No. 192685. While we
part of the ASB Group of Companies. He demanded that agree with the Ombudsman’s disquisition that there is no
Yuchengco and Cheng rectify the resulting error in the CCTs, and probable cause to indict respondents for Falsification of Public
facilitate the registration of the subject units back to ASB’s name. Documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code, we
MICO paid no heed to ASB’s and Ampil’s demands hence Ampil are puzzled why the Ombudsman completely glossed over
charged Yuchengco, Cheng, Espenesin, and Serrano with Ampil’s charge that respondents committed prohibited acts
Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171(6) of the listed in Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Nowhere
Revised Penal Code and violation of Sections 3(a) and (e) of in the Resolution or in the Order denying reconsideration thereof
Republic Act No. 3019 before the Office of the Ombudsman. did the Ombudsman tackle and resolve the issue of whether
Ombudsman dismissed Ampil's complaint. Ampil filed a petition respondents violated the particular provisions of Republic Act
for review under Rule 43 before the appellate court. CA absolved No. 3019.
Espenesin of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and Simple Curiously, the Ombudsman docketed Ampil’s complaint-affidavit
Misconduct hence Ampil filed a (1) petition for certiorari under as one "for: Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of
Rule 65 as to dismissal of the criminal complaint and (2) petition Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended." The
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as to Ombudsman even prefaced the Resolution, thus: "this has
the ruling of the Ombudsman on the administrative liability of reference to the complaint filed by Oscar Ampil on 17 September
Espenesin. Petitions were consolidated. 2007 against respondents, for Falsification of Public Documents
and Violation of Sections 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act
W/N Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in the No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
dismissal of complaint filed before it – Yes, the Ombudsman is a Act, as amended.
constitutional officer duty bound to "investigate on its own, or
on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA, 1/28/14
official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission AL Ang Network is allegedly the duly authorized to supply water to
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The and collect payment therefor from the homeowners of Regent
Ombudsman’s conduct of preliminary investigation is both Pearl Subdivision. AL Ang  filed a complaint for sum of money
power and duty. Thus, the Ombudsman and his Deputies, are under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases before the
constitutionalized as protectors of the people, who "shall act MTCC (Bacolod City, Branch 4), seeking to collect from Mondejar
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against the amount of P23,111.71 which represented her unpaid water
public officials or employees of the government x x x, and shall, x bills. Mondejar  Alleged payment, but that AL Ang Network made
x x notify the complainants of the action taken and the result unreasonable and excessive adjusments in the rate, and
thereof." The raison d'être for its creation and endowment of questioned basis of the claim. AL Ang Network, in the interim,
broad investigative authority is to insulate the Office of the Disconnected Mondejar's water line. MTCC held that AL Ang
Ombudsman from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able Network was issued a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) by
to penetrate judges’ and fiscals’ offices, and others involved in the the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) only on August 7,
prosecution of erring public officials, and through the execution of 2003, then, it can only charge Mondejar the agreed flat rate of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 40
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
P75.00 per month prior thereto or the sum of P1,050.00 for the
period June 1, 2002 to August 7, 2003. Thus, given that Mondejar
had made total payments equivalent to P1,685.99 for the same Maglalang vs. PAGCOR, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
period, she should be considered to have fully paid AL Ang Maglalang a teller at the Casino Filipino, Angeles City Branch,
Network. AL Ang Network filed a petition for certiorari under Rule Angeles City, which was operated by PAGCOR, erroneously spread
65 of the Rules of Court before the RTC (Bacolod City, Branch 45), the bills, handed by one Cecilia Nakasato, in four clusters instead
ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC in of five. For his mistake, Cecilia accused him of trying to
finding that it (AL Ang Network) failed to establish with certainty shortchange her and that petitioner tried to deliberately fool her
Mondejar's obligation, and in not ordering the latter to pay the full of her money. He tried to explain, but Cecilia allegedly continued
amount sought to be collected. RTC dismissed the petition for to berate and curse him. To ease the tension, Maglalang was asked
certiorari hence AL Ang Network filed a Petition for Review on to take a break, after which he returned to his booth. However,
Certiorari, as a direct recourse, with the Supreme Court. Cecilia allegedly showed up and continued to berate Maglalang. As
a result, the two of them were invited to the casino’s Internal
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy Security Office in order to air their respective sides. Thereafter,
to assail the propriety of the MTCC decision in a small claims case Maglalang was required to file an Incident Report which he
– Yes, Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases submitted on the same day of the incident. Maglalang received a
states that: SEC. 23. Decision. — After the hearing, the court shall Memorandum issued by the casino’s Branch Manager informing
render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established him that he was being charged with Discourtesy towards a casino
by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be customer, in which he submitted a letter-explanation. Maglalang
entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and received another Memorandum stating that the Board of
a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. The decision shall Directors of PAGCOR found him guilty of Discourtesy towards a
be final and unappealable. casino customer and imposed on him a 30-day suspension for this
first offense. Maglalang filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He
Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under also filed a Motion for Production, praying that he be furnished
the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and with copies of documents relative to the case including the
the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its recommendation of the investigating committee and the
execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small Decision/Resolution of the Board supposedly containing the
claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an latter’s factual findings. Maglalang received letter-reply of one
available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from Atty. Carlos R. Bautista, Jr. denying the motion. PAGCOR denied
filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Maglalang's reconsideration. Hence Maglalang filed a petition for
SC: "the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where certiorari under Rule 65, before the CA. CA outrightly dismissed
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate the petition for certiorari for being premature as Maglalang failed
remedy in the ordinary course of law." Although Section 1, Rule to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking recourse from
65 of the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of the CA. Maglalang filed a Rule 45 before the SC.
certiorari may only be invoked when "there is no appeal, nor any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law," this rule Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
is not without exception. The availability of the ordinary course of applies in cases where an employee under the civil service is
appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party penalized with a suspension for not more than 30 days and is a
from making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where condition precedent prior to the filing of a Rule 65 before the CA –
appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy No, General Rule: Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
and sufficient. It is the inadequacy – not the mere absence – of all administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the
other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or
the writ that usually determines the propriety of certiorari. herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him
An essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative
remedies under the Rules is an absence of an appeal nor any machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer
"plain, speedy and adequate remedy" in the ordinary course of concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes
law, one which has been so defined as a "remedy which (would) within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be
equally (be) beneficial, speedy and sufficient not merely a remedy exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought.
which at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal
judgment x x x complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a to one’s cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of
remedy which will promptly relieve the petitioner from the administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons.
injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses
or tribunal" concerned. In view of the foregoing, the Court thus and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
finds that petitioner correctly (1) availed of the remedy of Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and
certiorari to assail the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of
subject small claims case, and (2) filed the said petition before administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so
the proper forum (the RTC) observing the doctrine of hierarchy of as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity
courts. [While the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the to correct its error and dispose of the case. However, the doctrine
Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute as it
certiorari. Such concurrence of jurisdiction, however, does not give admits of the following exceptions:
a party unbridled freedom to choose the venue of his action lest he (1) when there is a violation of due process;
ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.] (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 41

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to respectively, were charged for violation of Section 36023 in
lack or excess of jurisdiction; relation to Sections 2503 and 2530 (f) (i) and 1, (3) (4) and (5) of
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended, for
concerned; importing 858 cartons of 17,160 pieces of Anti-Virus Software
(5) when there is irreparable injury; Kaspersky Internet Security Premium 2012, with the CTA. They
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as pleaded "Not Guilty". Prosecution, during trial, and subsequent to
an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed the presentation of witnesses, filed its Formal Offer of Evidence.
approval of the latter; Garcia and Vestidas filed their Omnibus Motion to File Demurrer
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would to Evidence which the CTA granted (dismissed the case).
be unreasonable; Prosecution filed its motion for reconsideration which the CTA
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; denied. Prosecution filed petition for certiorari with the Supreme
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case Court, more than 60 days from receipt of the decision.
proceedings;
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate Whether the belated filing should be allowed by the Court – No,
remedy, and Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of stating that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60
judicial intervention, and unreasonable delay would greatly days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to
prejudice the complainant; be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any
(12) where no administrative review is provided by law; unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of
(13) where the rule of qualified political agency applies and parties to a speedy disposition of their case. While there are
(14) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies recognized exceptions to such strict observance, there should be
has been rendered moot an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a
The case before us falls squarely under exception number 12 since reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply
the law per se provides no administrative review for with the rules.
administrative cases whereby an employee like petitioner is In the case at bench, no convincing justification for the belated
covered by Civil Service law, rules and regulations and penalized filing of the petition was advanced to warrant the relaxation of the
with a suspension for not more than 30 days. Section 37 (a) and Rules [reason of the late filing: petitioner’s failure to monitor
(b) of P.D. No. 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of incoming court processes]. Even the error committed by the RATS
the Philippines, provides for the unavailability of any appeal [The in filing a motion for reconsideration with the CTA displays gross
heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, ignorance as to the effects of an acquittal in a criminal case and
cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and
employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in Whether a judgment of acquittal in the present criminal case may
case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty correctly be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 – No,
days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days’ salary]. In any case, even if the Court decides to suspend the rules and
permit this recourse, the end result would remain the same. While
Whether decisions of administrative agencies which are declared a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a
final and unappealable by law are still subject to judicial review – petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it must
Yes, xxx Decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative be shown that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to
agencies which are declared by law final and unappealable are lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process. In this
subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or case, a perusal of the challenged resolutions of the CTA does not
upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. disclose any indication of grave abuse of discretion on its part or
When such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly denial of due process. The records are replete with indicators that
misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary the petitioner actively participated during the trial and, in fact,
conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual presented its offer of evidence and opposed the demurrer. Grave
findings xxx. The judicial recourse petitioner availed of in this case abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise
before the CA is a special civil action for certiorari ascribing grave of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
the part of PAGCOR, not an appeal. [MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE: One of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
cannot file petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules where by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power
appeal is available, even if the ground availed of is grave abuse of is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
discretion. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only passion and hostility. Here, the subject resolutions of the CTA have
when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in been issued in accordance with the rules on evidence and existing
the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a jurisprudence.
party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability
of that remedy, as the same should not be a substitute for the lost UP Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Teylan, 227 SCRA
remedy of appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are In an effort to make the University of the Philippines (U.P.) truly
mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive] the university of the people, the U.P. administration
conceptualized and implemented the socialized scheme of tuition
fee payments through the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance
People vs. Castaneda, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13 Program (STFAP), popularly known as the "Iskolar ng Bayan"
Myrna M. Garcia (Garcia) and Custodio Mendoza Vestidas, Jr. program. Among those who applied for STFAP benefits for School
(Vestidas Jr.) as owner/proprietress and broker of Plinth Enterprise Year 1989-90 was Ramon P. Nadal, a student enrolled in the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 42
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
College of Law. On March 14, 1991, a team did an investigation, grounds. For, by virtue of the writ, the University's exercise of
Nadal's aunt, was interviewed and the team submitted a home academic freedom was peremptorily curtailed. Moreover, the
visit report founding discrepancies between the report and door was flung wide open for Nadal to do exactly what the decision
Nadal's application form. The committee on discipline wrote of the BOR prohibited him from doing and that is, to violate the
Nadal informing him that the investigation showed that he had suspension order by enrolling for the first semester of 1993-1994.
failed to declare, not only the fact that he had been maintaining It must have been with consternation that the University officials
a 1977 Corolla car which was owned by his brother but also the helplessly watching him complete his academic requirements for
income of his mother who was supporting his brothers Antonio taking the Bar. In the event that he be allowed to continue with his
and Federico. Noting further discrepancies between Nadal's studies he would, in effect render moot and academic the
application form and the certification, the U.P. charged Nadal disciplinary sanction of suspension legally imposed upon him by
before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) on August 23, 1991 the BOR's final decision of March 29, 1993. What is to prevent
with voluntarily and willfully withholding and not declaring that he other aspirants for STFAP scholarships from misleading the
has and maintains a car and the income of his mother (Natividad University authorities by misrepresenting certain facts or as in
Packing Nadal) in the U.S.A., which tantamounts to acts of instant case, withholding vital information and stating downright
dishonesty in relation to his studies, in violation of paragraph (a), falsehoods, in their application forms with impunity? Not only
Section 2, of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and would this undermine the authority of the U.P. to discipline its
Discipline, as amended. On October 27, 1992, after hearing, the students who violated the rules and regulations of the institution
SDT rendered a decision finding him guilty of "wilfully and but, more importantly, subvert the very concept and lofty intent
deliberately withholding information about the income of his to give financial assistance to poor but deserving students
mother, who is living abroad, and imposed upon Nadal the through the STFAP which, incidentally, has not ceased refining and
penalty of expulsion from the University and required him to modifying it's operations.
reimburse all STFAP benefits he had received but if he does not
voluntarily make reimbursement, it shall be "effected by the Tuazon vs. RD of Caloocan, 157 SCRA
University thru outside legal action." In executive session, the Spouses Tuason (Roman C. Tuason and Remedios Tuason) were
BOR (Board of Regents) found Nadal "guilty" and imposed on retired public school teachers. Spouses Tuason → With funds
Nadal the penalties of suspension for one (1) year effective pooled from their retirement benefits and savings, they bought
March 29, 1993, non-issuance of any certificate of good moral from Carmel Farms, Inc. of a piece of land in the latter's subdivision
character during the suspension and/or as long as Nadal has not in Barrio Makatipo, Caloocan City. RD → Carmel's Torrens ^tle (No.
reimbursed the STFAP benefits he had received with 12% interest 64007) over the lot was cancelled and a new one (No. 8314) issued
per annum from march 30, 1993 and non-issuance of his in the name of the Tuasons. Spouses Tuason took possession of
transcript of records until he has settled his financial obligations their property. President Marcos → Issued PD 293, declaring lots
with the university. Nadal filed with the Regional Trial Court of in Carmel's subdivision “open for disposition and sale to the
Quezon City a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc., the
and prayer for a temporary restraining order against President present bona fide occupants thereof." RD Caused the inscription
Abueva, the BOR, Oscar M. Alfonso, Cesar A. Buenaventura, on the Tuasons' title of “MEMORANDUM. — Pursuant to
Armand V. Fabella and Olivia C. Caoili. The RTC ruled in favor of Presidential Decree No. 293, this certificate of title is declared
Nadal hence this instant petition for certiorari and prohibition invalid and null and void ab initio and considered cancelled as
with prayer for the issuance of an injunction or temporary against the Government and the property described herein is
restraining order. declared open for disposition and sale to the members of the
Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc.” Spouses Tuason filed
W/N the lower court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari.
writ of preliminary injunction. Yes, on the second issue presented
for adjudication, the Court finds that the lower court gravely Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to question
abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction of the acts committed by President Marcos, through the issuance of
May 29, 1993. The issuance of the said writ was based on the lower PD 293 – Yes, It is true that the extraordinary writ of certiorari 9
court's finding that the implementation of the disciplinary may properly issue to nullify only judicial or quasi-judicial acts,
sanction of suspension on Nadal "would work injustice to the unlike the writ of prohibition which may be directed against acts
petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his course, and either judicial or ministerial. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
consequently, in getting a decent and good paying job." Sadly, deals with the writ of certiorari in relation to "any tribunal, board
such a ruling considers only the situation of Nadal without taking or officer exercising judicial functions, while Section 2 of the same
into account the circumstances clearly of his own making, which Rule treats of the writ of prohibition in relation to "proceedings of
led him into such a predicament. More importantly, it has any tribunal, corporation, board, or person ... exercising functions
completely disregarded the overriding issue of academic freedom judicial or ministerial." But the petition will be shown upon
which provides more than ample justification for the imposition analysis to be in reality directed against an unlawful exercise of
of a disciplinary sanction upon an erring student of an institution judicial power. The decree reveals that Mr. Marcos exercised an
of higher learning. From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that obviously judicial function. He made a determination of facts, and
the lower court should have restrained itself from assuming applied the law to those facts, declaring what the legal rights of the
jurisdiction over the petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus is never parties were in the premises. These acts essentially constitute a
issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on judicial function, or an exercise of jurisdiction — which is the
the part of the petitioner being required. It is of no avail against an power and authority to hear or try and decide or determine a
official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of cause. These acts may thus be properly struck down by the writ of
discretion or judgment. Hence, by issuing the writ of preliminary certiorari, because done by an officer in the performance of what
injunction, the lower court dared to tread upon legally forbidden in essence is a judicial function, if it be shown that the acts were
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 43
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of or a "writ of prohibition" is that process by which a superior court
discretion. prevents inferior courts, tribunals, officers, or persons from
usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with which they have not been
Since Mr. Marcos was never vested with judicial power, such vested by law, and confines them to the exercise of those powers
power, as everyone knows, being vested in the Supreme Court and legally conferred. Its office is to restrain subordinate courts,
such inferior courts as may be established by law — the judicial tribunals or persons from exercising jurisdiction over matters not
acts done by him were in the circumstances indisputably within its cognizance or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of
perpetrated without jurisdiction. The acts were completely alien which it has cognizance. Indeed, prohibition is a preventive
to his office as chief executive, and utterly beyond the permissible remedy seeking that a judgment be rendered which would direct
scope of the legislative power that he had assumed as head of the the defendant to desist from continuing with the commission of an
martial law regime. The adjudication was patently and grossly act perceived to be illegal. As a rule, the proper function of a writ
violative of the right to due process to which the petitioners are of prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to
entitled in virtue of the Constitution. In any event, the SC has the be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already
power to treat the petition for certiorari as one for PROHIBITION accomplished. The remedy of prohibition is no longer appropriate
xxx the court will grant such relief as may be proper and efficacious since ECBI had already been closed and placed under receivership.
in the premises even if not specifically sought or set out in the Settled is the rule that prohibition does not lie to restrain an act
prayer of the appropriate pleading, the permissible relief being that is already a fait accompli. Even if treated as a petition for
determined after all not by the prayer but by the basic averments certiorari, the petition should have been filed with the CA, xxx if it
of the parties' pleadings (JOV: weh? Kala ko ba the court should not involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
grant a relief w/c was not prayed for, rebut: not considered a relief, otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be
but the proper remedy which should apply in the case at bar). filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. MB is a quasi-
judicial agency xxx. the petition is also dismissible because it
Vivas vs. Monetary Board of BSP, 703 SCRA 8/7/13 simply ignored the doctrine of hierarchy of courts xxx Under the
Rural Bank of Faire, Incorporated (RBFI), is a duly registered rural Rules of Court, a party may directly appeal to this Court only on
banking institution with principal office in Cagayan. Its corporate pure questions of law. In the case at bench, there are certainly
life expired on 5/31/2005. Vivas and his principals acquired the factual issues as Vivas is questioning the findings of the
controlling interest in RBFI in January 2006. BSP issued the investigating team. No grave of abuse of discretion can be
certificate of authority extending its corporate life for another 50 attributed to the MB for placing the bank under receivership.
years and approved the change of its corporate name to
EuroCredit Community Bank (ECBI), Incorporated, as well as the Corales vs. Republic, 703 SCRA, 8/27/13
increase in the number of the members of its BOD, from 5 to 11. Corales is the elected Municipal Mayor of Nagcarlan, Laguna for
ISD II conducted a general examination, DLC examiners cancelled three (3) consecutive terms, i.e., the 1998, 2001 and 2004
the rediscounting line of the bank. The Bank was placed under PCA elections. Corales appointed Dr. Angeles to the position of
(ayaw mgpa-examine ng Bank). The MB issued its resolution Municipal Administrator, whose appointment was unanimously
approving the cease and desist order against ECBI which enjoined approved by the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna
it from pursuing certain acts and transactions that were (Sangguniang Bayan). Corales renewed the appointment of Dr.
considered unsafe or unsound banking practices, and from doing Angeles, but Sangguniang Bayan disapprove appointment on the
such other acts or transactions constituting fraud or might result grround of nepotism, as well as the latter’s purported unfitness
in the dissipation of its assets. OSI filed with the DOJ a complaint and unsatisfactory performance. Dr. Angeles continued to
for Estafa Through Falsification of Commercial Documents against discharge the functions and duties of a Municipal Administrator for
certain officials and employees of ECBI. After series of which he received an annual salary of P210,012.00. Provincial State
appeal/requests from ECBI and denial of MB of such. ECBI was Auditor of Laguna issued an Audit Observation Memorandum,
placed under receivership in accordance with ISD II’s which recommends an appropriate Notice of Disallowance be
recommendation. Vivas filed petition for prohibition before the SC. issued for the payment of salary expenses (against Dr. Angeles)
incurred without legal basis. Corales was required to comment or
Whether Vivas correctly resorted to a petition for prohibition – No, reply. Corales and Dr. Angeles filed a Petition for Prohibition and
Vivas availed of the wrong remedy. Under Section 30 of RA No. Mandamus against Andal and the then members of the
7653, any act of the MB placing a bank under conservatorship, Sangguniang Bayan before the RTC (San Pablo City, Laguna, Branch
receivership or liquidation may not be restrained or set aside 32). OSG Filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioners’ Petition for
except on a petition for certiorari, to wit: “Section 30. – The actions Prohibition and Mandamus grounded on lack of cause of action,
of the Monetary Board taken under this section or under Section 29 prematurity and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. RTC
of this Act shall be final and executory, and may not be restrained denied Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Andal was merely a
or set aside by the court except on petition for certiorari on the nominal party. Hence, Republic of the Philippines (represented by
ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with COA, represented by Andal) filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of Court of Appeals. CA granted Petition for Certiorari, thereby
jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari may only be filed by the annulling and setting aside the RTC Orders and, accordingly,
stockholders of record representing the majority of the capital dismissing the Petition for Prohibition with the trial court. Corales
stock within ten (10) days from receipt by the board of directors of and Angeles filed Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
the institution of the order directing receivership, liquidation or of the Rules of Court.
conservatorship.”
W/N CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s suit for prohibition – No,
Granting that a petition for prohibition is allowed, it is already an prohibition, being a preventive remedy to seek a judgment
ineffective remedy under the circumstances obtaining. Prohibition ordering the defendant to desist from continuing with the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 44
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
commission of an act perceived to be illegal, may only be resorted guilty during arraignment. Go, et. al. filed a Petition for Prohibition
to when there is “no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and and Injunction with Preliminary Injunction and Prayer for
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” In this case, Temporary Restraining Order before the Court of Appeals, seeking
petitioners insist that it is no longer necessary to exhaust to restrain the trial court from proceeding with the subject criminal
administrative remedies considering that there is no appeal or any cases against them and prayed that the same be dismissed. CA
other plain, speedy and appropriate remedial measure to assail the dismissed the case for lack of merit hence Go, et. al. filed petition
imposition under the Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
aside from an action for prohibition.
Whether resort to the extraordinary relief of prohibition was
As previously stated, petitioners’ action for prohibition was proper – No, Basic is the rule that the writ of prohibition is an
premature. The audit investigative process was still in its initial extraordinary remedy to prevent the unlawful and oppressive
phase. There was yet no Notice of Disallowance issued. And, even exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly
granting that the AOM issued to petitioner Corales is already administration of justice. It is available only when there is no
equivalent to an order, decision or resolution of the Auditor or that appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
such AOM is already tantamount to a directive for petitioner course of law, and when the proceedings are done without or in
Corales to reimburse the salaries paid to petitioner Dr. Angeles, excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Further, the
still, the action for prohibition is premature since there are still writ will not lie to correct errors of judgment but only errors of
many administrative remedies available to petitioners to contest jurisdiction. As long as the tribunal acts within its jurisdiction, any
the said AOM. Section 1, Rule V of the 1997 Revised Rules of alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will
Procedure of the COA, provides: “an aggrieved party may appeal amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment which are
from an order or decision or ruling rendered by the Auditor correctible by a timely appeal. In determining whether a tribunal
embodied in a report, memorandum, letter, notice of acted in grave abuse of discretion, mere abuse of discretion is not
disallowances and charges, Certificate of Settlement and Balances, enough. There must be grave abuse of discretion as where the
to the Director who has jurisdiction over the agency under audit.” tribunal exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, by
From the final order or decision of the Director, an aggrieved reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or
party may appeal to the Commission proper. It is the decision or gross as would amount to an evasion, or virtual refusal to perform
resolution of the Commission proper which can be appealed to the duty enjoined, or to act in contemplation of law.
this Court. Clearly, petitioners have all the remedies available to Petitioners failed to appeal from the Joint Resolution dated
them at the administrative level but they failed to exhaust the November 8, 2002 issued by public respondent Montero which
same and instead, immediately sought judicial intervention. found, among others, probable cause against them for estafa. Only
Moreover, courts have accorded respect for the specialized ability co-accused Grace Tan-Go and Roderick Go separately and timely
of other agencies of government to deal with the issues within appealed to the Secretary of Justice. Countless times we have
their respective specializations prior to any court intervention. The ruled that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari or prohibition is
Court has reasoned thus: not a substitute for a lost appeal. Also, petitioners actively
participated in the proceedings before the Secretary of Justice xxx.
We have consistently declared that the doctrine of exhaustion of The SC held that petitioners are guilty of forum shopping.
administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system.
The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative Hipos, Sr. vs. Bay, 581 SCRA 3/17/09
agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their Hipos, et al. were charged, through two Informations, for the crime
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective of rape and one Information for the crime of acts of lasciviousness
competence. The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails before Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, acting
lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of as a Family Court, presided by Judge Bay. Complainants filed a
controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice Motion for Reinvestigation asking Judge Bay to order the City
to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative Prosecutor of Quezon City to study if the proper Informations had
redress has been completed. been filed against Hipos. Judge Bay granted the Motion and
ordered a reinvestigation of the cases. Hipos, et al. filed their Joint
Tan vs. CA, 524 SCRA Memorandum to Dismiss the Case[s] before the City Prosecutor.
James L. King (King) lent money to spouses Roderick Lim Go and Prosecutor (Cruz, Arellano) issued a Resolution on the
Grace Tan-Go (spouses Go), who proposed to him a business reinvestigation affirming the Informations filed against Hipos, et al.
transaction wherein the spouses Go would borrow cash from King Prosecutor (de Vera) treated the Joint Memorandum to Dismiss
in exchange for which Roderick Go would issue postdated checks the Case as an appeal, reversed the Resolution holding that there
corresponding to the amount borrowed plus interest. Checks were was lack of probable cause. Prosecutor (de Vera) filed a Motion to
honored by the bank. King lent P40M to the spouses Go and Withdraw Informations before Judge Bay. Judge Bay denied the
Rolando Tan (father of Grace Tan-Go), Elena Tan (mother of Grace Motion to Withdraw Informations. Hipos, et al. filed the Petition
Tan-Go), allegedly for the renovation of their movie houses in for Mandamus, without moving for a reconsideration.
Butuan City. Go issued several checks to King in the amount of
P61.28 Million, inclusive of the interest for three months. Initial Whether the Judge may be compelled to dismiss the case, by way
checks were honored by the bank, but subsequent checks were of mandamus and, on the ground that the resolution of the
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. King prosecutor finding no probable cause – No, Mandamus is an
filed a complaint for violation of BP Blg. 22 and Estafa, after extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board,
demands were unheeded. Prosecutor (Montero) found probable officer or person, immediately or at some other specified time,
cause, and caused the filing of an information. Go, et al. posted to do the act required to be done, when the respondent
bail, before any warrant of arrest could be issued and pleaded not unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 45
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel
station; or when the respondent excludes another from the use compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a
and enjoyment of a right or office to which the latter is entitled, substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of
and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to
ordinary course of law. As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to
mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial secure a legal right but to implement that which is already
duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control established. Unless the right to relief sought is unclouded,
the exercise of discretion by a public officer where the law imposes mandamus will not issue.
upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any The PNP Chief’s issuance of the orders for the absorption of herein
manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment petitioners in the police force is not compellable by a writ of
that is to be exercised and not that of the court. In the case at bar, mandamus precisely because the same does not involve a
the act which petitioners pray that we compel the trial court to do performance of a ministerial duty. We no longer speak of the
is to grant the Office of the City Prosecutor’s Motion for reinstatement of the petitioners to the service because the
Withdrawal of Informations against petitioners. In effect, Philippine Constabulary no longer exists, but of their
petitioners seek to curb Judge Bay’s exercise of judicial employment in the PNP which is, as we held in Gloria v. De
discretion. There is indeed an exception to the rule that matters Guzman, technically an issuance of a new appointment. The
involving judgment and discretion are beyond the reach of a writ power to appoint is essentially discretionary to be performed by
of mandamus, for such writ may be issued to compel action in the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the only
those matters, when refused. However, mandamus is never condition being that the appointee should possess the
available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a qualifications required by law. Consequently, it cannot be the
particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already subject of an application for a writ of mandamus. Also, R.A. No.
taken in the exercise of either. In other words, while a judge 6975 clearly provides that the power to appoint PNP personnel
refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw Informations can be with the rank of "Police Officer I" to "Senior Police Officer IV" to
compelled by mandamus to act on the same, he cannot be which petitioners may be appointed is vested in the PNP regional
compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such director or in the Chief of the PNP as the case may be, and not in
Motion. In the case at bar, Judge Bay did not refuse to act on the the NAPOLCOM.
Motion to Withdraw Informations; he had already acted on it by
denying the same. Accordingly, mandamus is not available Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, 517 SCRA, 3/7/07
anymore. If petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed grave Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8027.
abuse of discretion in the issuance of such Order denying the Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area described therein from
Motion to Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators of
petitioners should have been to file a Petition for Certiorari businesses disallowed under Section 1 to cease and desist from
against the assailed Order of Judge Bay. operating their businesses within six months from the date of
effectivity of the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the
Sanchez vs. Lastimosa, 534 SCRA, 9/25/07 area are the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" of the oil companies
Sanchez (a constable in the Philippine Constabulary [PC]) was Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell
discharged from the service for allegedly losing his service firearm. Petroleum Corporation. Mayor Atienza approved the ordinance,
Meteoro (also a constable) was likewise discharged from the which became effective after its publication. City of Manila and
service for being absent without leave. Sanchez and Meteoro Department of Energy entered into a memorandum of
appealed, and both were cleared of all charges. Sanchez and understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they agreed
Meteoro applied for reinstatement. PNP has no absorption order that "the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most
yet issued, nor application acted upon. Hence, Sanchez and viable and practicable option." Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified
Meteoro instituted a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial the MOU in Resolution No. 97. In the same resolution, the
Court (RTC) of Quezon City. PNP issued Resolution No. 99-061, Sanggunian declared that the MOU was effective only for a period
recalling the earlier Resolution No. 98-105. RTC rendered its of six months starting July 25, 2002. Sangguniang Panlungsod
Decision declaring as void ab initio NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 99- adopted Resolution No. 13 extending the validity of Resolution No.
061 and ruling in favor of the petitioners; issued writ of 97 to April 30, 2003 and authorizing Mayor Atienza to issue special
mandamus. PNP appealed. CA reversed the ruling of the trial court business permits to the oil companies. Resolution No. 13, s. 2003
and ruled that a writ of mandamus could not be issued because also called for a reassessment of the ordinance.
petitioners had not established with distinct clarity their right to Social Justice Society filed the original action for mandamus before
be absorbed into the PNP. Sanchez and Meteoro filed petition for the SC praying that Mayor Atienza be compelled to enforce
review on certiorari. Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the
terminals of the oil companies.
Whether the petitioners have a cause of action to compel the PNP
Chief to absorb them into the PNP – No, the remedy of mandamus Whether the Mayor may be compelled via mandamus to enforce
is employed only to compel the performance, when refused, of a the Ordinance, notwithstanding the MOU made and resolutions
ministerial duty, but not to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary subsequently issued after the promulgation of the
one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command to exercise a Ordinance/Whether respondent may be compelled to enforce
power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed. Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan
In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential Terminals by way of mandamus – Yes, Under Rule 65, Section 3 of
that, on the one hand, petitioner has a clear legal right to the the Rules of Court, a petition for mandamus may be filed when any
claim that is sought and that, on the other hand, respondent has tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects
an imperative duty to perform that which is demanded of him. the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 46
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
duty resulting from an office, trust or station. Mandamus is an 4. To do and perform any and all acts which are deemed
extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the performance, reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes.
when refused, of a ministerial duty that is already imposed on the Funa (a concerned citizen) sent a letter to the COA requesting for
respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate a "copy of the latest financial and audit report" of the MECO
remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioner should have invoking, for that purpose, his "constitutional right to information
a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of on matters of public concern." He made the request on the belief
the act and it must be the clear and imperative duty of that the MECO, being under the "operational supervision" of the
respondent to do the act required to be done. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), is a government owned
Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel and controlled corporation (GOCC) and thus subject to the audit
compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a jurisdiction of the COA. COA (Naranjo) issued a memorandum
substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of referring the petitioner’s request to COA Assistant Commissioner
mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to Emma M. Espina for "further disposition." In this memorandum,
adjudicate; thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to however, Assistant Commissioner Naranjo revealed that the
secure a legal right but to implement that which is already MECO was "not among the agencies audited by any of the three
established. Unless the right to the relief sought is unclouded, Clusters of the Corporate Government Sector." Funa taking the 25
mandamus will not issue. August 2010 memorandum as an admission that the COA had
never audited and examined the accounts of the MECO, he filed
To support the assertion that petitioners have a clear legal right to the petition for mandamus before the SC to compel: (1) the
the enforcement of the ordinance, petitioner SJS states that it is a Commission on Audit (COA) to audit and examine the funds of the
political party registered with the Commission on Elections and has Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO), and (2) the MECO to
its offices in Manila. It claims to have many members who are submit to such audit and examination.
residents of Manila. The other petitioners, Cabigao and Tumbokon,
are allegedly residents of Manila. We have ruled in previous cases Whether the mandamus case should be dismissed, considering
that when a mandamus proceeding concerns a public right and that the COA has already obligated itself to audit MECO – No, xxx
its object is to compel a public duty, the people who are We find that the issuance by the COA of Office Order No. 2011-698
interested in the execution of the laws are regarded as the real indeed qualifies as a supervening event that effectively renders
parties in interest and they need not show any specific interest. moot and academic the main prayer of the instant mandamus
Besides, as residents of Manila, petitioners have a direct interest petition. A writ of mandamus to compel the COA to audit the
in the enforcement of the city’s ordinances. Respondent never accounts of the MECO would certainly be a mere superfluity, when
questioned the right of petitioners to institute this proceeding. On the former had already obliged itself to do the same, but still the
the other hand, the Local Government Code imposes upon SC refrains from dismissing outright the petition. An allegation as
respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all laws and serious as a violation of a constitutional or legal duty (for the COA
ordinances relative to the governance of the city." One of these to audit and examine the accounts of an auditable entity in the
is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he has MECO, whether COA was able to faithfully fulfill its constitutional
the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been role as the guardian of the public treasury in w/c any citizen has an
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no interest), coupled with the pressing public interest in the
other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so. In Dimaporo v. resolution of all related issues, prompts this Court to pursue a
Mitra, Jr., we stated the reason for this: These officers cannot definitive ruling thereon, if not for the proper guidance of the
refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity government or agency concerned, then for the formulation of
of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is obvious. It controlling principles for the education of the bench, bar and the
might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these public in general.
officers were to be permitted in all cases to question the
constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposing duties upon Whether Funa correctly filed the present petition – Yes, Taxpayers,
them and which have not judicially been declared voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded
unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met:
the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. (1) the cases involve constitutional issues; (2) for taxpayers, there
must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the
Funa vs. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, 715 SCRA 2/4/2014 tax measure is unconstitutional; (3) for voters, there must be a
The case stemmed from PH’s adherence to the One China policy of showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in
the People’s Republic of China (PROC). MECO’s purposes are: question; (4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that
1. To establish and develop the commercial and industrial interests the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be
of Filipino nationals here and abroad, and assist on all measures settled early; and (5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the
designed to promote and maintain the trade relations of the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as
country with the citizens of other foreign countries; legislators. We rule that the instant petition raises issues of
2. To receive and accept grants and subsidies that are reasonably transcendental importance, involved as they are with the
necessary in carrying out the corporate purposes provided they are performance of a constitutional duty, allegedly neglected, by the
not subject to conditions defeatist for or incompatible with said COA. Hence, We hold that the petitioner, as a concerned citizen,
purpose; has the requisite legal standing to file the instant mandamus
3. To acquire by purchase, lease or by any gratuitous title real and petition. To be sure, petitioner does not need to make any prior
personal properties as may be necessary for the use and need of demand on the MECO or the COA in order to maintain the instant
the corporation, and to dispose of the same in like manner when petition. The duty of the COA sought to be compelled by
they are no longer needed or useful; and mandamus, emanates from the Constitution and law, which
explicitly require, or "demand," that it perform the said duty. To
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 47
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
the mind of this Court, petitioner already established his cause of regard to or the exercise of [the tribunal or corporation's] own
action against the COA when he alleged that the COA had judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done." The
neglected its duty in violation of the Constitution and the law. tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person must have no
choice but to perform the act specifically enjoined by law. This is
opposed to a discretionary act whereby the officer has the choice
Cudia vs. Superintendent of PMA, February 24, 2015 to decide how or when to perform the duty. Anent the plea to
Cadet 1CL Cudia was a member of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the direct the PMA to include Cadet 1CL Cudia in the list of graduates
PMA. He was supposed to graduate with honors as the class of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 and to allow him to take part in the
salutatorian, receive the Philippine Navy Saber as the top Navy commencement exercises, the same was rendered moot and
Cadet graduate, and be commissioned as an ensign of the academic when the graduation ceremonies pushed through on
Philippine Navy. On November 14, 2013, the combined classes of March 16, 2014 without including Cadet 1CL Cudia in the roll of
the Navy and Air Force 1CL cadets had a lesson examination (LE) graduates. With respect to the prayer directing the PMA to restore
on Operations Research (OR432) under Dr. Costales at the PMAFI Cadet 1CL Cudia’s rights and entitlements as a full-fledged
room. OR432 was from 1:30-3:00 while ENG412 was from 3:05 to graduating cadet, including his diploma, awards, and commission
4:05. Prof. Berong of ENG412 issued a Delinquency Report (DR) as a new Philippine Navy ensign, the same cannot be granted in a
against Cudia because he was late for 2 minutes. Cudia received petition for mandamus on the basis of academic freedom. Suffice
his DR. His Explanation of Report dated December 8, 2013, he it to say at this point that these matters are within the ambit of or
reasoned out that:”I came directly from OR432. We were encompassed by the right of academic freedom; therefore,
dismissed a bit late by our instructor Sir”. Major Hindang, the beyond the province of the Court to decide. The powers to confer
Company Tactical Officer of Cudia, meted out to him the penalty degrees at the PMA, grant awards, and commission officers in the
of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours. Major Hindang’s basis of the military service are discretionary acts on the part of the President
punishment was the result of his conversation with Dr. Costales, as the AFP Commander-in-Chief. For a writ to issue, petitioners
who responded she never dismissed the class late, and the should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and there
protocol to dismiss class 10-15 minutes earlier than scheduled. should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to
Cudia addressed his Request for reconsideration of Meted perform the act sought to be mandated.
Punishment to Maj. Leander, Senior Tactical Officer. Maj. Leander
sustained the penalty imposed. Major Hindang reported him to the
Honor Committee (HC) in violation of the Honor Code for lying.
Cudia submitted his letter of explanation on the honor report. The
HC constituted a team to conduct the preliminary investigation on
the violation, it recommended the case be formalized. Cudia
pleaded not guilty. The result was 8-1 guilty verdict and upon the
order of the Chairman, the HC reconvened in the chambers, after,
the Presiding Officer announced a 9-0 guilty verdict. The HC denied
Cudia’s appeal. The Headquarters Tactics Group conducted a
formal review and checking of findings. Special orders were issued
placing Cudia on indefinite leave of absence and pending
approval of separation from the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Cudia submitted a letter to the Office of the Commandant of
Cadets requesting his reinstatement. The matter was referred to
Cadet Review and Appeals Board and it upheld the decision.
Cudia wrote a letter to President Aquino but the President
sustained the findings of the CRAB. CHR-CAR issued a resolution
finding probable cause for Human Rights Violations. Six days prior
to the March 16, 2014 graduation ceremonies of the Philippine
Military Academy (PMA), petitioners Renato P. Cudia, acting for
himself and in behalf of his son, Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia
(Cadet 1CL Cudia), and Berteni Cataluña Causing filed this petition
for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for
extremely urgent temporary restraining order (TRO).

Whether or not the petition for mandamus is proper – No, Under

Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for
mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer, or person unlawfully neglects neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station. It may also be filed when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully excludes another
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other
is entitled. For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined
must be a ministerial act or duty. An act is ministerial if the act
should be performed "[under] a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 48
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 GR: Under Rule 66- must be the resident of the respondent
Rule 66: Quo-warranto XPN: Always in Manila if OSG is the petitioner.
Literal meaning – “by what authority”
When a claimant to the public office files the case – where the
Note: There is only usurpation of public office and not of private respondent resides
office. Vs.
If OSG filed – venue is always manila
Nature: assailing the authority or by what authority are you
occupying that position which is limited to APPOINTIVE PUBLIC When to file – within one year from accrual of action.
OFFICES (appointive only) How about damages – one year from entry of judgment.

Calleja v. Panday Mendoza Case

A corp have faction among the BOD and one faction ousted the Doctrine: A petition for Quo warranto is against a public. It is
other by force resulting to filing of quo-wararnto. directed to the person occupying the public office and not to the
SC: Not proper since quo-warranto is only for public office. office per se. Also plaintiff is not entitled to backwages in quo-
warranto proceedings since wages in that office is legislated and it
2 TYPES OF QUO-WARRANTO was given to his successor. Likewise, it cannot be imposed against
the successor who was not impleaded in the case.
Omnibus Election Code Rule 66
Issue on the qualification for Issue is the
Mendoza is the Acting Director in BoC. When Ramos was elected as
election BUT this quo- qualification/capacity for
President, he transferred Mendoza from Manila to CDO which was
warranto is different from appointment. Issue is the
objected by the latter. In place of Mendoza, Allas was appointed on
election protest. qualification/capacity for
a temporary basis. Mendoza filed petition for quo-warranto before
appointment.
the residence of alias. Mendoza won. But the return of Mendoza
Issue is the ineligibility of Issue is the
did not happened due to appeal. Meanwhile, Allas was promoted
Public Officer and/or violation qualification/capacity for
as deputy commissioner. However, instead of reinstating Mendoza
of OEC Rules appointment.
a new person (olores) was appointed. Mendoza then filed for M2d
of appeal since it is moot and academic after Allas was promoted.
Rule 66
Judgment in favour of Mendoza became final and executory.
Subject Matter: Public office, but not directed to public office itself
Execution was not allowed by the court since he cannot execute the
but the person occupying it. Hence, the successor is not subject to
judgement for the judgment was against Allas who was promoted.
quo-warranto if it was filed before succession tool place.
He won but he cannot execute since Olores, the current occupant,
is not a party to the case.. In Quo-warranto the respondent is the
Who is the proper plaintiff in Rule 66–
person not the office per-se.
GR: The government since it is an award of the Govt to an individual
– no one has the right to public office
Prescription in QUO-WARRANTO
Who can file – Action for Quo-warranto Damages from Quo-warranto
GR: OSG which can be handled by the DOJ as authorized by the OSG Within one year from accrual Within one year from entry of
however through circulars this can be handled by the DOJ (Public of cause of action judgment of quo-warranto
Prosec) (Note: In Quo-warranto under case
EXPN: Private individual can also file petition for quo-warranto OEC it must be filed within: You must file it in a separate
provided he has a claim to the public office. 1. 10 days after election; or action not in the same action
If he has no claim- you cannot file but he can initiate deemed a 2. 5 days- from the day of since determination of
relator (the sipsip to OSG for the filing of the quo-warranto) filing the certificate of damages is only after final
candidacy. judgement of the quo
warranto proceedings.
Q: Example 4 candidate for councilor filed a quo warranto against
8 elected counsilors of Manila. The court dismissed the case. Why?
A: It is a rule that in filing quo warranto the person filing should be CASE Digests
entitled to the position. So in this case it was dismissed because
how can 4 people fill up the position of 8 councilors. Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA
Petitioner held several high ranked positions in the Bureau of
Who is the Relator Customs. The most recent of which was as "Acting Director III"
a private person who has no claim in the public office but the one of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS). In
who initiates the quo-warranto by informing the OSG/DOJ that a September 1994, petitioner received a letter from Deputy
person is usurping a public office and on that basis OSG/DOJ files Customs Commissioner Cesar Z. Dario, informing him of his
petition for quo warranto. termination from the Bureau of Customs, in view of respondent
Allas' appointment as Director III by President Fidel V. Ramos.
Jurisdiction: Petitioner wrote the Customs Commissioner demanding his
Same with CMP, Habeas Corputs – concurrent, SC, CA, RTC, SB but reinstatement with full back wages and without loss of
not CAT. seniority rights. No reply was made. Petitioner filed a petition
for quo warranto against respondent Allas. The trial court
Venue: GR: Where the rule provides ruled for Mendoza and ordered the ouster of Allas and for

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 49

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
petitioners reinstatement. An appeal to the CA was made but Godofredo Olores. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying
during its pendency the respondent was promoted. As a execution of the trial court's decision.
consequence of this promotion, Petitioner moved to dismiss
respondent's appeal as having been rendered moot and Calleja vs. Panday, 483 SCRA
academic. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and Respondents (Panday et al) filed a petition with the Regional
dismissed the case accordingly. The order of dismissal became Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur for quo warranto with
final and entry of judgment was made. Damages and Prayer for Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction,
Petitioner filed with the court a quo a Motion for Execution of Damages and Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order against
its decision. The court denied the motion on the ground that herein petitioners. Respondents (Panday et al) alleged that
the contested position vacated by respondent Allas was now from 1985 up to the filing of the petition with the trial court,
being occupied by respondent Godofredo Olores who was not they had been members of the board of directors and officers
a party to the quo warranto petition. Petitioner filed a special of St. John Hospital, Incorporated, but sometime in May 2005,
civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of petitioners, who are also among the incorporators and
Appeals questioning the order of the trial court. The CA stockholders of said corporation, forcibly and with the aid of
dismissed the petition. armed men usurped the powers which supposedly belonged
to Respondents (Panday et al).
Does the decision of the trial court in the petition for quo
warranto bind the successor of the person impleaded? RTC-Br. 58 issued an Order transferring the case to the Regional
Whether the RTC decision reinstating Mendoza may bind Trial Court in Naga City. According to RTC-Br. 58, since the
Olores, the new holder of the position, such that the latter may verified petition showed petitioners therein (herein
be ousted therefrom, considering that he was not made a party respondents) to be residents of Naga City, then pursuant to
to the original case. Section 7, Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the
action for quo warranto should be brought in the Regional Trial
No. The instant petition arose from a special civil action for quo Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the
warranto under Rule 66 of the Revised Rules of Court. Quo respondents or any of the respondents resides. However, the
warranto is a demand made by the state upon some Executive Judge of RTC, Naga City refused to receive the case
individual or corporation to show by what right they exercise folder of the subject case for quo warranto, stating that
some franchise or privilege appertaining to the state which, improper venue is not a ground for transferring a quo
according to the Constitution and laws of the land, they warranto case to another administrative jurisdiction. RTC-Br.
cannot legally exercise except by virtue of a grant or authority 58 then proceeded to issue and serve summons on petitioners
from the state. In other words, a petition for quo warranto is (Calleja et al). Petitioner Tabora filed his Answer dated June 8,
a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or 2005, raising therein the affirmative defenses of (1) improper
exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from venue, (2) lack of jurisdiction, and (3) wrong remedy of quo
its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has warranto. Thereafter, the other petitioners also filed their
forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. The action may be Answer, also raising the same affirmative defenses. All the
commenced for the Government by the Solicitor General or the parties were then required to submit their respective
fiscal against individuals who usurp a public office, against a memoranda. The trial court ruled in favor of Panday et al and
public officer whose acts constitute a ground for the forfeiture ordered that the case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court
of his office, and against an association which acts as a Branch 23, Naga City which under A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC has
corporation without being legally incorporated. The action been designated as special court to try and decide intra-
may also be instituted by an individual in his own name who corporate controversies under R.A. 8799. Petitioners no
claims to be entitled to the public office or position usurped longer moved for reconsideration of the foregoing Order and,
or unlawfully held or exercised by another. Where the action instead, immediately elevated the case to this Court via a
is filed by a private person, he must prove that he is entitled petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
to the controverted position, otherwise respondent has a Rules of Civil Procedure.
right to the undisturbed possession of the office. If the court
finds for the respondent, the judgment should simply state that Whether a Rule 45 is the correct remedy – No, the order was a
the respondent is entitled to the office. Ordinarily, a judgment denial of the petitioners’ prayer for the dismissal of the case,
against a public officer in regard to a public right binds his as a consequence, the trial court directed the transfer of the
successor in office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo case to another branch of the RTC xxx that had been designated
warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind as a special court to hear cases formerly cognizable by the SEC.
the respondent's successor in office, even though such Verily, the order was merely interlocutory as it does not
successor may trace his title to the same source. This follows dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to be
from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never done on its merits. Such being the case, the assailed order
directed to an officer as such, but always against the person cannot ordinarily be reviewed through a petition under Rule
— to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally 45.
authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of
the office to which he lays claim. In the case at bar, the petition Whether Panday et al. correctly resorted to a quo warranto
for quo warranto was filed by petitioner solely against under the Rules of Court, considering that the subject positions
respondent Allas. What was threshed out before the trial court are those of a private corporation – No, actions of quo
was the qualification and right of petitioner to the contested warranto against persons who usurp an office in a
position as against respondent Ray Allas, not against corporation, which were formerly cognizable by the Securities
and Exchange Commission under PD 902-A, have been
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 50
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. But, this does CIBAC, supposedly through its counsel, filed with the COMELEC
not change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil en banc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers a motion
Procedure does not apply to quo warranto cases against seeking the proclamation of Lokin as its second nominee. The
persons who usurp an office in a private corporation. right of CIBAC to a second seat as well as the right of Lokin to
Presently, Section 1(a) of Rule 66 reads thus: Section 1. Action be thus proclaimed were purportedly based on Party-List
by Government against individuals. – An action for the Canvass Report No. 26, which showed CIBAC to have garnered
usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be a grand total of 744,674 votes. Using all relevant formulas, the
commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the motion asserted that CIBAC was clearly entitled to a second
Republic of the Philippines against (a) A person who usurps, seat and Lokin to a proclamation. The motion was opposed by
intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales. The COMELEC then issued a
position or franchise. Clearly, the present Rule 66 only applies resolution proclaiming CIBAC as one of the winners in the 2007
to actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp a public elections and that it was entitled to two seats. Then, the
office, position or franchise; public officers who forfeit their COMELEC approved the withdrawal of the nomination of Atty.
office; and associations which act as corporations without Luis K. Lokin, Sherwin N. Tugna and Emil Galang as second, third
being legally incorporated despite the passage of R.A. No. and fourth nominees respectively and the substitution thereby
8799. It is, therefore, The Interim Rules of Procedure Governing with Atty. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales as second nominee and
Intra-Corporate Controversies Under R.A. No. 8799 Atty. Armi Jane R. Borje as third nominee for the party list
(hereinafter the Interim Rules) which applies to the petition for CIBAC. As a result, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-
quo warranto filed by respondents before the trial court since Gonzales as the official second nominee of CIBAC. Cruz-
what is being questioned is the authority of herein petitioners Gonzales took her oath of office as a Party-List Representative
to assume the office and act as the board of directors and of CIBAC. Lokin seeks through mandamus to compel
officers of St. John Hospital, Incorporated. [SC designated respondent COMELEC to proclaim him as the official second
certain branches of the RTC (designated and shall be called as nominee of CIBAC.
Special Commercial Courts) to try and decide cases formerly
cognizable by the SEC] Whether COMELEC is correct in its position that a quo warranto
may be a correct remedy for Lokin, and not a petition for
Which court/tribunal may validly take cognizance of the certiorari – No, An election protest proposes to oust the
present case? RTC that has jurisdiction over the principal winning candidate from office. It is strictly a contest between
office of the corporation. The next question then is, which the defeated and the winning candidates, based on the
branch of the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities, to determine
present action for quo warrato? Section 5 of the Interim Rules who between them has actually obtained the majority of the
provides that the petition should be commenced and tried in legal votes cast and is entitled to hold the office. It can only be
the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction over the principal filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy
office of the corporation. It is undisputed that the principal and has been voted for in the preceding elections. A special
office of the corporation is situated at Goa, Camarines Sur. civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty
Thus, pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC and A.M. No. 03-03- to the State, or of ineligibility of the winning candidate. The
03-SC, it is the Regional Trial Court designated as Special objective of the action is to unseat the ineligible person from
Commercial Courts in Camarines Sur which shall have the office, but not to install the petitioner in his place. Any
jurisdiction over the petition for quo warranto filed by herein voter may initiate the action, which is, strictly speaking, not a
Respondents. RTC – Br. 58 was never designated as a Special contest where the parties strive for supremacy because the
Commercial Court hence it was never vested with jurisdiction petitioner will not be seated even if the respondent may be
over cases previously cognizable by the SEC. Such being the unseated. The controversy involving Lokin is neither an
case, RTC-Br. 58 dod not have the requisite authority or power election protest nor an action for quo warranto, for it
to order the transfer of the case to another branch of the RTC. concerns a very peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to
The only action it could take on the matter was to dismiss the be seated as the second nominee of CIBAC. Although an
petition for lack of jurisdiction. election protest may properly be available to one party-list
organization seeking to unseat another party-list organization
Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 621 SCRA to determine which between the defeated and the winning
Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) submitted with the party-list organizations actually obtained the majority of the
COMELEC its manifestation to participate in the 2007 elections. legal votes, Lokin’s case is not one in which a nominee of a
It also submitted the list of five nominees from which its particular party-list organization thereby wants to unseat
representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the another nominee of the same party-list organization. Neither
required number of qualifying votes. The nominees, in the does an action for quo warranto lie, considering that the case
order that their names appeared in the certificate of does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty of Cruz-
nomination dated March 29, 2007, were: (1) Emmanuel Joel J. Gonzales to the Republic of the Philippines, or some other
Villanueva; (2) herein petitioner Luis K. Lokin, Jr.; (3) Cinchona cause of disqualification for her. Lokin has correctly brought
C. Cruz-Gonzales; (4) Sherwin Tugna; and (5) Emil L. Galang. this special civil action for certiorari against the COMELEC to
Prior to the elections, however, CIBAC filed a certificate of seek the review of the September 14, 2007 resolution of the
nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of COMELEC in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the
nominees whereby it withdrew the nominations of Lokin, 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption
Tugna and Galang and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje as one of of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now
the nominees. The amended list of nominees of CIBAC thus implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
included: (1) Villanueva, (2) Cruz-Gonzales, and (3) Borje. which provides for the review of the judgments, final orders or
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 51
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
resolutions of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. As of office, he cannot run for the immediately succeeding term
Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari by reason of the three-term rule. Thus, in such situation, the
in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the Supreme Court aspiring candidate is ineligible to run for the fourth term.
within a limited period of 30 days. Undoubtedly, the Court has Consequently, if such candidate states in a certificate of
original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokin’s petitions for candidacy that he/she is eligible to run for the same office,
certiorari and for mandamus against the COMELEC. he/she commits a false material representation of the
contents of the certificate of candidacy, which is a ground for
Aratea vs. COMELEC, 683 SCRA cancellation of the same under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus
Romeo D. Lonzanida (Lonzanida) and Estela D. Antipolo Election Code. Lest it be misunderstood, the denial of due
(Antipolo) were candidates for Mayor of San Antonio, course to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on the
Zambales in the May 2010 elections. Dra. Sigrid S. Rodolfo lack of qualifications but on a finding that the candidate made
(Rodolfo) filed a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus a material representation that is false, which may relate to
Election Code to disqualify Lonzanida and to deny due course the qualifications required of the public office he/she is
or to cancel Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy, on the ground running for. It is noted that the candidate states in his/her CoC
that Lonzanida was elected, and had served, as mayor of San that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks. Section 78 of
Antonio, Zambales for four (4) consecutive terms immediately the OEC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the
prior to the term for the May 2010 elections, Rodolfo asserted constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications or
that Lonzanida made a false material representation in his eligibility for public office. If the candidate subsequently states
certificate of candidacy when Lonzanida certified under oath a material representation in the CoC that is false, the COMELEC,
that he was eligible for the office he sought election. following the law, is empowered to deny due course to or
COMELEC 2nd division cancelled Lonzanida’s CoC and held that cancel such certificate. Indeed, the Court has already likened
Respondent Lonzanida, for holding the office of mayor for a proceeding under Section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding
more than three consecutive terms, went against the three- under Section 253 of the OEC since they both deal with the
term limit rule; therefore, he could not be allowed to run anew eligibility or qualification of a candidate, with the distinction
in the 2010 elections. Lonzanida filed an MR before COMELEC mainly in the fact that a "Section 78" petition is filed before
En Banc. Lonzanida and Efren Racel Aratea (Aratea) garnered proclamation, while a petition for quo warranto is filed after
the highest number of votes and were respectively proclamation of the winning candidate. Section 78 allows the
proclaimed Mayor and Vice-Mayor. Aratea took his oath of filing of a petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate
office as Acting Mayor before Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge of candidacy before the election, while Section 253 allows the
Raymond C. Viray of Branch 75, Olongapo City, Upon his filing of a petition for quo warranto after the election. Despite
inquiry, he was allowed by DILG (?) Secretary Jesse M. Robredo the overlap of the grounds, one should not confuse a petition
to take an oath of office as "the permanent Municipal Mayor for disqualification using grounds enumerated in Section 68
of San Antonio, Zambales without prejudice however to the with a petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of
outcome of the cases pending before the [COMELEC]." candidacy under Section 78. It is true that the discovery of false
COMELEC EN Banc issued a Reso disqualifying Lonzanida from representation as to material facts required to be stated in a
running for Mayor in the May 2010 elections and held, first, certificate of candidacy, under Section 74 of the Code, may be
Lonzanida had been elected and had served as Mayor for more made only after the lapse of the 25-day period prescribed by
than three consecutive terms without interruption; and Section 78 of the Code, through no fault of the person who
second, Lonzanida had been convicted by final judgment of ten discovers such misrepresentations and who would want the
(10) counts of falsification under the Revised Penal Code. disqualification of the candidate committing the
Lonzanida was sentenced for each count of falsification to misrepresentations.
imprisonment of four (4) years and one (1) day of prisión
correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of It would seem, therefore, that there could indeed be a gap
prisión mayor as maximum. COMELEC EN Banc  ordered Vice- between the time of the discovery of the misrepresentation
Mayor Efren Racel Aratea to cease and desist from and the time when the proclamation of the results of the
discharging the functions of the Office of the Mayor, and to election is made. During this so-called "gap" the would-be
cause a peaceful turn-over of the said office to Antipolo upon petitioner (who would seek the disqualification of the
her proclamation. candidate) is left with nothing to do except to wait for the
proclamation of the results, so that he could avail of a remedy
Whether Lonzanida was disqualified under Section 68 of the against the misrepresenting candidate, that is, by filing a
Omnibus Election Code, or made a false material petition for quo warranto against him.
representation under Section 78 of the same Code that
resulted in his certificate of candidacy being void ab initio. De Castro vs. Carlos, 696 SCRA, 4/16/13
President GMA appointed De Castro as assistant general
Yes (?), the grounds for disqualification for a petition under manager for operations (AGMO) of the Metropolitan Manila
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code are specifically Development Authority (MMDA), concurred in by the members
enumerated. A petition for disqualification under Section 68 of the Metro Manila Council in MMDA Resolution No. 09-10,
clearly refers to "the commission of prohibited acts and Series of 2009. Atty. Francis N. Tolentino, chairperson of the
possession of a permanent resident status in a foreign MMDA, issued Office Order No. 106, designating Corazon B.
country." All the offenses mentioned in Section 68 refer to Cruz as officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Office of the AGMO. De
election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code, not to Castro was then reassigned to the Legal and Legislative Affairs
violations of other penal laws. On the other hand, when the Office, Office of the General Manager. Carlos was then
aspiring candidate has already served three-consecutive terms designated by Atty. Tolentino as OIC of the Office of the AGMO
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 52
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 24. De Castro was the assumption of President Aquino. Likewise, it is
stricken off the MMDA payroll, and he was no longer paid his inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly replaced by
salary beginning November 2010, he was later offered the another non-CESO eligible. In a quo warranto proceeding, the
position of Director IV of MMDA Public Health and Safety person suing must show that he has a clear right to the office
Services and/or MMDA consultant. He turned down the offer, allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent a showing of
claiming that it was a demotion in rank. Pres Noynoy then that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the
appointed Carlos as AGMO. De Castro filed Petition for the supposed usurper is immaterial.
issuance of a writ of quo warranto under Rule 66 seeking to
oust respondent Emerson S. Carlos (respondent) from the
position.

Whether De Castro correctly filed the quo warranto case

directly to the SC – No, Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus,
the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive but is concurrent
with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial court and
does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum. The hierarchy of courts must be strictly
observed. Settled is the rule that "the Supreme Court is a court
of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily
perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental
charter and immemorial tradition." A disregard of the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the
outright dismissal of a petition. A direct invocation of this
Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and
important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in
a petition. The rationale behind this policy arises from the
necessity of preventing (1) inordinate demands upon the time
and attention of the Court, which is better devoted to those
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further
overcrowding of the Court’s docket. In this case, petitioner
justified his act of directly filing with this Court only when he
filed his Reply and after respondent had already raised the
procedural infirmity that may cause the outright dismissal of
the present Petition. Petitioner likewise cites stability in the
civil service and protection of the rights of civil servants as
rationale for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. Petitioner’s
excuses are not special and important circumstances that
would allow a direct recourse to this Court. More so, mere
speculation and doubt to the exercise of judicial discretion of
the lower courts are not and cannot be valid justifications to
hurdle the hierarchy of courts. Thus, the Petition must be
dismissed.

Whether quo warranto is the correct remedy – 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. The controversy arose
from the issuance of OP Memorandum Circular Nos. 1 and 2,
which applies to all non-CESO’s occupying CES positions in all
agencies of the executive branch. Petitioner, being a non-CESO,
avers that he is not covered by these OP memoranda
considering that the AGMO of the MMDA is a non-CES position.
Therefore, considering that petitioner is an appointee of then
President Arroyo whose term ended on 30 June 2010,
petitioner’s term of office was also deemed terminated upon
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 53
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Rule 67: EXPROPRIATION Doctrine: There is already taking of the property upon filing of the
It is the proceeding to implement the inherent right of the applicant of expropriation case even if there is no actual taking yet
State – Eminent Domain. of the property. Hence, the aggrieved party is entitled for
Government depositary bank – Now Landbank not PNB. compensation even if the expropriation case was already dismissed
Landbank determines the value of just compensation due to M2D filed by the petitioner assailing that there was a mere
particularly the consequential damages and benefits. error of judgment on the part of the petitioner and the lot
previously expropriated is sufficient already.
Jurisdiction: From the filing of the expropriation case, the owner already
RTC, because the action is not capable of pecuniary estimation. The incurred damages, hence, plaintiff has no such right to dismiss the
value of the property being only incidental to the case. (Russel V. case under Sec 1 Rule 17 of the ROC.
Vestil, Brgy San Roque V. Heirs of Pastor)
Here, NPC wanted to set-up geothermal plant in Albay in the slope
Venue: Where the property is located. of Mayon Volcano. The property is owned by Pobre Family. This was
expropriated by the NPC. While NPC is constructing the geothermal
Property involved: plant, NPC said that they expropriate insufficient land, hence, NPC
Any kind of property, whether real or personal filed another expropriation case which also belongs to the Pobres.
Q: What is the remedy of the owner of the property? However, before Pobres filed an answer in the complaint, NPC filed
A: 1. Mandamus notice of dismissal since according to NPC they already
2. Quo warranto expropriated sufficient lands.
Pobre assailed that they are entitled compensation since the case
was already filed in court, hence, there is already taking.
Answer is not necessary. What the Rule provides is filing
of defences and objections.
Is the Pobres entitled to compensation in the second expropriation
case?
We premise our discussion in the Constitutional provision, in Bill or
Rights there is one provision regarding consti
Ruling: Yes. Upon filing there was already taking even if the
“No private property shall be taken for public use without just
property was not physically/actually taken.
compensation”
- Without this substantial conti you cannot exercise
expropriation. Manila Internal Airport Case
Here, MIAA expanded its operation. MIAA expropriated several
Note: Before the Rules of Court named this rule as Eminent properties there. However, the adjacent owner of the property
Domain. expropriated property also asked for compensation since the
utilization of the property was greatly diminish. The poultry
Eminent Domain – inherent power of the state. operation of the said property dwindled resulting in the decline in
Vs. income due to less egg production caused by loud noise of the
Taxation – the life blood of the state. airplane.
SC ruled: There was already taking even if there is no actual taking
Eminent Domain – based on regalia doctrine (all lands belong to the since there is a reduction of income on the part of the adjacent
state and he who claims it has the burden of proof). property.

Note: In the study of expropriation, you need to go back in Note: The taking must only be for a definite purpose: for public use.
substantive law – Land Registration Act. Remember the Chinese Cemetery case: if the property is already
What is property discussed here? for public use it can never be subject for another taking.
Not only the real property but also personal property. It is not necessary that entire community shall benefit. Even if it
Hence, ill-gotten wealth can be subject to appropriation. caters only to certain members of the society as long as it is for the
The word property in the consti is not limited to real common good and for the general welfare then it is for public use.
property but can also extends personal property which is
also applicable in Rule 67. Say:
Although in Rule 67, most of the topics here are real In Manila, when MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando constructed in
property since personal property are being covered by Mla the pink urinals. But this pink urinals cater only to men. Case
different rules and laws. was filed assailing violation of equal protection clause. However,
Say: AML Law it is taking also but it is not under Rule 67. Bayani said that these urinals can be used by women also.
Even if these urinals covers only men it redounded for the benefit
What is the concept of taking? of general welfare. It is only men that can urinate anywhere and
Not limited to actual seizure or custody of property. not the women.
There is taking when there is diminution of usefulness. Hence, when we speak of public use it does not necessarily benefits
When you diminish the utilization or usefulness of the the entire community as long as it redounds for the
property of an individual there is taking, thus, person is
entitled to compensation. Formula for Just compensation (JC)
JC = FMV + consequential damages – consequential benefits which
National Power Corp. vs. CA (BAR MATTER) should not be more than the consequential damages.
Given in the Bar in relation to Section 1 of Rule 17
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 54
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
FMV – Expropriation proceedings under the Local Government Code
as provided by PD 48 of Marcos it provides that FMV is that (which governs local expropriation)
declared by the owner or the assessor whichever is lower 1. Filing of the complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and
= declared unconstitutional. substance; and
Now the FMV is the price that the buyer is willing to buy 2. Deposit of the amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market
without being forced to or the seller is willing to sell value of the property to be expropriated, based on the most
without being forced to. recent tax declaration.
Can you apply these in expropriation case?
In reality it is not since the owner actually suffers loss. Can you still expropriate a government property?
No. However, if such government property is occupied by private
Under the Rule, the Judge shall constitute 3 persons for private use it can be expropriated.
Commissioners (1 from expropriator; 1 from the owner;
and 1 from the court – usually clerk of court of Landbank Can government property be expropriated? (BAR)
representative) It depends, if it is not for public use it can still be expropriated.
Expropriation is not only against the owner but also the occupant
Note: Upon filing of the complaint they can immediate takeover of the property.
even without payment of the property. The petitioner can just pay
deposit for purposes of taking immediate of the property is 15% of Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor
the zonal value (100% if infrastructure program of the Expropriation case is not capable of pecuniary expropriation hence
government) of the property not the market value of the property. under the jurisdiction of RTC only.
Zonal valuation is the value assessment of the BIR.
Who is the plaintiff?
Asia’s Emerging Dragon v. DOTC (BAR MATTER) Only the government. But the local government code granted that
Doctrines: power not only to local government and barangay but also to
1. Before the government can take possession of the property GOCCs, etc.
expropriated they must pay 100% of the zonal valuation. But
take note that this rule is for INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT OF THE Can the barangay expropriate by merely passing a resolution (BAR
Government and not for the ordinary project of the government MATTER)?
like mere road widening. The example of infrastructure project No. Such resolution must also be approved by the municipal or city
is the building of MRT; Sangunian.
2. Sect1 of Rule 67 of ROC recognizes the possibility that the
property sought to be appropriated may be under the name of Note for GOCCs? Not all can expropriate, it must be stated in the
the Govt although occupied by private occupant. charter of the GOCC.

Here, Congressman Baterina is opposing the expropriation Reclamation is not expropriation. Reclamation is only a mode of
proceedings on the ground that NAIA 3 is already a public property, acquiring title over the property.
hence, not entitled to just compensation.
2 parts of expropriation
When immediate entry allowed in expropriation (fr: mylegalwhiz) 1. The first thing that the court issues is the order of
condemnation or what we call the order of expropriation. This
Immediate entry is allowed provided the following requirements is a final order hence the remedy is appeal which is a notice of
are met: appeal.

Expropriation proceedings under Rule 67, Rules of Court 2. Determination of just compensation. To appoint 3
1. Filing of the complaint and due notice to the defendant; and commissioners decided by the parties, plaintiff and the
2. Deposit with an authorized government depository of the defendant shall suggest the member of the commission and
assessed value of the property for expropriation. the court shall appoint a common member. Take note that the
(National Power Corp v. Jocson, G.R. Nos. 94193-99, February 25, members of the commission may accept evidence, here
1992) testimony not for the purpose of judgment but only a report
which is not controlling and merely recommendatory.
Expropriation proceedings under Republic Act No. 8974 (which
governs expropriation for national infrastructure projects) The determination of just compensation is ALWAYS A
1. Filing of the complaint and due notice to the defendant; JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND NEVER AN EXECUTIVE NOR
2. Immediate payment of 100% of the value of the property LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. That’s why the commissioner can only
based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR; and recommend which the court may take it or not or recommit
the value of the improvements and/or structures the recommendation for further studies.
3. If there is no existing valuation and expropriation is of utmost
urgency and importance, there shall be payment of the BAR 2009
proffered value (see Republic v. Gingoyan, G.R. No. 166429, Can Congress pass a law expropriating 100 sqm of UST
December 19, 2005; Republic v. Holy Trinity Development property to be paid through exchange or barter with another
Corp., G.R. No. 172410, April 14, 2008) one hectare property in Calamba as payment. Objective is to
build statute of Mayor Lacson.
Committee Answer: Yes as alternative answer
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 55
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Atty Brondial said No. The answer should be in remedial law Manila) to deposit the amount of P1,825,241.00 equivalent to
not in constitutional law since it is a rem bar. the assessed value of the properties. After petitioner had made
the deposit, the trial court issued another order, dated
2015 BAR December 15, 1998, directing the issuance of a writ of
Larceny question in remedial law which is already outside possession in favor of petitioner. Serranos filed a petition for
remedial law. certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled in favor of
Unanimous approval that regardless of the answer it is a full Serranos.
answer.
[Other ruling: Whether the authorization of the issuance of a writ
City of Manila v. Serrano of possession and petitioner's entry into the property pursuant
Seranno questioned the expropriation of the property claiming that to Rule 67, §2 by the trial court is tantamount to condemnation
the property is very small hence cannot be expropriated. The issue of the subject lot in the expropriator's favor – No]
here is WON City of Manila correctly follow the process in the
expropriate case. Whether the order for the issuance of the writ of possession was
Ruling: No. Expropriation must always be the last resort. If there proper? Yes. Rule 67, §2 provides: Upon the filing of the
are other modes of acquiring ownership the expropriation should complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the
never be exercised. defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon
possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the
Republic v. Andaya authorized government depository an amount equivalent to
Doctrine: Even if the property has not been actually taken as long the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to
as it cannot be used as it used to be, then there is already taking be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such
and there must be payment of just compensation. deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court
authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a
government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on
2 parts in expropriation case
demand to the authorized government depositary. If personal
1. WON the property is for public use
property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained
2. Payment of just compensation.
and the amount to be deposited shall be fixed by the court. After
such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other
Orders in Expropriation
proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the
1. Order of expropriation – final order, hence, appealable.
property involved and promptly submit a report thereof to the
You cannot recover anymore the property. You must
court with service of copies to the parties.
appeal the order of expropriation for you to recover the
property. After the finality of judgment you cannot
Thus, a writ of execution may be issued by a court upon the filing
recover anymore the property.
by the government of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in
2. Payment of just compensation.
form and substance and upon deposit made by the government
of the amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property
Where should the deposit be made?
subject to expropriation. Upon compliance with these
A: court or reputable bank
requirements, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes
ministerial. In this case, these requirements were satisfied and,
CASE Digests therefore, it became the ministerial duty of the court to issue
the writ of possession. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled
City of Manila vs. Serrano, 359 SCRA that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements laid down
The City Council of Manila enacted the Ordinance No. 7833, in §§9 - 10 of RA. No. 7279 and reiterated in Filstream ruling.
authorizing the expropriation of certain properties in Manila's This is error. The ruling in the Filstream was necessitated
First District in Tondo. Petitioner City of Manila filed an amended because an order of condemnation had already been issued by
complaint for expropriation against the supposed owners of the the trial court in that case. Thus, the judgment in that case had
lots included herein respondents Oscar, Felicitas, Jose, already become final. In this case, the trial court has not gone
Benjamin, Estelita, Leonora, Adelaida, all surnamed are Serrano. beyond the issuance of a writ of possession. Hearing is still to be
Respondents filed a consolidated answer, in which they alleged held to determine whether or not petitioner indeed complied
that their mother, the late Demetria De Guia, had acquired Lot with the requirements provided in RA. No. 7279. It is, therefore,
l-C from Lee Kian Hui; that they had been the bona fide premature at this stage of the proceedings to find that petitioner
occupants of the said parcel of land for more than 40 years; that resorted expropriation without first trying the other modes of
the expropriation of Lot l-C would result in their disclosure, it acquisition enumerated in § 10 of the law.
being the only residential land left to them by their deceased
mother; and that the said lot was exempt from expropriation National Power Corp. vs. CA, 436 SCRA
because dividing the said parcel of land among them would NPC is a public corporation which is authorized by law to acquire
entitle each of them to only about 50 square meters of land. property and exercise the right of eminent domain. The
Respondents, therefore, prayed that judgment be rendered Commission on Volcanology certified that thermal mineral
declaring Lot l-C exempt from expropriation and ordering the water and steam were present beneath the Property. The
cancellation of the notice annotated on the back of TCT No. Commission on Volcanology found the thermal mineral water
226048, regarding the pendency of Civil Case No. 94-72282 for and steam suitable for domestic use and potentially for
eminent domain filed by petitioner. Upon motion by petitioner, commercial or industrial use. NPC then became involved with
the trial court issued an order, directing petitioner (City of Pobre's Property in three instances. First, when Pobre leased to
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 56
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
NPC for one year eleven lots from the approved subdivision 1964 Rules of Court conferred on the plaintiff must be
plan. Second, the first time that NPC filed its expropriation case understood to have applied only to other civil actions. The
against Pobre to acquire an 8,311.60 square-meter portion of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure abrogated this exceptional right.
the Property. Third, NPC filed its second expropriation case
against Pobre to acquire an additional 5,554 square meters of Whether the dismissal of the expropriation case by the
the Property. This is the subject of this petition. NPC needed the expropriator (NPC) includes the dismissal of the claim for
lot for the construction and maintenance of Naglagbong Well damages by the landowner. No, there is nothing in Rule 67 of
Site. NPC immediately deposited P5,546.36 with the Philippine the 1964 Rules of Court that provided for the dismissal of the
National Bank. The deposit represented 10% of the total market defendant's claim for damages, upon the dismissal of the
value of the lots covered by the second expropriation. On 6 expropriation case. Case law holds that in the event of dismissal
September 1979, NPC entered the 5,554 square-meter lot upon of the expropriation case, the claim for damages may be made
the trial court's issuance of a writ of possession to NPC. either in a separate or in the same action, for all damages
Subsequently, NPC filed a motion to dismiss the second occasioned by the institution of the expropriation case. The
expropriation case on the ground that NPC had found an dismissal of the complaint can be made under certain
alternative site and that NPC had already abandoned in 1981 conditions, such as the reservation of the defendant's right to
the project within the Property due to Pobre's opposition. The recover damages either in the same or in another action.
trial court granted NPC's motion to dismiss but the trial court
allowed Pobre to adduce evidence on his claim for damages. The Republic vs. Andaya, 524 SCRA
trial court admitted Pobre's exhibits on the damages because Ismael Andaya is the registered owner of two parcels of land in
NPC failed to object. Bading, Butuan City (TCT RT-10225 and RT-10646).

The trial court ordered the case submitted for decision since These properties are subject to a 60-meter wide perpetual
NPC failed to appear to present its evidence. The trial court easement for public highways, irrigation ditches, aqueducts,
denied NPC's motion to reconsider the submission of the case and other similar works of the government or public enterprise,
for decision. at no cost to the government, except only the value of the
improvements existing thereon that may be affected. Republic
NPC filed a petition for certiorari with the then Intermediate of the Philippines (Republic) negotiated with Andaya to
Appellate Court, questioning the said order of the trial court. enforce the 60-meter easement of right-of-way. The easement
The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed NPC's petition but was for concrete levees and floodwalls for Phase 1, Stage 1 of
directed the lower court to rule on NPC's objections to Pobre's the Lower Agusan Development Project. The parties, however,
documentary exhibits. Then, the trial court rendered the failed to reach an agreement. The Republic instituted an action
questioned decision in favor of Pobre. The Intermediate before the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City to enforce the
Appellate Court dismissed NPC's petition but directed the lower easement of right-of-way or eminent domain. The trial court
court to rule on NPC's objections to Pobre's documentary issued a writ of possession. It also constituted a Board of
exhibits. NPC filed a MR but was denied. The CA also denied its Commissioners (Board) to determine the just compensation.
appeal and MR. hence, the petition for review. Eventually, the trial court issued an Order of Expropriation
upon payment of just compensation. Later, the Board reported
Whether Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules applies squarely in that there was a discrepancy in the description of the property
expropriation cases. No, Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of sought to be expropriated. The Republic thus amended its
Court provided the exception to the general rule that the complaint, reducing the 60-meter easement to 10 meters, or an
dismissal of the complaint is addressed to the sound discretion equivalent of 701 square meters. The Board reported that the
of the court. For as long as all of the elements of Section 1, Rule project would affect a total of 10,380 square meters of Andaya’s
17 were present the dismissal of the complaint rested properties, 4,443 square meters of which will be for the 60-
exclusively on the plaintiff's will. The defending party and even meter easement. The Board also reported that the easement
the courts were powerless to prevent the dismissal. The courts would diminish the value of the remaining 5,937 square meters.
could only accept and record the dismissal. A plain reading of As a result, it recommended the payment of consequential
Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Court makes it obvious damages amounting to P2,820,430 for the remaining area.
that this rule was not intended to supplement Rule 67 of the Andaya objected to the report because although the Republic
same Rules … While Section 1, Rule 17 spoke of the "service of reduced the easement to 10 meters or an equivalent of 701
answer or summary judgment," the Rules then did not require square meters, the Board still granted it 4,443 square meters.
the filing of an answer or summary judgment in eminent domain He contended that the consequential damages should be based
cases. In lieu of an answer, Section 3 of Rule 67 required the on the remaining area of 9,679 square meters. Thus, the just
defendant to file a single motion to dismiss where he should compensation should be P11,373,405. The Republic did not file
present all of his objections and defenses to the taking of his any comment, opposition, nor objection.
property for the purpose specified in the complaint. In short, in
expropriation cases under Section 3 of Rule 67, the motion to Whether the Republic is required to resort to expropriation
dismiss took the place of the answer. In expropriation cases, proceedings in enforcing existing easements over a landowner's
there is no such thing as the plaintiff's matter of right to dismiss lot. No, it is undisputed that there is a legal easement of right-
the complaint precisely because the landowner may have of-way in favor of the Republic. [The landowner's] transfer
already suffered damages at the start of the taking. The certificates of title contained the reservation that the lands
plaintiff's right in expropriation cases to dismiss the complaint covered thereby are subject to the provisions of the Land
has always been subject to court approval and to certain Registration Act and the Public Land Act. Section 112 of the
conditions. The exceptional right that Section 1, Rule 17 of the Public Land Act provides that lands granted by patent shall be
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 57
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
subject to a right-of-way not exceeding 60 meters in width for just compensation and the payment thereof to PIATCO. We
public highways, irrigation ditches, aqueducts, and other similar appreciate that the case at bar is a highly unusual case, whereby
works of the government or any public enterprise, free of the Government seeks to expropriated a building complex
charge, except only for the value of the improvements existing constructed on land which the State already owns. The right of
thereon that may be affected. In view of this, the Court of eminent domain extends to personal property and real
Appeals declared that all the Republic needs to do is to enforce property, and the NAIA 3 structures, adhered as they are to the
such right without having to initiate expropriation proceedings soil, are considered real property. The public purpose for the
and without having to pay any just compensation. Hence, the expropriation is also beyond dispute. It should also be noted
Republic may appropriate the 701 square meters necessary for that Section 1 of Rule 67 recognizes the possibility that the
the construction of the floodwalls without paying for it. property sought to be expropriated may be titled in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private
Whether the Republic is required to pay full value for just individuals, and in such case an averment to that effect should
compensation to a landowner due to the deprivation of be made in the complaint. The instant expropriation complaint
beneficial use of the subject lots owned by the landowner. No, did aver that the NAIA 3 complex “stands on a parcel of land
[J]ust compensation should be paid only for 5,937 square owned by the Bases Conversion Development Authority,
meters of the total area of 10,380 square meters. Admittedly, another agency of the Republic”. Admittedly, eminent domain is
the Republic needs only a 10-meter easement or an equivalent not the sole judicial recourse by which the government may
of 701 square meters. Yet, it is also settled that it is legally have acquired the NAIA 3 facilities while satisfying the requisites
entitled to a 60-meter wide easement or an equivalent of 4,443 in the order held by the SC in the Case of Agan. Eminent Domain
square meters. Clearly, although the Republic will use only 701 though may be the most effective, as well as the speediest
square meters, it should not be liable for the 3,742 square means by which such goals may be accomplished. Not only does
meters, which constitute the difference between this area of it enable immediate possession after satisfaction of the
701 square meters and the 4,443 square meters to which it is requisites under the law, it also has a built-in procedure through
fully entitled to use as easement, free of charge except for which just compensation may be ascertained. Thus, there
damages to affected existing improvements, if any, under should be no question as to the propriety of eminent domain
Section 112 of the Public Land Act. In effect, without such proceedings in this case.
damages alleged and proved, the Republic is liable for just
compensation of only the remaining areas consisting of 5,937 Abad vs. Fil-homes Realty, 636 SCRA
square meters, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per Fil-Homes Realty and Development Corporation and Magdiwang
annum from the date of the writ of possession or the actual Realty Corporation, co-owners of two lots situated in Sucat,
taking until full payment is made. For the purpose of Parañaque City (TCTs 21712 and 21713), filed a complaint for
determining the final just compensation, the case is remanded unlawful detainer against Abad, et al. before the Parañaque
to the trial court. Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). They alleged that Abad, et al.,
through tolerance, had occupied the subject lots since 1980 but
ignored their repeated demands to vacate them. Abad, et al.
Asia’s Emerging Dragon vs. DOTC, 552 SCRA countered that there is no possession by tolerance for they
Despite the promulgation by this Court of Decisions and have been in adverse, continuous and uninterrupted
Resolutions in two cases, Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air possession of the lots for more than 30 years; and that the
Terminals Co., Inc. and Republic v. Gingoyon, which already companies’ predecessor-in-interest, Pilipinas Development
resolved the more basic and immediate issues arising from the Corporation, had no title to the lots. In any event, they contend
said award, this Court is still continuously besieged by Petitions that the question of ownership must first be settled before the
arising from the awarding of the Ninoy Aquino International issue of possession may be resolved. During the pendency of the
Airport International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) Project case, the City of Parañaque filed expropriation proceedings
to the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO). covering the lots before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque
The sheer magnitude of the project, the substantial cost of its with the intention of establishing a socialized housing project
building, the expected high profits from its operations, and its therein for distribution to the occupants. A writ of possession
remarkable impact on the Philippine economy, consequently was consequently issued and a Certificate of Turn-over given
raised significant interest in the project from various quarters. to the City. Branch 77 of the MeTC rendered judgment in the
Once more, two new Petitions concerning the NAIA IPT III unlawful detainer case against Abad, et al (panalo companies).
Project are before this Court. [Congressman Baterina is opposing On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), by Decision of
the expropriation proceedings on the ground that NAIA 3 is September 4, 2008,2 reversed the MeTC decision and dismissed
already a public property. Hence PIATCO is not entitled to just the companies’ complaint (talo companies). The companies filed
compensation for NAIA 3.] a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (panalo
companies) w/c ruled in favor of the companies [noting that
Whether it was appropriate for the Republic to pursue Abad et al. did not present evidence to rebut respondents’
expropriation proceedings over the airport project which was allegation of possession by tolerance, and considering Abad, et
built on the government's land – Yes al.’s admission that they commenced occupation of the property
without the permission of the previous owner ─ Pilipinas
PIATCO is entitled to just compensation and that the Development Corporation ─ as indicium of tolerance by the
expropriation proceedings commenced by the Government companies’ predecessor-in-interest]. Hence, the petition for
was proper and valid. The Government has chosen to resort to review.
expropriation, a remedy available under the law, which has the
added benefit of an integrated process for the determination of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 58
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Whether the occupiers of the lot, owned by the landowners the property involved is concerned (at P900.00 per sq.m).
and subject to expropriation, can maintain themselves therein, Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.
considering that a writ of possession has been granted to the
City in pursuance of a socialized housing project – No, Section Whether the Commissioners' report, which is not substantiated
1 of Commonwealth Act No. 538 [provides that] “ Section 1. by documents, should be disregarded by the Courts – YES [mali
When the Government seeks to acquire, through purchase or ung 1k/sq mtr?!], The Court has consistently ruled that just
expropriation proceedings, lands belonging to any estate or compensation cannot be arrived at arbitrarily; several factors
chaplaincy (cappellania), any action for ejectment against the must be considered such as, but not limited to, acquisition
tenants occupying said lands shall be automatically suspended, cost, current market value of like properties, tax value of the
for such time as may be required by the expropriation condemned property, its size, shape, and location. But before
proceedings or the necessary negotiations for the purchase of these factors can be considered and given weight, the same
the lands, in which latter case, the period of suspension shall not must be supported by documentary evidence. The amount of
exceed one year. To avail himself of the benefits of the just compensation could only be attained by using reliable and
suspension, the tenants shall pay to the landowner the current actual data as bases for fixing the value of the condemned
rents as they become due or deposit the same with the court property. A commissioners’ report of land prices which is not
where the action for ejectment has been instituted.” based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and
Petitioners did not comply with any of the acts mentioned in should be disregarded by the court. A commissioners’ report of
the law to avail of the benefits of the suspension. They land prices is considered as evidence in the determination of the
nevertheless posit that since the lots are the subject of amount of just compensation due the land owner in
expropriation proceedings, respondents can no longer assert a expropriation cases. The recommended amount of just
better right of possession; and that the City Ordinance compensation contained in the commissioners’ report of land
authorizing the initiation of expropriation proceedings prices, in turn, is based on various factors such as the fair market
designated them as beneficiaries of the lots, hence, they are value of the property, the value of like properties. Thus, it
entitled to continue staying there. Petitioners’ position does not becomes imperative that the commissioners’ report of land
lie. The exercise of expropriation by a local government unit is prices be supported by pertinent documents, which impelled
covered by Section 19 of the Local Government Code (LGC)[.] the commissioners to arrive at the recommended amount for
the condemned properties, to aid the court in its determination
NPC vs. YCLA Sugr Dev. Corp. 712 SCRA 550 of the amount of just compensation. Otherwise, the
YCLA Sugar Development Corporation (YCLA) is the registered commissioner’s report becomes hearsay and should thus not be
owner of three parcels of land situated in Puerto Galera, considered by the court. The trial court, in expropriation cases,
Oriental Mindoro (TCTs T-5209, T-21280 and T-78583). In order may accept or reject, whether in whole or in part, the report
to complete its 69 KV Calapan-Mamburao Island Grid Project in submitted by the Board of Commissioners, which is merely
Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, NPC had to construct advisory and recommendatory in character. It may also
transmission lines that would traverse several private recommit the report or set aside the same and appoint new
properties, including the said parcels of land owned by YCLA. commissioners.
NPC filed a Complaint for expropriation with the RTC against [
YCLA and several other individuals. The NPC sought the
expropriation of a portion of the parcels of land owned by the
said defendants for the acquisition of an easement of right-of-
way.
The RTC directed the constitution of a Board of Commissioners,
which would submit a report and recommendation as to the
reasonable amount of just compensation for the properties
sought to be expropriated. The RTC, acting on NPC’s urgent ex-
parte motion, issued a writ of possession placing NPC in
possession of the properties sought to be expropriated. The
Board of Commissioners submitted its Report, which fixed the
amount of just compensation of the subject properties (at at
P900.00 per sq m). YCLA filed a motion asking the RTC to direct
the Board of Commissioners to conduct an ocular inspection
over the subject properties and, thereafter, amend/revise the
Board of Commissioner’s Report. The RTC rendered a Partial
Decision as regards the amount of just compensation that would
be paid by the NPC to the other defendants.
The Board of Commissioners submitted its second Report, which
fixed the just compensation of the subject properties (at
P1,000.00 per sq m). The RTC [1k daw hence in favor of YCLA]
rendered a Decision, which adopted the report and
recommendation of the Board of Commissioners. NPC appealed
the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
rendered the Decision which affirmed the RTC decision with
modification only in so far as the value of just compensation for

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 59

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Rule 68: FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGATE (REM) Not a judgment to sell but a judgment to pay.
If the mortgagee worn, it is not a judgment to sell.
Applies to both real and personal properties.
Timeframe within which payment is to be made
Who are the parties Not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from entry of
All parties who have interest over the property subordinate to that judgment to pay the loan plus int. ect.
of the mortgagor. Take note of the liberality of the law in favour of the mortgagor.
It is from entry of judgment. The law provided the mortgagor to
Judgement: Ordering the dr-mortgagor to pay not judgment to sell pay after foreclosure. This is what is known as EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION. – meaning to say the property should not be sold
Object of foreclosure: Property yet the mortgagor has the period to pay.
Then why mortgagor cannot pay or did not exercise equity of
Reminder: Most of the cases that you read in foreclosure is RA 3135 redemption – because of the high charges already. (that’s why
not based on Rule 68 banks are known to be a legalized robbers). That’s why
notwithstanding the leniency of the rule, mortgagors failed to
2 types of foreclosure pay.
1. Judicial Foreclosure – by Rule 68
2. Extrajudicial foreclosre - RA 3135 as amended Vs.

Most Bar questions are about extra-judicial foreclosure and not Right of Redemption (applies to extrajudicial foreclosure only)
under Rule 68. – the one year period to redeem the property counted from the
date of registration of certificate of sale. Who can redeem –
The applicability of Rule 68 is when there is a mortgage of real judgment obligor or the successor in interest or a redemptioner
property. Hence, it is always anchored on a loan. The bank uses (one who has a lien over which the property is sold).
these real properties as security. This security is known as the
mortgage and the debtor enters the Real Estate Mortgage. Failure If you appeal to CA, the 30 day period (the not less than 90 days nor
to pay will result in foreclosure more than 120 days) does not begin to run. If you go to SC, the 30-
day period does not also begin to run to. That’s why some
Who are parties? mortgagor go to SC.
1. Plaintiff –mortgagee/creditor
2. Defendant – mortgagor/debtor Sec 2
When the mortgagor failed to pay the loan within the period of
Sec1 Rule 68 last sentence equity of redemption – the mortgagee by mere motion can go to
“You have to implead all defendants: the names and residences of court for the authority to sell the property.
all the person whose rights are subordinate to that of the holder The buyer of the property is more often the bank.
of the mortgage.
The foreclosure sale must be confirmed – there must be an ORDER
What do you mean by whose rights are subordinates? OF CONFIMATION, otherwise, the foreclosure will not take effect.
They are junior encumbrances. Those who have a right subsequent
to the loan of the mortgagee. What is sought to be confirmed here?
THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE CONFIRMED OTHERWISE
These persons are only necessary party not indispensable party. THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION IS NOT CUT.
Vs.
Remember that the indispensable party (without them there could Sec 1 of Rule 17
be no final determination of the case) are those if not impleaded Order of Confirmation is required to effect the dismissal of the case.
the judgment is null and void even if to those who are impleaded
v. Deficiency Judgment
Necessary parties – there will no complete determination of the Don’t be misled by Section 6
case. This is not applicable in extra-judicial foreclosure.
This deficiency judgment is not brought about by separate
Note: You can still use a property as security even if you are not the action. You do this by mere motion since it is a
owner of the real property. continuation of the main action.
The owner of the property is an indispensable party. When it is done?
Vs. If the proceeds is less than the debt.
The possessor of the property. He can be indispensable or a Once the deficiency judgment is granted by the Court, go
necessary party. to Rule 39 = Execution of Judgment. (Sections 31, 32, 34).
Not anymore a real action but a personal action. Hence, if
Say: A son borrowed the title of the property of Atty. Brondial and you file it separately you follow the rule on venue for
used it as collateral. He disagreed but his wife approached him to personal action (where the plaintiff resides or where the
allow his son to use the land title as collateral. defendant resides or wherever he may be found at the
option of the plaintiff).
What should be the judgement in action for foreclosure?
What if the sale proceeds is more than the debt?
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 60
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
The mortgagee must return the excess to mortgagor. However, if registration of the certificate
there are junior encumbrances (subsequent attaching creditors, of foreclosure sale.
etc) the mortgagee must deliver it to junior encumbrances May be exercised even after There is no right of redemption
the foreclosure sale provided in a judicial foreclosure of
2 Cases under Extra-judicial Foreclosure it is made before the sale is mortgage under Rule 68. This
(How do you apply for extra-judicial foreclosure- confirmed by order of the right of redemption exists only
Extrajudicial foreclosure is governed by RA 3131 and no court. in extrajudicial foreclosures
participation of the court is required. where there is always a right of
Simply apply with the branch clerk of court. redemption within one year
Is there right of redemption and period to redeem? from the date of sale (Sec. 3,
A: It depends upon the contract. If there is nothing stated in the Act 3135), but interpreted by
contract it is one year period. EXPN: In case of bank, it is only the Court to mean one year
maximum of 3 months to redeem not one year if the mortgagor is from the registration of the
a juridical persons. However, if the dr-mortgagor is a natural person sale.
still the 1 year period of redemption applies. May also exist in favor or other General rule: In judicial
encumbrances. foreclosures there is only an
Advantage of Extra-judicial foreclosure: equity of redemption which
No need for notice. can be exercised prior to the
confirmation of the
Disadvantage of Extrajudicial foreclosure foreclosure sale. This
No deficiency judgment unlike in Rule 68 means that after the
foreclosure sale but before its
LZK Holdings v. Planters Bank confirmation, the
Doctrine: There is no need for a demand before you can file a mortgagor may exercise his
foreclosure. Issuance of writ of possession after the payment of the right of pay the proceeds of
purchase price is merely by ex-parte motion and non-liguous. the sale and
prevent the confirmation of
Golden Merchandising Corp. the sale.
Doctrine: Under the General Banking Law whether or not it is
judicial or extrajudicial foreclosure, juridical persons only has 3 EXTRA-JUDICIAL JUDICIAL
months or until registration of the property whichever is earlier to FORECLOSURE (ACT FORECLOSURE
redeem the property otherwise the title shall be consolidated in 3135) (RULE 68)
favour of the winning bidder. However the 3 mos. Period is not No complaint is filed; Complaint is filed with the
applicable for natural persons since natural persons also has 1 year courts;
period to exercise the right of redemption. The law provides a There is a right of redemption. No right of redemption except
shorter period of redemption for juridical persons is to reduce Mortgagor has a right of when mortgagee is a banking
uncertainty in ownership in favour of the bank. redemption for 1 year from institution; equity of
registration of the sale; redemption only (90 to 120
Extrajudicial foreclosure. days, and any time before
GR:Writ of possession – not a separate action it can be file by mere confirmation of foreclosure
motion without notice. sale);
XPN: If it is in possession of the real property who is not the party Mortgagee has to file a Mortagagee can move for
in the case. separate action to recover any deficiency judgment in the
deficiency; same action
Can there be a valid foreclosure of REM even if the REM is not Buyer at public auction Buyer at public auction
notarized? becomes absolute owner only becomes absolute owner only
Yes. Even if it is not notarized it is only binding between the parties. after finality of an action for after confirmation of the sale;
Notarization can make only the documents public. Which means consolidation of ownership;
notarized documents does not requirement authentication. Mortgagee is given a special Mortgagee need not be given
EQUITY OF RIGHT OF power of attorney in the a special power of attorney
REDEMPTION REDEMPTION mortgage contract to
The right of defendant A right granted to a debtor foreclose the mortgaged
mortgagor to extinguish the mortgagor, his successor in property in case of default.
mortgage and retain interest or any judicial creditor
ownership of the property by or judgment creditor or any CASE Digests
paying the debt within 90 to person having a lien on the
120 days after the entry of property subsequent to the Ramirez vs. Manila Banking Corp., 712 SCRA, 12/2013
judgment or even after the mortgage or deed of trust Ramirez mortgaged 2 parcels of land in Marikina in favor of
foreclosure sale but prior to under which the property is MBC to secure his P265,000 loan. The real estate mortgage
confirmation. sold to repurchase the provides that all correspondence relative to the mortgage
property within one year even including notifications of extrajudicial actions shall be sent to
after the confirmation of the petitioner Ramirez at his given address. Ramirez failed to pay.
sale and even after the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 61
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
MBC then filed a request for extrajudicial foreclosure of real name of the Sps. Marquez. However, the title bore an
estate mortgage before Atty. Hipolito Sañez. MBC was the only annotation of adverse claim dated March 2000 in the name of
bidder during the auction sale thus a certificate of sale was the sps. Alindog. Said annotation was made only after the
issued in its favor. Ramirez sued MBC for annulment of sale subject property’s mortgage to Sps. Marquez. On Mar 21,
and prayed that the certificate of sale be annulled on the 2000, sps. Alindog filed a civil case for annulment of real estate
ground, among others, that paragraph N of the real estate mortgage and certificate of sale. They alleged that they
mortgage was violated for he was not notified of the purchased the property from the sps. Gutierrez way back in
foreclosure and auction sale. RTC ruled that the extrajudicial 1989 but unable to secure title due to deceit of a certain
foreclosure proceedings were null and void and the certificate Gonzales who said that the certificate was already being
of sale is invalid. CA reversed RTC (and ruled that absence of processed. Sps. Marquez disputed Sps. Alindog’s ownership
personal notice of foreclosure to Ramirez as required by arguing that the purported sale was never registered therefore,
paragraph N of the real estate mortgage is not a ground to set not binding. Marquez filed a writ of possession before the RTC
aside the foreclosure sale). w/c was granted. However, Sps. Alindog sought the issuance of
a TRO, the RTC issued a 72 hour TRO then a writ of preliminary
Whether Ramirez was entitled to personal notice of the injunction enjoining the Sps. Marquez from taking the
foreclosure proceedings – Yes, We have consistently held that possession of the subject property. CA affirmed hence this
unless the parties stipulate, personal notice to the mortgagor petition.
in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary
because Section 31 of Act No. 31352 only requires the posting W/N the issuance of an injunctive writ (enjoining the Sps.
of the notice of sale in three public places and the publication Marquez from taking possession of the subject property) was
of that notice in a newspaper of general circulation. In this proper (JOV: pwede mo pa bang pigilan sina Marquez na
case, the parties stipulated in paragraph N of the real estate ipossess ung property)? No, It is an established rule that the
mortgage that all correspondence relative to the mortgage purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the
including notifications of extrajudicial actions shall be sent to possession of the property and can demand that he be placed
mortgagor Ramirez at his given address. Respondent had no in possession of the same either during (with bond) or after
choice but to comply with this contractual provision it has the expiration (without bond) of the redemption period
entered into with Ramirez. The contract is the law between therefor. A writ of possession duly applied for by said
them. Hence, we cannot agree with the bank that paragraph N purchaser should issue as a matter of course, and thus, merely
of the real estate mortgage does not impose an additional constitutes a ministerial duty on the part of the court. The
obligation upon it to provide personal notice of the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale to the mortgagor Ramirez. xxx the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, however, admits
bank’s violation of paragraph N of the real estate mortgage is of an exception. Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
sufficient to invalidate the extrajudicial foreclosure sale: [A] (Rules) pertinently provides that the possession of the
contract is the law between the parties and … absent any mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in an
showing that its provisions are wholly or in part contrary to law, extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, it shall be the property by adverse title or right. The SC said that “the
enforced to the letter by the courts. phrase ‘a third party who is actually holding the property
adversely to the judgment obligor’ contemplates a situation in
Section 3, Act No. 3135 reads: "Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by which a third party holds the property by adverse title or
posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty days in at right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary. The
least three public places of the municipality or city where the co-owner, agricultural tenant, and usufructuary possess the
property is situated, and if such property is worth more than property in their own right, and they are not merely the
four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published once a successor or transferee of the right of possession of another
week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of co-owner or the owner of the property. Notably, the property
general circulation in the municipality and city." The Act only should not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by
requires (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public the third party adversely to the judgment obligor.” In other
places, and (2) the publication of the same in a newspaper of words, the third person must therefore claim a right superior
general circulation. Personal notice to the mortgagor is not to that of the original mortgagor.
necessary. Nevertheless, the parties to the mortgage contract
are not precluded from exacting additional requirements. In this case, it is clear that the issuance of a writ of possession
in favor of Sps. Marquez, who had already consolidated their
Marquez vs. Alindog, 714 SCRA, 1/2014 title over the extrajudicially foreclosed property, is merely
In 1998, petitioner Anita Marquez (Marquez) extended a loan ministerial in nature. The general rule as herein stated — and
in the amount of P500,000 to Benjamin Gutierrez (Gutierrez). not the exception found under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules
As a security, Gutierrez executed a Deed of Real Estate — should apply since Sps. Alindog hinged their claim over the
Mortgage over a land in Tagaytay w/ 660 sq.m. covered by a subject property on their purported purchase of the same from
title, registered under the name of Benjamin Gutierrez, its previous owner, i.e., Sps. Gutierrez (with Gutierrez being the
married to Liwanag Camerin (Sps. Gutierrez). The mortgage original mortgagor). Accordingly, it cannot be seriously
was duly annotated on the title, w/c spouses verified as clean doubted that Sps. Alindog are only the latter’s (Sps. Gutierrez)
prior to the mortgage. Since Gutierrez defaulted Marquez successors-in-interest who do not have a right superior to
sought extrajudicial foreclosure. At the public auction sale, them.
Marquez emerged as the highest bidder. Gutierrez failed to
redeem the property, therefore, title was consolidated in the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 62
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
[Doctrines: It is an established rule that the purchaser in an decision (ruled in favor of the sheriff/bank/Register of Deeds,
extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the possession of the and said na wala naman daw averments sa petition re: the
property and can demand that he be placed in possession of the required posting and publication of the notice of foreclosure
same either during (with bond) or after the expiration (without sale, dahil wala nga – hindi pinresent ng Bank ung sheriff’s
bond) of the redemption period therefore. certification of posting and the newspaper xxx). Hence Ardiente
filed Rule 45 before SC.
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public
auction is a ministerial act. After the consolidation of title in Whether or not personal notice is required in extra-judicial
the buyer’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the foreclosure of mortgage - No. It is settled that personal notice
property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. to the mortgagor in extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings is
The possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to not necessary, hence, not a ground to set aside the foreclosure
a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party sale. They are questioning the lack of personal notice not the
is actually holding the property by adverse title or right] validity or legality of notice and publication.

Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff, 436 SCRA [Other issue: Whether the absence of allegations on the lack of
Spouses Rustico Adriente and Asuncion Paloma together with (1) sheriff certification of posting, (2) newspaper where the
their son Angel P. Adriente and the latter’s wife obtained a loan notice was published, and (3) the publisher’s affidavit are
from Peninsula Development Bank main office located in indispensable requirements is tantamount to a waiver of such
Lucena City for the amount of 100,000. On account of which defenses - Yes] Whether or not the question of legality and
they executed a Promissory note for the same amount and validity of notice and publication must be raised in the
executed a Real Estate Mortgage over 4 Parcels of land, all pleading before it will require the party to present evidence
located in Quezon Province. The proceeds of the loan were to support its claim. Yes. As the appellate court thus held, the
used to buy a Mini bus. For several months that bus was in issue of lack of publication of notice cannot be raised for the
operation until it met an accident and sustained heavy damage first time on appeal. In the Tambunting case cited by
rendering the spouses Adriente to unable to meet their petitioners to support their thesis that failure to strictly comply
obligation for paying the bank. The PDB nonetheless granted with statutory requirements governing publication of notice of
another loan in favor of the spouses Adriente, as a result of mortgage foreclosure sales renders the sale at least voidable,
which they amended their former Real Estate Mortgage. the therein mortgagors, in their complaint for annulment of
However spouses Adriente were not able to fulfill their mortgage and damages, sought to enjoin the extra-judicial
obligation despite several demands made by the bank. The foreclosure of mortgage. During the pendency of the case, the
bank in thus, extra judicially forclosed the mortgaged extra-judicial foreclosure pushed thru just the same. The
property and sold at public auction to the bank as the highest mortgaged property was sold at public auction to the
bidder. The bank later notified the Ardientes by letter of mortgagees, and the property was eventually sold to the
February 24, 1984 that they had one (1) year from November Tambunting Realty.
11, 1983 or up to November 11, 1984 to redeem the foreclosed
mortgage. Two days before the period to redeem the The mortgagors thereupon filed a Supplemental Complaint
foreclosed mortgage expired, the spouses Rustico and Suncion impleading the realty firm, the provincial sheriff as the officer
Ardiente filed before the RTC a complaint against the bank, responsible for holding the foreclosure, and the Register of
the provincial Sheriff of Quezon, and the Register of deeds of Deeds for the subsequent transfer of the property despite
Quezon, for Annulment of Auction Sale with Preliminary alleged non-compliance with the requirements of Act 3135,
Injunction and Damages, alleging that: That it was the bank Sec. 3 on posting and publication of the notice of foreclosure
who violated the terms and conditions of the Mortgage sale. In other words, the lack of publication was raised in issue
contract, and The requisite of notifying the mortgagors of the by the mortgagors in their Supplemental Complaint.
intended extra-judicial foreclosure sale was not duly
complied with hence the FORECLOSURE SALE should be In disposing of the issue of lack of publication of the notice of
annulled. PDB answered that it is the petitioners who have foreclosure of mortgage which was raised for the first time on
violated the terms and conditions of Real Estate Mortgage, appeal, this Court in Go held: Indeed, as correctly held by the
Amended Real Estate Mortgage and that respondent has respondent Court, the issue of lack of publication of the notice
complied with the requisites of Art. 3135 as amended in of foreclosure of the mortgage was raised only on appeal.
relation to the application [for] extra-judicial proceeding of Petitioner does not represent that he directly attacked in his
collaterals, That petitioners were duly notified of the complaint in Civil Case No. 8920 the validity of the foreclosure
extrajudicial foreclosure and public auction sale. There was because of such lack of notice. His own Statement of the Facts
sufficient notice and publication served to all concerned of said and of the Case in the instant petition makes no reference to
public auction sale of the properties offered as collaterals. The such lack of notice as one, or even just as a basis for any, of his
bank maintained that there was notice, coupled with a causes of action in the complaint. He sought the cancellation of
publication of Notice of Public Auction Sale in a newspaper of the contract of mortgage because he allegedly never received
general circulations (sic) supported by publishers affidavit the amounts indicated in the promissory notes. Of course,
attached to the record in the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of nullity of the mortgage due to absence of consideration is
Quezon at Calauag, Quezon. Personal notice was sent to the leagues apart from the nullity of the foreclosure of a mortgage
plaintiffs. However, said requirements in the extra-judicial because of non-publication of the notice of foreclosure.
foreclosure is dispensed with, in accordance with the decision Additionally, petitioner presented no evidence before the trial
of the Supreme Court (???). RTC rendered a decision in favor of court to prove the absence of publication of the notice despite
spouses Adriente. But the Court of Appeals reversed RTC’s the fact that private respondents, in their Answer, squarely
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 63
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
pleaded as a defense the foreclosure sale and petitioners’ and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when
receipt of the notice of the sale which was published in a an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of
newspaper of general circulation. That the lack of publication the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be
of the notice of foreclosure was never raised in issue by conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them." All
petitioner and that it is not within the issues framed by the the elements of the doctrine are present in this case. The final
parties in the trial court are then too obvious. judgment in G.R. No. 167998 was rendered by the Court
pursuant to its jurisdiction over the review of decisions and
LZK Holdings vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 714 SCRA, 1/2014 rulings of the CA. It was a judgment on the merits of Planters
LZK Holdings obtained a P40,000,000.00 loan from Planters Banks's right to apply for and be issued a writ of possession.
Bank and secured the same with a Real Estate Mortgage over Lastly, the parties in G.R. No. 167998 are the same parties
its lot located in La Union. LZk failed to pay, the lot was sold at involved in the present case. Hence, LZK Holdings can no
a public auction after Planters Bank extrajudicially foreclosed longer question Planter Bank's right to a writ of possession
the real estate mortgage and the latter emerged as the highest over the subject property because the doctrine of
bidder during the auction sale. LZK Holdings filed before the conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of such
RTC of Makati City, Branch 150, a complaint for annulment of particular issue. Xxx - the purchaser in foreclosure sale may
extra judicial foreclosure, mortgage contract, promissory take possession of the property even before the expiration of
note and damages, also prayed for the issuance of a temporary the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion for such
restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction to purpose and upon posting of the necessary bond. No hearing
enjoin the consolidation of title over the lot by Planters Bank. is required prior to the issuance of a writ of possession. Xxx
Planters Bank filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte
of possession with the RTC-San Fernando. RTC Makati (3 days and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought for
before the expiration of LZK’s redemption period) issued a TRO the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court
effective for 20 days enjoining Planters Bank from to any person adverse of interest. It is a proceeding wherein
consolidating its title over the property. RTC-Makati then relief is granted without giving the person against whom the
ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard. By its very nature,
same purpose but the writ was issued only on June 20, 2000 an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-
upon LZK Holdings' posting of a P40,000.00 bond. Planters litigious proceeding. It is a judicial proceeding for the
Bank succeeded in consolidating its ownership over the enforcement of one's right of possession as purchaser in a
property. RTC Pampanga suspended the proceedings for its ex- foreclosure sale. It is not an ordinary suit filed in court, by
parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession in view of which one party sues another for the enforcement of a wrong
the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC- or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
Makati. Planters  filed an MR, RTC Pampanga  denied MR. CA Given the ex-parte nature of the proceedings for a writ of
reversed (ruled in favor of PDB?). SC affirmed CA. LZK moved possession, the RTC did not err in cancelling the previously
that the consolidated title of Planters be declared as null and scheduled hearing and in granting Planters Bank's motion
void which the RTC Makati granted and the CA affirmed. without affording notice to LZK Holdings or allowing it to
Planters (armed with the SC decision affirming the CA) went to participate. [Other issue: The allegations of incorrect
RTC Pampanga and filed a motion to set ex-parte hearing for computation of the surety bond involve factual matters within
the issuance of a writ of possession. RTC Pampanga issued the competence of the trial court to address as this Court is not
another Order declaring the scheduled hearing moot and a trier of facts. The RTC found the amount of P2,000,000.00 to
academic and granting Planter Bank's ex-parte motion for the be sufficiently equivalent to the use of the property for a period
issuance of a writ of possession which was filed as early as of twelve (12) months. We are bound by such factual finding
December 27, 1999. CA affirmed and dismissed LZK Holdings' especially considering the affirmation accorded it by the CA.]
petition for certiorari docketed; likewise denied LZK Holdings'
motion for reconsideration. LZK moved for a 30 day extension Goldenway Merchandising Corp. vs. Equitable PCI Bank, 693
to file Rule 45. SC granted BUT ordered that the 30-day SCRA, 3/13/2013
extended period shall be counted from the expiration of the Goldenway Merchandising Corporation (petitioner) executed a
original reglementary period. As such, LZK Holdings had until Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Equitable PCI Bank
July 23, 2009 to file its petition and not August 24, 2009 or the (respondent) over its real properties situated in Valenzuela to
date when the petition was actually filed secure its Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) loan. Goldenway
failed to pay hence Equitable foreclosed and the mortgaged
WON the issuance of writ of possession may be enjoined by an properties were sold for P3,500,000.00 to it. Certificate of Sale
injunction – No, the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of was then issued, registered and inscribed on the TCTs.
possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course Goldenway’s counsel (March 8, 2001) offered to redeem the
upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the foreclosed properties by tendering a check in the amount of
corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the trial court. P3,500,000.00, met with Equitable’s counsel to reiterate its
offer BUT was told that redemption can no longer be had
Whether LZK is still entitled to notice on the scheduled hearing because the certificate of sale had already been registered.
for the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of Planters – Goldenway verified with RD and confirmed that it ownership
No, Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, the has already been consolidated, Goldenway filed a complaint
right of Planter's Bank to a writ of possession as adjudged in for specific performance and damages against the
G.R. No. 167998 is binding and conclusive on the parties. The respondent, asserting that it is the one-year period of
doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment redemption under Act No. 3135 which should apply and not
postulates that "when a right or fact has been judicially tried the shorter redemption period provided in Republic Act (R.A.)
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 64
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
No. 8791, argued that applying Section 47 of R.A. 8791 to the one-year period of redemption is counted from the
real estate mortgage executed in 1985 would result in the date of the registration of the certificate of sale.
impairment of obligation of contracts and violation of the equal b. Section 47 of the General Banking Law of 2000
protection clause under the Constitution. [Additionally, amended Act No. 3135. Said provision reads: SECTION
petitioner faulted the respondent for allegedly failing to furnish 47. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. — In the
it and the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC of Valenzuela City event of foreclosure, whether judicially or
with a Statement of Account as directed in the Certificate of extrajudicially, of any mortgage on real estate which is
Sale, due to which petitioner was not apprised of the security for any loan or other credit accommodation
assessment and fees incurred by respondent, thus depriving granted, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property
petitioner of the opportunity to exercise its right of redemption has been sold for the full or partial payment of his
prior to the registration of the certificate of sale]. obligation shall have the right within one year after
the sale of the real estate, to redeem the property by
Equitable filed answer with counterclaim alleging that paying the amount due under the mortgage deed,
petitioner cannot claim that it was unaware of the redemption with interest thereon at the rate specified in the
price which is clearly provided in Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791, mortgage, and all the costs and expenses incurred by
and that petitioner had all the opportune time to redeem the the bank or institution from the sale and custody of
foreclosed properties from the time it received the letter of said property less the income derived therefrom.
demand and the notice of sale before the registration of the However, the purchaser at the auction sale concerned
certificate of sale. As to the check payment tendered by whether in a judicial or extrajudicial foreclosure shall
petitioner, respondent said that even assuming arguendo such have the right to enter upon and take possession of
redemption was timely made, it was not for the amount as such property immediately after the date of the
required by law. RTC dismissed the complainant AND confirmation of the auction sale and administer the
counterclaim (ruled in favor of the Bank) [the issue of same in accordance with law. Any petition in court to
constitutionality of Sec. 47 of R.A. No. 8791 was never raised by enjoin or restrain the conduct of foreclosure
the petitioner during the pre-trial and the trial. Aside from the proceedings instituted pursuant to this provision shall
fact that petitioner’s attempt to redeem was already late, be given due course only upon the filing by the
there was no valid redemption made because Atty. Judy Ann petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed by the court
Abat-Vera who talked to Atty. Joseph E. Mabilog of the Legal conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the
Division of respondent bank, was not properly authorized by bank may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the
petitioner’s Board of Directors to transact for and in its behalf; foreclosure proceeding. Notwithstanding Act 3135,
it was only a certain Chan Guan Pue, the alleged President of juridical persons whose property is being sold
petitioner corporation, who gave instruction to Atty. Abat-Vera pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have
to redeem the foreclosed properties.] CA affirmed RTC and held the right to redeem the property in accordance with
that petitioner failed to justify why Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 this provision until, but not after, the registration of
should be declared unconstitutional. [Furthermore, the the certificate of foreclosure sale with the applicable
appellate court concluded that a reading of Section 47 plainly Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than
reveals the intention to shorten the period of redemption for three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is
juridical persons and that the foreclosure of the mortgaged earlier. Owners of property that has been sold in a
properties in this case when R.A. No. 8791 was already in effect foreclosure sale prior to the effectivity of this Act shall
clearly falls within the purview of the said provision.] Hence, retain their redemption rights until their expiration.
Goldenway filed a Rule 45 before the SC. (Emphasis supplied.)
The purpose of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution
What law applies, Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118 is to safeguard the integrity of contracts against unwarranted
or Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 (The General Banking Law of interference by the State. There is an impairment if a
2000), considering that real estate mortgage contract was subsequent law changes the terms of a contract between the
executed in 1985 and the mortgage foreclosed when R.A. No. parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed
8791 was already in effect - The amendment under the upon or withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights
General Banking Law of 2000 applies. The right of redemption of the parties. Section 47 did not divest juridical persons of the
has been lost. Here are the two provisions in question: right to redeem their foreclosed properties but only modified
a. Section 6 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118 the time for the exercise of such right by reducing the one-
provides: SEC. 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial year period.
sale is made under the special power hereinbefore There is likewise no retroactive application of the new
referred to, the debtor, his successors-in-interest or redemption period because Section 47 exempts from its
any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said operation those properties foreclosed prior to its effectivity
debtor, or any person having a lien on the property and whose owners shall retain their redemption rights under
subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under Act No. 3135. There is also no violation of the equal protection
which the property is sold, may redeem the same at clause. Equal protection permits of reasonable classification.
any time within the term of one year from and after The difference in the treatment of juridical persons and natural
the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be persons was based on the nature of the properties foreclosed
governed by the provisions of sections four hundred – whether these are used as residence, for which the more
and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, liberal one-year redemption period is retained, or used for
of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are industrial or commercial purposes, in which case a shorter
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. The term is deemed necessary to reduce the period of uncertainty
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 65
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
in the ownership of property and enable mortgagee-banks to that warrants the extraordinary protection of an injunctive writ
dispose sooner of these acquired assets. [Doctrine: Juridical has been shown by SBI and MFII to exist in their favor, the first
persons whose property is being sold pursuant to an requirement for the grant of a preliminary injunction has not
extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have the right to redeem the been satisfied. Lastly the En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 99-10-
property in accordance with this provision until, but not after, 05-0, Re: Procedure in Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of
the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the Real Estate Mortgages, further stacks the odds against SBI and
applicable Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more MFII. Issued on February 20, 2007, or some two months before
than three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier.] the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision in this case, the
resolution embodies the additional guidelines intended to aid
Solid Builders vs. CBC, 695 SCRA (also on injunction) courts in foreclosure proceedings, specifically limiting the
Solid Builders obtained several loans from herein respondent instances, and citing the conditions, when a writ against
Bank. In order to secure said loans Medina Food Industries, one foreclosure of a mortgage may be issued, to wit: (2) No
of herein petitioners executed several surety agreements and temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction
real estate mortgage in favor of respondent bank. Solid against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage
Builders failed to pay said loans from the bank, and the latter shall be issued on the allegation that the interest on the loan
demanded from it to settle its obligations. After several is unconscionable, unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at
demands made, Solid Builders still failed to pay the loan its least twelve percent per annum interest on the principal
interest, penalties and charges, so respondent granted them obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale,
ten days (10) to which to settle their accounts otherwise the which shall be updated monthly while the case is pending.
matter would be referred to their lawyers for collection.
Fearing the foreclosure of the real properties, Solid Builders W/N the Bank can still foreclose – Yes, As debtor-mortgagors,
and Medina Food Inc. filed a complaint against the Bank with however, SBI and MFII do not have a right to prevent the
a prayer for injunction and ex-parte temporary restraining creditor-mortgagee CBC from foreclosing on the mortgaged
order, claiming that the interests, penalties and charges properties simply on the basis of alleged "usurious, exorbitant
imposed by it were iniquitous and unconscionable and to and confiscatory rate of interest." First, assuming that the
enjoin it from initiating foreclosure proceedings. The Trial interest rate agreed upon by the parties is usurious, the nullity
Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. China Bank of the stipulation of usurious interest does not affect the
filed a motion for reconsideration and later a motion to lender’s right to recover the principal loan, nor affect the other
dissolve injunctive order but the same was denied. Thus it filed terms thereof. Thus, in a usurious loan with mortgage, the
a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which in turn right to foreclose the mortgage subsists, and this right can be
reversed the ruling of the trial court (ruled in favor of China exercised by the creditor upon failure by the debtor to pay the
Bank). Thus, this petition. debt due.

Whether Solid Builders and Medina Foods Inc. are entitled to

the provisional remedy of Preliminary Injunction – No, a Robles vs. Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75
preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an Yapcinco constituted a mortgage on the property in favor of
action prior to judgment of final order, requiring a party, court, Marcelo to secure the performance of his obligation. Marcelo
agency, or person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It is a transferred his rights to Apolinario Cruz. When Yapcinco did
preservative remedy to ensure the protection of a party’s not pay the obligation, Apolinario Cruz brought an action for
substantive rights or interests pending the final judgment in the judicial foreclosure of the mortgage in the CFI w/c ordered Kelly
principal action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the (the administratrix of the estate of Yapcinco who died during
existence of a claimed emergency or extraordinary situation the pendency of the action) to pay Apolinario Cruz the
which should be avoided for otherwise, the outcome of a indebtedness secured by the mortgage plus interest and in case
litigation would be useless as far as the party applying for the of the failure to pay after 90 days from the date of the decision,
writ is concerned. In this connection, a writ of preliminary the property would be sold at a public auction. Apolinario Cruz
injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon the was adjudged the highest bidder in the public auction. In his
applicant’s showing of two important requisite conditions, favor was then issued the certificate of absolute sale, and he
namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) took possession of the property in due course. However, he did
the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must not register the certificate of sale; nor was a judicial
be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would confirmation of sale issued. ApolinarioCruz donated the
cause an irreparable injury. Here the petitioners do not have a property to his grandchildren (JOV: nagaway pa ung mga apo,
clear legal right to be protected since the basis of the right nagkadayaan/nagkaron ng falsified deed of absolute sale etc.;
claimed by them remains to be controversial or disputable as TCT was issued in favor of the mandurugas na apo). Yapcinco
there is still a need to determine whether or not, the interest filed an action in the RTC for the annulment of TCT. RTC ruled
rates and penalty charges are unconscionable. Therefore, in favor of Yapcinco/later on (a case was again filed and) RTC
such claimed right cannot be considered clear, actual and ruled in favor of Apolinario Cruz. On Appeal, the CA ruled in
subsisting. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of favor of Yapcinco hence this instante petition.
the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Furthermore as SBI is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of [The dispute involves the ownership of a judicially-foreclosed
preliminary injunction, so is MFII. The accessory follows the parcel of land sold at a public auction, but which sale was not
principal. The accessory obligation of MFII as accommodation judicially confirmed. On one side is the petitioner, the successor
mortgagor and surety is tied to SBI’s principal obligation to CBC in interest of the purchaser in the public auction, and, on the
and arises only in the event of SBI’s default. As no clear right other, the heirs of the mortgagor, who never manifested
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 66
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
interest in redeeming the property from the time of the
foreclosure.]

[who between the parties had the better right to the property
– Apolinario Cruz]
Is non-registration of property after being judicially
foreclosed had the effect of invalidating the foreclosure
proceedings, such that ownership reverts to the original
owner? No, [The registration of the sale is required only in
extrajudicial foreclosure sale because the date of the
registration is the reckoning point for the exercise of the right
of redemption. In contrast, the registration of the sale is
superfluous in judicial foreclosure because only the equity of
redemption is granted to the mortgagor, except in mortgages
with banking institutions. 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 90-day period after the judgment becomes final, or
even after the foreclosure sale but prior to the confirmation of
the sale.] the effect of the failure of Apolinario Cruz to obtain
the judicial confirmation was only to prevent the title to the
property from being transferred to him. For sure, such failure
did not give rise to any right in favor of the mortgagor or the
respondents as his successors-in-interest to take back the
property already validly sold through public auction. Nor did
such failure invalidate the foreclosure proceedings. The non-
transfer of the title notwithstanding, Apolinario Cruz as the
purchaser should not be deprived of the property purchased
at the foreclosure sale. With the respondents having been fully
aware of the mortgage, and being legally bound by the judicial
foreclosure and consequent public sale, and in view of the
unquestioned possession by Apolinario Cruz and his
successors-in-interest (including the petitioner) from the time
of the foreclosure sale until the present, the respondents could
not assert any better right to the property. It would be the
height of inequity to still permit them to regain the property
on the basis alone of the lack of judicial confirmation of the
sale. After all, under the applicable rule earlier cited, the
judicial confirmation operated only "to divest the rights of all
the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the
purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be
allowed by law."

Consequently, the late Fernando F. Yapcinco and the

respondents as his successors-in-interest were divested of
their right in the property, for they did not duly exercise the
equity of redemption decreed in the decision of the trial
court.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 67

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Rule 69: Partition (SELDOM GIVEN IN THE BAR) iv. Conventional mode of settlement of estate – governed
by Rules 75-90
Balus v. Balus
Doctrine: In partition case, the first thing to determine is WON 2. extrajudicial settlement of estate – outside the court, there
there is co-ownership. By the time the title was consolidated under are 2 kinds:
the name of the bank there is no co-ownership anymore. Hence, i. extrajudicial partition
partition is not applicable ii. affidavit of self-adjudication – there is only 1 heir and
there are no debts. There is no one to settle with. Apply
Mr. Balus and his wife own a land. He secured a loan from the bank with the Register of Deeds if dealing with real property
with REM. Mr. Balus forgot to pay the loan resulting in the and with the Office of the Civil Registrar if dealing with
foreclosure of the property. After the foreclosure, it was the bank personal property. There are certain requirements there
who was the buyer in the property in the foreclosure sale. including publication and affidavit of self-adjudication
Afterwhich, it was consolidated. then the properties will be transferred to the heir’s name
The children of Balus entered into extrajudicial settlement of the after payment of certain fees.
estate of their parents. The heirs know that the said property is with
the bank without knowing that the title is already consolidated with What is co-ownership?
the bank. After knowledge, one of the children bought the property When certain property is owned not just one person but more than
and wanted to transfer the title in his own name. However, during one.
the pendency of the mortgage it is under the possession of one of
the children of Balus who is not the buyer. Current case of Atty Brondial: Two sisters one 130 sqm each
Partition was then filed based on extrajudicial settlement. property. Property 1 and 2 are both in the name of two sisters both
Issues? covered under separate title. One sister filed Partition so that each
1. Is partition applicable. No. sister shall get the 130 sqm each. Petitioner prayed that the lot
whom the house of her sister be given to her but this was objected
Object of partition: To assign the property by the other sister.
Note: Legally speaking the prayer of one sister is wrong since both
Jurisdiction: RTC because the case is not capable of pecuniary sisters are co-owners of each property. However, if you apply the
estimation law on reason the denial of the other sister is unreasonable. This
case may go up to SC since Atty. Brondial think he will win.
Who prepares a project of partition?
A: Any of the co-owners Second Part of Partition
Determined by Commissioners.
Parties in Partition Trial by Commissioners in Rule 67 and 69 are mandatory!
1. Plaintiff – co-owner
2. Defendant – all other co-owners as indispensable parties Say: H and W are married. They have 5 children (A, B, C, D and E).
H and W owned big parcel of land in Makati (1,000 sqm). Upon
2 Stages in partition? death of H and W property will go now to the children in co-
1. Determination of the existence of co-ownership - absence of ownership. A is a lawyer; B a doctor; C –undergraduate but with a
which partition is unavailable business; D is a teacher; and D is in high school. Who will take
2. Determination of who are entitled and what properties to be charge.
distributed Of course the lawyer, who suggested to divide the lot into 5 sqm. B
NOTE: Each stage is final and appealable agreed to whatever her siblings decide. However, C is thinking
otherwise upon the advice of C’s wife don’t trust the lawyer! D
Kind of appeal – record on appeal since the action calls for multiple agreed in the suggestion of A. E on the other hand, being
appeals. dependent on B, allowed B to decide on his behalf.
Here, they cannot enter into extra-judicial settlement of the estate.
Whenever partition is an issue, the first thing you should look into
is WON there is co-ownership. Absence of co-ownership = partition The only choice of A is to file petition for partition under Rule 69.
is not applicable. Under Rule 69 the court must convince the party to enter to the
PROJECT OF PARTITION (extrajudicial settlement). In case of co-
Partition is a kind of settlement of the estate. ownership, impleading of one is sufficient.

There are 2 general modes of settlement of estate: Here, there is no issue on co-onwerhisp.
1. judicial settlement of estate – What will the court do? = Court shall assign a commissioner. The
i. summary settlement of estate of small value Commissioner will try to insist that the parties enter in the project
ii. judicial partition of partition.
iii. escheat – no heirs, so the government will take the If not successful – the next step is ASSIGNMENT – meaning buy-out
property. Longest publication (once a week for 6 the other co-owners. If the parties agree, the case is finish.
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general However, chances are they will not agree. Under the rules, if there
circulation). The proceeds from the escheat proceedings is opposition (even only one) Assignment is not proper.
will be given to the charitable institutions, hospitals or
public schools. If assignment is not successful – Next option is sale.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 68

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Leonarda appealed to CA. CA reversed RTC (ordering petitioner to
Q: May a sale be objected to? On what ground? immediately surrender possession of the subject property to the
A: Yes sale may be objected to if it will not redound to the benefit respondents, when petitioner and respondents did not redeem the
of the coowners. subject property within the redemption period and allowed the
NOTE: Commissioner should give report, however such is not consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new title in the
binding upon the court. name of the Bank, their co-ownership was extinguished).

Q: What does judgment of partition include? [Whether there was co-ownership between and among Celestino,
A: It includes payment of the cost of accounting and damages. Saturnino and Leonarda over the property in that Celestino may
only be ordered by the court to deliver 2/3 of the subject lot to his
PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION two siblings – No]
Prescription of action does not run in favor of a co-owner or co-
heir against his co-owner or co-heirs as long as there is a Whether co-ownership by him and respondents over the subject
recognition of the co-ownership expressly or impliedly. property persisted even after the lot was purchased by the Bank
The action for partition cannot be barred by prescription as long and title thereto transferred to its name, and even after it was
as the co-ownership exists. eventually bought back by the respondents from the Bank – No,
But while the action to demand partition of a co-owned the rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the
property does not prescribe, a co-owner may acquire ownership moment of his death. In addition, the inheritance of a person
thereof by prescription where there exists a clear repudiation of consists of the property and transmissible rights and obligations
the co-ownership and the co-owners are apprised of the claim existing at the time of his death, as well as those which have
of adverse and exclusive ownership. accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. In the present
case, since Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his
Prescription in Partition after extrajudicial settlement of the lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death, the disputed
estate parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his
It must be filed within 4 years from the date of discovery of fraud heirs may lay claim. Stated differently, petitioner and
or within 10 years from possession of the property (Feliciano v. respondents never inherited the subject lot from their father.
Canosa Case).
Petitioner and respondents, therefore, were wrong in assuming
that they became co-owners of the subject lot. Thus, any issue
arising from the supposed right of petitioner as co-owner of the
CASE Digests
contested parcel of land is negated by the fact that, in the eyes of
the law, the disputed lot did not pass into the hands of petitioner
Celestino Balus vs. Saturnino Balus and Leonarda Balus, 610 SCRA
and respondents as compulsory heirs of Rufo at any given point
Rufo Balus (father of the parties herein) mortgaged a parcel of in time. Furthermore, petitioner's contention that he and his
land, which he owns, as security for a loan he obtained from the siblings intended to continue their supposed co-ownership of the
Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao del Norte. Rufo failed to pay. The subject property contradicts the provisions of the subject
mortgaged property was foreclosed and was subsequently sold to Extrajudicial Settlement where they clearly manifested their
the Bank as the sole bidder at a public auction held for that intention of having the subject property divided or partitioned by
purpose. Rufo failed to redeem. Upon death of their parents, assigning to each of the petitioner and respondents a specific 1/3
Celestino, Saturnino and Leornarda executed an Extrajudicial portion of the same. Partition calls for the segregation and
Settlement of Estate adjudicating to each of them a specific one- conveyance of a determinate portion of the property owned in
third portion of the subject property. The Extrajudicial Settlement common. It seeks a severance of the individual interests of each
also contained provisions wherein the parties admitted knowledge co-owner, vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific
of the fact that their father mortgaged the subject property to the property and giving each one a right to enjoy his estate without
Bank and that they intended to redeem the same at the soonest supervision or interference from the other. In other words, the
possible time. Saturnino and Leonarda (3 years after execution of purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership, an
the Extrajudicial Settlement) bought the subject property from the objective which negates petitioner's claims in the present case.
Bank. TCT was issued in their favor. Celestino maintained
possession over the subject property. Saturnino and Leonarda filed
Feliciano vs. Canosa, 629 SCRA
a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages against
Antonio Feliciano died leaving a parcel of land. Leona, Maria, Pedro
petitioner, contending that they had already informed petitioner
and Salina, all surnamed Feliciano, declared themselves to be the
of the fact that they were the new owners of the disputed
only surviving heirs of Antonio Feliciano, with the exception of
property, but the petitioner still refused to surrender possession
Salina. They executed an extrajudicial settlement of Antonio
of the same to them. Respondents claimed that they had
Feliciano’s estate and appropriated among themselves the said
exhausted all remedies for the amicable settlement of the case,
parcel of land, to the exclusion of the heirs of Esteban Feliciano
but to no avail. RTC ordered Saturnino and Leonarda to execute a
and Doroteo Feliciano, deceased children of Antonio Feliciano.
Deed of Sale in favor of the Celestino, the one-third share of the
On even date, Leona, Maria, Pedro and Salina executed a deed of
property in question, presently possessed by him, and described
absolute sale or Kasulatan sa Ganap Na Bilihan over the property
in the deed of partition. The RTC held that the right of petitioner
in favor of the late Jacinto Feliciano (Pedro’s portion), Felisa
to purchase from the respondents his share in the disputed
Feliciano (Salina’s portion) and Pedro Canoza (Leona and Maria’s
property was recognized by the provisions of the Extrajudicial
portions). Jacinto applied for a free patent over the portion of
Settlement of Estate, which the parties had executed before the
land he bought. On November 28, 1977, he was issued a free
respondents bought the subject lot from the Bank. Saturnino and
patent. For his part, Felisa Feliciano and Pedro Canoza also
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 69
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
applied for a free patent for the land they bought and was issued father’s estate. Thus, after the signing of the Deed, petitioner
the same on February 23, 1979. demanded from respondent the promised additional amount, but
On October 18, 1993, Eugenio Feliciano and Angelina Feliciano-de respondent refused to pay, claiming that she had no more
Leon, surviving heirs of the late Esteban Feliciano, and Trinidad money. While processing her tax obligations with the BIR,
Feliciano-Valiente and Basilia Feliciano-Trinidad, surviving children respondent was required to submit an original copy of the Deed.
of the late Doroteo Feliciano, filed a complaint against Salina Left with no more original copy of the Deed, respondent
Feliciano, Felisa Feliciano, Pedro Canoza and the heirs of the late summoned petitioner to her office and asked her to countersign a
Jacinto Feliciano, namely Delia, Rosauro, Elsa, Nardo and Ponciano, copy of the Deed. Petitioner refused to countersign the document,
all surnamed Feliciano, for the Declaration of Nullity of demanding that respondent first give her the additional amount
Documents and Title, Recovery of Real Property and Damages. that she promised. Because respondent did not have the money at
They alleged that the settlement of the estate and sale were done that time and petitioner refused to countersign the Deed without
without their participation and consent as heirs of Esteban and any assurance that the amount would be paid, respondent
Doroteo. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered executed a promissory note promising to pay the amount of
the nullification of the extrajudicial settlement. On appeal, the P600,000.00. When the promissory note fell due, respondent
CA set aside the RTCs decision explaining that the action is barred failed and refused to pay despite demand. Petitioner made several
by prescription. A MR was filed but was denied. Hence, this more demands upon respondent but the latter kept on insisting
petition. that she had no money. Petitioner filed a Complaint for Specific
Performance with Damages against respondent. In her Answer
[Whether the cause of action of Doroteo’s heirs has prescribed, with Compulsory Counterclaim, respondent admitted that she
considering that the action was filed only 16 years and 14 years signed the promissory note but claimed that she was forced to do
after Jacinto and Feliciano were issued free patents respectively - so. She also claimed that the undertaking was not supported by
Yes] any consideration. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the
petitioner. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC’s decision and
Whether or not the filing of the action is barred by prescription? dismissed the complaint. The CA said in its decision that petitioner
Yes. We affirm the ruling of the CA. As the records show, the heirs should have filed [an action] for partition instead of a case for
of Doroteo and Esteban did not participate in the extrajudicial specific performance.
partition executed by Salina with the other compulsory heirs,
Leona, Maria and Pedro. Undeniably, the said deed was Whether partition should have been filed? No, the foregoing
fraudulently obtained as it deprived the known heirs of Doroteo discussion (as to whether the Legal Wife’s consent is vitiated or
and Esteban of their shares in the estate. A deed of extrajudicial not/W/N there was consideration in the issued PN, etc.) renders
partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had the final issue insignificant. Be that as it may, we would like to state
no knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and that the remedy suggested by the CA is not the proper one under
vicious. Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of fraud the circumstances. An action for partition implies that the
could be instituted. Such action for the annulment of the said property is still owned in common. Considering that the heirs had
partition, however, must be brought within four (4) years from already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and waived
the discovery of the fraud. Evidently, the applicable prescriptive their shares in favor of respondent, the properties are no longer
period to institute the action to annul the deed of extrajudicial under a state of co-ownership; there is nothing more to be
settlement was four (4) years counted from the discovery of fraud partitioned, as ownership had already been merged in one
as held in the case of Gerona v. De Guzman. However, the records person.
show that petitioners’ complaint was filed only on October 18,
1993, or almost sixteen (16) years after Jacinto Feliciano was
issued Free Patent No. (IV-4) 012293 on November 28, 1977, and
almost fourteen (14) years from the time Pedro Canoza was issued
OCT No. P-364 on November 28, 1979. As petitioners are deemed
to have obtained constructive notice of the fraud upon the
registration of the Free Patent, they clearly failed to institute the
present civil action within the allowable period. The same result
obtains even if their complaint is treated as one (1) essentially for
reconveyance as more than ten (10) years have passed since
petitioners’ cause of action accrued.

Carmela Brobio Mangahas vs. Eufrocina A. Brobio, 634 SCRA

Pacifico S. Brobio (Pacifico) died intestate, leaving three parcels of
land. He was survived by his wife, respondent Eufrocina A. Brobio,
and four legitimate and three illegitimate children; petitioner
Carmela Brobio Mangahas is one of the illegitimate children. The
heirs of the deceased executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
of Estate of the Late Pacifico Brobio with Waiver. In the Deed,
petitioner and Pacifico’s other children, in consideration of their
love and affection for respondent and the sum of P150,000.00,
waived and ceded their respective shares over the three parcels of
land in favor of respondent. According to petitioner, respondent
promised to give her an additional amount for her share in her
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 70
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 - Sec 15: Plaintiff can immediately ask for injunction – he
can require the defendant to vacate within the period of 5
Rule 70: Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry (BAR Matter) days from filing
- Sec 20 – applies to RTC, plaintiff can still file injunction.
Jurisdiction:
1. MTC – governed by Rules on Summary Procedure Judgement –
a. No Hearing – only submission of position power GR: immediately executory. Appeal will no toll the execution in the
b. Prelimary conference is MANDATORY even in judgment for unlawful detainer:
ejectment case XPN: if appeal is coupled with posting of supersedeas bond and if
Here you go to CoC for the marking of evidence. After the court so requires monthly payment of deposit for the use and
the pre-trial order you need to submit position paper. occupancy of the premises.
If the judge may issue clarificatory questions.
c. Prohibited pleading Where to file Notice of Appeal and Supersedeas Bond – MTC
d. Period is shorter (10 days to file answer, 30 days to Where to pay Regular Monthly Deposit – RTC, on or before the 10th
submit decision; 30 days to render judgment) day of every succeeding month (Sec 19).
Say: For the payment for the month of January – it must be paid on
2. Once it reached the RTC on appeal – no longer governed or before Feb 10
by Rules on Summary Procedure but by Regular Procedure
What is the supersedeas bond?
Venue: Where the property is located. UD and FE is a quasi in rem. It is unpaid rentals, hence, if no unpaid rental there is no
The parties are natural persons and the subject matter is the supersedeas bond.
property that’s why it is quasi-in rem.
What is the rationale why 10th day?
Compliance with CONDITION PRECEDENT. Remember the MTC has 15 days to transmit reco rd to RTC. That’s
why the defendant is given 25 days to pay deposit)
Subject matter: possession de facto only not possession de jure
XPN: When the issue of ownership is raised in the pleading then the How much deposit?
court is not divested in its jurisdiction and must resolve the issue GR: According to the judgment.
on ownership for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession.
Hence, res judicata is not a defense. Say: A leased the property to B wherein the contract is about to
expire, hence, A informed B of the increase from P10k to P20k. B
3 kinds of recovery action refused the increase the rental and remained in the premises. A will
1. Accion reinvdicatoria – recovery of OWNERHIP OF PROP file a case for UD. In the decision the court may state in the
2. Accion publiciana – recovery of PLENARY poseesion (more than judgment the reasonable monthly deposit for the use of the
one year from accrual of cause of action – Jurisdiction is not premises. The deposit stated in the judgment must be paid every
always the RTC but depending on the assessed value of the month – failure to pay deposit even a single non-payment.
property.
3. Accion Interdictal – ejectment case – recovery of poseesion de Once of appeal and the RTC affirmed MTC judgment – there is
facto (filed within 1 year from accrual of cause of action) already execution since no appeal is available but a petition for
Where forceable entry and unlawful detainer lies review before the CA.
What is the remedy then of the defendant – obtain injunction is the
UNLAWFUL DETAINER FORCIBLE ENTRY only remedy. You cannot bar the execution by mere filing of
Possession was lawful at the Possession was unlawful from petition for review.
start and became unlawful the vey beginning
later Ferrer v. Judge Rabaca
Demand to pay and vacate is NO NEED OF DEMAND Doctrine: Judge Rabaca was called by the SC to be ignorant of the
MANDATORY law. Basic in Sec 9, Rule 41, one thing is perfection of appeal and
Prescriptive period is loss of jurisdiction over the case. Execution pending appeal is
determined from last demand allowed by the rules as provided in Sec 2 Rule 39. Remember the
(within one year otherwise it is exercise of residual jurisdiction.
not UD but accion publiciana) This is the case where SM Manila is located. Before YMCA is there.
Grounds: Grounds(FITSS) After judgment was rendered in favour of Ferrer for and in behalf
a. Expiration of the contract a. Force of YMCA, Ferrer filed a motion for execution pending appeal but
(Written or unwritten); b. Intimidation this was denied by J. Rabaca. He said that since the appeal was
b. Violation of any term or c. Threat already perfected he loses jurisdiction over the case.
condition in the contract; d. Strategy
c. Tolerace (BAR MATTER) e. Stealth CGR Corp. v. Treynes (Forcible Entry)
Remember also the Rent Control Law is also under ejectment, Doctrine: Litis pendetion in UD and FE is not a ground for motion
hence, the grounds enumerated above is not exclusive. to dismiss. In UD and FE damages is not allowed. The only kind of
*From Suarez v. Emboy (2013 case -latest) damages acceptable in UD and FE would be unpaid rentals and
attorney’s fees only. No damages for actual, moral, etc. in UD and
INJUCTIVE RELIEF – both in the Trial Court and APPELLATE COURT FE. Hence, filing of a separate action for damages (Actual, moral,
etc) is valid.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 71
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
CGR has a fishpond which was entered forcible by Treynes. The partition relative to Lot No. 1907–A. Felix and Marilou filed before
latter harvested fingerlings, etc. CGR immediately filed forcible the RTC of Cebu City a complaint for nullification of the partition
entry case. After several days the CGR also filed an action for and for the issuance of new TCTs covering the heirs’ respective
damages against Treynes. Treynes filed motion to dismiss on the portions of Lot No. 1907–A. Carmencita filed before the MTCC and
ground of litis pendentia. against the respondents a complaint for unlawful detainer
(alleging that she bought the lot from the heirs of Vicente Padilla,
Zacaria v. Anacay (Tolerance- BAR MATTER) the registered owners thereof and the persons who allowed the
Doctrine: In order for tolerance to be a valid ground for UD that respondents to occupy the same by mere tolerance.
must be co-existent with possession. The act of tolerating must be
together with the time of possession. If the tolerance is thereafter As their successor–in–interest, she claimed her entitlement to
the expiration of tolerance as a ground for UD will not apply. possession of the subject lot and the right to demand from the
XPN to this Doctrine: respondents to vacate the same). MTCC ruled in favor of
IF you have a relationship, sanguinial or by affinity, with the CARMENCITA and ordered Felix and Marilou to vacate. RTC
previous owner, supposed you are the heir and your father is the affirmed. On appeal, the CA reversed (ruled in favor of Felix and
owner. After the death of the father, can you file UD? Marilou).. Hence this petition.
YES, although you have inchoate right while the father is alive the
right of your father is passed on to you. Hence, you may invoke [Whether Carmencita’s complaint was correctly nominated as
expiration of tolerance to support UD case. However this exception unlawful detainer. No.]
is not applicable if the property was sold to 3rd parties since the Whether or not Carmencita’s complaint against the respondents
right of your father cannot be transferred to the buyer. had sufficiently alleged and proven a cause of action for unlawful
detainer – No, Carmencita had not amply alleged and proven that
all the requisites for unlawful detainer are present in the case at
Say: I am the owner of the property and I allowed B to occupy my
bar. In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following key
property. After expiration of my tolerance I can file UD on the
jurisdictional facts must be allege and sufficiently established:
ground of expiration of tolerance. (Take note here the possession
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by
and tolerance co-existing from the very beginning!!!).
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
Suppose I sold the property to Mr. X. He saw B occupying my former
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s
property which Mr. X owned. Mr X said he will file UD since my
right of possession;
tolerance already expired. Will the ejectment prosper?
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
No. He can still file UD but not on the ground of expiration of
property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment
tolerance. (Take not here the tolerance of the new owner does not
thereof; and
coincide with the possession of B, hence, UD on the ground of
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to
expiration of tolerance is not proper.)
vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint
for ejectment.
How can you circumvent the principle that tolerance must co- In the case at bar, the first requisite mentioned above is markedly
exist with possession. What will the new owner do so that you can absent. Carmencita failed to clearly allege and prove how and
still file unlawful detainer? when the respondents entered the subject lot and constructed a
Remedy: Enter into a contract of lease say one year. If the possessor house upon it. Carmencita was likewise conspicuously silent about
refuse the one year period but instead 5 years, owner must insist the details on who specifically permitted the respondents to
the one year period since he is the owner. Owner may enter in a occupy the lot, and how and when such tolerance came about.
oral contract if possessor refused in writing. After the 1 year you Instead, Carmencita cavalierly formulated a legal conclusion, sans
can file UD factual substantiation, that (a) the respondents’ initial occupation
of the subject lot was lawful by virtue of tolerance by the
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER (R-70) registered owners, and (b) the respondents became deforciants
Carmencita Suarez vs. Mr. and Mrs. Felix E. Emboy, Jr., 718 SCRA unlawfully withholding the subject lot’s possession after
677, 3/12/2014 Carmencita, as purchaser and new registered owner, had
Subject lot is located in Cebu and owned by Carmencita. Said lot demanded for the former to vacate the property. It is worth noting
was used to be a part of Lot No. 1907–A, which was partitioned that the absence of the first requisite assumes even more
among the heirs of Spouses Carlos Padilla (Carlos) and Asuncion importance in the light of the respondents’ claim that for decades,
Pacres (Asuncion), to wit: Spouses Padilla, Heirs of Vicente Padilla they have been occupying the subject lot as owners thereof. Again,
xxx, Baricuatro, and Claudia Padilla-Emboy (Claudia). Felix and this Court stresses that to give the court jurisdiction to effect the
Marilou own the house which stood on the subject lot (they claim ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the land, it is necessary
that their mother, Claudia, had occupied the subject lot during her that the complaint must sufficiently show such a statement of
lifetime who succeeded her own parents, Carlos and Asuncion). facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for
Heirs of Vicente asked their cousins Felix and Marilou to VACATE which the statutes provide a remedy, without resort to parol
the subject lot, they refused. They then received a demand letter testimony, as these proceedings are summary in nature. In short,
from the lawyer of Carmencita on February 23, 2004 (they were the jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint.
informed that Carmencita had already purchased the lot from the When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible
former’s relatives). However, the respondents did not heed the entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry
demand, instead, they examined the records pertaining to the was effected or how and when dispossession started, the remedy
subject lot and uncovered possible anomalies, i.e., forged should either be an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
signatures and alterations, in the execution of a series of deeds of [
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 72
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 execution inequitable. But whether or not these obtain in the case
Alconera vs. Pallanan, 714 SCRA 204, 1/2014 at bar is an issue best left to the court that issued the writ of
Atty Alconera was the counsel for Morito Rafols, the defendant in execution. Well-settled is that the sheriff’s duty in the execution
Civil Case No. 5967-2, an unlawful detainer case entitled Cua Beng of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to execute the order of the
a.k.a. Manuel Sy and Ka Kieng v. Morita Rafols, et al., filed before court strictly to the letter. Absent a TRO, an order of quashal, or
MTCC South Cotabato. MTCC ruled against Rafols and his co- compliance with Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,
defendants. Rafols, through complainant Alconera appealed the respondent sheriff has no alternative but to enforce the writ.
case to the RTC. Cua Beng (Pending appeal before the RTC) filed Immediacy of the execution, however, does not mean instant
motion for execution which the MTCC granted. Rafols (through execution. The sheriff must comply with the Rules of Court in
Alconera) filed an MR. MTCC denied (the denial of the MR has not executing a writ. Any act deviating from the procedure laid down
reached Alconera yet at the time the writ was implemented). in the Rules of Court is a misconduct and warrants disciplinary
Rafols’ daughter, Evelyn, called Alconera and told the latter about action. In this case, Sec. 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules prescribes the
the writ of execution being implemented by Sheriff Pallanan. RTC procedure in the implementation of the writ (provision,
ruled that there was no pending Motion to Approve Supersedeas enforcement in ejectment cases requires the sheriff to give notice
Bond filed with it. Instead, what was filed not with the RTC but with of such writ and to demand from defendant to vacate the property
the MTCC was a "NOTICE OF APPEAL – and – MOTION TO APPROVE within three days. Only after such period can the sheriff enforce the
PROPERTY SUPERSEDEAS BOND," which was not granted. Alconera writ by the bodily removal of the defendant in the ejectment case
conforonted Pallana, And altercation ensued. Alconera filed a and his personal belongings. Even in cases wherein decisions are
Complaint-Affidavit against the respondent sheriff for grave immediately executory, the required three-day notice cannot be
misconduct, Discourtesy in the Performance of Official Duties, dispensed with). The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court adopts
and Making Untruthful Statements. Pallanan filed comment, he in part the recommendation of the investigating judge that
averred that the duty of a court sheriff in enforcing a writ of respondent should nonetheless be penalized for discourtesy in the
execution is ministerial, and without a TRO enjoining it, a sheriff is performance of his official duties.
duty bound to implement it. EJ (Judge?) of RTC recommended that
respondent Sheriff be ADMONISHED
Teodoro vs. Espino, 715 SCRA 435, 2/2014
Whether Pallanan was correct in his position that, without a TRO, Subject land is located in Bulacan and registered in the name of
enforcement of a writ of execution in an ejectment case is his Genaro, long deceased ascendant of all the parties. The subject
ministerial duty – Yes, in ejectment cases, the rulings of the courts property pertains to the vacant lot where the old ancestral house
are immediately executory and can only be stayed via compliance of Genaro stood until its demolition in June 2004, at the instance
with Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Under Sec. 19, Rule of Teodoro Teodoro. Genaro had five children: Santiago; Maria,
70, a judgment on a forcible entry and detainer action is made from whom respondents descended and trace their claim of
immediately executory to avoid further injustice to a lawful ownership and right of possession; Petra, Mariano, Teodoro
possessor. The defendant in such a case may have such judgment Teodoro’s father; (Respondents’ respective parents are first
stayed only by (a) perfecting an appeal; (b) filing a supersedeas cousins of Teodoro Teodoro). Ana.
bond; and (c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or Genaro and his children are all deceased. Petra died, her purported
reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the will, a holographic will, was probated in Special Proceedings No.
property during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the 1615-M before RTC, Branch 8, Malolos, Bulacan, which Decision on
defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the will’s extrinsic validity has become final and executory. Petra,
the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in asserting ownership, devised the subject property to Teodoro
this respect being ministerial and imperative. Hence, if the Teodoro. Teodoro Teodoro effected the demolition of the
defendant-appellant has perfected the appeal but failed to file a ancestral house, intending to use the subject property for other
supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of the judgment purposes. Respondents (who resided at portions of Lot No. 2476
would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a that surround the subject property on which the ancestral house
supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if previously stood) erected a fence on the surrounding portion,
the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas barricaded its frontage, and put up a sign thereat, effectively
bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the dispossessing Teodoro Teodoro of the property bequeathed to
appeal. In the case at bar, complainant lost his client’s case and him by Petra.
appealed to the RTC. His client has also been periodically Teodoro Teodoro made demand to vacate, BUT this was
depositing rental with the court for the use of the property unheeded. Teodoro Teodoro filed complaint for forcible entry
pending appeal. However, as ruled by the RTC, the bond filed did against respondents. Respondents filed answer (asserted their
not meet the legal requirements because first and foremost, the own ownership and possession of the subject property). MTC
bond posted was a property bond, not cash nor surety. dismissed the complaint (ruling on the issue of ownership and
Furthermore, Rafols did not own the property he posted as bond ultimately resolving the issue of who between Teodoro Teodoro
and besides, it was also not issued in favour of the plaintiff in the and respondents had a better right to possess the subject
ejectment case. Because of the non-compliance with the property). RTC adopted MTC’s factual findings BUT REVERSED its
requirements under the above-quoted rule, the execution of the ruling. CA reversed RTC [in all, the appellate court found that
judgment was not effectively stayed. The only exceptions to non- Teodoro Teodoro (substituted by his heirs Nelson and Rolando
compliance are the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or Teodoro at that juncture) "failed to discharge the burden of proof
excusable negligence which prevented the defendant from posting that he had prior actual physical possession of the subject
the supersedeas bond or making the monthly deposit, or the [property] before it was barricaded by [respondents] to warrant
occurrence of supervening events which brought about a material the institution of the forcible entry suit."] The appellate court
change in the situation of the parties and which would make the disposed of the case.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 73
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 The plaintiff cited Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court as basis
[In cases for forcible entry should the court decide on the issue of for its motion. Judge Rabaca denied the motion on the ground that
ownership with finality? No.] a notice of appeal has been seasonably filed. Judge Rabaca
allegedly advised the counsel for the plaintiff to file an MR. BUT he
Whether exclusive ownership should be proven before a prayer denied the MR subsequently. The BCC (branch clerk of court?) was
that herein respondents be made to vacate may be sustained – No, then ordered to transmit the records to the RTC. Complainants
We affirm the finding of fact by the RTC which is decisive of the filed an administrative complaint against Judge Rabaca (alleging
issue xxx The RTC said: Analyzing the facts of the case, the lower refusal to perform an act mandated by the Rules of Court had given
[court] concluded that the subject parcel is a part of the estate of undue advantage to the defendant to the plaintiff’s damage and
the late Genaro Teodoro and in the absence of an approved prejudice). Judge Rabaca filed comment (explaining that he
partition among the heirs, remains a community property over honestly thought that his court had lost jurisdiction over the case
which the legal heirs of Genaro Teodoro have the right to inherit. pursuant to the provision of Section 9, Rule 41 w/c provides that
All therefore are entitled to exercise the right of dominion the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the
including the right of possession. xxx "the lower court cannot appeals filed in due time xxx, that he had issued the orders in good
dispose with finality the issue of ownership" since such faith and with no malice.). Complainants filed a reply (contending
ownership issue is "inutile in an ejectment suit except to throw that Judge exhibited his ignorance of the law and grossly neglected
light on the question of possession." And so the RTC ruled that his duties. The complainants pointed out that respondent Judge
Teodoro Teodoro should be restored in the lawful possession of apparently did not know that appeal in forcible entry and detainer
the disputed area of Lot No. 2476 in light of the finding of the MTC cases was not perfected by the mere filing of a notice of appeal (as
that the subject lot still forms part of the estate of the late Genaro in ordinary actions) but by filing of a notice of appeal and a
Teodoro. It is from this same fact that the MTC reached the sufficient supersedeas bond approved by the trial judge executed
contrary conclusion that Teodoro Teodoro’s complaint should be to the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages and costs accruing down
dismissed because he has "failed to prove his ownership." In the to the time of the judgment appealed from.). OCA Presbi Velasco
sense that Teodoro Teodoro has not proven exclusive ownership, recommended that the administrative complaint against
the MTC was right. But exclusive ownership of Lot No. 2476 or a respondent Judge be re-docketed as a regular administrative
portion thereof is not in this case required of Teodoro Teodoro matter; and that respondent Judge be fined in the amount of
for him to be entitled to possession. Co-ownership, the finding of P5,000.00 with warning that a repetition of the same or similar
both the MTC at first instance and by the RTC on appeal, is act would be dealt with more severely, based on an evaluation of
sufficient. The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state: Art. 484. the charges.
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided
thing or right belongs to different persons. Art. 1078. When there Whether respondent Judge is guilty? Yes; Whether Judge Rabaca
are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before was correct in refusing to execute his decision in favor of YMCA on
its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the the ground that the defendants in the said case were able to
payment of debts of the deceased. seasonably file an appeal. No.
Certainly, and as found by the trial courts, the whole of Lot No.
2476 including the portion now litigated is, owing to the fact that The Court cited Sec. 19 Rule 70 and explained: It is clear from the
it has remained registered in the name of Genaro who is the foregoing that the perfection of an appeal by itself is not sufficient
common ancestor of both parties herein, co-owned property. All, to stay the execution of the judgment in an ejectment case. The
or both Teodoro Teodoro and respondents are entitled to losing party should likewise file a supersedeas bond executed in
exercise the right of possession as co-owners. Neither party can favor of the plaintiff to answer for rents, damages and costs, and,
exclude the other from possession. Although the property if the judgment of the court requires it, he should likewise
remains unpartitioned, the respondents in fact possess specific deposit the amount of the rent before the appellate court from
areas. Teodoro Teodoro can likewise point to a specific area, which the time during the pendency of the appeal. Otherwise,
is that which was possessed by Petra. Teodoro Teodoro cannot be execution becomes ministerial and imperative. (Philippine
dispossessed of such area, not only by virtue of Petra's bequeathal Holding Corporation vs. Valenzuela, 104 SCRA 401 as cited in
in his favor but also because of his own right of possession that Hualam Construction and Development Corporation vs. Court of
comes from his co-ownership of the property. As the RTC Appeals, 214 SCRA 612, 626). In the case at bar, defendant
concluded, petitioners, as heirs substituting Teodoro xxxx Teodoro seasonably filed his Notice of Appeal dated 9 July 2004 on 13 July
in this suit, should be restored in the lawful possession of the 2004; he however failed to file any supersedeas bond. Prior to the
disputed area. filing of such notice of appeal, more specifically on 12 July 2004,
complainants have already filed their Motion for Execution dated
Ferrer vs. Judge Rabaca (of MTC Manila), 632 SCRA 8 July 2004. Instead of acting on the Motion for Execution,
Complainants were the President and the Executive Director of the respondent Judge Rabaca gave due course to the appeal in an
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 176394-CV of the MeTC, an ejectment suit Order dated 14 July 2004 and directed his Branch Clerk of Court to
entitled Young Women’s Christian Association, Inc. v. Conrado elevate the records of the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Cano pending before MTC Manila Br 25 with Judge Rabaca as PJ. The Branch Clerk of Court however failed to forward the records
Judge Rabaca ruled in favor of YMCA; ordered Cano to vacate, to the RTC. This fact is clear from Judge Rabaca’s Order dated 28
among others. July 2004 wherein he directed the Branch Clerk of Court to forward
YMCA (JOV: ung sa SM Manila to diba? Ung badmintonan) filed a the records of the case to the Manila Regional Trial Court
motion for immediate execution, praying that a writ of execution immediately. From the foregoing, it is clear that when the
be issued "for the immediate execution of the aforesaid complainant moved for the immediate execution of Judge
Judgment." Rabaca’s decision, the latter still had jurisdiction over the case.
He therefore clearly erred when he refused to act on the Motion
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 74
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
for Execution. The relevant question that we should resolve present, or where a final judgment in the forcible entry case will
however is whether such error is an error of judgment or an error not amount to res judicata in the former. Petitioners’ filing of an
amounting to incompetence that calls for administrative independent action for damages other than those sustained as a
discipline. It is basic rule in ejectment cases that the execution of result of their dispossession or those caused by the loss of their
judgment in favor of the plaintiff is a matter of right and use and occupation of their properties could not thus be
mandatory. considered as splitting of a cause of action.

CGR Corp. vs. Treyes, 522 SCRA 765 Zacarias vs. Anacay, 736 SCRA 508, 9/24/14
CGR Corporation, Herman M. Benedicto and Alberto R. Benedicto Zacarias filed a complaint for ejectment with damages/Unlawful
(petitioners) claimed to have occupied 37.3033 hectares of public Detainer against Anacay (occupants of a land with an area of 769
land in Barangay Bulanon, Sagay City, Negros Occidental. Ernesto square meters situated in Silang Cavite and covered by Tax Dec in
L. Treyes, Jr. (respondent) allegedly forcibly and unlawfully entered the name of Zacarias). The MTC dismissed the complaint (and held
the leased properties and once inside barricaded the entrance to that the allegations of the complaint failed to state the essential
the fishponds, set up a barbed wire fence along the road going to elements of an action for unlawful detainer). RTC reversed the
petitioners’ fishponds, and harvested several tons of milkfish, fry decision of the MTC (RTC held that the suit is one for unlawful
and fingerlings owned by the CGR. CGR promptly filed with the detainer because the respondents unlawfully withheld the property
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Sagay City separate complaints for from petitioner after she allowed them to stay there for one year).
Forcible Entry With Temporary Restraining Order And/Or With the failure of respondents to file a notice of appeal within the
Preliminary Injunction And Damages against Treyes. CGR then filed reglementary period, the above decision became final and
with the Bacolod RTC a complaint for damages against Treyes. executory. Petitioner then filed a motion for issuance of a writ of
Treyes filed an MD on three grounds – litis pendentia, res judicata execution. During the hearing, Anacay informed that court that it
and forum shopping. The RTC granted MD and dismissed action. had filed a petition for certiorari with prayer of injunction before
CGR filed a Rule 45 before the SC. the CA. The CA ruled in favor of Anacay (held that while petitioner
has shown that she is the lawful possessor of the subject property,
Whether a complainant in a forcible entry case can file an she availed of the wrong remedy to recover possession but
independent action for damages arising after the act of nevertheless may still file an accion publicianaor accion
dispossession had occurred – Yes, Section 17, Rule 70 of the Rules reivindicatoria with the proper RTC.). Hence this instant petition.
of Court provides:
SEC. 17. Judgment. – If after trial the court finds that the Whether or not the action is Unlawful Detainer or Forcible Entry –
allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render judgment in Unlawful Detainer, what determines the nature of the action, as
favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case, are the
justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for allegations in the complaint. In forcible entry, the plaintiff is
the use and occupation of the premises, attorney’s fees and deprived of physical possession of his land or building by means of
costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true, it shall render force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In illegal detainer,
judgment for the defendant to recover his costs. If a counterclaim the defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the
is established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found expiration or termination of his right thereto under any contract,
in arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires. express or implied.
(Emphasis supplied). Requisites - a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for
The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
thus refer to "rents" or "the reasonable compensation for the use (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by
and occupation of the premises" or "fair rental value of the contract with or by toleranceof the plaintiff;
property" and attorney’s fees and cost. The 2006 case of Dumo v. (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
Espinas reiterates the long-established rule that the only form of plaintiff to defendant of the termination ofthe latter’s right of
damages that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry is possession;
the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
and occupation of the property [there is no basis for the MTC to property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
award actual, moral, and exemplary damages in view of the settled (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate
rule that in ejectment cases, the only damage that can be the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment
recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation In Zacarias complaint, it was stated that: xxxx Plaintiff was in lawful
for the use and occupation of the property]. Other damages must possession and control over the subject property. However,
thus be claimed in an ordinary action. sometime in May, 2007, she discovered that the defendants have
Surely, one of the elements of litis pendentia - that the identity entered the subject property and occupied the same.
between the pending actions, with respect to the parties, rights Consequently, Plaintiff demanded that they leave the premises.
asserted and reliefs prayed for, is such that any judgment rendered The defendants requested for time to leave and she acceded to
on one action will, regardless of which is successful, amount to res said request (kala ni RTC na-convert na sa UD dahil sa agreement
judicata in the action under consideration - is not present, hence, na to). The defendants committed to vacate the subject property
it may not be invoked to dismiss petitioners’ complaint for by the end of May, 2008 but still refused to vacate xxx. The
damages. Res judicata may not apply because the court in a possession could not have been legal from the start as it was
forcible entry case has no jurisdiction over claims for damages without the knowledge or consent ni Zacarias. To justify an action
other than the use and occupation of the premises and attorney’s for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed
fees Neither may forum-shopping justify a dismissal of the acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of
complaint for damages, the elements of litis pendentia not being the possession which is later sought to be recovered (mula
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 75
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
umpisa, tinotolerate mo na ang possession ng respondent w/c is On appeal to the RTC, the RTC ordered the petitioners to conduct
not present in this case). The one year time-bar to suit is but in a relocation survey to determine their allegation of
pursuance of the summary nature of the action (mabilisan sa UD encroachment. The court reversed and set aside the MTC’s
and FE). If the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed decision of August 31, 2000, observing that the respondents had
against the intruder is forcible entry. If, however, the entry is encroached on the petitioners’ property based on the court-
legal but the possession thereafter becomes illegal, the case is ordered relocation survey, the reports by Engr. Limpin, and his
unlawful detainer. Admittedly, no express contract existed testimony, and that the respondents could not rely on their OCT
between the parties. No. N-216701, considering that although their title covered only
481 square meters, the relocation survey revealed that they had
W/N MTC has jurisdiction over the case? No, Since the complaint occupied also 560 square meters of the petitioners’ Lot No. 4236.
did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for On appeal to the CA, the court reinstated the decision of the MTC.
unlawful detainer, the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction over The CA concluded that the RTC, by ordering the relocation and
the case. [Also, the action of forcible entry has already expired – verification survey “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” upon motion
should be filed with one year from the discovery of the alleged of the petitioners and over the objection of the respondents, and
FISTS entry] making a determination of whether there was an encroachment
based on such survey and testimony of the surveyor, had acted as
W/N CA gravely erred in nullifying a final and executory judgment a trial court in complete disregard of the second paragraph of
of the RTC? [No, dahil walang judgment to speak of dahil void ito Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. It declared such action
for lack of jurisdiction (can be raised at any state of the proceedings by the RTC as unwarranted because it amounted to the reopening
even on appeal), kaya wala ring nagging final and executory of the trial, which was not allowed under Section 13(3) Rule 70 of
judgment] It is well-settled that a court's jurisdiction may be the Rules of Court. It observed that the relocation and verification
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The survey was inconclusive inasmuch as the surveyor had himself
reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects admitted that he could not determine which of the three survey
the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render plans he had used was correct without a full-blown trial. The CA
judgment on the action. Indeed, a void judgment for want of held that considering that the petitioners’ complaint for unlawful
jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any detainer did not set forth when and how the respondents had
right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant entered the land in question and constructed their houses
to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, thereon, jurisdiction did not vest in the MTC to try and decide the
it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is case; that the complaint, if at all, made out a case for either accion
void. reivindicatoria or accion publiciana, either of which fell within
the original jurisdiction of the RTC.

Manalang vs. Bacani, 745 SCRA, 1/12/2015 Whether the RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment
Manalang were the co-owners of a certain parcel of Lot described case, can receive additional evidence which in effect amounted to
as Lot No 4236 with an area of 914 square meters of the Guagua the reopening of the trial – No, under Section 18, Rule 70 of the
Cadastre, and declared for taxation purposes in the name of Rules of Court, the RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an
Tomasa B. Garcia. Adjacent to Lot 4236 was the respondents’ Lot ejectment case, shall not conduct a rehearing or trial de novo.
No. 4235 covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. N- The said rule clearly provides that: Sec. 18. Judgment conclusive
216701. In 1997, the petitioners caused the relocation and only on possession; not conclusive in actions involving title or
verification survey of Lot 4236 and the adjoining lots, and the ownership. — x x x. x x x The judgment or final order shall be
result showed that the respondents had encroached on Lot No. appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall
4236 to the extent of 405 square meters. When the respondents decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the
refused to vacate the encroached portion and to surrender proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda
peaceful possession thereof despite demands, the petitioners and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by
commenced this action for unlawful detainer on April 21, 1997 in the Regional Trial Court.(7a)
the MTC of Guagua. Hence, the RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the
The MTC dismissed the said action for lack of jurisdiction (held that conduct of the relocation and verification survey “in aid of its
the action involved an essentially boundary dispute that should be appellate jurisdiction” and by hearing the testimony of the
properly resolved in an accion reivindicatoria). On appeal, surveyor, for its doing so was tantamount to its holding of a trial
however, the RTC reversed the MTC, and remanded the case for de novo. The violation was accented by the fact that the RTC
further proceedings, (held that because there was an apparent ultimately decided the appeal based on the survey and the
withholding of possession of the property and the action was surveyor’s testimony instead of the record of the proceedings
brought within one year from such withholding of possession the had in the court of origin.
proper action was ejectment which was within the jurisdiction of
the MTC; and that the case was not a boundary dispute that could Whether the present case was an ejectment case within the
be resolved in an accion reinvidicatoria, considering that it involved original and exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC - No, based on the
a sizeable area of property and not a mere transferring of allegations of the complaint, the present case should be dismissed
boundary). Upon remand, the MTC, Branch 1, ultimately without prejudice to the filing of a non-summary action like
dismissed the complaint and counterclaim for lack of merit (ruled accion reivindicatoria. A boundary dispute must be resolved in
that the petitioners failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence the context of accion reivindicatoria, not an ejectment case. The
showing that the respondents had encroached on their property boundary dispute is not about possession, but encroachment,
and had been occupying and possessing property outside the metes that is, whether the property claimed by the defendant formed
and bounds described in Bacani’s OCT). part of the plaintiff’s property.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 76
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 possession of the realty. The objective of the plaintiffs in accion
of the Rules of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.
unlawful detainer and forcible entry. To be clear, unlawful However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the
detainer is an action filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the
person against whom the possession of any land or building is parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the not a final determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for
right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue
implied. To vest in the MTC the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The
from the land of the respondents as the occupants in unlawful adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a
detainer, therefore, the complaint should embody such a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the
statement of facts clearly showing the attributes of unlawful property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue
detainer. However, the allegations of the petitioners’ complaint of ownership.
did not show that they had permitted or tolerated the occupation
of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how the Pursuant to (the amendment of) Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
respondents’ entry had been effected, or how and when the 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of
dispossession by the respondents had started. All that the 1980, jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of
petitioners alleged was the respondents’ “illegal use and real property is now determined by its assessed value. The
occupation” of the property. As such, the action was not unlawful assessed value of real property is its fair market value multiplied
detainer. by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. [JOV:
hindi lahat ng cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana
lies with the regional trial courts (dati-OO), ngaun: dependa na sa
Supapo vs. De Jesus, 756 SCRA 211, 4/20/15 assessed value [if 20k (outside MM)/50k (within MM) or below =
Spouses Supapo filed a complaint for accion publiciana against MTC, if above 20k (outside MM)/50k (within MM) = RTC]].
Spouses de Jesus et al with the MTC. The complaint sought to
compel the respondents to vacate a piece of land located in Whether the cause of action has prescribed – No, lands covered
Novaliches, Quezon City which is registered and titled under the by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse
Spouses Supapo’s names. The land has an assessed value of thirty- possession. The Spouses Supapo (as holders of the TCT) enjoy a
nine thousand nine hundred eighty pesos (P39,980.00) as shown panoply of benefits under the Torrens system. Section 47.
in the Declaration of Real Property Value (tax declaration). The Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to registered
Spouses Supapo did not reside on the subject lot. They also did not land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
employ an overseer but they made sure to visit at least twice a acquired by prescription or adverse possession. In addition to the
year. During one of their visits in 1992, they saw two (2) houses imprescriptibility, the person who holds a Torrens Title over a land
built on the subject lot. The houses were built without their is also entitled to the possession thereof. The right to possess and
knowledge and permission. They later learned that the Spouses de occupy the land is an attribute and a logical consequence of
Jesus occupied one house while Macario occupied the other one. ownership. Corollary to this rule is the right of the holder of the
The Spouses Supapo demanded from the respondents the Torrens Title to eject any person illegally occupying their
immediate surrender of the subject lot by bringing the dispute property. Again, this right is imprescriptible. By respecting the
before the appropriate Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Lupon issued imprescriptibility and indefeasibility of the Spouses Supapo’s TCT,
a Katibayan Upang Makadulog sa Hukuman (certificate to file this Court merely recognizes the value of the Torrens System in
action) for failure of the parties to settle amicably. The Spouses ensuring the stability of real estate transactions and integrity of
Supapo then filed a criminal case against the respondents for land registration.
violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law.
The trial court convicted the respondents. The respondents Whether the complaint for accion publiciana is barred by res
appealed their conviction to the CA. While the appeal was pending, judicata – No
Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 8368, otherwise known as Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as
"An Act Repealing Presidential Decree No. 772," which resulted to enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure;
the dismissal of the criminal case. and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c)
The Spouses Supapo thus filed the complaint for accion publiciana. The requisites for res judicata under the concept of bar by prior
The MeTC ruled in favor of Spouses Supapo. Because of this, the judgment are:
respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC. The RTC (1) The former judgment or order must be final;
ruled in favor the respondents. Dissatisfied with the RTC ruling, the (2) It must be a judgment on the merits;
Spouses Supapo appealed to the CA. The CA dismissed the appeal (3) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
hence this petition. the subject matter and the parties; and
(4) There must be between the first and second actions, identity of
Whether the MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction – Yes, Since the parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
assessed value of the subject lot located in Metro Manila is [JOV: present ung items 1 to 3, pero absent ung item 4]. While
P39,980.00 (proven by tax declaration w/c is not disputed by the requisites one to three may be present, it is obvious that the
respondents) then the MeTC of Caloocan properly acquired there is no identity of subject matter, parties and causes of action
jurisdiction over the complaint for accion publiciana. between the criminal case prosecuted under the Anti-Squatting
Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the Law and the civil action for the recovery of the subject property.
better right of possession of realty independent of title. It refers to First, there is no identity of parties. The criminal complaint,
an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the although initiated by the Spouses Supapo, was prosecuted in the
accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of name of the people of the Philippines. The accion publiciana, on
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 77
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
the other hand, was filed by and in the name of the Spouses
Supapo.
Second, there is no identity of subject matter. The criminal case
involves the prosecution of a crime under the Anti-Squatting Law
while the accion publiciana is an action to recover possession of
the subject property.
And third, there is no identity of causes of action. The people of
the Philippines filed the criminal case to protect and preserve
governmental interests by prosecuting persons who violated the
statute. The Spouses Supapo filed the accion publiciana to protect
their proprietary interests over the subject property and recover
its possession.
Wala ring conclusiveness of judgment - The concept of
"conclusiveness of judgment" does not require that there is
identity of causes of action provided that there is identity of issue
and identity of parties. There is no identity of parties and there is
no identity of issues (Criminal case: W/N the respondents
committed the crime VS. Civil case: W/N the Spouses Supapo have
a better right of possession than the respondents).

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 78

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Rule 71 Contempt wherein he called for another judge in a boxing match on quarrel
over an office table)
All forms of contempt – criminal in nature since if imposes penalty
of at least 1 day Say you are in the sala Judge Cuerdo and you blurted out against
Judge Villena, can you be cited in contempt?
Direct Contempt Indirect Contempt Yes, you can be cited for direct contempt.
Misbehavior/disrespect to the
court – meaning actually done Until when a person can be cited in contempt?
in the court or so near the During the pendency of the case.
court (pag malayo you cannot
be cited direct contempt) Punishment for a person in any manner disturb the person who is
Rescue or attempt to rescue entitled thereto as adjudged by the court?
property or person in custody Indirect contempt (remedy is appeal)
of the court -
Remedy: Certiorari(subject to Remedy: Appeal May an action for FE be converted to UD?
posting of the bond) No. They have different grounds FE grounds are FITSS and there is
no requirement of written demand.
Yasay v. Recto
Yasay was scolded by the SC when he cited certain lawyers in Execution of Judgement:
contempt of his court for disobeying order without knowing that In quieting of title the plaintiff failed to ask the court to the order
his basis is already reversed by CA. of execution for 25 years. As a remedy can the plaintiff file an action
Yasay said that the lawyer is suspended for practicing in SEC for six to revive the judgment?
months. SC said that only the SC can suspend the practice of law. A: Res judicata applies. Plaintiff lost his right through laches. You
must file another action but another cause of action. You may file
action reinvidicatoria. Quieting of Title is different from action
Judge Espanyol v. Atty. Formoso
Doctrine: Judge cannot take judicial notice of the decisions and reinvidicatoria.
orders of the other courts.
Atty. Formoso when presenting documents, Judge Espanyol said Case Digests
the documents being presented are spurious since that same
document has been presented and pronounced spurious in other Yasay vs. Recto, 313 SCRA
case. Due to argument of Atty. Formoso, the judge order the sheriff On June 28, 1996, some stockholders of Interport Resources
to Atty. Formoso be detained prompting the the latter to file Corporation (IRC) asked then SEC Chairman Perfecto Yasay to
administrative case against Judge Espanyol. SC ruled in favour of investigate and validate the proxies and nominations for
Atty. Formoso Judge was reprimanded. directors of the corporation. In line with this and on the same
Can a judge take judicial notice of the decision or notice of the date (June 28), the SEC issued a TRO against the officers of the
other court – No. corporation to CEASE and DESIST from conducting its annual
stockholders meeting. But because the officers of IRC where
Maranthan v. Diokno Case able to get from the Court of Appeals a TRO against the Order of
Atty. Diokno allowed the media interview on the case that he is SEC not to go through with the July 9 stockholders’ conference,
handling about the gun fight of his client. the respondents (officers of IRC) still conducted its meeting as
Maranthan moved that Judge Diokno be cited for contempt for planned. On the next day, the SEC declared IRC’s conference as
allowing media interview. However, SC ruled it is not sub judice invalid and ordered the respondents (officers of the IRC) to
since Atty. Diokno is only discussing the facts of the case and not show cause why they shouldn’t be cited for contempt. On the
merits of the case, hence, he shall not be cited for contempt. hearing, the respondent officers cited the TRO issued by the CA
as the reason why they still went through with the
Sison v. Judge Caoibes meeting/conference. Nevertheless, the SEC still found the
Doctrine: The power of contempt must not be exercised in a respondent officers guilty for contempt. The Order of the SEC
vindictive manner and always cautiously and in a preservative way. went even as far as barring Atty. Manalaysay, one of the
respondent officers, from engaging in the practice of law. And
Sison is a traffic enforcer of MMDA. While manning traffic in EDSA so, respondent went to the CA to appeal SEC’s decision wherein
he accosted the driver. Sison requested for the driver’s license who the appellate court reversed SEC’s decision. From this reversal,
is the son of Judge Caoibes and issued ticket. The son went to Las the petitioner SEC chairman APPEALS to the SC via petition for
Pinas and informed the Judge father of the confiscation. The judge review, claiming that the reversal of the appellate court of the
ordered the sheriff to recover the driver’s license which was decision of the SEC was improper. But the respondents argue
executed by the sheriff. However, the sheriff failed to recover the that the CONTEMPT CHARGE against them was CRIMINAL in
license from Sison since it was already surrendered to Sison’s boss. nature. Thus, when the CA reversed the guilty verdict of the SEC
Subsequently, the Judge ordered the police to arrest Sison and finding respondents guilty of contempt, said decision/reversal
brought him to the sala of Judge. Judge ordered the detention of was tantamount to a NOT GUILTY verdict wherein no appeal
SC terminated/dismissed the Judge and all his retirement benefits. can be taken.
(If you try to analyse, SC imposed too harsh penalty: But based on
records he has been warned four times. There was also a case Was the reversal of the CA of the findings of SEC that
respondents were guilty of contempt proper [are respondents

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 79

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
guilty of contempt - No]? The ruling of the CA was proper contempt charge before the sala of the respondent Judge in Las
because even though the SEC ordered the officers of IRC not to Pias City. Judge filed comment, vehemently denied the
go through with the stockholders’ conference on July 9, said accusations against him, contending that he was merely
officers were able to get a TRO with the CA against SEC’s CEASE preserving the dignity and honor due to the courts of law. The
and DESIST Order on July 8. Thus, it was only proper that the respondent narrated that on September 8, 1999, he ordered his
stockholders’ conference pushed through. son, Jose R. Caoibes III, to go to the Pasig City Regional Trial
Court to secure certain records. While on his way there, he was
Was the contempt proceedings conducted by the SEC criminal flagged down by the complainant for an alleged traffic violation.
or civil in nature? As such, was the reversal of the CA Caoibes III explained to the complainant that he was on an
appealable? It is criminal in nature. We agree with respondents errand for his father, the respondent judge, to which the
that the charge of contempt partakes of the nature of a criminal complainant reportedly uttered, Walang Judge, Judge Caoibes
offense. The exoneration of the contemner from the charge sa akin; kahapon nga, abogado ang hinuli ko. OCA
amounts to an acquittal from which an appeal would not lie. recommended: the Dismissal of charge against Sheriff Alvarez,
“A distinction is made between a civil and criminal contempt. the Referral of charge against Judge to the CA, although the
Civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered by a court complainant never appeared to prove the charges against the
to be done for the benefit of a party. A criminal contempt is respondent judge, the facts averred in the complaint appear to
any conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the be substantially correct and true. Thus, the respondent judge
court. Petitioners argue that the contempt committed by abused his authority to charge and punish any person for
respondents was civil in nature, as the temporary restraining indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
order the SEC issued was for the benefit of a party to a case. The
contention is untenable. “Civil contempt proceedings are Whether Judge Caoibes was correct in citing Sison in indirect
generally held to be remedial and civil in their nature; that is, contempt, considering that the latter never became a party to
they are proceedings for the enforcement of some duty, and a case pending before Judge Caoibes’ sala – No
essentially a remedy for coercing a person to do the thing
required.” “In general, civil contempt proceedings should be Is the order citing Sison of indirect contempt proper? No, the
instituted by an aggrieved party, or his successor, or someone person cited for contempt is not a party to case pending in court.
who has a pecuniary interest in the right to be protected.” If the At first blush, it would seem that the respondent judge was
contempt is initiated by the court or tribunal exercising the justified in holding the complainant for contempt, due to the
power to punish a given contempt, it is criminal in nature, and latter’s refusal to comply with the judge’s Order of September
the proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the 15, 1999. However, it is not lost upon this Court that the
principles and rules applicable to criminal cases. The State is complainant was not a party to any of the cases pending before
the real prosecutor. “The real character of the proceedings in the RTC, Branch 253. What triggered the contempt charge was,
contempt cases is to be determined by the relief sought or by in fact, the traffic violation incident involving the respondent
the dominant purpose. The proceedings are to be regarded as judge’s son. Furthermore, the record shows that when the
criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment, and civil complainant filed his reply to the charge as required by the
when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial.” respondent judge, the same was refused by some staff member
in the latter’s sala. The respondent judge should have refrained
“But whether the first or the second, contempt is still a criminal from ordering the arrest and detention of the complainant,
proceeding in which acquittal, for instance, is a bar to a second since the incident involved his own son, and the matter was
prosecution. The distinction is for the purpose only of very personal to him. The power of contempt is power
determining the character of punishment to be administered.” assumed by a court or judge to coerce cooperation and punish
In this case, the contempt is not civil in nature, but criminal, disobedience, disrespect or interference with the courts
imposed to vindicate the dignity and power of the Commission; orderly process by exacting summary punishment. The
hence, as in criminal proceedings, an appeal would not lie from contempt power was given to the courts in trust for the public,
the order of dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of by tradition and necessity, in as much as respect for the courts,
contempt.” which are ordained to administer the laws which are necessary
to the good order of society, is as necessary as respect for the
Sison vs. Caoibes, Jr., 429 SCRA 258 laws themselves. And, as in all other powers of the court, the
Judge issued an Order requiring the complainant to appear contempt power, however plenary it may seem, must be
before him to explain a traffic incident involving his son and exercised judiciously and sparingly. A judge should never allow
Salvador Sison, a Metropolitan Manila Development Authority himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness
(MMDA) traffic enforcer. Sison failed to appear. Judge issued in the performance of his duties. In Cortes v. Bangalan, we held
another Order for Sison’s arrest and commitment which the that a judge may not hold a party in contempt of court for
sheriff served. Sison appeared and executed an affidavit expressing concern on the judge’s impartiality through a motion
admitting to the court that he made a mistake and that it was all for voluntary inhibition, even if the latter may have felt insulted
a misunderstanding. Judge lifted the 2nd order, Sison filed a therein. The Court also declared, thus: …[W]hile the power to
complaint against Judge (complainant was greatly surprised punish in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve
when respondent TEODORO ALVAREZ came and arrested him order in judicial proceedings and to uphold due administration
without any warrant of arrest, only on orders of the respondent of justice, judges, however, should exercise their contempt
Judge, and he was ordered to board a motor vehicle and was powers judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and
brought to the respondent Judge in Las Pias City who ordered with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for
him detained in the Las Pias City Jail). Respondent Teodoro correction and preservation not for retaliation and vindication.
Alvarez informed him that there will be a hearing of his indirect
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 80
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Was Judge Caoibes justified in considering the act of Sison as aside (ruled in favor of Formoso et. al.?), ruling that Judge
deliberate disregard of the respect due to court – No, the Español erred in taking cognizance of the Decision rendered by
respondent Judge was not justified to so consider the act and then Judge Tagle in Civil Case No. 623-92 since it was not offered
remarks of Sison as thereby displaying arrogance towards and in evidence in Civil Case No. 2035-00 for quieting of title.
deliberate disregard of the usual respect, courtesy and Moreover, as the direct contempt of court is criminal in nature,
accommodation due to a court of law and its representative. petitioner should have conducted a hearing. Thus, she could
First of all, the refusal of Sison and the supposed remarks have determined whether respondents are guilty as charged.
should not cause resentment on the part of the respondent
Judge (whom Sison most likely did not yet know at the time) Whether herein respondents were correctly cited in direct
because he knew, as a public official himself, that Sison was only contempt so as to warrant their incarceration - No
doing his duty of enforcing evenly the particular traffic Contempt of court is "some act or conduct which tends to
regulation against swerving into a one-way street from the interfere with the business of the court, by a refusal to obey
wrong direction, regardless of the office or position of the some lawful order of the court, or some act of disrespect to the
violator’s father. dignity of the court which in some way tends to interfere with
or hamper the orderly proceedings of the court and thus lessens
Secondly, the respondent Judge should have had the the general efficiency of the same. In this jurisdiction, it is now
circumspection expected of him as a judge to realize that the recognized that courts have the inherent power to punish for
remarks of Sison were invited by Caoibes III’s attempt to bluff contempt on the ground that respect for the courts guarantees
his way out of the apprehension because he was the son of an the very stability of the judicial institution. Such stability is
RTC judge. Hence, the respondent Judge would have no grounds essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings,
to cite Sison for contempt of court. And, thirdly, the respondent to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the
Judge and his son should have challenged the issuance of the courts, and, consequently, to the very administration of
traffic violation receipt pursuant to the pertinent rules if they justice.
did not agree with the basis of the apprehension and also
administratively charged Sison for any unwarranted act Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
committed. Since neither was done by them, but, on the provides: SEC. 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. – A
contrary, both ultimately accepted the validity of the person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a
apprehension, as borne out by the retrieval of the driver’s court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
license after September 29, 1999 by paying the fines same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive
corresponding to the traffic violation, then it follows that the personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer
respondent Judge had the consciousness that his son was at as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when
fault, instead of Sison. lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged (JOV:
meaning, without a hearing) in contempt by such court and
Judge Espanol vs. Atty. Formoso, 525 SCRA punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or
Sharcons Builders Philippines, Inc. (Sharcons) bought from imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a
Evanswinda Morales a piece of land in Cavite. TCT was issued in Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or
the name of Sharcons. Sharcons’ worker then tried to fence the by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment, not
land. HOWEVER, the caretaker thereof prevented them, exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court. On the
claiming that spouses Joseph and Enriqueta Mapua were the other hand, Section 3, Rule 71 of the same Rules states: SEC. 3.
true owners of the land. Sharcons filed with RTC Dasma Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. –
complaint for quieting of title, Impleaded as defendants were After a charge in writing has been filed and an opportunity given
spouses Mapua, Evanswinda Morales, and the Register of Deeds to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as
of Trece Martires City. Sps Mapua filed Answer, alleging that all may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or by
documents used by Sharcons were spurious and falsified. Judge counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be
Espanol (PJ of RTC Dasma Br 90) issued an Order stating that punished for indirect contempt:
Benito See and Marly See, president and treasurer, respectively,
of Sharcons, and its counsel, Atty. Benjamin Formoso, (a) Misbehavior of an officer of court in the performance
respondents, have used a spurious certificate of title and tax of his official duties or in his official transactions;
declaration when it (Sharcons) filed with the RTC its complaint (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
for quieting of title. Consequently, petitioner declared order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a
respondents guilty of direct contempt of court and ordered person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from
their confinement for ten (10) days in the municipal jail of any real property by the judgment or process of any
Dasmariñas, Cavite. Petitioner stated that in determining the court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
merits of Sharcons' complaint for quieting of title, she induces another to enter into or upon such real
"stumbled" upon Civil Case No. 623-92 for cancellation of title property, for the purpose of executing acts of
and damages filed with the RTC, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the
presided by then Judge Lucenito N. Tagle. Petitioner then took possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled
judicial notice of the judge’s Decision declaring that Sharcons' thereto;
TCT and other supporting documents are falsified and that (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
respondents are responsible therefor. Judge then issued a processes or proceedings of a court not constituting
warrant against respondents. Respondents were then arrested direct contempt under Section 1 of this Rule;
and confined in the municipal jail. Respondents filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus before the CA. CA nullified and set
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 81
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to filed before it and the outcome of the criminal cases before the
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of RTC by drawing an ostensible parallelism between the Ortigas
justice; incident and the Atimonan incident.]
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court and
acting as such without authority; La’o and Diokno filed their comment [arguing that there was no
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; violation of the sub judice rule as their statements were
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or legitimate expressions of their desires, hopes and opinions
property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an which were taken out of context and did not actually impede,
order or process of a court held by him. obstruct or degrade the administration of justice in a concrete
way; that no criminal intent was shown as the utterances were
Indirect or constructive contempt, in turn, is one perpetrated not on their face actionable being a fair comment of a matter
outside of the sitting of the court and may include misbehavior of public interest and concern; and that this petition is intended
of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties to stifle legitimate speech.]
or in his official transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a
lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or Whether there was a violation of the sub judice rule on the part
injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or any of La’o and Atty. Diokno so as to merit their being cited in
unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court contempt – No, The sub judice rule restricts comments and
not constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to
tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or
administration of justice. We agree with petitioner that the use obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of this rule
of falsified and forged documents is a contumacious act. may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d),
However, it constitutes indirect contempt not direct contempt. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which reads: Section 3. Indirect
Thus, following Section 3, Rule 71, a contemner may be contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. – x x x a
punished only after a charge in writing has been filed, and an person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for
opportunity has been given to the accused to be heard by indirect contempt: (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
himself and counsel. Settled is the rule that a contempt indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
proceeding is not a civil action, but a separate proceeding of a justice[.]
criminal nature in which the court exercises limited jurisdiction.
Perforce, petitioner judge erred in declaring summarily that The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are
respondents are guilty of direct contempt and ordering their criminal in nature. This form of contempt is conduct that is
incarceration. She should have conducted a hearing with notice directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge
to respondents. acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or
Evidence issue – W/N Judge Espanol correctly took judicial disrespect. Intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt,
notice of the Decision in another civil case presided by Judge and no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the
Tagle – No, In Gener v. De Leon, we held that courts are not evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it. For a
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records of comment to be considered as contempt of court "it must really
other cases even when such cases have been tried or pending appear" that such does impede, interfere with and embarrass
in the same court. the administration of justice. As to the conduct of the Court, a
review of the respondents' comments reveals that they were
P/SUPT. Marantan vs. Atty. Diokno, 716 SCRA 164, 2/2014 simply stating that it had not yet resolved their petition. There
This case stemmed from a criminal case entitled “People vs. was no complaint, express or implied, that an inordinate amount
P/SINSP Marantan, et. al” pending before the RTC. Marantan of time had passed since the petition was filed without any
and his co-accused were charged with homicide (where persons action from the Court. There appears no attack or insult on the
[including Anton Cu-Unjieng (son of respondent La’O)] were shot dignity of the Court either [wala namang reklamo na matagal
and killed by police in front of AIC Gold Tower at Ortigas Center desisyunan ung case, no attack/insult also, no criminal intent to
which was captured by a TV crew from UNTV). In the meantime, impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice can be
another shooting incident transpired which also involved inferred from the comments of the respondents]. The power to
Marantan. This allegedly resulted in much negative publicity on punish for contempt, being drastic and extraordinary in its
the part of Marantan. Marantan filed a petition before SC to cite nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the
La’o (the private complainant in the homicide charge) and Atty. interest of justice. In the present case, such necessity is wanting.
Diokno (La’o’s counsel therein) in contempt, [contending that
the respondents violated the sub judice rule, making them liable Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez, 717 SCRA
for indirect contempt for their contemptuous statements and Manuel O. Sanchez (respondent), a stockholder of petitioner
improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. (Corporation) filed a
obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. He argues that petition for the nullification of the annual meeting of
their pronouncements and malicious comments delved not only stockholders of May 21, 2002 and the special meeting of
on the supposed inaction of the Court in resolving the petitions stockholders of April 23, 2002. Sanchez filed a Motion for
filed, but also on the merits of the criminal cases before the RTC Production and Inspection of Documents which the RTC granted.
and prematurely concluded that he and his co-accused are Capitol then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC
guilty of murder. It is Maranta’s position that the press denied. Capitol filed a Rule 65 before the CA which the CA
conference was organized by the respondents for the sole dismissed. Capitol then filed a Rule 45 before the SC which the
purpose of influencing the decision of the Court in the petition SC dismissed.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 82
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
The supposed inspection was not held. Sanchez set the administration of justice may be punished for indirect
inspection on August 1, 2003, BUT Atty. Matias V. Defensor, contempt. In particular, Section 4, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules
then Corporate Secretary of the Corporation, was alleged to be states that, in addition to a possible treatment of a party as non-
out of town and petitioner Pablo B. Roman, Jr. (Roman) suited or as in default, the sanctions prescribed in the Rules for
purported to have shown no willingness to comply with the failure to avail of, or refusal to comply with, the modes of
directive. Finally, the inspection was conducted on January 11, discovery shall apply. Under Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules, if a
2007, the only document produced by the Acting Corporate party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey
Secretary, Atty. Antonio V. Meriz, and one of the staff, Malou an order to produce any document or other things for
Santos, was the Stock and Transfer Book of the Corporation. inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done,
They alleged that they could not find from the corporate records the court may make such orders as are just. The enumeration of
the copies of the proxies submitted by the stockholders, options given to the court under Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules
including the tape recordings taken during the stockholders’ is not exclusive, as shown by the phrase "among others”. If
meetings, and that they needed more time to locate and find adjudged guilty of indirect contempt, the respondent who
the list of stockholders as of March 2002, which was in the committed it against a Regional Trial Court or a court of
bodega of the Corporation. Sanchez filed a Manifestation with equivalent or higher rank may be punished with a fine not
Omnibus Motion praying that an order be issued in accordance exceeding thirty thousand pesos, or imprisonment not
with Section 3, Paragraphs (a) to (d) of Rule 29 of the Rules of exceeding six (6) months, or both. In this case, the threatened
Court (Rules), in relation to Section 4, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules sanction of possibly ordering petitioners to solidarily pay a fine
of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under of P10,000.00 for every day of delay in complying with the
Republic Act No. 8799 (Interim Rules). September 10, 2002 Order is well within the allowable range
RTC gave the parties one last chance to comply with the order of penalty.
dated September 10, 2002. The Supreme Court orders the
defendants to strictly comply with this order. Failure of the Under the Rules of Court, there are two ways of initiating
defendants to comply with all the requirements of the order indirect contempt proceedings:
dated September 10, 2002 will result in this court citing all the (1) motu proprio by the court; or
defendants in contempt of court. In contempt proceedings, the prescribed procedure must be
followed. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
This Court shall order defendants solidarily to pay a fine of provide the procedure to be followed in case of indirect
P10,000.00 for every day of delay to comply with the order of contempt. First, there must be an order requiring the
September 10, 2002 until the defendants shall have fully and respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for
completely complied with the said order. Capitol filed a Rule 65 contempt. Second, the respondent must be given the
before the CA which the CA dismissed, [ruling that there is no opportunity to comment on the charge against him. Third,
indication that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion there must be a hearing and the court must investigate the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. According to the charge and consider respondent’s answer. Finally, only if
appellate court, the September 3, 2007 Resolution was issued found guilty will respondent be punished accordingly
pursuant to Section 3,30 Rule 3 of the Interim Rules, with the (2) by a verified petition.
suppletory application of Section 1,31 Rule 27 of the Rules. It In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be
noted that, except for the sanctions contained therein, the commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars
assailed Resolution merely reiterated the September 10, 2002 and certified true copies of documents or papers involved
Order of Judge Bruselas, which petitioners did not dispute in therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for
accordance with Section 2,32 Rule 3 of the Interim Rules or via filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court
petition for certiorari. The CA further held that petitioners were concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are
not denied due process as they were able to move for a related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition
reconsideration of the September 10, 2002 Order, but not opted for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be
to file the same with respect to the September 3, 2007 docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in
Resolution.] its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt
Capitol filed a Rule 45 before the SC, contending that the charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision
"threatened imminent action" by the RTC to penalize them sua
sponte or without regard to the guideline laid down by the Court In this case, the proceedings for indirect contempt have not
in Engr. Torcende v. Judge Sardido is not proper and calls for the been initiated. To the Court’s mind, the September 3, 2007
exercise of Our power of supervision over the lower courts. Resolution could be treated as a mere reiteration of the
Likewise, citing Panaligan v. Judge Ibay, among others, they September 10, 2002 Order. It is not yet a "judgment or final
claim that the threatened citation for contempt is not in line order of a court in a case of indirect contempt" as contemplated
with the policy that there should be willfulness or that the under the Rules. The penalty mentioned therein only serves as
contumacious act be done deliberately in disregard of the a reminder to caution petitioners of the consequence of
authority of the court. possible non-observance of the long-overdue order to produce
and make available for inspection and photocopying of the
Whether RTC was justified in issuing an order constituting a requested records/documents. In case of another failure or
threat to cite Capitol in contempt. Yes refusal to comply with the directive, the court or respondent
could formally initiate the indirect contempt proceedings
A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful pursuant to the mandatory requirements of the Rules and
order of a court or commits any improper conduct tending, existing jurisprudence.
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 83
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Even if We are to treat the September 3, 2007 Resolution as a
"judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect
contempt," this would still not work to petitioners’ advantage.
Section 11, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court lays down the proper
remedy from a judgment in indirect contempt proceedings. It
states: Sec. 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for
stay.––The judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect
contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in criminal
cases. But execution of the judgment or final order shall not be
suspended until a bond is filed by the person adjudged in
contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from which the
appeal is taken, conditioned that if the appeal be decided
against him he will abide by and perform the judgment or final
order. The recourse provided for in the above-mentioned
provision is clear enough: the person adjudged in indirect
contempt must file an appeal under Rule 41 (Appeal from the
Regional Trial Courts) and post a bond for its suspension
pendente lite. Obviously, these were not done in this case.
Instead, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules and did not post the required bond, effectively
making the September 3, 2007 Resolution final and executory.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 84

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Specpro (12.9% Bar Questions for 10 years) When Imprescriptible With With
to file (there are prescription prescription
Rules 72-109
Note that some of the rules were already repealed by new laws, limitations and depending on depending on
Out of the 14 Specpro in the present ROC only 9 is relevant today. penalties ex. Is in the crime the cause of
settlement of committed action.
1. Settlement of the Estate estate you must
2. submit within 20
days from death
No longer applicable are: you must submit
1. Constitution of the Family Home – now everyhome is copy of the will,
automatically a family home. etc._
2. Voluntary Dissolution of Corporation Issues Determined not by Must be alleged in the
(how allegations of the pleading
3. Rescission of adoption – integrated in the new rule of
determi pleading but by
adoption. ned)
law. Even if you
10-yr BAR – Specpro is 16% of the Bar; did not allege that
1. 42% (11/26) of which is about settlement of the estate; is jurisdictional
2. 26% is habeas corpus
Say: July 5 you fist publish, you must publish the two on July 12 and
2011-2013 – No specpro questions July 19. But not automatic every Monday = sufficient that it is once
2015 Bar – 16% due to (1) environmental case and (2) writ of a week for 3 consecutive weeks.
amparo
Parties
BAR MATTERS Specpro – only one party – EXPN Habeas corpus, writ of amparo,
1. Settlement of the Estate kalikasan, habeas data
2. Rules 103 and 108 (Change of name, correction and ; Crim pro -2 (State and accued);
cancellation of entries)
3. Habeas Corpus Rule 73: Summary Settlement of the Estate
4. Adoption on Guardianship
Settlement of an Estate – automatically connotes that there is an
Specpro – a remedy that seeks to establish a status, a right or a estate
particular fact.
In the proposed rules the writ of amparo, writ of habes When does an estate come to life?
data, writ of kalikasan shall be included in specpro. It only comes to life when someone dies. If death does not occur
there is no settlement of the state!
Is annulment of Marriage part of Specpro?
Atty Brondial said it should be specpro since it seeks to The first jurisdictional requirement in the settlement of the estate
establish a status, of a right or a particular fact. However, – establish the death either actual or presumptive death. You
for academic purposes it is not part of specpro. cannot go to settlement of the estate if you did not establish the
death.
Characteristics of Specpro Actual death – death cert is an evid that someone died.
Specpro CrimPro Civil Action Vs.
Parties Only one 2 parties Maximum of Presumptive Death – Rule 131 Burdens and Presumptions Section
(XPN: Writ of (State and 5 parties 3, GR: When the person is absent for second consecutive years he
Habeas Corpus, accused) (Plaintiff, is presumed death
amparo, kalikasan, defendant, vs.
habeas data) interpleader, Succession must be 10 years unless he disappeared at the age of at
3rd and 4th least 75 or absence for at least four years when there is imminent
party danger.
dependant Vs.
When Acquires j. only Upon filing of Court For marriage purposes it is 2 years not 4 years from imminent
does after publication complaint/inf acquires j. danger. Here you must go to court for the declaration of
the (once a week for 3 o and upo upon filing of presumptive death.
court
consecutive complaint
acquire
weeks) – The and payment There can be settlement of the estate only when someone
s
Jurisdic publication is not of docket dies.
tion 21 days but it must fees;
covered that Dependant – What is the estate?
period of 21 days upon valid The totality of the decedent’s assets and liabilities. Under the law
service of nobody leave in this world, you live through your estate.
summons
Who may be parties

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 85

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 1. Natural person 1. Project of partition
2. Juridical person 2. Buy-out of one of the heirs
3. Entity Authorized by law – ex. Estate. 3. Sale if heirs did not agree on the above two options.

Settlement of Estate Procedures c. Escheat – Rule 91

1. Inventory – what are the assets and liabilities of the decedent Applies is the person leaves absolutely no heir. There
2. Administration – who will administer should be no will and no heir for this to apply.
3. Liquidation of the estate – who are entitled to prop. Left
Who settles the estate? State will settle the estate for the
2 Modes of Settlement of the Estate decedent in favour of the State.
1. Extra-judicial
a. Extra-judicial partition Jurisdiction –depending in the gross value of the property
b. Affidavit of self-adjudication –
This is administrative function and no participation of Venue – Where any of the estate can be found. If the
court! estate is scattered the State can file anywhere as long as
Note this is not a simple affidavit since you need to apply there is property there.
to Registry of Deeds if there is real prop. You need to state However, the judgement will not go entirely to that
in the application personal circumstances, why you claim municipality. The prop shall be given to where the
to be the sole heirs, etc. Also included are the attachments properties are located.
i. Marriage contract
ii. Birth Certificate – to establish sole heirship Say: Escheat was filed in Legazpi for the properties located
iii. Monuments of title; in Legazpi, Manila and Davao. The judgement does not
iv. TCTs and OCTs of real properties mean that the entire estate shall go in favour of the City of
v. Details of personal properties. Legazpi but instead the properties in Manila and Davao
Upon submission of the above, there will be publication shall go in favour of City of Manila and Davao, respectively.
and posting.
Publication here is long – once a week for 6 consecutive
When the decedent left one heir, no will and no debts or weeks
if there are debts there are sufficient properties to pay
these debts. The proceeds to be used for charitable and educational
You cannot execute affidavit of self-adjudication if you are purposes only, where the properties are located.
not the sole heir even half siblings are heirs, hence, self-
adjudication is not allowed. Albarico v. Sola case and Caro v. Sucaldito Case
Doctrine: Reversion – process of getting back the property
Say: Heir executed affidavit of self-adjudication and given by the State and it is only the State that can file an
executed deed of conditional sale in favour of B. Indicated action for recovery of such property.
in the deed of conditional sale is that the title will be
transferred to B after the reconstitution of the property in Prop was acquired through a sale application patent.
favour of the heir. Under the law you cannot dispose that until 25 years
During trial, the judge said he received a letter assailing unless there is permission from DENR. However, during
that the heir has half brothers and sisters in the second the pendency of the application, it was transferred to the
marriage of the father. Hence affidavit of self-adjudication nephew and the patent was issued in the name of
is not proper. The judge dismissed the case. The problem nephew. However, the brother (father of the defendant)
is B cannot recover the advance payment by him to Heir. of the decedent questioned the issuance in favour of
nephew arguing that the brother has a deed of assignment
2. Judicial hence, title must be given to him otherwise brother will
a. Summary settlement of estate of small value – Rule 74, file action reinvidacatoria. Case was dismissed since the
Section 1 brother is not a proper party in interest. The property was
This is still in the rules but very impractical since the gross given by the estate, it is only the state that can file
value of the estate is not more than P10k. Why bother to reversion.
enter to settlement of the estate if it is only P10k. Usually Reversion – process of getting back the property given by
this is not being availed by the poor! The better approach the State and it is only the State that can file an action for
if the estate is small is to enter extra-judicial, wherein, the recovery of such property.
lawyer will just prepare the agreement of the heris.
What is the Govt awarded sales patent?
In the proposed Rules it is P2M if manila and P1M if not in These properties are given by the Govt and only the Govt
Manila – but this proposal is not yet approved, thus, follow can take it back!
the P10k.
d. Conventional Form of Settlement of the Estate – Rules 73-
b. Judicial partition – Rule 69 90
You file project of partition i. Testate Settlement – there is a will
Then appointment of commissioner. ii. Intestate Settlement of the Estate – no will
Commissioner has the option of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 86
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Jurisdiction - RTC/MTC is a court of limited jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – regardless of testate or intestate settlement When you file petition for probate of the will the court that take
MTC or RTC depending on the Gross value of the estate (P300k and cognizance of the case has a limited jurisdiction (to allow or
below outside MLA and P400K and below in Mla = MTC) disallow of the will). The only issue is to allow the will. The limited
jurisdiction only refers when the court is acting as a probate court.
Important issue in settlement in the Estate However, once the court issues the order of allowance of
1. Venue –If you read Rule 73 you cannot see venue but it is disallowance of the will, the court ceases its limited jurisdiction
jurisdiction.
Venue - The last residence of the decedent regardless of Does it mean that after the court allow or disallow the will you
many residences. If many residences, where he last resided. need to file another action?
No. The term settlement of the estate may began from the probate
of the will if the there is a will. After probation, this continues up to
Fule Case: The venue of the settlement of the estate is the Rule 90 (liquidation of the estate).
last resident of the defendant which is the actual physical That is why you must consider the term “limited jurisdiction” – in
abode of the decedent. the sense that there is only one case filed in the probate court and
the probate court will not only determine the due execution of the
San Luis v. San Luis will. All other issues there are incidental. But once the will was
Doctrine: What is required in the settlement of the estate for allowed or disallowed it continues up to the settlement or
venue is the resident and not domicile. In Domicile, there is distribution of the estate.
intent to remain which is what is required for election. For
resident, it is the last actual and physical abode. Production of the will
Whoever in possession is duty bound to surrender the will within
This is the estate of the late Laguna Governor. Gov. San Luis the period of 30 days from death of decedent or knowledge of
has 3 wives but one after the other. First wife he had 3 death of decedent.
children, one of which is the defendant. Second wife an IF he does not surrender the will he will be sanctioned for that.
American and had a divorce in US. 3rd Wife, Felicitas San Luis.
The 3rd wife filed petition for administratix in RTC of Makati, Cuenca v. CA
the judicial region where the Gov. last resided. The Son of the Say: Mr. X resides in QC and has 5 children. He executed the will in
first wife filed motion to dismiss on the ff grounds: (1) not a QC and gave the will to eldest son, Mr. A, as custodian. After getting
proper party in interest since the marriage of Gov. San Luis married Mr. A went to Cebu. Afther which, Mr. X died in QC. Mr. X
and Felicitas is null and void since there is really no divorce in surrendered the copy of the will in RTC of Cebu. Two months after
the 2nd marriange; (2) improper venue since the residence of wife of Mr. X filed petition for probate of a will with a will annexed
the Gov. is in Laguna, he is the incumbent governor of Laguna in RTC of QC, the last resident of the decedent.
and has a house in Laguna. Was Makati the proper venue for Issue: Which court is the proper venue, Cebu or QC.
the settlement of the estate. SC ruled that Makati is proper Ruling: Clearly it is QC, the last resident of the decedent. So if you
venue. Feliciatas presented the ff documents to prove that are going to assail the issue of improper venue, where are you
the decedent died in Alabang, his last residence. supposed to file opposition, in QC or Cebu.
Ans: You need to file opposition in Cebu since QC is not the court
Quaison v. De Belen of proper jurisdiction but Cebu, QC is only the court of proper
Doctrine: The Residence means the actual and physical abode venue. If you are going to assail improper venue you need to file it
of the decedent. Death certificate is not an evidence of the in Cebu. You apply here the exclusionary rule, the court that takes
residence but only a proof of death. Residence can be proven cognizance of the case takes it to the exclusion of the other courts.
in some other evidence not death certificate. Is there a petition for probate of a will upon mere surrendering
of the copy of the will in RTC Cebu?
Quiason died in Las Pinas with his family. The wife in Las Pinas YES. By mere surrender of the copy of the will, the court may
filed an action for appointment as administration of the already set the case for hearing under the rule.
estate. However, there is another wife in Tarlac which
assailed the petition contending that she is the legitimate wife Distinction between venue and jurisdiction is VERY CRUCIAL IN THE
hence she is not the proper party in interest and improper SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE.
venue based on the death certificate the decedent is living in Question:
Tarlac. 1. Regarding using tolerance, how to use it as a ground for filing an
ejectment case?
The same, the subject is only a ground. Summary procedure; file
Rule 73: Summary Settlement of the Estate
the complaint and after filing the complaint, summons is served,
Liabilities of Distributies – Even after the distribution of the estate
and the answer must be filed in ten days. There is no distinction.
the distributes are still liable within the period of 2 years.
How to allege tolerance?
Rule 75: Production of a Will and Allowance Thereof -Settled is the rule that only ultimate facts, i.e. the defendant is in
possession of a 20 sqm property thru tolerance of the plaintiff. No
Presumption is that there is a will need to explain what tolerance means; only the ultimate facts.
Sec 1, Rule 75 – No ownership of the property shall be passed
unless the will is allowed. A, B, and C are sisters. They were co-owners of certain hectares of
land which they acquired from their deceased parent. A and B died
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 87
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
leaving the undivided properties in the hands of C who enjoyed the
fruits of the land alone without considering the children of her One-witness Rule- Sec 6 - a notarial will which is uncontested.
deceased sisters. One of the children asserted rights over the When you seek the probate of a notarial will and there is absolutely
properties but because of young age, C gave her nieces a few no contest, you need only one witness who will establish that this
amount of money and made them sign a notarized document which was written.
is a sort of waiver waiving the rights over the properties.
Two-witness Rule- Sec 11 refers to a lost or destroyed will. When
Q: Is the document valid? If not, what would be the remedy of the a will is lost or destroyed, before you can have that probated you
niece? have to establish the existence of the lost or destroyed will and you
need two witnesses for that.
A: The validity of the document (bilateral) depends on the validity
of the consent. In the example, there is a vice of consent. There is, Three-witness rule- Sec 12 refers to a contested holographic will.
in other words, undue pressure and influence. So that document is You have to get atleast three witnesses to establish that is the will.
contestable. It is a matter of evidence. You have to show that there
was a vice of consent whether force, intimidation or even undue Four-witness rule- refers to notarial will that is contested. These
pressure and influence, so much so in a will. are the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public.

Quo-warranto Case Rule 77- Allowance of Will Proved Outside of Philippines and
A, an incumbent elected barangay chairman, seeks for a higher Administration of Estate Thereunder
position and filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor and
participated in the last local election on May 9, 2016. When a will is executed abroad, can that be implemented here?
Unfortunately, A lost. Consequently, A reassumed his original -No. Basis is that is in effect a foreign judgment. And because it is a
position that was already vacated by him. Besides, by fortune, he foreign judgment you cannot just implement it here and you have
was appointed as a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan equal to cause its approval here in the Philippines irrespective whether a
to the rank of regular members of the provincial board. Filipino or not. As long as the will was:
1. executed abroad
Can he be removed in the board invoking quo warranto 2. probated abroad
proceeding raising the ground of ineligibility? 3. under the laws abroad
- No, because the quo warranto here is under the omnibus election 4. by a probate court
code. then it cannot be implemented here.

Rule 76- Allowance or Disallowance of Will These are to be established in the enforcement of that will in the
Who can file a petition for allowance/disallowance of a will? Philippines.
(DELTA) You have to show that the testator:
1. Devisee 1. Is domiciled abroad, not resident.
2. Executor 2. That he executed a will abroad
3. Legatee named in the will 3. According to the laws of the country where he executed it
4. Testator 4. That it has been probated by a court of competent
5. Any person interested in the estate jurisdiction
5. According to the laws where it was probated
Don’t confuse this with Rule 78 (Letters Testamentary and Letters
of Administration). Rule 78 is different. Here, it is application for Reprobate of a will- means that the will has been probated in
administratorship. Under rule 76, it is petition for the allowance of abroad. Considering that it is equivalent to a foreign judgment, it
the will. Under Rule 78, letters testamentary or letters of has to be re – enforced. To enforce here you have to file reprobate
administration, who can file an application for appointment as of that will.
administrator of the estate.
Jurisdiction – RTC has general jurisdiction or because it is an action
Letters testamentary (incompetent to serve as executors or not capable of pecuniary estimation.
administrators)
1. Not a Minor Venue – where he has an estate. If he has estate all over the
2. Not a resident of the Philippines Philippines then we shall apply the Exclusionary Rule.
3. In the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of
the trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of E.g. If the deceased has estate in Parañaque, another in Manila,
understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction of an offense others in Quezon City, you can choose anywhere for as long as it is
involving moral turpitude the RTC.

No witness Rule- Sec 5 the application for the allowance of a will, Reprobate Court once approved, there must be a judgment.
Certificate of Probate has to have finality. Copy furnish the
if it is filed by the testator himself of his own holographic will, no
interested parties and after 15 days from receipt then a Certificate
witness is necessary. Since holographic will is entirely written,
of Finality will be given then execution.
dated and signed by the testator himself.
He will simply testify that he has entirely written it, he has signed
If there are several properties in the Philippines, the court may still
it, and he has dated it.
appoint an executor or administrator of the estate. This is different
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 88
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
from ancillary administrator who was assigned to take charge of the Settlement of Estates ends during partition and distribution of the
properties found in the Philippines. Ancillary administrator is estate.
different from the initially appointed executor or administrator
abroad. Rule 83 – Inventory and Appraisal

Letters Testamentary vs. Letters Administration BAR MATTER

Sec. 3 – Who is entitled to the proceeds from the estate?
Letters Testamentary is the appointment of a executor. When there
is a will, there is an appointed executor. But it is necessary that the The widow and children. Grandchildren are not entitled to the fruits
person in the will will be approved by the court because in order of the estate.
for the court to issue Letters Testamentary, in effect appoint an
executor, he must be duly qualified and what are the basic Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs. Edmond Ruiz (252 SCRA) Landmark Case
qualifications, it would be based on the court.
Edmond Ruiz the son of the late admiral Ruiz, a sole heir but there
The Rule says that he must post a bond and accept the trust. If he was an adopted daughter who has three children. In the course of
accepts the trust as an appointed, then he would be appointed. the proceeding, the lawyer of the children against the father.
Otherwise, there will be Letters of Administration which is the Edmond Ruiz is legally separated from the wife because he caught
appointment of an administrator. the wife in the act of adultery and so the wife was charged and
convicted. The children lived with the grandparents. When Hilario
Qualifications - Administrator: Ruiz died, Edmond is the custodian of the will which he did not
surrender. The adopted daughter filed a petition for a probate of
1. Not a minor; the will with the will annexed. In the course of the proceedings, he
2. Resident of the country; filed a case asking that the rentals from part of the estate shall be
3. Must be duly qualified; given to the grandchildren.
4. Not a drunkard (includes drug addict);
5. Not convicted of offense involving moral turpitude (e.g. Grandchildren are not entitled to the proceeds from the estate.
urinating in public) – any act degrading is an act involving moral Only the widow and the children are entitled.
turpitude.
Rule 85- Accountability and Compensation of Executors and
Rule 80 – Special Administrator Administrators

When may a special administrator be appointed? A lawyer who at the same is time is executor or administrator of
the estate cannot charge attorney’s fees. Remedy?
On two instances: - Charge it as expenses of administration.

1. When there is delay in the appointment of a regular Rule 86- Claims Against Estate
administrator;
a. Delay may consist of a lot of things In reference to Section 20, Rule 3 (Contractual Money Claim), when
b. Estate of Dr. Ortañes Case the defendant dies pendent lite, the case shall not be dismissed but
Dr. Ortañes has three legitimate children and five illegitimate. The shall proceed up to entry of judgment and once there is entry of
legitimate wife and the eldest child sold the shares of a judgment, you cannot execute the judgment under Rule 39, you
Corporation. The illegitimate children contested the sale and stated have to claim it against the estate.
that they cannot dispose the properties before the settlement of
the estate. There is no appointed executor but the delay in the What are claimable against the estate?
appointment of an administrator is due to the disagreement of the
parties as to who to appoint. So, the court appointed a special - These claims against the estate immediately after the
administrator. issuance of letters testamentary or letters of administration, the
court must order the publication of this appointment for pusposes
2. Sec. 8 Rule 86, when there is claim against the estate by of filing against the estate. This claim against the estate must be
the executor/administrator. filed within the statute of non-claims.

Rights and Obligations of the Appointed Executor or Administrator Statute of non-claims- filed not more than 12 months nor less than
6 months from the first publication.
1. Payment and posting of bonds;
2. Submission of an inventory and appraisal within three Is there a conflict between the statute of non-claims and the
months from appointment; prescriptive period?
3. Accounting within one year from appointment or as may
be directed by the probate court; - The prescriptive period for filing a claim is 10 years.
4. Rule 87/88 – Sales, mortgages and encumbrances should
go first before payment of debts; Which should prevail, prescriptive period for filing a claim against
5. Payment of debts; and the estate or the statute of non-claims?
6. Distribution and partition.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 89

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
- You have to follow statute of non-claims. So that if you do administrator of the estate under Section 1, Rule 87 (Actions by or
not file a claim against the estate within this statute of non-claims, against executor or administrator of the estate).
you can no lobger file a claim against the estate notwithstanding
that it is still within the 10-year prescriptive period (statute of Penultimate Duties of the Executor/Administrator
limitations).
- The statute of non-claims supersedes the statute of 1. Payment of Debts (Rule 88)
limitations (10-year prescriptive period) -if without fund to pay, and there is no provision in the will, if there
is any, as to what property can be used in the payment of debt, the
What are claimable against the estate? rule provides the personalty goes first. Then if the personalty
proceeds from the personal properties would not suffice, use the
1. Money-claims based on contract whether express or real property.
implied, which may be due, not due, or contingent. If not filed But if the will so provides, that which is provided will prevail.
against the estate, it is deemed waived.
2. Funeral expenses 2. Sales, Mortgages and Encumbrances (Rule 89)
3. Judgment for money (Section 20, Rule 3) -you can only sell, mortgage, and encumber real property. As to
personal property, you cannot mortgage or encumber them, you
These can be filed within the statute of non-claims. No need to wait can only sell them.
for the 10-year period. Otherwise, if filed after the 6-month period
provided for under the statute of non-claims, you can no longer 3. Distribution and Partition of the Estate (Rule 90)
claim. -if something from the estate remains after payment of debts.
-if the estate is not enough for the payment of debt, the remedy is
Section 7, the estate is a mortgagor. preference of credits under the civil code.
How to claim against the estate?
3 options: Guardianship

1. File it as a claim against the estate 3 Kinds:

2. Apply rule 68, foreclosure of real estate mortgage 1. Natural- parents
3. Avail 3135 as amended, extra-judicial foreclosure 2. Judicial- anyone qualified to be appointed as guardian of
These are not successive remedies. They are alternative. Availment the person of the ward or the property of the ward
of one is a waiver of the other. 3. Guardian Ad Litem- anyone qualified who has a limited
authority because he is appointed only for a particular purpose
Filing a claim against the estate is not by petition. If there is an
ongoing settlement of the estate, it is easier; but if there is no Under the present rule, as amended, there are two objects of
ongoing settlement of the estate, initiate the settlement of the guardianship:
estate because you are a creditor, a person interested in the estate.
If filed, the claim is already there. 1. Guardianship over the person of the ward
2. Guardianship over the property of the ward
But if there is an ongoing settlement of the estate, you have only
to present evidence to the clerk of court. There is a middleground or the third kind:

Upon submission of documentary evidence to establish claim, the -Guardianship over the person and property of the ward.
clerk of court will notify the administrator/executor of the estate
to file Answer to the claim within a period 15 days. Two grounds in order to apply for guardianship:

The Answer of the executor/administrator may either be positive 1. Guardianship over a minor- governed by the new rule.
or negative. If positive, the settlement court will set aside part of (Adm. Matter ___, 2003)
the estate to answer for that claim; if the Answer is in the negative, 2. Guardianship over an incompetent- still with the present
hearing will be conducted and the Court will decide. rules of court

Setting aside of part of the estate is not yet for distribution. The law Before the amendment on the law on guardianship, being a minor
says “in due course of administration”, meaning, wait for the time is already a ground for guardianship. Now, under the new rule,
for proper distribution (Rule 90). So it cannot be distributed yet. It mere minority is not a ground. You have to qualify the situation of
is just set aside. the minor.

Do you have now preferential right in the distribution of the estate? Incompetent- prodigal, deaf-mute, unable to read and write,
insane, imbecile, one who cannot take charge of his own affairs.
- No, because there is no payment of debts yet.
Jurisdiction over a petition for guardianship over the incompetent
If you have a claim but it is recovery of real or personal property, is with the RTC.
recovery of interest therein, lien theron, or claim for damages Petition for guardianship over a minor is with the Family Court.
arising from injury, you cannot file that as a claim against the If the incompetent is at the same time a minor, Family Court has
estate. You have to file a separation action against the executor or jurisdiction.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 90

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Oropesa vs Oropesa
[Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the RTC’s decision that
General Oropesa was the subject of petition for guardianship by his the said order is final and executory for failure of petitioners to
own two children saying that he cannot take care anymore of his appeal therefrom in due time – YES]; Whether or not the order is
affairs because of the young girlfriend. an ORDER OF COLLATION (which is a final order) or ORDER OF
INCLUSION of properties (which is an interlocutory order) - It is
The SC said that the allegation was not proved. Petition did not one of an ORDER OF INCLUSION
succeed.
“The court which acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a
Bond deceased person through the filing of the corresponding
proceedings, has supervision and control over the said properties,
Under the new rules, natural guardians are required to post bonds. and under the said power, it is its inherent duty to see that the
They cannot sell the properties of their wards. They have to apply inventory submitted by the administrator appointed by it
for appointment as a judicial guardian or guardian ad litem only for contains all the properties, rights and credits which the law
the purpose of selling particular properties. requires the administrator to set out in his inventory. In
compliance with this duty the court has also inherent power to
BAR MATTER: determine what properties, rights and credits of the deceased
Rule 101 (Hospitalization of Insane Persons) should be included in or excluded from the inventory. Should an
Rule 103 (Change of Name) heir or person interested in the properties of a deceased person
Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries In The Civil Registry) duly call the court’s attention to the fact that certain properties,
rights or credits have been left out in the inventory, it is likewise
CASE DIGESTS the court’s duty to hear the observations, with power to
determine if such observations should be attended to or not and
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE if the properties referred to therein belong prima facie to the
TERESITA N. DE LEON, ZENAIDA C. NICOLAS and the HEIRS OF intestate, but no such determination is final and ultimate in
ANTONIO NICOLAS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, nature as to the ownership of the said properties.” A probate
HON. PABLO P. INVENTOR and RAMON NICOLAS, respondents. court, whether in a testate or intestate proceeding, can only pass
G.R. NO. 128781. August 6, 2002 upon questions of title provisionally. “The patent reason is the
Deceased spouses Rafael and Salud Nicolas were the parents of probate court’s limited jurisdiction and the principle that
petitioner Teresita N. de Leon, Estrellita N. Vizconde, Antonio questions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion or
Nicolas (deceased husband of petitioner Zenaida Nicolas and exclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be settled
predecessor of the petitioners Heirs of Antonio Nicolas), Ramon in a separate action. The Court of Appeals committed an error in
Nicolas and Roberto Nicolas. considering the assailed Order as final or binding upon the heirs
Teresita N. de Leon was appointed administratrix of the estate or third persons who dispute the inclusion of certain properties in
of Rafael C. Nicolas in a case entitled In the Matter of the Intestate the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael Nicolas. Under the
Estate of Rafael C. Nicolas. Ramon (as oppositor) filed a Motion foregoing rulings of the Court, any aggrieved party, or a third
for Collation, claiming that deceased Rafael Nicolas, during his person for that matter, may bring an ordinary action for a final
lifetime, had given certain real properties to his children by determination of the conflicting claims. [Mali ang RTC and CA in
gratuitous title and that administratrix-petitioner Teresita failed considering it as “order of collation”; said Order is a mere order
to include the same in the inventory of the estate of the including the subject properties in the inventory of the estate of
decedent. the decedent]. The order of exclusion (or inclusion) is not a final
order; that it is interlocutory in the sense that it did not settle
RTC ordered the Administratrix to include the said properties once and for all the title to the subject lots. The issue on collation
which were received from the decedent for collation in the is still premature dahil hindi pa bayad ang debts, hindi pa
instant probate proceedings. Teresita filed an MR, alleging that nadedetermine ang net remainder of the conjugal estate, and
the properties subject of the Order were already titled in their hindi pa ready ang estates of the deceased spouses (at the time
names years ago and that titles may not be collaterally attacked filing of the motion for collation) for partition and distribution.
in a motion for collation.
EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS,
RTC denied the MR (ruling that it is within the jurisdiction of the Respondent. G.R. No. 133743; RODOLFO SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs.
court to determine whether titled properties should be collated, FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.
citing Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court which provides that G.R. No. 134029; Both dated February 6, 2007
the final order of the court concerning questions as to Settlement of the estate of Felicisimo San Luis (former gov of
advancements made shall be binding on the person raising the Laguna). During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted 3 marriages:
question and on the heir – “not feasible daw to sabi ng SC”). RTC (1) Virginia Sulit on Mar 17, 1942 but Virginia predeceased
removed Teresita as administratix (on ground of conflict of Felicisimo; (2) May 1, 1968 Merry Lee Corwin, but Merry Lee was
interest considering her claim that she paid valuable able to secure a divoce decree [Foreigner/American citizen?!];
consideration for the subject properties acquired by her from their and (3) June 20, 1974 Felicidad San Luis. Felicidad filed a petition
deceased father and therefore the same should not be included in for letters of administration before the RTC Makati (alleging that
the collation xxx). Teresita filed an MR w/c the RTC denied. she is the widow xxx, and the heirs are: her as legal spouse, 6
Teresita (together with Zenaida Nicolas (the surviving spouse of children by 1st marriage and son by 2nd marriage). Petitioner
Antonio Nicolas) and the Heirs of Antonio Nicolas) filed a Rule 65 Rodolfo, one of the children of Felicisimo by his 1st marriage filed
before the CA which the CA dismissed hence this petition. MD on the grounds of failure to state COA and improper venue
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 91
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 (claiming that the petition should have been filed in Laguna sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal
because it was Felicisimo’s place of residence prior to his death residence, not legal residence or domicile.
and that Felicidad has no legal personality to file the petition
because she was only a mistress – kasal pa daw si Felicisimo kay Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a
Foreigner Merry nung mamatay ito). RTC denied the M2D given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that
(favored Felicidad). [other issue: Mila, daughter of deceased filed place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. No
a motion for inhibition w/c was granted, case was re-raffled xxx]. particular length of time of residence is required though;
After series of events, RTC dismissed the petition for letters of however, the residence must be more than temporary.
administration (ruling: at the time of his death, Felicisimo was the For purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the
duly elected governor and a resident of the Province of Laguna. "residence" of a person is his personal, actual or physical
Hence, the petition should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna xxx. habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may not
Felicidad has no legal capacity xxx because their marriage was necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he
bigamous thus void [the divorce was not valid in the Ph since the resides therein with continuity and consistency. Hence, it is
Family Code cannot be retroactively applied because it will impair possible that a person may have his residence in one place and
the vested rights of the children]). The CA reversed RTC, hence this domicile in another. While petitioners established that Felicisimo
petition. was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent proved that he
also maintained a residence in Alabang, Muntinlupa from 1982 up
Whether respondent Felicidad, assuming that she was never to the time of his death. Respondent submitted in evidence the:
legally married to deceased, has the legal capacity to file the (1) Deed of Absolute Sale 44 dated January 5, 1983 showing that
subject petition for letters of administration – Yes, Even assuming the deceased purchased the aforesaid property; (2) billing
that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry respondent in 1974, statements from the Philippine Heart Center and Chinese General
nevertheless, we find that the latter has the legal personality to Hospital for the period August to December 1992 indicating the
file the subject petition for letters of administration, as she may address of Felicisimo at "100 San Juanico, Ayala Alabang,
be considered the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the Muntinlupa"; (3) proof of membership of the deceased in the
properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during Ayala Alabang Village Association and Ayala Country Club, Inc., (4)
their cohabitation. Section 2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court letter-envelopes from 1988 to 1990 sent by the deceased’s
provides that: xxx A petition for letters of administration must be children to him at his Alabang address, and the deceased’s calling
filed by an interested person xxx. An "interested person" has cards stating that his home/city address is at "100 San Juanico,
been defined as one who would be benefited by the estate, such Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa" while his office/provincial
as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a address is in "Provincial Capitol, Sta. Cruz, Laguna. SC: Felicisimo
creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the
indirect or contingent. Felicidad would qualify as an interested venue of the settlement of his estate. Consequently, the subject
person who has a direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo by petition for letters of administration was validly filed in the
virtue of their cohabitation xxx (if she fails to prove that her Regional Trial Court which has territorial jurisdiction over
marriage with him was valid xxx) she may be considered as a co- Alabang, Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on December
owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code. SC: Felicidad’s legal 17, 1993. At that time, Muntinlupa was still a municipality and the
capacity xxx may arise from her status as the surviving wife of branches of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital
Felicisimo or as his co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code Judicial Region which had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa
or Article 148 of the Family Code. were then seated in Makati City as per Supreme Court
Administrative Order No. 3. Thus, the subject petition was
Whether the petition for letters of administration was filed in the validly filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.
properly filed in Makati. YES. Under Section 1, 39 Rule 73 of the
Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, Petitioner, vs. SEBASTIAN AGTARAP,
estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, and
the province "in which he resides at the time of his death." ABELARDO DAGORO, Respondents. G.R. No. 177099 June 8, 2011
[T]he term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as Eduardo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a verified
distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term petition for the judicial settlement of the estate of his deceased
"resides," like the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic and father Joaquin Agtarap (Joaquin). The petition alleged that
should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the Joaquin died intestate without any known debts or obligations.
statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application of venue During his lifetime, Joaquin contracted two marriages, first with
statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of (Lucia), and second with (Caridad). Lucia died on April 24, 1924.
Court is of such nature – residence rather than domicile is the Joaquin and Lucia had three children—Jesus (died without issue),
significant factor. Even where the statute uses the word Milagros, and Jose (survived by three children, namely, Gloria,
"domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not Joseph, and Teresa). Joaquin married Caridad on February 9,
domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction 1926. They also had three children—Eduardo, Sebastian, and
between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally Mercedes (survived by her daughter Cecile). At the time of his
used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and death, Joaquin left two parcels of land with improvements in
convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other Pasay City.
words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular RTC issued an order setting the petition for initial hearing and
sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a directing Eduardo to cause its publication. Sebastian filed his
person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical comment, generally admitting the allegations in the petition, and
presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular conceding to the appointment of Eduardo as special

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 92

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 administrator (JOV: nung una, magkasundo pa si Brothers Court provides that when the marriage is dissolved by the death
Eduardo and Sebastian). of the husband or the wife, the community property shall be
Joseph, Gloria, and Teresa filed their answer/opposition. inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof
They alleged that the two subject lots belong to the conjugal paid; in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased
partnership of Joaquin with Lucia, and that, upon Lucia’s death in spouse, and if both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership
April 1924, they became the pro indiviso owners of the subject shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of
properties. They opposed the appointment of Eduardo as either. Thus, the RTC had jurisdiction to determine whether the
administrator on the following grounds: (1) he is not physically properties are conjugal as it had to liquidate the conjugal
and mentally fit to do so; (2) his interest in the lots is minimal; and partnership to determine the estate of the decedent. [Mali daw
(3) he does not possess the desire to earn. They claimed that the sina Sebastian and Eduardo na ung nanay (at tatay) nila ang may-
best interests of the estate dictate that Joseph be appointed as ari (Joaquin married to Caridad)]. Simple possession of a
special or regular administrator. RTC issued a resolution certificate of title is not necessarily conclusive of a holder’s true
appointing Eduardo as regular administrator of Joaquin’s estate. ownership of property. A certificate of title under the Torrens
Consequently, it issued him letters of administration. After the system aims to protect dominion; it cannot be used as an
parties were given the opportunity to be heard and to submit instrument for the deprivation of ownership. Thus, the fact that
their respective proposed projects of partition, the RTC issued an the properties were registered in the name of Joaquin Agtarap,
Order of Partition. Eduardo, Sebastian, and oppositors Joseph married to Caridad Garcia, is not sufficient proof that the
and Teresa filed their respective motions for reconsideration. properties were acquired during the spouses’ coverture. The
RTC issued a resolution denying the motions for reconsideration phrase “married to Caridad Garcia” in the TCTs is merely
of Eduardo and Sebastian, and granting that of Joseph and descriptive of the civil status of Joaquin as the registered owner,
Teresa. It also declared that the real estate properties belonged and does not necessarily prove that the realties are their
to the conjugal partnership of Joaquin and Lucia. It also directed conjugal properties. Neither can Sebastian’s claim that Joaquin’s
the modification Order of Partition to reflect the correct sharing estate could have already been settled in 1965 after the payment
of the heirs. However, before the RTC could issue a new order of of the inheritance tax be upheld. Payment of the inheritance tax,
partition, Eduardo and Sebastian both appealed to the CA. The CA per se, does not settle the estate of a deceased person. As
dismissed the appeals for lack of merit. Hence this petition. provided in Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court. Thus, an
estate is settled and distributed among the heirs only after the
Whether the RTC was correct in determining ownership over the payment of the debts of the estate, funeral charges, expenses of
subject real properties – Yes. administration, allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax.
WON the RTC, acting as an intestate court with limited jurisdiction The records of these cases do not show that these were
has the power and authority to determine questions of complied.
ownership, which properly belongs to another court with general
jurisdiction.
Yes, as to Sebastian’s and Eduardo’s common issue on the EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Petitioner, vs. ISABEL COJUANGCO-
ownership of the subject real properties, we hold that the RTC, as SUNTAY, Respondent G.R. No. 183053 October 10, 2012. Special
an intestate court, had jurisdiction to resolve the same. The Second Division
general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a The decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay (Cristina) died intestate
probate or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to on 4 June 1990. Cristina was survived by her spouse, Dr. Federico
do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate Suntay (Federico) and five grandchildren: three legitimate
of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination grandchildren, including herein respondent, Isabel; and two
of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The illegitimate grandchildren, including petitioner Emilio III, all by
patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises Federico’s and Cristina’s only child, Emilio A. Suntay (Emilio I),
special and limited jurisdiction. However, this general rule is who predeceased his parents. On 26 October 1995, respondent
subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and convenience. Isabel, filed before the RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, a petition for the
[1st: the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate issuance of letters of administration over Cristina’s estate.
or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion Federico, opposed the petition. Federico filed a Motion to Dismiss
from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to the Isabel’s petition for letters of administration on the ground that
final determination of ownership in a separate action. 2nd: if the Isabel had no right of representation to the estate of Cristina, she
interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the question is one being an illegitimate grandchild of the latter as a result of Isabel’s
of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the parents’ marriage being declared null and void. However, in
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay, we categorically declared that Isabel
third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is and her siblings, having been born of a voidable marriage as
competent to resolve issues on ownership]. Verily, its jurisdiction opposed to a void marriage based on paragraph 3, Article 85 of
extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and the Civil Code, were legitimate children of Emilio I, who can all
distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status represent him in the estate of their legitimate grandmother, the
of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is decedent, Cristina. Undaunted by the setback, Federico
conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse. nominated Emilio III to administer the decedent’s estate on his
The general rule does not apply in this case considering that the behalf in the event letters of administration issues to Federico.
parties are all heirs of Joaquin and that no rights of third parties Federico died. The trial court appointed Emilio III as
will be impaired by the resolution of the ownership issue. More administrator of decedent Cristina’s intestate estate. On appeal,
importantly, the determination of whether the subject properties the CA reversed RTC’s decision and appointed Isabel as
are conjugal is but collateral to the probate court’s jurisdiction to administratrix of the subject estate. The SC reversed CA’s
settle the estate of Joaquin. Section 2, Rule 73 of the Rules of decision and instead included Emilio III as co-administrator of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 93
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Cristina’s estate, giving weight to his interest in Federico’s estate. the next of kin. In addition and impliedly, we can refer to Section
In this motion, Isabel pleads for total affirmance of the Court of 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court which say that "x x x when an
Appeals’ Decision in favor of her sole administratorship based on executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed, the
her status as a legitimate grandchild of Cristina, whose estate she remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust
seeks to administer (contending that the explicit provisions of alone, x x x."
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court on the order of preference The collected teaching is that mere demonstration of interest in
for the issuance of letters of administration cannot be ignored and the estate to be settled does not ipso facto entitle an interested
that Article 992 of the Civil Code must be followed. Isabel further person to co-administration thereof. Neither does squabbling
asserts that Emilio III had demonstrated adverse interests and among the heirs nor adverse interests necessitate the discounting
disloyalty to the estate, thus, he does not deserve to become a co- of the order of preference set forth in Section 6, Rule 78. Indeed,
administrator thereof). in the appointment of administrator of the estate of a deceased
person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest
[Whether Emilio III may still qualify as administrator of his in said estate of the one to be appointed as administrator. Given
grandmother’s estate, considering that he is an illegitimate child Isabel’s unassailable interest in the estate as one of the
– No] Who is better qualified to administer the estate of the decedent’s legitimate grandchildren and undoubted nearest
decedent? Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay "next of kin," the appointment of Emilio III as co-administrator
of the same estate, cannot be a demandable right. It is a matter
Letters of Administration over the estate of decedent Cristina left entirely to the sound discretion of the Court and depends on
Aguinaldo-Suntay shall solely issue to respondent Isabel the facts and the attendant circumstances of the case.
Cojuangco-Suntay upon payment of a bond to be set by the RTC,
Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan. The general rule in the
appointment of administrator of the estate of a decedent is laid JOSE C. LEE AND ALMA AGGABAO, in their capacities as President
down in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court. SEC. 6. When and and Corporate Secretary, respectively, of Philippines
to whom letters of administration granted. – If no executor is International Life Insurance Company, and FILIPINO LOAN
named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, ASSISTANCE GROUP, petitioners vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, QUEZON CITY BRANCH 85 presided by JUDGE PEDRO M. AREOLA,
administration shall be granted: BRANCH CLERK OF COURT JANICE Y. ANTERO, DEPUTY SHERIFFS
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next ADENAUER G. RIVERA and PEDRO L. BORJA, all of the Regional
of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 85, MA. DIVINA ENDERES
person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, claiming to be Special Administratrix, and other persons/ public
requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to officers acting for and in their behalf, respondents. G.R. No.
serve; 146006 February 23, 2004
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next Dr. Juvencio P. Ortañez incorporated the Philippine International
of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or Life Insurance Company, Inc. on July 6, 1956. He died. Heirs are as
unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects follows: wife (Juliana Salgado Ortañez), three legitimate children
for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for (Rafael, Jose and Antonio Ortañez) and five illegitimate children
administration or to request that administration be granted by Ligaya Novicio (herein private respondent Ma. Divina Ortañez-
to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of Enderes and her siblings Jose, Romeo, Enrico Manuel and Cesar,
the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve; all surnamed Ortañez)
(c) If there is not such creditor competent and willing to serve, it Rafael Ortañez (one of the legitimate children) filed a petition for
may be granted to such other person as the court may select. letters of administration of the intestate estate of Dr. Ortañez
Textually, the rule lists a sequence to be observed, an order of before CFI QC Br 85. (The anak sa labas) Ma. Divina Ortañez-
preference, in the appointment of an administrator. This order of Enderes and her siblings filed an opposition to the petition for
preference, which categorically seeks out the surviving spouse, letters of administration, and prayed for the appointment of a
the next of kin and the creditors in the appointment of an special administrator. The Judge (of branch 85) appointed Rafael
administrator, has been reinforced in jurisprudence. The and Jose as joint special administrators. Rafael and Jose
paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator submitted an inventory of the estate which included, among
over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator’s others, 2,209 shares of stock of PHILINTERLIFE. The Wife claimed
interest in the estate. The rationale behind the rule is that those that she is the owner of the half of it (1,014 shares) as conjugal
who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical share and then sold it to Filipino Loan Assistance Group (FLAG),
administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the represented by its president, herein petitioner Jose C. Lee. Jose
consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have also sold the remaining 1,011 shares of stock in favor of FLAG.
the highest interest and most influential motive to administer Enderes et al (the anak sa labas) filed a motion for appointment
the estate correctly. In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of special administrator w/c the CFI granted. When Enderes was
of preference, the person to be appointed administrator of a the special administratrix, she now filed a motion to declare void
decedent’s estate must demonstrate not only an interest in the the sale of shares of stock (and the extrajudicial settlement of the
estate, but an interest therein greater than any other candidate. estate, partitioning it, among the 1st family), among others. Jose
It is to this requirement of observation of the order of preference opposed (of course hehe). CFI favored Enderes et al (and held that
in the appointment of administrator of a decedent’s estate, that a sale of a property of the estate without an Order of the probate
the appointment of co-administrators has been allowed, but as court is void and passes no title to the purchaser. Since the sales
an exception. We again refer to Section 6(a) of Rule 78 of the in question were entered into by Juliana [the wife] and Jose [one
Rules of Court which specifically states that letters of of the legitimate sons] in their personal capacity without prior
administration may be issued to both the surviving spouse and approval of the Court, the same is not binding upon the Estate).
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 94
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 On appeal, CA (the sale of the shares of stock w/o approval of the otherwise its power to annul the unauthorized or fraudulent
intestate court was void xxx, it was clear that there were other disposition of estate property would be meaningless. In other
heirs to the estate who stood to be prejudiced thereby hence words, enforcement is a necessary adjunct of the intestate or
extrajudicial partition is NOT justified) and SC ruled in favor of probate court’s power to annul unauthorized or fraudulent
Enderes et al. transactions to prevent the dissipation of estate property before
Enderes et al now files a motion for execution of the orders of the final adjudication. We are not dealing here with the issue of
intestate court (because the orders had long became final). CFI inclusion or exclusion of properties in the inventory of the estate
granted. Lee and Aggabao appealed to CA. CA dismissed it because there is no question that, from the very start, the
outright ruling in favor of Enderes et al. Lee and Aggabao filed Philinterlife shares of stock were owned by the decedent, Dr.
Rule 45 before the SC. The SC granted. Hence, Enderes filed a Juvencio Ortañez. Rather, we are concerned here with the effect
motion to xxx reinstate the name of Dr. Juvencio in the stock and of the sale made by the decedent’s heirs, Juliana Ortañez and
transfer book of PHILINTERLIFE xxx and issue the corresponding Jose Ortañez, without the required approval of the intestate
stock certificate. The CFI granted, Lee and Aggabao filed Rule 65 court. This being so, the contention of petitioners that the
before the CA w/c the CA denied. Hence, they filed Rule 45 before determination of the intestate court was merely provisional and
the SC. should have been threshed out in a separate proceeding is
incorrect.
Whether the sale of the shares of stock to FLAG by petitioners is
valid? No. THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ, EDMOND RUIZ, Executor,
petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Special Sixth
There was absolutely no legal justification for this action Division), MARIA PILAR RUIZ-MONTES, MARIA CATHRYN RUIZ,
(distributing the asset of the estate among themselves and CANDICE ALBERTINE RUIZ, MARIA ANGELINE RUIZ and THE
disposing the same in the absence of an order of distribution by PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG,
the Estate Court) by the heirs. Hence, petitioner has no basis for respondents. G.R. No. 118671 January 29, 1996 [Heirs of Hilario
demanding that public respondent [the intestate court] approve Ruiz vs. Edmond Ruiz]
the sale of the Philinterlife shares of the Estate by Juliana and Jose Hilario M. Ruiz (during his lifetime)  executed a holographic will
Ortañez in favor of the Filipino Loan Assistance Group. naming as his heirs: his only son, Edmond Ruiz, his adopted
It is clear that Juliana Ortañez, and her three sons, Jose, Rafael daughter, private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, his three
and Antonio, all surnamed Ortañez, invalidly entered into a granddaughters, private respondents Maria Cathryn, Candice
memorandum of agreement extrajudicially partitioning the Albertine and Maria Angeline (all children of Edmond Ruiz).
intestate estate among themselves, despite their knowledge that Hilario named Edmond Ruiz executor of his estate. Hilario died.
there were other heirs or claimants to the estate and before final The estate was distributed BUT Edmond DID NOT take any action
settlement of the estate by the intestate court. Since the for the probate of his father's holographic will. Maria Pilar
appropriation of the estate properties by Juliana Ortañez and her (adopted sister) filed petition for probate before the RTC and for
children (Jose, Rafael and Antonio Ortañez) was invalid, the the issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond Ruiz.
subsequent sale thereof by Juliana and Jose to a third party Edmond leased out one of the properties of the estate (H&L in
(FLAG), without court approval, was likewise void. An heir can Pasig) w/c was bequeathed to the granddaughters. RTC ordered
sell his right, interest, or participation in the property under Edmond to deposit the rental payments to the Branch Clerk of
administration under Art. 533 of the Civil Code which provides Court, amounting to P540k. Edmond turned over only 349
that possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to thousand (net amount, after deducting P191k for repair &
the heir without interruption from the moment of death of the maintenance expenses of the estate). RTC admitted the will to
decedent. However, an heir can only alienate such portion of the probate and ordered the issuance of letters testamentary to
estate that may be allotted to him in the division of the estate Edmond conditioned upon the filing of a bond in the amount of
by the probate or intestate court after final adjudication, that is, P50,000.00. Edmond filed a motion to release the funds (rent
after all debtors shall have been paid or the devisees or legatees payments) Maria Pilar opposed praying instead that said rent
shall have been given their shares. payments be released to the granddaughters of the deceased,
This means that an heir may only sell his ideal or undivided share and that the properties to be distributed to the said Apos. RTC
in the estate, not any specific property therein. In the present ruled in favor of Maria Pilar and Apos (ordering release of funds
case, Juliana Ortañez and Jose Ortañez sold specific properties of to the Apos, and delivery of titles and possession of the properties
the estate (1,014 and 1,011 shares of stock in Philinterlife) in favor to the Apos xxx). Edmond filed MR. RTC released the funds to
of petitioner FLAG. This they could not lawfully do pending the Edmond but only such amount necessary to cover the expenses
final adjudication of the estate by the intestate court because of of administration and allowances for support of the Apos (subject
the undue prejudice it would cause the other claimants to the to collation and deduction from their share in the inheritance).
estate, as what happened in the present case. The court held in abeyance the release of the titles xxx until the
Juliana Ortañez and Jose Ortañez sold specific properties of the lapse of 6 months from the date of first publication of the notice
estate, without court approval. It is well-settled that court to creditors. Edmond filed Rule 65 before the CA w/c was
approval is necessary for the validity of any disposition of the dismissed hence he filed Rule 45 before the SC.
decedent’s estate. xxx the sale of the property of the estate by
an administrator without the order of the probate court is void Whether the intestate court after admitting the will to probate
and passes no title to the purchaser. but before payment of the estate's debts and obligations, has the
authority: (1) to grant an allowance from the funds of the estate
Can the intestate court nullify the said transaction? Yes. The for the support of the testator's grandchildren; (2) to order the
intestate court has the power to execute its order with regard release of the titles to certain heirs; and (3) to grant possession of
to the nullity of an unauthorized sale of estate property, all properties of the estate to the executor of the will. [All: No.]
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 95
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 is held to the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest
No, as to the grant of allowance. Section 3 of Rule 83 of the order. He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his
Revised Rules of Court provides: Allowance to widow and family. parents' properties and the fruits thereof without first submitting
— The widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of
person, during the settlement of the estate, shall receive the deceased, rendering a true account of his administration, the
therefrom under the direction of the court, such allowance as are expenses of administration, the amount of the obligations and
provided by law. It is settled that allowances for support under estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the court
Section 3 of Rule 83 should not be limited to the "minor or as to their veracity, propriety and justness.
incapacitated" children of the deceased. Article 188 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, the substantive law in force at the time UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. EDMUND
of the testator's death, provides that during the liquidation of the SANTIBAÑEZ and FLORENCE SANTIBAÑEZ ARIOLA, respondents.
conjugal partnership, the deceased's legitimate spouse and G.R. No. 149926 February 23, 2005
children, regardless of their age, civil status or gainful First Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC) and Efraim M.
employment, are entitled to provisional support from the funds Santibañez entered 2 loan agreements (1st is P128k then P123k)
of the estate. The law is rooted on the fact that the right and duty for the purchase of Diesel Tractor and Rotamotor xxx. Efraim
to support, especially the right to education, subsist even beyond died, leaving a holographic will, testate proceedings commenced
the age of majority. Be that as it may, grandchildren are not before RTC Iloilo Br. 7. Edmund, as one of the heirs, was
entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedent's appointed as the special administrator of the estate of the
estate. The law clearly limits the allowance to "widow and decedent. During the pendency of the testate proceedings, the
children" and does not extend it to the deceased's surviving heirs, Edmund and his sister Florence Santibañez
grandchildren, regardless of their minority or incapacity. It was Ariola, executed a Joint Agreement dated July 22, 1981, wherein
error, therefore, for the appellate court to sustain the probate they agreed to divide between themselves and take possession
court's order granting an allowance to the grandchildren of the of the three (3) tractors; that is, two (2) tractors for Edmund and
testator pending settlement of his estate. one (1) tractor for Florence. Each of them was to assume the
indebtedness of their late father to FCCC, corresponding to the
No, as to the release of titles. [Mali ung CA in ordering release of tractor respectively taken by them.
titles sa mga Apo 6 months after the date of 1st publication of Meanwhile, a Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Liabilities
notice to creditors.] In settlement of estate proceedings, the was executed by and between FCCC and Union Savings and
distribution of the estate properties can only be made: (1) after Mortgage Bank, wherein the FCCC as the assignor, among others,
all the debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, assigned all its assets and liabilities to Union Savings and
allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; or (2) Mortgage Bank. Hence UnionBank sent demand letter to Edmund
before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or which was unheeded. UnionBank filed action for sum of money
any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed by the court conditioned against the heirs of Efraim Santibañez, Edmund and Florence
upon the payment of said obligations within such time as the before the RTC Makati Br. 150. Summonses were issued against
court directs, or when provision is made to meet those both, but the one intended for Edmund was not served since he
obligations. Hilario Ruiz allegedly left no debts when he died but was in the United States and there was no information on his
the taxes on his estate had not been paid. It was also too early in address or the date of his return to the Philippines. Accordingly,
the day for the probate court to order the release of the titles six the complaint was narrowed down to respondent Florence S.
months after admitting the will to probate. The probate of a will Ariola. Florence filed an answer (alleging that the loan documents
is conclusive as to its due execution and extrinsic validity and did not bind her since she was not a party thereto, considering
settles only the question of whether the testator, being of sound that the joint agreement xxx was not approved by the probate
mind, freely executed it in accordance with the formalities court, it was null and void hence she was not liable to the UBP).
prescribed by law. Questions as to the intrinsic validity and RTC dismissed the case, ruling in favor of Florence (held that
efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality of any devise or Union Bank should have filed its claim with the probate court xxx,
legacy may be raised even after the will has been authenticated Joint Agreement was in effect a partition of the estate – it is void
[Sobrang aga pa para i-order ng probate court ang release of titles because it had not been approved by the probate court, and no
xxx, extrinsic validity pa lang ang na-settle na issue, at hindi ung valid partition until after the will has been probated, xxx). Union
intrinsic validity?]. Edmond is assailing the distributive shares of Bank appealed to CA w/c affirmed RTC (talo pa rin si Union Bank).
the devisees and legatees xxx because there was an alleged
impairment of his legitime as an intestate heir of his mother. Whether the agreement entered by Edmund and Florence is
valid? No. In our jurisdiction, the rule is that there can be no
No, as to the grant of all properties to the executor. [Mali si valid partition among the heirs until after the will has been
Edmond na deprived daw siya of his right to take possession of probated: “In testate succession, there can be no valid partition
ALL the real and personal properties of the estate]. The right of among the heirs until after the will has been probated. The law
an executor or administrator to the possession and enjoins the probate of a will and the public requires it, because
management of the real and personal properties of the unless a will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole
deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised "so long as world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may
it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of be rendered nugatory. The authentication of a will decides no
administration (Sec. 3, Rule 84). Petitioner must be reminded other question than such as touch upon the capacity of the
that his right of ownership over the properties of his father is testator and the compliance with those requirements or
merely inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of a will”
and partitioned. As executor, he is a mere trustee of his father's This, of course, presupposes that the properties to be partitioned
estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are trust funds and he are the same properties embraced in the will. In the present case,
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 96
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 the deceased, Efraim Santibañez, left a holographic will which P2,040,000.00 and personal properties - P2,100,000.00. In order
contained, inter alia, the provision which reads as follows: (e) All to preserve the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the dissipation of
other properties, real or personal, which I own and may be its value, Elise sought her appointment as administratrix of her
discovered later after my demise, shall be distributed in the late father’s estate. Claiming that the venue of the petition was
proportion indicated in the immediately preceding paragraph in improperly laid, Amelia, together with her children, Jenneth and
favor of Edmund and Florence, my children. Jennifer, opposed the issuance of the letters of administration by
We agree with the appellate court that the above-quoted is an filing an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss. The petitioners asserted
all-encompassing provision embracing all the properties left by that as shown by his Death Certificate, Eliseo was a resident of
the decedent which might have escaped his mind at that time he Capas, Tarlac at the time of his death. The RTC directed the
was making his will, and other properties he may acquire issuance of Letters of Administration to Elise upon posting the
thereafter. Included therein are the three (3) subject tractors. necessary bond. The lower court ruled that the venue of the
This being so, any partition involving the said tractors among the petition was properly laid in Las Piñas City, thereby discrediting
heirs is not valid. The joint agreement executed by Edmund and the position taken by the petitioners that Eliseo’s last residence
Florence, partitioning the tractors among themselves, is invalid, was in Capas, Tarlac, as hearsay. On appeal, the decision of the
specially so since at the time of its execution, there was already RTC was affirmed in toto. The CA held that Elise was able to prove
a pending proceeding for the probate of their late father’s that Eliseo and Lourdes lived together as husband and wife by
holographic will covering the said tractors. establishing a common residence at No. 26 Everlasting Road,
Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City, from 1975 up to the time of
Whether the heirs’ assumption of indebtedness is binding? No. Eliseo’s death in 1992. Petitioners filed a Rule 45 before the SC.
The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in the
probate court is mandatory. As we held in the vintage case of Py Whether the petition was properly laid in Las Piñas City,
Eng Chong v. Herrera: This requirement is for the purpose of considering the entry in Eliseo’s Death Certificate that he was a
protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor resident of Capas, Tarlac. Yes, Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the
or administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling him to Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the
examine each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one estate of a decedent should be filed in the RTC of the province
which should be allowed. The plain and obvious design of the where the decedent resides at the time of his death. The term
rule is the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as
the early delivery of the property to the distributees, legatees, or distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term
heirs. `The law strictly requires the prompt presentation and "resides," like the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic and
disposition of the claims against the decedent's estate in order to should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the
settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application of venue
and distribute the residue. Perusing the records of the case, statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of
nothing therein could hold private respondent Florence S. Ariola Court is of such nature – residence rather than domicile is the
accountable for any liability incurred by her late father. The significant factor.13 Even where the statute uses word
documentary evidence presented, particularly the promissory "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not
notes and the continuing guaranty agreement, were executed domicile in the technical sense. In other words, "resides" should
and signed only by the late Efraim Santibañez and his son be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
Edmund. As the petitioner failed to file its money claim with the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual
probate court, at most, it may only go after Edmund as co-maker residence or place of abode. It is evident from the records that
of the decedent under the said promissory notes and continuing during his lifetime, Eliseo resided at No. 26 Everlasting Road,
guaranty, of course, subject to any defenses Edmund may have Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City. For this reason, the venue for
as against the petitioner. As the court had not acquired the settlement of his estate may be laid in the said city. While the
jurisdiction over the person of Edmund, we find it unnecessary to recitals in death certificates can be considered proofs of a
delve into the matter further. decedent’s residence at the time of his death, the contents
thereof, however, is not binding on the courts. Both the RTC and
AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON and MARIA the Court of Appeals found that Eliseo had been living with
JENNIFER QUIAZON, Petitioners, vs. MA. LOURDES BELEN, for and Lourdes, deporting themselves as husband and wife, from 1972
in behalf of MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON, Respondent. G.R. up to the time of his death in 1995 (in fact nagfile pa si Eliseo in
No. 189121 July 31, 2013 1985 ng action for judicial partition of properties against Amelia
This case started as a Petition for Letters of Administration of the on the ground that their marriage is void for being bigamous).
Estate of Eliseo Quiazon (Eliseo), filed by herein respondents who
are Eliseo’s common-law wife and daughter. The petition was Whether the CA correctly ruled that the marriage between
opposed by herein petitioners Amelia to whom Eliseo was Amelia and Eliseo is void – Yes. the existence of a previous
married. Amelia was joined by her children, Jenneth and Jennifer. marriage between Amelia and Filipito was sufficiently established
Eliseo died intestate on 12 December 1992. Elise, represented by by no less than the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Diocese
her mother, Lourdes, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration of Tarlac and signed by the officiating priest of the Parish of San
before the RTC of Las Piñas City. In her Petition, Elise claims that Nicolas de Tolentino in Capas, Tarlac. A void marriage can be
she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and born questioned even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the
at the time when her parents were both capacitated to marry marriage/after the death of either party (vs. voidable marriages –
each other. To prove her filiation to the decedent, Elise, among can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties xxx). Also,
others, attached to the Petition for Letters of Administration her any proper interested party may attack a void marriage. In a void
Certificate of Live Birth signed by Eliseo as her father. In the same marriage, it was though no marriage has taken place, thus, it
petition, it was alleged that Eliseo left real properties - cannot be the source of right. Hence, Elise, whose successional
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 97
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 rights would be prejudiced by her father’s marriage to Amelia, the public auction for the amount of P350 thousand. There,
may impugn the existence of such marriage even after the death however, remained deficiency. Thus, MBC filed a suit to recover
of her father. The said marriage may be questioned directly by the deficiency amount of P251 thousand against the estate of
filing an action attacking the validity thereof, or collaterally by Flaviano and the petitioners. The RTC directed Maglasangs to pay
raising it as an issue in a proceeding for the settlement of the MBC xxx recognizing the outstanding obligation xxx (ruled in favor
estate of the deceased spouse, such as in the case at bar. Elise, as of MBC). On appeal, the CA held na mali ung probate court na
a compulsory heir, has a cause of action for the declaration of the isara ung kaso ng hindi sinasatisfy ung claims ni MBC. As a
absolute nullity of the void marriage of Eliseo and Amelia, and the consequence, hindi tuloy naka-collect si MBC and thereby was left
death of either party to the said marriage does not extinguish w/ the option of foreclosing the REM. RA 3135 should be applied
such cause of action. daw (and not Section 7, Rule 86) which entitles MBC to claim
deficiency amount (ruled in favor of MBC). [Salud passed away].
Whether Respondent Elise Quiazon has shown any interest in the Hence, the present recourse.
Petition for Letters of Administration – yes, An "interested
party," in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in W/N Manila Banking Corporation is entitled to the deficiency
the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the amount? No. The secured creditor has three (distinct,
estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase independent, and mutually exclusive) remedies/options that he
"next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the may alternatively adopt for the satisfaction of his indebtedness:
decedent Is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as (a) waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate
distributees. In the instant case, Elise, as a compulsory heir who of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim;
stands to be benefited by the distribution of Eliseo’s estate, is (b) foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove the deficiency as
deemed to be an interested party. With the overwhelming an ordinary claim; and
evidence on record produced by Elise to prove her filiation to (c) rely on the mortgage exclusively, or other security and
Eliseo, the petitioners’ pounding on her lack of interest in the foreclose the same before it is barred by prescription, without the
administration of the decedent’s estate, is just a desperate right to file a claim for any deficiency. Since MBC adopted the last
attempt to sway this Court to reverse the findings of the Court of mode of foreclosure, it waives his right to recover any deficiency
Appeals. Certainly, the right of Elise to be appointed administratix from the estate.
of the estate of Eliseo is on good grounds. It is founded on her
right as a compulsory heir, who, under the law, is entitled to her W/N the extra-judicial foreclosure of the properties was null and
legitimate after the debts of the estate are satisfied. Having a void because it was conducted in violation of the stipulation in
vested right in the distribution of Eliseo’s estate as one of his the real estate mortgage contract (stating that the auction sale
natural children, Elise can rightfully be considered as an should be held in the capital of the province where the properties
interested party within the purview of the law. are located, i.e., the Province of Leyte) – No. Case law states that
absent such qualifying or restrictive words to indicate the
HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES FLA VIANO MAGLASANG and SALUD exclusivity of the agreed forum, the stipulated place should only
ADAZA-MAGLASANG, namely, OSCAR A. MAGLASANG, EDGAR A. be as an additional, not a limiting venue. As a consequence, the
MAGLASANG, CONCEPCION CHONA A. MAGLASANG, GLENDA A. stipulated venue and that provided under Section 2, Act No. 3135
MAGLASANG-ARNAIZ, LERMA A. MAGLASANG, FELMA A. • (Said sale cannot be made legally outside of the province which
MAGLASANG, FE DORIS A. MAGLASANG, LEOLINO A. the property sold is situated; and in case the place within said
MAGLASANG, MARGIE LEILA A. MAGLASANG,MA. MILALIE A. province in which the sale is to be made is subject to stipulation,
MAGLASANG, SALUD A. MAGLASANG, and MA. FLASALIE A. such sale shall be made in said place or in the municipal building
MAGLASANG, REPRESENTING THE ESTATES OF THEIR AFORE- of the municipality in which the property or part thereof is
NAMEDDECEASED PARENTS, Petitioners, vs. MANILA BANKING situated) can be applied alternatively. Since the auction sale was
CORPORATION, now substituted by FIRST SOVEREIGN ASSET conducted in Ormoc City, which is within the territorial
MANAGEMENT SPV-AMC, INC. FSAMI, Respondent. jurisdiction of the Province of Leyte, then the Court finds
G.R. No. 171206 September 23, 2013 sufficient compliance with the above-cited requirement.
The Spouses Maglasang obtained a credit line from Manila
Banking Corporation (MBC) w/c was secured by a real estate ERLINDA PILAPIL and HEIRS OF DONATA ORTIZ BRIONES, namely:
mortgage (over 7 properties) located in Ormoc City and ESTELA, ERIBERTO AND VIRGILIO SANTOS, ANA SANTOS
Municipality of Kananga Province of Leyte. They secured loans. CULTURA, ELVIRA SANTOS INOCENTES, ERNESTO MENDOZA,
After the Husband Maglasang (Flaviano) died intestate, Edgar (the RIZALINA SANTOS, ADOLFO MENDOZA and PACITA MENDOZA,
son) was appointed as the administrator of Flaviano’s estate. The Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES, namely:
probate court issued a notice to creditors for filing of money SILVERIO S. BRIONES, PETRA BRIONES, BONIFACIO CABAHUG, JR.,
claims against the estate. MBC notified the probate court of its ANITA TRASMONTE, CIRILITA FORTUNA, CRESENCIA BRIONES,
claim in the amount of P382 thousand (ninotify lang pero hindi FUGURACION MEDALLE and MERCEDES LAGBAS, Respondents.
naman nagfile ng claim). The sons (Edgar and Oscar) obtain G.R. No. 150175 February 5, 2007
several loans from MBC. The probate court terminated the Deceased Maximino was married to Donata BUT they had NO
proceedings with the heirs executing an extra-judicial partition of children. Maximino died. Donata instituted intestate proceedings
the estate. The loan to MBC however remained unsatisfied due to settle her husband’s estate before CFI Cebu. CFI appointed
to MBC’s certification that Flaviano’s account was undergoing a Donata as administratix, CFI then awarded ownership over the
restructuring. Still, the probate court recognized MBC’s right properties to Donata. Donata died. Erlinda (Donata’s niece)
under the mortgage and promissory notes xxx. instituted with the RTC a petition for the administration of the
MBC proceeded to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage intestate estate of Donata. Erlinda and husband was appointed as
covering the properties and emerged as the highest bidder at administrators, Erlinda then claimed ownership over the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 98
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 properties. Silverio Briones (Silverio), a nephew of Maximino filed defense of laches, which is a question of inequity in permitting a
a Petition with the RTC for Letters of Administration for the claim to be enforced, applies independently of prescription,
intestate estate of Maximin. RTC initially granted BUT set aside. which is a question of time. Prescription is statutory; laches is
Heirs of Maximino filed a Complaint with the RTC against the heirs equitable. Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an
of Donata for the partition, annulment, and recovery of unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a
possession of real property. RTC decided in favor of Heirs of presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either
Maximino. CA affirmed RTC. SC reversed CA, ruling in favor of abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is
Pilapil? (this is the decision subject of the present MR filed by based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the
respondents, heirs of Maximino R. Briones). discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society [nakatira
lang sila sa same street pero Maximino’s relatives did NOT even
Whether Donata’s misrepresentations constituted fraud – No. bother to ask Donata of the properties, alam nila na namatay si
Donata was able to secure certificates of title to the disputed Maximino pero bakit naghintay pa ng 33 years from his death
properties by virtue of the CFI Order in Special Proceedings No. before one of them filed a petition for letters of administration
928-R (the proceedings she instituted to settle Maximino’s for the intestate estate of Maximino (w/c is settled already)].
intestate estate), which declared her as Maximino’s sole heir. In Whether the subject CFI Order dated January 15, 1960 declaring
the absence of proof to the contrary, the Court accorded to Donata as the sole heir of Maximino is VOID – No. The fraud and
Special Proceedings No. 928-R the presumptions of regularity and misrepresentation fostered by Donata on the CFI in Special
validity.[Totoo na hindi na-inform si CFI that Maximino still had Proceedings No. 928-R did not deprive the trial court of
surviving siblings xxx however, settlement of estate is a jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the case, namely, the
proceeding in rem. And that publication xxx is a notice to the intestate estate of Maximino. Donata’s fraud and
whole world of the existence of the proceedings xxx. The misrepresentation may have rendered the CFI Order, dated 15
publication requirement of the notice in newspapers is precisely January 1960, voidable, but not void on its face. Hence, the said
for the purpose of informing all interested parties in the estate Order, which already became final and executory, can only be
of the deceased of the existence of the settlement proceedings, set aside by direct action to annul and enjoin its enforcement. It
most especially those who were not named as heirs or creditors cannot be the subject of a collateral attack as is being done in this
in the petition, regardless of whether such omission was case. Note that respondents’ Complaint before the RTC in Civil
voluntarily or involuntarily made. Nung nagfile na ang mg aka- Case No. CEB-5794 was one for partition, annulment, and
apo apohan, patay na ung mga kapatid ni Donata and Maximino, recovery of possession of the disputed properties. The
so their lips are forever sealed as to what truly transpired between annulment sought in the Complaint was not that of the CFI
them (kung bakit hindi sila naghabol kay Donata nung Order, dated 15 January 1960, but of the certificates of title over
nagpadeclare siya sa court as “sole heir”) vs. The Spec Pro case the properties issued in Donata’s name. So until and unless
took place when all these principal actors were still alive and each respondents bring a direct action to nullify the CFI Order, dated
would have been capable to act to protect his/her own right to 15 January 1960, in Special Proceedings No. 928-R, and attain a
Maximino’s estate.] favorable judgment therein, the assailed Order remains valid and
binding. Nonetheless, this Court also points out that an action to
Whether the right of the Heirs of Maximino to recover their annul an order or judgment based on fraud must be brought
shares from the latter’s estate is imprescriptible – No. Assuming, within four years from the discovery of the fraud. If it is conceded
for the sake of argument, that Donata’s misrepresentation that the respondents came to know of Donata’s fraudulent acts
constitutes fraud that would impose upon her the implied trust only in 1985, during the course of the RTC proceedings which they
provided in Article 1456 of the Civil Code, this Court still cannot instituted for the settlement of Maximino’s estate, then their
sustain respondents’ contention that their right to recover their right to file an action to annul the CFI Order, dated 15 January
shares in Maximino’s estate is imprescriptible. It is already settled 1960, in Special Proceedings No. 928-R (earlier instituted by
in jurisprudence that an implied trust, as opposed to an express Donata for the settlement of Maximino’s estate), has likewise
trust, is subject to prescription and laches. Since an implied trust prescribed by present time.
is an obligation created by law (specifically, in this case, by Article
1456 of the New Civil Code), then respondents had 10 years
within which to bring an action for reconveyance of their shares
in Maximino’s properties. The general rule is that an action for RODOLFO C. SABIDONG, Complainant, vs. NICOLASITO S. SOLAS
reconveyance of real property based on implied trust prescribes (Clerk of Court IV), Respondent.
ten years from registration and/or issuance of the title to the A.M. No. P-01-1448 June 25, 2013
property, not only because registration under the Torrens system Trinidad Sabidong, complainant Rodolfo’s mother, is one of the
is a constructive notice of title, but also because by registering the longtime occupants of the subject property. The said lot was part
disputed properties exclusively in her name, Donata had already of the and subject of an ejectment suit filed by the Hodges Estate
unequivocally repudiated any other claim to the same [Naregister which was pending before the MTCC Iloilo Br 4 (where Solas was
ni Donata ung properties in her name on 6/27/1960 vs. the date the CoC). MTCC ordered defendants (including Trinidad) to vacate
of filing complaint by respondents on 3/3/1987 or 27 years]. and pay. Solas submitted an Offer to Purchase on installment Lots
Therefore, respondents’ action for recovery of possession of the 11 and 12, Hodges Estate rejected. Solas submitted another offer
disputed properties had clearly prescribed. Purchase on installment Lot 11 which was approved by the court
(observing na wala namang intent to purchase the lots ung
Whether such right of the Heirs of Maximino is likewise limited by occupants). Lot 11 was subsequently conveyed to Sola for the
the principle of laches – Yes, Other than prescription of action, total purchase price of P50,000, TCT was then issued. MTCC
respondents’ right to recover possession of the disputed issued a writ of demolition (to execute its decision). Rodolfo filed
properties, based on implied trust, is also barred by laches. The a complaint against Sola before SC (asserting that as court
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 99
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 employee, he cannot buy property in litigation; that he is not a closed and terminated. The rule is that as long as the order for
buyer in good faith, that he committed deception, dishonesty, the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the
oppression and grave abuse of authority). Rodolfo instituted probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated.
criminal case for estafa AND civil case for annulment of title, The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under
damages and injunction. BOTH was dismissed. OCA found Sola administration only after the payment of all the debts and the
guilty of violating the rule under Art 1491 CC (re prohibited remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the
sales); recommended suspension. SC referred to administrative same. Since there is no evidence to show that Sp. Proc. No. 1672
case to Executive Judge Hortillo (RTC Iloilo) who required Solas to in the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 27, had already been closed and
file memorandum. terminated at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale With
Sola filed memorandum (alleging that his purchase xxx is not Mortgage dated November 21, 1994, Lot 11 is still deemed to be
covered by the prohibition in paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil "in litigation" subject to the operation of Article 1491 (5) of the
Code, that he bought the lot a decade after the MTCC ordered the Civil Code. This notwithstanding, we hold that the sale of Lot 11
ejectment of Trinidad xxx, that they were accorded their right of in favor of respondent did not violate the rule on disqualification
first refusal and he bought it after they failed to avail the said to purchase property because Sp. Proc. No. 1672 was then
right, he asserted that he is a buyer in good faith and for value pending before another court (RTC) and not MTCC where he was
xxx). Sola then compulsory retired BUT his benefits were not Clerk of Court.
released. OCA found respondent liable for serious and grave
misconduct and dishonesty and recommended the forfeiture of [
respondent’s salary for six months, which shall be deducted
from his retirement benefits. THELMA M. ARANAS, Petitioner, v. TERESITA V. MERCADO,
FELIMON V. MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND, RICHARD
[Whether the subject sale is among those prohibited under Art V. MERCADO, MA. TERESITA M. ANDERSON, AND FRANKLIN L.
1491 of the CC, considering the position of Solas that the subject MERCADO, Respondents.
matter thereof is “no longer in litigation” – Yes] G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014
Whether Clerk of Court Solas violated the rule on disqualification Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties during his lifetime.
to purchase property in litigation – No, Article 1491, paragraph 5 He assigned his real properties in exchange for corporate stocks
of the Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court of Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, Cebu to
from acquiring property involved in litigation within the Mervir Realty. Emigdio died intestate survived by: 1st family: 2
jurisdiction or territory of their courts. Said provision reads: children (Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner Thelma M. Aranas
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, (Thelma)) and 2nd family: Wife (Teresita V. Mercado) and their 5
even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through children (Allan V. Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M.
the mediation of another: x x x x (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting Sutherland, Richard V. Mercado, and Maria Teresita M.
attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers Anderson).
and employees connected with the administration of justice, the Teresita was the appointed administrator of the estate. Claiming
property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution that Emigdio had owned other properties that were excluded
before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they from the inventory, Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to
exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the amend the inventory xxx. The RTC (ruled in favor of Thelma)
act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with ordered Teresita to re–do the inventory of properties xxx by
respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any including therein the properties xxx. Teresita et al filed an MR
litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. before the RTC alleging that the real properties had been sold and
xxxx assigned to Mervir xxx but RTC denied the MR. Hence, Teresita et
The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy al filed petition for certiorari against the RTC. CA ruled in favor of
disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship Teresita et al (Hindi na si Emigdio ang owner dahil sa sold and
involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar assigned na ang properties kay Mervir – w/c has separate and
control exercised by these persons. "In so providing, the Code distinct personality from its stockholders, piercing the veil of
tends to prevent fraud, or more precisely, tends not to give corporate fiction is NOT warranted because the wrongdoing
occasion for fraud, which is what can and must be done." For the cannot be presumed – it must be clearly and convincingly
prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the property established). Hence, this petition.
must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving
the property. Where the property is acquired after the Was certiorari the proper recourse to assail the questioned
termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 orders of the RTC? Yes, the assailed order denying Teresita’s
of the Civil Code attaches. In the case at bar, when respondent motion for the approval of the inventory and the order denying
purchased Lot 11-A on November 21, 1994, the Decision in Civil her motion for reconsideration were interlocutory. This is
Case No. 14706 which was promulgated on May 31, 1983 had because the inclusion of the properties in the inventory was not
long become final. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the yet a final determination of their ownership. The distinction
property is no longer "in litigation" at that time considering that between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known.
it was part of the Hodges Estate then under settlement The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or
proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 1672). A thing is said to be in litigation terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing
not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court, but more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court
also from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the
action of the judge. A property forming part of the estate under case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An
judicial settlement continues to be subject of litigation until the interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial
probate court issues an order declaring the estate proceedings on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 100
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is 2. The order of exclusion was not a final but an interlocutory
interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave order “in the sense that it did not settle once and for all the
something to be done in the trial court with respect to the title to the San Lorenzo Village lots.
merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is 3. For the purpose of determining whether a certain property
interlocutory; otherwise, it is final. should or should not be included in the inventory, the
probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such
W/N the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the determination is not conclusive and is subject to the final
inclusion of the properties in the estate of the decedent? No. the decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may
RTC strictly followed the directives of the Rules of Court and the be instituted by the parties. If there is a dispute as to the
jurisprudence relevant to the procedure for preparing the ownership, then the opposing parties and the administrator
inventory by the administrator. have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination
W/N the properties should be included in the inventory? Yes. of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court
The usage of the word all in Section 1, of Rule 83 of the Rules of cannot do so.
Court demands the inclusion of all the real and personal 4. Multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings as a
properties of the decedent in the inventory. However, the word practical recognition of the possibility that material issues
all is qualified by the phrase which has come into his possession may be finally determined at various stages of the special
or knowledge, which signifies that the properties must be known proceedings. Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court
to the administrator to belong to the decedent or are in her enumerates the specific instances in which multiple appeals
possession as the administrator. Section 1 allows no exception, may be resorted to in special proceedings, viz: Section 1.
for the phrase true inventory implies that no properties Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. – An
appearing to belong to the decedent can be excluded from the interested person may appeal in special proceedings from an
inventory, regardless of their being in the possession of another order or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or a
person or entity. The following properties should be included in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, where such order or
the estate: judgment:
a. Inheritance of Emigdio from Severina Mercado (nanay (a) Allows or disallows a will;
niya?)/properties constituting Emigdio’s share in the (b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased
estate of Severina person, or the distributive share of the estate to which
b. shares of stock of Mervir Realty Corporation xxx which such person is entitled;
were paid by Teresita from money derived from the (c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against
taxicab business which she and her husband had as a the estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented
conjugal undertaking. As these shares of stock partake on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it;
of being conjugal in character, one–half thereof or of the (d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator,
value thereof should be included in the inventory of the trustee or guardian;
estate of her husband. (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of
c. Money in Union Bank w/c partakes of being conjugal in the estate of a deceased person, or the administration of
character, and so, one–half thereof should be included a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower
in the inventory of the properties constituting as estate court of the rights of the party appealing, except that no
of her husband. appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a
d. Property sold to Mervir Corporation w/c was found to be special administrator; and
under the name of Emigdio. [Mervir Realty, whose (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and
business was managed by respondent Richard, was affects the substantial rights of the person appealing,
headed by Teresita herself as its President. In other unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a
words, Mervir Realty appeared to be a family new trial or for reconsideration.
corporation.] the fact that the deed of absolute sale was 5. GENERAL RULE: the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a
notarized instrument does not justify exclusion from probate court or an intestate court, relates only to matters
inventory of the properties xxx because the intention of having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement
the parties still and always is the primary consideration of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the
in determining the true nature of a contract. determination of questions of ownership that arise during
the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that such
e. assignment of several parcels of land by Emigdio to court merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction.
Mervir Realty Corporation which are considered a A probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings,
transfer in contemplation of death as it was made two whether testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine
days before he died (sick of cancer of the pancreas at the title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and
time). Also, the same was still under Eimgdio’s name at which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue
least 10 months after his death. of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title
adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. All that the
Other doctrines: said court could do as regards said properties is to determine
1. An interlocutory order may be the subject of an appeal, but whether or not they should be included in the inventory of
only after a judgment has been rendered, with the ground for properties to be administered by the administrator.
appealing the order being included in the appeal of the 6. EXCEPTIONS to the General Rule in item no. 5:
judgment itself [JOV: sama mo to sa LMT]. a. the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an
intestate or a testate proceeding the question of
inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 101
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 of property without prejudice to final determination of reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act.
ownership in a separate action. Thus: Sec. 101.—All actions for reversion to the Government of
b. if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be
question is one of collation or advancement, or the instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his
parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the
probate court and the rights of third parties are not Philippines. In other words, a private individual may not bring an
impaired, then the probate court is competent to resolve action for reversion or any action which would have the effect
issues on ownership. xxx of canceling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of
7. Section 78 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 title issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered
provides that the gross estate of the decedent shall be thereby will again form part of the public domain. Only the
determined by including the value at the time of his death of Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may do so.
all property to the extent of any interest therein of which the Since Amelita Sola's title originated from a grant by the
decedent has at any time made a transfer in contemplation government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor
of death. and the grantee. Clearly then, petitioner has no standing at all
to question the validity of Amelita's title. It follows that he
ESCHEATS (R-91) cannot "recover" the property because, to begin with, he has
not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof.
ESCHEATS (R-91)
CASTORIO ALVARICO, petitioner, vs. AMELITA L. SOLA,
respondent. G.R. No. 138953 June 6, 2002 GUARDIANS AND GUARDIANSHIP (R-92 TO 97) AS AMENDED BY
A.M. NO. 03-02-05-SC, MAY 1, 2003
Petitioner Castorio Alvarico is the natural father of respondent
Amelita Sola while Fermina Lopez is petitioner's aunt, and also PILAR Y. GOYENA, petitioner, vs. AMPARO LEDESMA-GUSTILO,
respondent. G. R. No. 147148. January 13, 2003
Amelita's adoptive mother. Bureau of Lands approved and
granted the Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) of Fermina Amparo (72 y/o youngest sister of Julieta) filed with RTC Makati
over the subject land in Waterfront, Cebut City. Fermina executed PETITION FOR LETTERS OF GUARDIANSHIP over the person and
of Self-Adjudication and Transfer of Rights over Lot 5 in favor of properties of her sister Julieta (who has been patient in Makati
Amelita, who agreed to assume all the obligations, duties, and Medical Center for old age, general debility and a mini-stroke).
conditions imposed upon Fermina under the MSA. Amelita then Pilar (the 90 y/o close friend of Julieta for 61 years) filed an
paid to the Bureau of Lands (BL) the amount of P283 thousand. opposition alleging that Amparo is unfit to be a guardian since her
The BL issued an order approving the transfer of rights and and Julieta’s interests are antagonistic. RTC found Julieta
granting the amendment of the application from Fermina to incapable, appointed AMPARO as guardian. Pilar appealed to CA
Amelita. OCT was issued. Castorio filed an action for but the CA affirmed RTC’s decision. [CA: Pilar has not shown the
reconveyance against Amelita, claiming that Fermina donated the authenticity and due execution of the letters which purport to
land to him. Amelita filed an answer maintaining that the show the existence of a rift between Julieta and her family and
donation to him is void because Fermina was no longer the owner dissatisfaction as to how the businesses were managed; there is
of the property when it was allegedly donated to him, the really no antagonistic interests because they being co-owners of
property having transferred earlier to her. She added that the certain properties, no showing that business decisions in the past
donation was void because of lack of approval from the Bureau of had resulted in the prejudice of Julieta, Pilar’s advanced age of 90
Lands, and that she had validly acquired the land as Fermina's y/o also militate against her assuming the guardianship; etc.].
rightful heir. RTC ruled in favor of Castorio, CA reversed RTC. Hence, Pilar filed a Rule 45 before the SC.
Hence Castorio filed Rule 45 before the SC.
Whether the alleged “antagonistic interests” render Amparo unfit
Who between Castorio and Amelita has a better claim to the to be appointed as guardian of Julieta. NO.
land? Amelita. Petitioner claims that respondent was in bad faith
when she registered the land in her name and, based on the In the selection of a guardian, a large discretion must be allowed
abovementioned rules (Article 744 and 1544 of the New Civil the judge who deals directly with the parties. As this Court said:
Code), he has a better right over the property because he was first As a rule, when it appears that the judge has exercised care and
in material possession in good faith. However, this allegation of diligence in selecting the guardian, and has given due
bad faith on the part of Amelita Sola in acquiring the title is devoid consideration to the reasons for and against his action which are
of evidentiary support. For one, the execution of public urged by the interested parties, his action should not be
documents, as in the case of Affidavits of Adjudication, is disturbed unless it is made very clear that he has fallen into
entitled to the presumption of regularity, hence convincing grievous error. Petitioner cannot rely on Garchitorena v. Sotelo
evidence is required to assail and controvert them. Second, it is with respect to the existence of antagonistic interests between
undisputed that OCT No. 3439 was issued in 1989 in the name of respondent and Julieta. In that case, the interest of Perfecto
Amelita. It requires more than petitioner's bare allegation to Gabriel as creditor and mortgagee of the minor-wards properties
defeat the Original Certificate of Title which on its face enjoys the (a house and lot) is antagonistic to the interest of the wards as
legal presumption of regularity of issuance. A Torrens title, once mortgagors, hence, Gabriels appointment as guardian was
registered, serves as notice to the whole world. All persons must erroneous. For while he sought to foreclose the wards properties
take notice and no one can plead ignorance of its registration. as creditor and mortgagee on one hand, he had to, on the other
hand, endeavor to retain them for the wards as their guardian.
Whether Castorio corrected resorted to an action for reversion – Added to that was Gabriels appointment as guardian without him
No, Even assuming that respondent Amelita Sola acquired title to informing the guardianship court that he held a mortgage on the
the disputed property in bad faith, only the State can institute properties. Furthermore, he deliberately misinformed the said
court that the first mortgagee was the Santa Clara Monastery
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 102
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 when it was him. None of the said circumstances obtain in the in any province or provinces in which it may be situated and to
present case. perform all other acts necessary for the management of her
Petitioner can neither rely on certain letters of Julieta to establish properties. Actually, in bringing the action of desahucio,
her claim that there existed a rift between the two which Evangelista was merely discharging the duty to attend to "the
amounts to antagonistic interests. The said letters merely shows comfortable and suitable maintenance of the ward" explicitly
Julieta’s lack of interest in future investments, among others, imposed on her by Section 4, Rule 96 of the Rules of Court.
not necessarily a business disagreement, and certainly not per se "SEC. 4. Estate to be managed frugally, and proceeds applied to
amounting to antagonistic interests between her and respondent maintenance of ward. A guardian must manage the estate of his
to render the latter unsuitable for appointment as guardian. ward frugally and without waste, and apply the income and
Petitioners assertion that respondents intent in instituting the profits thereof, so far as maybe necessary, to the comfortable and
guardianship proceedings is to take control of Julieta’s properties suitable maintenance of the ward and his family, if there be any;
and use them for her own benefit is purely speculative and finds and if such income and profits be insufficient for that purpose,
no support from the records. the guardian may sell or encumber the real estate, upon being
Finally, this Court notes two undisputed facts in the case at bar, authorized by order to do so, and apply to such of the proceeds
to wit: 1) Petitioner opposed the petition for the appointment of as may be necessary to such maintenance."
respondent as guardian before the trial court because, among
other reasons, she felt she was disliked by respondent, a ground Whether Carmen’s death rendered Amparo incapacitated to
which does not render respondent unsuitable for appointment as continue litigating for said deceased. NO. (Amparo may still
guardian, and 2) Petitioner concealed the deteriorating state of pursue the case NOT as a guardian BUT in substitution for the
mind of Julieta before the trial court, which is reflective of a lack deceased). While it is indeed well-established rule that the
of good faith. relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by
the death of either the guardian or the ward, the rule affords no
The Incompetent, CARMEN CAIZA, represented by her legal advantage to the Estradas. Amparo Evangelista, as niece of
guardian, AMPARO EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF Carmen Caiza, is one of the latter's only two (2) surviving heirs,
APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO ESTRADA and his wife, the other being Caiza's nephew, Ramon C. Nevado. On their
LEONORA ESTRADA, respondents. G.R. No. 110427. February 24, motion and by Resolution of this Court of June 20, 1994, they
1997 were in fact substituted as parties in the appeal at bar in place
RTC QC Br. 107 declared Carmen, a 94 yo retired pharmacist and of the deceased, in accordance with Section 17, Rule 3 of the
UP professor, in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her Rules of Court, viz.: "SEC. 18. Death of a party. After a party dies
niece, Amparo. Amparo was appointed as guardian, she filed an and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order,
ejectment suit before the MTC against spouses Estrada. Estrada upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to
answered that they had been living in Carmen’s house since appear and be substituted for the deceased within a period of
1960’s (that they had been considered by Carmen as her own thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. If the legal
family, they faithfully served here and in a holographic will, representative fails to appear within said time, the court may
Carmen bequeathed to them the disputed H&L). MTC decided in order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal
favor of Amparo. On appeal, RTC favored Estradas (and held that representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by
it should be an accion publiciana). Amparo appealed to CA. The the court, and the representative shall immediately appear for
CA still favored Estradas. Hence, Carmen filed Rule 45 in SC. and on behalf of the interest of the deceased. The court charges
Carmen died during the pendency of the appeal, hence Amparo involved in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
(and Ramon), the niece and nephew of Carmen, were substituted opposing party, may be recovered as costs. The heirs of the
for her, by leave of court. deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or
Whether Amparo had the capacity to file the ejectment suit administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for
against the Estradas considering the allegation that Carmen has the minor heirs. An ejectment case survives the death of a party.
already devised to the Estradas the subject house. – Yes, [A will Carmen’s demise did not extinguish the desahucio suit
is essentially ambulatory, it may be changed or revoked prior to instituted by her through her guardian. That action, not being a
testator’s death and until admitted to probate, it has no effect, purely personal one, survived her death; her heirs have taken her
owner can still take back possession in the meantime xxx; Carmen place and now represent her interests in the appeal at bar.
needed income from house due to his age, etc.]
G.R. No. 119858. April 29, 2003 EDWARD C. ONG vs. THE CA AND
Because of Amparo’s appointment as general guardian of both THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
the person and estate of her aunt – Carmen, it became her duty Assistant City Prosecutor Dina P. Teves of the City of Manila
to care for her aunt’s person, to attend to her physical and charged petitioner and Benito Ong with two counts of estafa
spiritual needs, to assure her well-being, with right to custody of under separate Informations. Petitioner, representing ARMAGRI
her person in preference to relatives and friends. It also became applied for a letter of credit for P2,532,500.00 with SOLIDBANK
her right and duty to get possession of, and exercise control over, Corporation (“Bank”) to finance the purchase of differential
Caiza's property, both real and personal, it being recognized assemblies from Metropole Industrial Sales. Petitioner,
principle that the ward has no right to possession or control of his representing ARMAGRI, executed a trust receipt acknowledging
property during her incompetency. That right to manage the receipt from the Bank of the goods valued at P2,532,500.00.
ward's estate carries with it the right to take possession thereof Petitioner and Benito Ong, representing ARMAGRI, applied for
and recover it from anyone who retains it, and bring and defend another letter of credit for P2,050,000.00 to finance the purchase
such actions as may be needful for this purpose. She has full of merchandise from Fertiphil Corporation. The Bank approved
authority to take possession of the property of said incompetent the application, opened the letter of credit and paid to Fertiphil
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 103
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Corporation the amount of P2,050,000.00. Petitioner, signing for participant to the crime, which makes petitioner a person
ARMAGRI, executed another trust receipt in favor of the Bank responsible for the offense. Petitioner could have raised the
acknowledging receipt of the merchandise. Both trust receipts defense that he had nothing to do with the failure to account for
contained the same stipulations. Under the trust receipts, the proceeds or to return the goods. Petitioner could have shown
ARMAGRI undertook to account for the goods held in trust for the that he had severed his relationship with ARMAGRI prior to the
Bank, or if the goods are sold, to turn over the proceeds to the loss of the proceeds or the disappearance of the goods.
Bank. ARMAGRI also undertook the obligation to keep the Petitioner, however, waived his right to present any evidence,
proceeds in the form of money, bills or receivables as the and thus failed to show that he is not responsible for the violation
separate property of the Bank or to return the goods upon of the Trust Receipts Law.
demand by the Bank, if not sold. In addition, petitioner executed NAPOLEON D. NERI, ALICIA D. NERI-MONDEJAR, VISMINDA D.
the following additional undertaking stamped on the dorsal NERI-CHAMBERS, ROSA D. NERI-MILLAN, DOUGLAS D. NERI,
portion of both trust receipts: EUTROPIA D. ILLUT-COCKINOS AND VICTORIA D. ILLUT-PIALA,
I/We jointly and severally agreed to any increase or decrease in Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF HADJI YUSOP UY AND JULPHA* IBRAHIM
the interest rate which may occur after July 1, 1981, when the UY, Respondents. G.R. No. 194366 October 10, 2012
Central Bank floated the interest rates, and to pay additionally the Anuncacion contracted 2 marriages during her lifetime:
penalty of 1% per month until the amount/s or installment/s due With Gonzalo: 2 children  Eutropia and Victoria; and With
and unpaid under the trust receipt on the reverse side hereof Enrique  5 children: Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda, Douglas and
is/are fully paid. Rosa. Anuncacion died intestate. Enrique (in his capacity and as
Petitioner signed alone the foregoing additional undertaking in GUARDIAN of minor children Rosa and Douglas) AND Napoleon,
the Trust Receipt for P2,253,500.00, while both petitioner and Alicia, and Visminda executed an EJ settlement, adjudicating
Benito Ong signed the additional undertaking in the Trust Receipt among themselves the said homestead properties, and
for P2,050,000.00. thereafter, conveying them to the late spouses Hadji Yusop Uy
and Julpha Ibrahim Uy (spouses Uy)for a consideration of P
When the trust receipts became due and demandable, ARMAGRI 80,000.00. Children of Enrique filed a complaint for annulment of
failed to pay or deliver the goods to the Bank despite several sale of the said homestead properties against spouses Uy (later
demand letters. Consequently, as of 31 May 1991, the unpaid substituted by their heirs) before the RTC. Heirs of Uy countered
account under the first trust receipt amounted to P1,527,180.66, that the sale took place beyond the 5-year prohibitory period
while the unpaid account under the second trust receipt from the issuance of the homestead patents. They also denied
amounted to P1,449,395.71. knowledge of Eutropia and Victoria’s exclusion from the
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA. The CA affirmed the extrajudicial settlement and sale of the subject properties, and
trial court’s decision in toto. Petitioner filed an MR – DENIED. interposed further the defenses of prescription and laches.
Hence, this petition. RTC ruled in favor of the CHILDREN OF ENRIQUE, held that while
the sale occurred beyond the 5-year prohibitory period, the sale
BY THE MERE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT PETITIONER ACTED AS is still void because Eutropia and Victoria were deprived of their
AGENT AND SIGNED FOR THE ENTRUSTEE CORPORATION, hereditary rights and that Enrique had no judicial authority to sell
PETITIONER WAS NECESSARILY THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE the shares of his minor children, Rosa and Douglas.
OFFENSE – Yes, Petitioner comes within the purview of Section 13 CA reversed RTC (ruled in favor of Uy the buyer in good faith?)
of the Trust Receipts Law. Petitioner contends that the CA erred and held that, while Eutropia and Victoria had no knowledge of
in finding him liable for the default of ARMAGRI, arguing that in the extrajudicial settlement and sale of the subject properties and
signing the trust receipts, he merely acted as an agent of as such, were not bound by it, the CA found it unconscionable to
ARMAGRI. Petitioner asserts that nowhere in the trust receipts permit the annulment of the sale considering spouses Uy’s
did he assume personal responsibility for the undertakings of possession thereof for 17 years, and that Eutropia and Victoria
ARMAGRI which was the entrustee. We hold that petitioner is a belatedly filed their action in 1997, or more than two years from
person responsible for violation of the Trust Receipts Law. The knowledge of their exclusion as heirs in 1994 when their
Trust Receipts Law expressly makes the corporation’s officers or stepfather died. It, however, did not preclude the excluded heirs
employees or other persons therein responsible for the offense from recovering their legitimes from their co-heirs. The CA also
liable to suffer the penalty of imprisonment. In the instant case, declared the extrajudicial settlement and the subsequent sale
petitioner signed the two trust receipts on behalf of ARMAGRI as as valid and binding with respect to Enrique and his children,
the latter could only act through its agents. When petitioner holding that as co-owners, they have the right to dispose of their
signed the trust receipts, he acknowledged receipt of the goods respective shares as they consider necessary or fit. While
covered by the trust receipts. In addition, petitioner was fully recognizing Rosa and Douglas to be minors at that time, they
aware of the terms and conditions stated in the trust receipts, were deemed to have ratified the sale when they failed to
including the obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale or question it upon reaching the age of majority. It also found
return the goods to the Bank. laches to have set in because of their inaction for a long period of
time.
True, petitioner acted on behalf of ARMAGRI. However, it is a
well-settled rule that the law of agency governing civil cases has Whether the sale made by Enrique was valid considering that the
no application in criminal cases. When a person participates in said sale was purportedly made in behalf of the latter’s children.
the commission of a crime, he cannot escape punishment on the YES except insofar as the shares of Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas
ground that he simply acted as an agent of another party. In the are concerned because (1) Eutropia and Victoria were not under
instant case, the Bank accepted the trust receipts signed by Enrique’s guardianship AND (2) although Douglas was under
petitioner based on petitioner’s representations. It is the fact of Enrique’s guardianship, he did not ratify the said sale upon
being the signatory to the two trust receipts, and thus a direct reaching majority age.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 104
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Thereafter, the petitioner presented his evidence which consists
Administration includes all acts for the preservation of the of his testimony, and that of his sister Gianina Oropesa Bennett,
property and the receipt of fruits according to the natural and the respondent’s former nurse, Ms. Alma Altaya. After
purpose of the thing. Any act of disposition or alienation, or any presenting evidence, the petitioner filed a manifestation resting
reduction in the substance of the patrimony of child, exceeds his case. The petitioner failed to file his written formal offer of
the limits of administration. Thus, a father or mother, as the evidence.
natural guardian of the minor under parental authority, does not Thus, the respondent filed his "Omnibus Motion (1) to Declare the
have the power to dispose or encumber the property of the petitioner to have waived the presentation of his Offer of Exhibits
latter. Such power is granted by law only to a judicial guardian of and the presentation of his Evidence Closed since they were not
the ward’s property and even then only with courts’ prior formally offered; (2) To Expunge the Documents of the Petitioner
approval secured in accordance with the proceedings set forth by from the Record; and (3) To Grant leave to the Oppositor to File
the Rules of Court. Consequently, the disputed sale entered into Demurrer to Evidence. The court a quo granted the respondent’s
by Enrique in behalf of his minor children without the proper Omnibus Motion. Thereafter, the respondent then filed his
judicial authority, unless ratified by them upon reaching the age Demurrer to Evidence – GRANTED. Petitioner moved for
of majority, is unenforceable in accordance with Articles 1317 reconsideration but this was denied. Petitioner elevated the case
and 1403(1) of the Civil Code. Ratification means that one under to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. MR –
no disability voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some DENIED. Hence, the instant petition was filed.
unauthorized act or defective proceeding, which without his
sanction would not be binding on him. It is this voluntary choice, WHETHER RESPONDENT IS CONSIDERED AN "INCOMPETENT"
knowingly made, which amounts to a ratification of what was PERSON AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 92 OF THE RULES
theretofore unauthorized, and becomes the authorized act of the OF COURT WHO SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER GUARDIANSHIP –
party so making the ratification. Once ratified, expressly or No, In Francisco v. Court of Appeals, we laid out the nature and
impliedly such as when the person knowingly received benefits purpose of guardianship in the following wise: A guardianship is
from it, the contract is cleansed from all its defects from the a trust relation of the most sacred character, in which one
moment it was constituted, as it has a retroactive effect. person, called a "guardian" acts for another called the "ward"
Records show that Rosa had ratified the extrajudicial settlement whom the law regards as incapable of managing his own affairs.
of the estate with absolute deed of sale (thru a manifestation). A guardianship is designed to further the ward’s well-being, not
However, on part of Douglas, there is no ratification. Hence, the that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward’s
extrajudicial settlement with sale is invalid and therefore, not property, as well as to render any assistance that the ward may
binding on Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas, only the shares of personally require. It has been stated that while custody
Enrique, Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda and Rosa in the homestead involves immediate care and control, guardianship indicates not
properties have effectively been disposed in favor of spouses Uy. only those responsibilities, but those of one in loco parentis as
In view thereof, spouses Uy were deemed to be holding the 3/16 well. In a guardianship proceeding, a court may appoint a
shares of Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas under an implied qualified guardian if the prospective ward is proven to be a minor
constructive trust for the latter’s benefit, hence they should pay or an incompetent.
the latter P5k each or a total of P15k. A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us that
persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age,
NILO OROPESA, Petitioner, vs. CIRILO OROPESA, Respondent. G.R. disease, weak mind or other similar causes, are incapable of
No. 184528 April 25, 2012 taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid
Petitioner filed with the RTC of Parañaque City, a petition for him are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed
and a certain Ms. Louie Ginez to be appointed as guardians over under guardianship.
the property of his father, the respondent Cirilo Oropesa. In the With the failure of petitioner to formally offer his documentary
said petition, it is alleged among others that the (respondent) has evidence, his proof of his father’s incompetence consisted purely
been afflicted with several maladies and has been sickly for over of testimonies given by himself and his sister (who were claiming
ten (10) years already having suffered a stroke on April 1, 2003 interest in their father’s real and personal properties) and their
and June 1, 2003, that his judgment and memory [were] impaired father’s former caregiver (who admitted to be acting under their
and such has been evident after his hospitalization; that even direction). These testimonies, which did not include any expert
before his stroke, the (respondent) was observed to have had medical testimony, were insufficient to convince the trial court
lapses in memory and judgment, showing signs of failure to of petitioner’s cause of action and instead lead it to grant the
manage his property properly; that due to his age and medical demurrer to evidence that was filed by respondent.
condition, he cannot, without outside aid, manage his property In an analogous guardianship case wherein the soundness of
wisely, and has become an easy prey for deceit and exploitation mind of the proposed ward was at issue, we had the occasion to
by people around him, particularly Ms. Ma. Luisa Agamata, his rule that "where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion
girlfriend. is not necessary and that the observations of the trial judge
The presiding judge of the court a quo set the case for hearing, coupled with evidence establishing the person’s state of mental
and directed the court social worker to conduct a social case sanity will suffice." Thus, the trial court highlighted the fatal role
study and submit a report thereon. The Court Social Worker that petitioner’s own documentary evidence played in disproving
subsequently submitted her report but without any finding on the its case and, likewise, the trial court made known its own
respondent who refused to see and talk to the social worker. The observation of respondent’s physical and mental state, to wit:
respondent filed his Opposition to the petition for guardianship. The Court noted the absence of any testimony of a medical
On August 3, 2004, the respondent filed his Supplemental expert which states that Gen. Cirilo O. Oropesa does not have the
Opposition. mental, emotional, and physical capacity to manage his own
affairs. On the contrary, Oppositor’s evidence includes a
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 105
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Neuropsychological Screening Report which states that Gen. representing trust fees that it supposedly earned for managing
Oropesa, (1) performs on the average range in most of the their several trust accounts. Atty. Concepcion then requested
domains that were tested; (2) is capable of mental calculations; Belson Securities, Inc. (Belson) to deliver to him, as Advent
and (3) can provide solutions to problem situations. The Report Capital’s rehabilitation receiver, the P7,635,597.50 in cash
concludes that Gen. Oropesa possesses intact cognitive dividends that Belson held under the Alcantaras’ Trust Account
functioning, except for mildly impaired abilities in memory, 95-013, claimed that the dividends, as trust fees, formed part of
reasoning and orientation. It is the observation of the Court that Advent Capital’s assets. Belson refused, citing the Alcantaras’
oppositor is still sharp, alert and able. objections as well as the absence of an appropriate order from
the rehabilitation court. Atty. Concepcion filed a motion before
EDUARDO T. ABAD, Petitioner, vs. LEONARDO BIASON and the rehabilitation court to direct Belson to release the money to
GABRIEL A. MAGNO, Respondents. G.R. No. 191993 December 5, him. As rehabilitation receiver, he had the duty to take custody
2012 and control of Advent Capital’s assets, such as the sum of money
Abad (Maura’s nephew) filed a petition for guardianship over the that Belson held on behalf of Advent Capital’s Trust Department.
person and properties of Maura B. Abad (Maura – more than 90 Alcantaras filed an opposition claiming that the money in trust
y/o, sickly, can no longer manage to take care of herself and her account belonged to them. RTC ruled in favor of Atty. Concepcion.
properties thus becoming an easy prey of deceit and explotation) Complying with the rehabilitation court’s order and Atty.
with RTC Dagupan. Atty. Gabriel Magno filed a Motion for Leave Concepcion’s demand letter, Belson turned over the subject
to Intervene, together with an Opposition-in- Intervention; dividends to him. Alcantaras filed a Rule 65 before the CA which
Leonardo Biason (also a nephew) filed a Motion for Leave to File the CA granted (ruled that Alcantaras owned those dividends).
Opposition to the Petition and attached therewith his Opposition Hence, Atty. Concepcion filed Rule 45 before the SC.
to the Appointment of Eduardo Abad as Guardian of the Person
and Properties of Maura B. Abad (QC resident daw si Abad while Whether Atty. Concepcion, in his capacity as Advent Capital’s
Maura is in Pangasinan kaya hindi niya mapeperform ung duties). receiver, can rightfully collect the subject dividends which are
RTC appointed BIASON as Maura’s guardian. On appeal, the CA allegedly the subject matter of the trust agreement between the
affirmed RTC (tama naman daw na si Biason ang guardian, latter and the Alcantaras. – No
nephew din siya, no vices of character to disqualify him as The practice in the case of banks is that they automatically collect
guardian, etc.). Abad fiile Rule 45 before the SC. Maura filed a their management fees from the funds that their clients entrust
motion for leave to intervene together with a Petition-in- to them for investment or lending to others. But the banks can
Intervention (moot and academic na daw ang appointment of freely do this since it holds or has control of their clients’ money
Biason as guardian, she raised that she is of sound mind and that and since their trust agreement authorized the automatic
she can competently manage her business affairs. Maura prayed collection. If the depositor contests the deduction, his remedy is
for the termination of the guardianship). Unfortunately, pending to bring an action to recover the amount he claims to have been
the resolution of the instant petition, Biason died. illegally deducted from his account. But in this case, Advent
Capital did not exercise its right to cause the automatic
[Whether Abad may still question Biason’s qualifications as deduction at the end of every quarter of its supposed
guardian of Maura - No] WON BIASON’S DEATH RENDER IT MOOT management fee when it had full control of the dividends. That
AND ACADEMIC - YES. An issue or a case becomes moot and was its fault. For their part, the Alcantaras had the right to
academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so presume that Advent Capital had deducted its fees in the manner
that a determination of the issue would be without practical use stated in the contract. The burden of proving that the fees were
and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to not in fact collected lies with Advent Capital. The real owner of
which the petitioner would be entitled and which would be the trust property is the trustor-beneficiary. In this case, the
negated by the dismissal of the petition. In his petition, Abad trustors-beneficiaries are the Alcantaras. Thus, Advent Capital
basically was challenging Biason’s qualifications and the could not dispose of the Alcantaras’ portfolio on its own. The
procedure by which the RTC appointed him as guardian for income and principal of the portfolio could only be withdrawn
Maura. However, with Biason’s demise, it has become impractical upon the Alcantaras’ written instruction or order to Advent
and futile to proceed with resolving the merits of the petition. It Capital.16 The latter could not also assign or encumber the
is a well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and portfolio or its income without the written consent of the
ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the Alcantaras. All these are stipulated in the Trust Agreement.
guardian or the ward. The supervening event of death rendered
it pointless to delve into the propriety of Biason’s appointment What court has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the conflicting
since the juridical tie between him and Maura has already been claims of the parties over the dividends that Belson held in trust
dissolved. The petition, regardless of its disposition, will not for their owners? Not the rehabilitation court (it is not given the
afford Abad, or anyone else for that matter, any substantial relief. power to resolve ownership disputes) Advent Capital must file a
separate action for collection to recover the trust fees that it
TRUSTEES (R-98) allegedly earned and, with the trial court’s authorization if
ADVENT CAPITAL AND FINANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. warranted, put the money in escrow for payment to whoever it
NICASIO I. ALCANTARA and EDITHA I. ALCANTARA, Respondents. rightly belongs. Having failed to collect the trust fees at the end
G.R. No. 183050 January 25, 2012 of each calendar quarter as stated in the contract, all it had
Advent Capital filed a petition for rehabilitation before RTC against the Alcantaras was a claim for payment which is a proper
Makati. RTC appointed one Atty. Danilo L. Concepcion as subject for an ordinary action for collection. It cannot enforce its
rehabilitation receiver. Atty. Concepcion conducted an audit and money claim by simply filing a motion in the rehabilitation case
found that respondents Nicasio and Editha Alcantara (collectively, for delivery of money belonging to the Alcantaras but in the
the Alcantaras) owed Advent Capital P27,398,026.59, possession of a third party. Rehabilitation proceedings are
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 106
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 summary and non-adversarial in nature, and do not Whether the subject transactions may properly be considered as
contemplate adjudication of claims that must be threshed out trust receipts so as to render the herein respondents liable for
in ordinary court proceedings. Here, Advent Capital’s claim is estafa - NO. Section 4 of P.D. 115 defines a trust receipt
disputed and requires a full trial on the merits. It must be resolved transaction in this manner:
in a separate action where the Alcantaras’ claim and defenses Section 4. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction. A trust
may also be presented and heard. receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. LAMBERTO C. transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree
PEREZ, NESTOR C. KUN, MA. ESTELITA P. ANGELES-PANLILIO, and as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree
NAPOLEON O. GARCIA, Respondents. G.R. No. 166884 June 13, as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds
2012 absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods,
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) is a government documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession
financial institution and the official depository of the Philippines. of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the
Respondents are the officers and representatives of Asian entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt" wherein
Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC), a the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods,
corporation incorporated under Philippine law and engaged in documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell
the construction business. or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments
LBP filed a complaint for estafa or violation of Article 315, with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds
paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to P.D. 115, thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as
against the respondents before the City Prosecutor’s Office in appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or
Makati City. In the affidavit-complaint it alleged the LBP’s Account instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise
Officer for the Account Management Development, Edna L. Juan, disposed of. There are two obligations in a trust receipt
stated that LBP extended a credit accommodation to ACDC transaction. The first is covered by the provision that refers to
through the execution of an Omnibus Credit Line Agreement money under the obligation to deliver it to the owner of the
between LBP and ACDC on October 29, 1996. merchandise sold. The second is covered by the provision
In various instances, ACDC used the Letters of Credit/Trust referring to merchandise received under the obligation to return
Receipts Facility of the Agreement to buy construction materials. it to the owner. Thus, under the Trust Receipts Law, intent to
The respondents, as officers and representatives of ACDC, defraud is presumed when (1) the entrustee fails to turn over the
executed trust receipts in connection with the construction proceeds of the sale of goods covered by the trust receipt to the
materials. The trust receipts matured, but ACDC failed to return entruster; or (2) when the entrustee fails to return the goods
to LBP the proceeds of the construction projects or the under trust, if they are not disposed of in accordance with the
construction materials subject of the trust receipts. LBP sent terms of the trust receipts. In all trust receipt transactions, both
ACDC a demand letter, dated May 4, 1999, for the payment of its obligations on the part of the trustee exist in the alternative – the
debts, including those under the Trust Receipts Facility in the return of the proceeds of the sale or the return or recovery of
amount of P66,425,924.39. When ACDC failed to comply with the the goods, whether raw or processed. When both parties enter
demand letter, LBP filed the affidavit-complaint. The respondents into an agreement knowing that the return of the goods subject
filed a joint affidavit wherein they stated that they signed the of the trust receipt is not possible even without any fault on the
trust receipt documents on or about the same time LBP and ACDC part of the trustee, it is not a trust receipt transaction penalized
executed the loan documents; their signatures were required by under Section 13 of P.D. 115; the only obligation actually agreed
LBP for the release of the loans. Moreover, its clients for the upon by the parties would be the return of the proceeds of the
construction projects, which were the general contractors of sale transaction. This transaction becomes a mere loan, where
these projects, have not yet paid them; thus, ACDC had yet to the borrower is obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for
receive the proceeds of the materials that were the subject of the the purchase of the goods. Based on these premises, we cannot
trust receipts and were allegedly used for these constructions. As consider the agreements between the parties in this case to be
there were no proceeds received from these clients, no trust receipt transactions because (1) from the start, the parties
misappropriation thereof could have taken place. were aware that ACDC could not possibly be obligated to
Makati Assistant City Prosecutor Amador Y. Pineda issued a reconvey to LBP the materials or the end product for which they
Resolution dismissing the complaint. LBP filed a motion for were used; and (2) from the moment the materials were used
reconsideration which the Makati Assistant City Prosecutor for the government projects, they became public, not LBP’s,
denied in his order of January 7, 2000. On appeal, the Secretary property. Since these transactions are not trust receipts, an
of Justice reversed the Resolution of the Assistant City action for estafa should not be brought against the respondents,
Prosecutor. Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition for who are liable only for a loan.
review before the Court of Appeals.
After both parties submitted their respective Memoranda, the ADOPTION AND CUSTODY OF MINORS (R-99-100)
Court of Appeals, it ruled that this case did not involve a trust HERBERT CANG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses
receipt transaction, but a mere loan. LBP now files this petition RONALD V. CLAVANO and MARIA CLARA CLAVANO, respondents.
for review on certiorari. While the case was pending before this G.R. No. 105308 September 25, 1998
Court, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss. They informed Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano who were
the Court that LBP had already assigned to Philippine married on January 27, 1973, begot three children, namely: Keith,
Opportunities for Growth and Income, Inc. all of its rights, title born on July 3, 1973; Charmaine, born on January 23, 1977, and
and interests in the. The respondents also stated that Avent Joseph Anthony, born on January 3, 1981. During the early years
Holdings Corporation, in behalf of ACDC, had already settled of their marriage, the Cang couple’s relationship was
ACDC’s obligation to LBP on October 8, 2009. undisturbed. Not long thereafter, however, Anna Marie learned
of her husband’s alleged extramarital affair with Wilma Soco, a
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 107
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 family friend of the Clavanos. Anna Marie filed a petition for legal dispensed with if the parent has abandoned the child or that such
separation with alimony pendente lite with the then Juvenile and parent is “insane or hopelessly intemperate.” The court may
Domestic Relations Court of Cebu which rendered a decision acquire jurisdiction over the case even without the written
approving the joint manifestation of the Cang spouses providing consent of the parents or one of the parents provided that the
that they agreed to “live separately and apart or from bed and petition for adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant
board.” Herbert Cang then left for US where he sought a divorce exemption from compliance therewith. This is in consonance with
from Anna Marie. Said court issued the divorce decree that also the liberality with which this Court treats the procedural aspect
granted sole custody of the three minor children to Anna Marie, of adoption. In the instant case, only the affidavit of consent of
reserving “rights of visitation at all reasonable times and places” the natural mother was attached to the petition for adoption.
to Herbert. Herbert took an American wife and became a Petitioner’s consent, as the natural father is lacking.
naturalized American citizen. In 1986, he divorced his American Nonetheless, the petition sufficiently alleged the fact of
wife and never remarried. Meanwhile, private respondents abandonment of the minors for adoption by the natural father.
Ronald V. Clavano and Maria Clara Diago Clavano, respectively However, in cases where the father opposes the adoption
the brother and sister-in-law of Anna Marie, filed Special primarily because his consent thereto was not sought, the matter
Proceedings No. 1744-CEB for the adoption of the three minor of whether he had abandoned his child becomes a proper issue
Cang children before the RTC of Cebu. The petition bears the for determination. The issue of abandonment by the oppositor
signature of then 14-year-old Keith signifying consent to his natural parent is a preliminary issue that an adoption court must
adoption. Anna Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent first confront. Only upon failure of the oppositor natural father
alleging that her husband had “evaded his legal obligation to to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he did not abandon
support” his children; that her brothers and sisters including his child may the petition for adoption be considered on its
Ronald V. Clavano, had been helping her in taking care of the merits.
children; that because she would be going to the United States to
attend to a family business, “leaving the children would be a Whether petitioner has so abandoned his children, thereby
problem and would naturally hamper (her) job-seeking venture making his consent to the adoption unnecessary – No, In its
abroad;” and that her husband had “long forfeited his parental ordinary sense, the word “abandon” means to forsake entirely, to
rights” over the children. Upon learning of the petition for forsake or renounce utterly. The dictionaries trace this word to
adoption, petitioner immediately returned to the Philippines the root idea of “putting under a ban.” The emphasis is on the
and filed an opposition thereto. Pending resolution of the finality and publicity with which a thing or body is thus put in the
petition for adoption, petitioner moved to reacquire custody control of another, hence, the meaning of giving up absolutely,
over his children. The RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19, issued an with intent never to resume or claim one’s rights or interests. In
order finding that Anna Marie had, in effect, relinquished custody reference to abandonment of a child by his parent, the act of
over the children and, therefore, such custody should be abandonment imports “any conduct of the parent which evinces
transferred to the father. The court then directed the Clavanos to a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all
deliver custody over the minors to petitioner. parental claims to the child.” It means “neglect or refusal to
On March 27, 1990, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 14, issued a perform the natural and legal obligations of care and support
decree of adoption whereby the petition for adoption of the which parents owe their children.” In the instant case, records
minors Keith, Charmaine and Joseph Anthony all surnamed Cang, disclose that petitioner’s conduct did not manifest a settled
by the petitioners-spouses Ronald V. Clavano and Maria Clara purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental
Diago Clavano is hereby granted and approved. The lower court claims over his children as to constitute abandonment. Physical
concluded that “Simply put, the oppositor Herbert Cang has estrangement alone, without financial and moral desertion, is not
abandoned his children. And abandonment of a child by its parent tantamount to abandonment. While admittedly, petitioner was
is commonly specified by statute as a ground for dispensing with physically absent as he was then in the United States, he was
his consent to its adoption. Indeed, in such case, adoption will be not remiss in his natural and legal obligations of love, care and
allowed not only without the consent of the parent, but even support for his children. He maintained regular communication
against his opposition.” Herbert appealed before the CA, with his wife and children through letters and telephone. He
asserting that the petition for adoption was fatally defective and used to send packages by mail and catered to their whims. Aside
tailored to divest him of parental authority because: (a) he did from letters, petitioner also presented certifications of banks in
not have a written consent to the adoption; (b) he never the U.S.A. showing that even prior to the filing of the petition for
abandoned his children; (c) Keith and Charmaine did not properly adoption, he had deposited amounts for the benefit of his
give their written consent; and (d) the petitioners for adoption children. Parental authority cannot be entrusted to a person
did not present as witness the representative of the Department simply because he could give the child a larger measure of
of Social Welfare and Development who made the case study material comfort than his natural parent. (Not only financial
report required by law. The CA affirmed the decree of adoption consideration) There should be a holistic approach to the matter,
[held: the consent of the parent who has abandoned the child is taking into account the physical, emotional, psychological,
not necessary] hence this petition. mental, social and spiritual needs of the child. [Gusto lang talaga
ilayo ni Anna Marie (and her brothers) ung children from their
WON the petition for adoption was fatally defective as it did not father]. Deprivation of parental authority is one of the effects of
have his written consent as a natural father as required by Article a decree of adoption. But there cannot be a valid decree of
31 (2) of PD No. 603, the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and adoption in this case precisely because, as this Court has
Article 188 (2) of the Family Code. – Yes, As clearly inferred from demonstrated earlier, the finding of the courts below on the issue
the provisions of law, the written consent of the natural parent of petitioner’s abandonment of his family was based on a
is indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption. misappreciation that was tantamount to non-appreciation, of
Nevertheless, the requirement of written consent can be facts on record. Said petition must be denied as it was filed
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 108
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 without the required consent of their father who, by law and Deposition, however, Judge Moya declared that he did not
under the facts of the case at bar, has not abandoned them. dictate decisions in adoption cases. The only decisions he made
TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, as Special Administratrix of the in open court were criminal cases, in which the accused pleaded
Intestate Estate of Deceased Alfredo E. Jacob,petitioner, vs. guilty. Moreover, Judge Moya insisted that the branch where he
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS for was assigned was always indicated in his decisions and orders; yet
the Province of Camarines Sur, and JUAN F. TRIVINO as publisher the questioned Order did not contain this information.
of "Balalong," respondents G.R. No. 135216 August 19, 1999 Furthermore, Pilapil’s conduct gave no indication that he
Tomasa claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Dr. recognized his own alleged adoption, as shown by the documents
Alfredo E. Jacob and was appointed Special Administratix for the that he signed and other acts that he performed thereafter. In the
various estates of the deceased by virtue of a reconstructed same vein, no proof was presented that Dr. Jacob had treated
Marriage Contract between herself and the deceased. Pedro on him as an adopted child. Likewise, both the Bureau of Records
the other hand, claimed to be the legally-adopted son of Alfredo. Management in Manila and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
In support of his claim, he presented an Order issued by then of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, issued Certifications that there was no
Presiding Judge Jose L. Moya, CFI, Camarines Sur, granting the record that Pedro Pilapil had been adopted by Dr. Jacob. Taken
petition for adoption filed by deceased Alfredo in favor of Pedro together, these circumstances inexorably negate the alleged
Pilapil. During the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of adoption of respondent. The burden of proof in establishing
the deceased Alfredo (entitled "Tomasa vda. de Jacob v. Jose adoption is upon the person claiming such relationship. This
Centenera, et al) herein defendant-appellee Pedro sought to Respondent Pilapil failed to do. Moreover, the evidence
intervene therein claiming his share of the deceased’s estate as presented by petitioner shows that the alleged adoption is a
Alfredo's adopted son and as his sole surviving heir. Pedro sham.
questioned the validity of the marriage between appellant REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE R.
Tomasa and his adoptive father Alfredo. Based on the evidence HERNANDEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
presented, the trial court ruled for Pedro (the ampon) sustaining Court, Branch 158, Pasig City and SPOUSES VAN MUNSON y
his claim as the legally adopted child and sole heir of deceased NAVARRO and REGINA MUNSON y ANDRADE, respondents. G.R.
Alfredo and declaring the reconstructed Marriage Contract as No. 117209. February 9, 1996
spurious and non-existent." CA affirmed the RTC. Disagreeing Spouses Van Munson y Navarro and Regina Munson y Andrade
with the above, petitioner lodged her Petition for Review before filed a petition to adopt the minor Kevin Earl Bartolome Moran
this Court. before RTC Pasig. In the very same petition, private respondents
prayed for the change of the first name or said minor adoptee to
Whether or not the marriage between the plaintiff Tomasa Vda. Aaron Joseph, the same being the name with which he was
De Jacob and deceased Alfredo E. Jacob was valid (YES) baptized in keeping with religious tradition and by which he has
Petitioner's marriage is valid, but respondent’s adoption has not been called by his adoptive family, relatives and friends since May
been sufficiently established. It has been established that Dr. 6, 1993 when he arrived at private respondents' residence.
Jacob and petitioner lived together as husband and wife for at Republic filed an opposition, opposed the inclusion of the relief
least five years. Clearly then, the marriage was exceptional in for change of name in the same petition for adoption. RTC
character and did not require a marriage license under Article 76 decided IN FAVOR of the SPOUSES. Republic directly appealed to
of the Civil Code. The Civil Code governs this case, because the SC via Rule 45.
questioned marriage and the assailed adoption took place prior
the effectivity of the Family Code. A presumption established by Whether the LAST name of the adoptee may be changed in the
our Code of Civil Procedure is "that a man and woman deporting same petition for adoption – Yes, The first name sought to be
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful changed belongs to an infant barely over a year old. Kevin Earl has
contract of marriage."Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — not exercised full civil rights nor engaged in any contractual
Always presume marriage. obligations. Neither can he nor petitioners on his behalf, be
deemed to have any immoral, criminal or illicit purpose for
Whether defendant Pedro Pilapil is the legally adopted son of seeking said cha(n)ge of name. It stands to reason that there is no
Alfredo E. Jacob – No, Clearly, Judge Moya could not recall having way that the state or any person may be so prejudiced by the
ever issued the Order of Adoption. More importantly, when action for change of Kevin Earl's first name. Clearly, the law
shown the signature over his name, he positively declared that it allows the adoptee, as a matter of right and obligation, to bear
was not his. The fact that he had glaucoma when his Deposition the surname of the adopter, upon issuance of the decree of
was taken does not discredit his statements. adoption. It is the change of the adoptee's surname to follow
that of the adopter which is the natural and necessary
At the time, he could with medication still read the newspapers; consequence of a grant of adoption and must specifically be
upon the request of the defense counsel, he even read a contained in the order of the court, in fact, even if not prayed
document shown to him. Indeed, we find no reason – and the for by petitioner.
respondent has not presented any – to disregard the Deposition
of Judge Moya. Judge Moya's declaration was supported by the Whether a petition to change the FIRST name of the prospective
expert testimony of NBI Document Examiner Bienvenido Albacea. adoptee and a petition for adoption may correctly be joined – No,
It is noteworthy that Mr. Albacea is a disinterested party, his However, the given or proper name, also known as the first or
services having been sought without any compensation. Christian name, of the adoptee must remain as it was originally
Moreover, his competence was recognized even by Respondent registered in the civil register. The creation of an adoptive
Pilapil’s expert witness, Atty. Desiderio Pagui. Other relationship does not confer upon the adopter a license to change
considerations also cast doubt on the claim of respondent. The the adoptee's registered Christian or first name. The automatic
alleged Order was purportedly made in open court. In his change thereof, premised solely upon the adoption thus granted,
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 109
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 is beyond the purview of a decree of adoption. Neither is it a mere Jurisprudence has recognized, inter alia, the following grounds as
incident in nor an adjunct of an adoption proceeding, such that a being sufficient to warrant a change of name:
prayer therefor furtively inserted in a petition for adoption, as in (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely
this case, cannot properly be granted. A petition for change of difficult to write or pronounce;
name being a proceeding in rem, strict compliance with all the (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of
requirements therefor is indispensable in order to vest the court legitimation or adoption;
with jurisdiction for its adjudication. It is an independent and (c) when the change will avoid confusion;
discrete special proceeding, in and by itself, governed by its own (d) when one has continuously used and been known since
set of rules. A fortiori, it cannot be granted by means of any other childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage;
proceeding. To consider it as a mere incident or an offshoot of (e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a
another special proceeding would be to denigrate its role and Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith
significance as the appropriate remedy available under our and without prejudice to anybody; and
remedial law system. While joinder of causes of action is largely (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no
left to the option of a party litigant, Section 5, Rule 2 of our showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent
present Rules allows causes of action to be joined in one purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public
complaint conditioned upon the following requisites: (a) it will interest.
not violate the rules on jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties; Baptism is not a condition sine qua non to a change of name.
and (b) the causes of action arise out of the same contract, Neither does the fact that the petitioner has been using a
transaction or relation between the parties, or are for demands different name and has become known by it constitute proper
for money or are of the same nature and character. and reasonable cause to legally authorize a change of name.
A petition for adoption and a petition for change of name are Renaming the adoptee cannot be claimed as a right. It is merely a
two special proceedings which, in substance and purpose, are privilege necessitating judicial consent upon compelling grounds.
different from each other. Each action is individually governed by Once such name is registered, regardless of the reasons for such
particular sets of laws and rules. These two proceedings involve choice and even if it be solely for the purpose of identification,
disparate issues. In a petition for adoption, the court is called the same constitutes the official. This effectively authenticates
upon to evaluate the proposed adopter's fitness and the identity of the person and must remain unaltered save when,
qualifications to bring up and educate the adoptee properly for the most compelling reasons shown in an appropriate
(Prasnick vs. Republic, 99 Phil. 665). On the other hand, in a proceeding, its change may merit judicial approval. This decision
petition for change of name, no family relations are created or is without prejudice to private respondents' privilege to legally
affected for what is looked into is the propriety and change the proper or given name of their adopted child, provided
reasonableness of the grounds supporting the proposed change that the same is exercised, this time, via a proper petition for
of name. The rule on permissive joinder of: causes of action is change of name. Of course, the grant thereof is conditioned on
clear. Joinder may be allowed only if the actions show a strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements and
commonality of relationship and conform to the rules on satisfactory proof of the compelling reasons advanced therefor.
jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties (Section 5, Rule 2, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
Rules of Court). These conditions are wanting in the instant case. APPEALS, JAIME B. CARANTO, and ZENAIDA P. CARANTO,
As already pointed out in our Petition (pp. 9-10), an action for respondents. G.R. No. 103695. March 15, 1996
adoption and an action for change of name are, in nature and Carantos filed petition to adopt Midael with prayer for the
purpose, not related to each other and do not arise out of the correction of his first name to Michael before the RTC (adoptee is
same relation between the parties. 15 y/o who had been living with Caranto since he was 7 y/o).
SolGen filed an opposition arguing that although the correction
Whether there is ground to change the FIRST name of the sought concerned only a clerical and innocuous error, it could not
adoptee – None, By Article 408 of the Civil Code, a person's birth be granted because the petition was basically for adoption, not
must be entered in the civil register. The official name of a person the correction of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 of
is that given him in the civil register. That is his name in the eyes the Rules of Court. RTC ruled in favor of Carantos (and held that
of the law. And once the name of a person is officially entered the error could be corrected in the same proceeding for adoption
in the civil register, Article 376 of the same Code seals that to prevent multiplicity of actions, and inconvenience to the
identity with its precise mandate: no person can change his petitioners). SolGen appealed to CA, the CA affirmed RTC in toto.
name or surname without judicial authority. This statutory SolGen filed Rule 45 before the SC.
restriction is premised on the interest of the State in names borne
by individuals and entities for purposes of identification. By Whether the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the subject
reason thereof, the only way that the name of person can be matter of the case, considering that the subject petition for
changed legally is through a petition for change of name under adoption includes prayer to change the first name of the
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. For purposes of an application for prospective adoptee – Yes, this case involves an obvious clerical
change of name under Article 376 of the Civil Code and error in the name of the child sought to be adopted. In this case
correlatively implemented by Rule 103, the only name that may the correction involves merely the substitution of the letters ch
be changed is the true or official name recorded in the civil for the letter d, so that what appears as Midael as given name
register. As earlier mentioned, a petition for change of name would read Michael. Even the Solicitor General admits that the
being a proceeding in rem, impressed as it is with public interest, error is a plainly clerical one. The RTC correctly granted the
strict compliance with all the requisites therefor in order to vest petition for adoption of the minor Midael C. Mazon.
the court with jurisdiction is essential, and failure therein renders
the proceedings a nullity. A change of name is a privilege, not a Whether the RTC correctly granted the prayer to change the
matter of right, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. name of said prospective adoptee – No, Rule 108 (entries subject
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 110
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 to cancellation or correction) also applies to change of name issue in another action for a different purpose. The necessity of
(including those correction of name that is clearly misspelled). an independent action directly impugning the legitimacy is more
Rule 108 thus applies to the present proceeding. Now 3 of this clearly expressed in the Mexican code (article 335) which
Rule provides: 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an provides: "The contest of the legitimacy of a child by the
entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all husband or his heirs must be made by proper complaint before
persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected the competent court; any contest made in any other way is
thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding. The local civil void." This principle applies under our Family Code. Articles 170
registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. and 171 of the code confirm this view, because they refer to "the
He is an indispensable party, without whom no final action to impugn the legitimacy." This action can be brought only
determination of the case can be had. As he was not impleaded by the husband or his heirs and within the periods fixed in the
in this case much less given notice of the proceeding, the decision present articles. The Court stated that legitimacy and filiation can
of the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer for the be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the
correction of entry, is void. The absence of an indispensable party proper party, and not through collateral attack. The same rule is
in a case renders ineffectual all the proceeding subsequent to the applied to adoption such that it cannot also be made subject to
filling of the complaint including the judgment. The necessary a collateral attack. Adoption cannot be assailed collaterally in a
consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an proceeding for the settlement of a decedent’s estate. The Court
indispensable party and to give notice by publication [Ung notice declared that the legality of the adoption by the testatrix can be
given by publication was that pertaining to petition for adoption, assailed only in a separate action brought for that purpose and
only the prayer for adoption of the minor was stated, wala ung cannot be subject to collateral attack. Hence, we have to leave
“correction of his name in the civil registry”] of the petition for out the status of Leonida from the case for annulment of the
correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial “Kasunduan” that supposedly favors petitioners’ cause.
court, so far as the correction of entry was concerned, null and
void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY
matter. ASTORGA GARCIA HONORATO B. CATINDIG, petitioner. G.R. No.
148311. March 31, 2005
EUGENIO R. REYES, joined by TIMOTHY JOSEPH M. REYES, MA. Honorato filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child
GRACIA S. REYES, ROMAN GABRIEL M. REYES, and MA. ANGELA S. Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia; the allegations are:
REYES, Petitioners, vs. LIBRADA F. MAURICIO (deceased) and Stephanie was born on June 26, 1994; that her mother is Gemma
LEONIDA F. MAURICIO, Respondents. Astorga Garcia; that Stephanie has been using her mother’s
G.R. No. 175080 November 24, 2010 middle name and surname; and that he is now a widower and
Eugenio is the registered owner of the subject property located in qualified to be her adopting parent. He prayed that Stephanie’s
Bulacan, which has been adjudicated to him by virtue of an middle name Astorga be changed to "Garcia," her mother’s
extrajudicial settlement among the heirs following the death of surname, and that her surname "Garcia" be changed to
his parents. Mauricios filed a complaint before the DARAB, "Catindig," his surname. RTC granted the petition (held that
alleging that they were the legal heirs of one Godofredo Mauricio, Pursuant to Article 189 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the
the lawful and registered tenant of Eugenio through his minor shall be known as STEPHANIE NATHY CATINDIG). Honorato
predecessors-in-interest to the subject land and contended that moved for clarification and/or reconsideration, praying that
Eugenio caused the preparation of a document denominated as Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname of her natural
Kasunduan dated 28 September 1994 to eject respondents from mother (GARCIA) as her middle name. RTC denied hence
the subject property but such Kasunduan was void, considering Honorato filed directly a Rule 45 before the SC.
that Librada was illiterate and said Kasunduan was neither read
nor explained to her. Eugenio countered that no tenancy Whether an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural
relationship existed between him and respondents and that father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle
Leonida had no legal personality to file the present suit. name – Yes, Law Is Silent As To The Use Of Middle Name – there
Provincial Adjudicator ruled in favor of the MAURICIOS is no law regulating the use of a middle name. Even Article 17611
(concluded that Godofredo was the tenant of Eugenio, and of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255,
Librada, being the surviving spouse, should be maintained in otherwise known as "An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children To Use
peaceful possession of the subject land). The DARAB also ruled in The Surname Of Their Father," is silent as to what middle name a
favor of the MAURICIOS (banked on the Kasunduang Buwisan sa child may use. Notably, the law is likewise silent as to what middle
Sakahan or the leasehold contract executed by Susana in favor of name an adoptee may use.
Godofredo to support the tenancy relationship. Furthermore, the Justice Caguioa suggested that the proposed Article (12) be
DARAB declared the other Kasunduan as void by relying on the modified to the effect that it shall be mandatory on the child to
evaluation of the Provincial Adjudicator as to the legal incapacity use the surname of the father but he may use the surname of the
of Librada to enter into such a contract). Eugenio appealed to CA, mother by way of an initial or a middle name. The Underlying
talo pa rin siya (CA affirmed DARAB) hence he filed a Rule 45 Intent of Adoption Is In Favor of the Adopted Child – Adoption is
before the SC, contending that Leonida is a mere ward of defined as the process of making a child, whether related or not
Godofredo and Librada, thus, not a legal heir. to the adopter, possess in general, the rights accorded to a
legitimate child. It is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem which
Whether Eugenio correctly questioned Leonida’s status as an creates between two persons a relationship similar to that which
adoptive child of Godofredo in the present Rule 45 petition that results from legitimate paternity and filiation. The modern trend
stemmed from a proceeding on tenancy before the DARAB – No, is to consider adoption not merely as an act to establish a
filiation cannot be collaterally attacked. The legitimacy of the relationship of paternity and filiation, but also as an act which
child cannot be contested by way of defense or as a collateral endows the child with a legitimate status. One of the effects of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 111
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of (ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate
the adopter for all intents and purposes. Being a legitimate child son/daughter: Provided, however, That the other spouse has
by virtue of her adoption, it follows that Stephanie is entitled to signified his/her consent thereto; or
all the rights provided by law to a legitimate child without (iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other, which
discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear the was not present in the case at bar. (Section 7, Article III of RA
surname of her father and her mother, as discussed above. 8552)
Stephanie’s continued use of her mother’s surname (Garcia) as The use of the word “shall” means that joint adoption by the
her middle name will maintain her maternal lineage (for her to husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with
well assert or claim her hereditary rights from her natural mother the concept of joint parental authority over the child which is the
in the future). To allow Stephanie to use her mother’s surname as ideal situation. As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level
her middle name will not only sustain her continued loving of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to
relationship with her mother but will also eliminate the stigma of adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony between the
her illegitimacy. Since there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate spouses. Since the petitions for adoption were filed only by
child adopted by her natural father, like Stephanie, to use, as petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial
middle name her mother’s surname, we find no reason why she court was correct in , denying the petitions for adoption on this
should not be allowed to do so. [Other doctrines: adoption ground. Neither does petitioner fall under any of the three
statutes, being humane and salutary, should be liberally exceptions enumerated in Section 7. First, the children to be
construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of adoption. The adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of her
interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and husband Olario. Second, the children are not the illegitimate
paramount consideration, hence, every reasonable intendment children of petitioner. And third, petitioner and Olario are not
should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and legally separated from each other.
compassionate objectives of the law. "In case of doubt in the
interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the Whether the adoption should be granted considering that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail."] alien spouse consented to the adoption - No. The fact that Olario
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM, MONINA gave his consent to the adoption as shown in his Affidavit of
P. LIM, Petitioner. IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL Consent does not suffice. There are certain requirements that
JUDE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner. G.R. Nos. 168992-93 Olario must comply being an American citizen. He must meet the
dated May 21, 2009 qualifications set forth in Section 7 of RA 8552 such as: (1) he
Spouses Monina P. Lim and Primo Lim were childless. must prove that his country has diplomatic relations with the
Subsequently, two minor children, whose parents were unknown, Republic of the Philippines; (2) he must have been living in the
were entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban. Being so eager Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to the filing
to have children of their own, Monina and Primo registered the of the application for adoption; (3) he must maintain such
children to make it appear that they were the children’s parents. residency until the adoption decree is entered; (4) he has legal
The children were named Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. capacity to adopt in his own country; and (5) the adoptee is
Lim. The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were allowed to enter the adopter’s country as the latter’s adopted
their own. Unfortunately, in 1998, Primo died. On 27 December child. None of these qualifications were shown and proved
2000, Monina married Angel Olario, an American citizen. during the trial. These requirements on residency and
Monina decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt cannot likewise
given under RA 8552 to individuals who simulated the birth of a be waived pursuant to Section 7. The children or adoptees are
child. In 2002, she filed separate petitions for adoption of not relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity
Michelle and Michael before the trial court. Michelle was then 25 of petitioner or of Olario. Neither are the adoptees the legitimate
years old and already married and Michael was 18 years and 7 children of petitioner.
months old. Michelle and her husband, Michael and Olario gave
their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of Whether or not joint parental authority is not anymore necessary
Consent. On 15 September 2004, the trial court rendered since the children have been emancipated having reached the age
judgment dismissing the petitions. The trial court ruled that since of majority. Petitioner’s contention is untenable. Parental
Monina had remarried, she should have filed the petition jointly authority includes caring for and rearing the children for civic
with her new husband. Monina appealed contending that the rule consciousness and efficiency and the development of their
on joint adoption must be relaxed because it is the duty of the moral, mental and physical character and well-being. The father
court and the State to protect the paramount interest and welfare and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the
of the child to be adopted. Petitioner argued that the legal maxim persons of their common children. Even the remarriage of the
“dura lex sed lex” is not applicable to adoption cases. She argued surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the
that joint parental authority is not necessary in this case since, at children, unless the court appoints another person to be the
the time the petitions were filed, Michelle was 25 years old and guardian of the person or property of the children. It is true that
already married, while Michael was already 18 years of age. when the child reaches the age of emancipation — that is, when
Parental authority is not anymore necessary since they have he attains the age of majority or 18 years of age — emancipation
been emancipated having attained the age of majority. terminates parental authority over the person and property of
the child, who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts
Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt. of civil life. However, parental authority is merely just one of the
No. The law is explicit. Husband and wife shall jointly adopt except effects of legal adoption. Even if emancipation terminates
in the following cases: parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a legitimate
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child such
the other; or as: (1) to bear the surname of the father and the mother; (2) to
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 112
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 receive support from their parents; and (3) to be entitled to the him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
legitime and other successional rights. Conversely, the adoptive liable.]
parents shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA
benefits to which biological parents are entitled such as support M. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO M. CASTRO" AND
and successional rights. "JAYROSE M. CASTRO," Petitioners, v. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL
GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA REGINA GREGORIO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 188801, October 15, 2014
MELODY R. NERY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. GLICERIO A. Jose (belongs to prominent and respected family, being one of
SAMPANA, Respondent. A.C. No. 10196 September 9, the children of former Gov. Castro) is the estranged husband of
2014 Rosario Mata Castro (Rosario) and the father of Joanne.
This is a disbarment complaint filed by Melody R. Nery (Nery) [Namatayan sila ng anak noon, marriage had allegedly been
against Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana (Sampana) for failing to file the troubled, naghiwalay, nagkabalikan, nagkaanak - Joanne].
petition for adoption despite receiving his legal fees and for Afterwards, they separated permanently because Rosario alleged
making Nery believe that the petition was already filed. Nery that Jose had homosexual tendencies. Jose filed a petition for
engaged the services of Sampana for the annulment of her adoption before the RTC alleging that Jed and Regina were his
marriage and for her adoption by an alien adopter. The petition illegitimate children with Lilibeth (housekeeper). The trial court
for annulment was eventually granted, and Nery paid approved the adoption (ruling that no opposition had been
P200,000.00 to Sampana. As for the adoption, Sampana asked received), a certificate of finality was issued in 2006. Rosario,
Nery if she had an aunt, whom they could represent as the wife through her lawyer, Atty. Rene V. Saguisag, filed a complaint for
of her alien adopter [Under the Domestic Adoption Act provision, disbarment against Jose with the IBP alleging that he had been
which Sampana suggested, the alien adopter can jointly adopt a remiss in providing support for their daughter, Joanne. She also
relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of alleged that Jose made blatant lies to the trial court by alleging
his/her Filipino spouse, and the certification of the alien’s that Jed and Regina [ang totoo – anak daw to ni Lilibeth and Larry]
qualification to adopt is waived]. Sampana then gave Nery a were his illegitimate children with Larry's wife, Lilibeth, to cover
blurred copy of a marriage contract, which they would use for her up for his homosexual relationship with Larry. [Jose denied the
adoption. Thereafter, Nery paid Sampana P100,000.00. Sampana allegations, nagbibigay naman daw siya ng support tinatanggihan
informed Nery that he already filed the petition for adoption. lang, anak daw talaga niya sa labas sina Jed and Regina, his
Nery inquired from Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan about the income had been diminished because of his medical treatments –
status of the petition for adoption and discovered that there was implored IBP to weigh on the case with "justice and equity."] Jose
no such petition filed in the court, hence he sought died. Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for annulment of
reimbursement of P100 thousand from Sampana. The IBP found judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure with the
Sampana guilty of malpractice for making Nery believe that he Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the October 16, 2000 decision
already filed the petition for adoption and for failing to file the of the trial court approving Jed and Regina's adoption. The CA
petition despite receiving his legal fees, imposing a penalty of 3 denied the petition hence this petition.
months suspension from practice of law. The SC held that
Sampana violated the Code’s mandate to deliver the client’s Whether the court’s decision “adoption of Jed and Regina” should
funds upon demand. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand be annulled – Yes, The grant of adoption over respondents should
the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has be annulled as the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction
appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust over the proceedings, and the favorable decision was obtained
reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the through extrinsic fraud.
legal profession. Since this is not the first administrative case filed
against Sampana, the SC increased the penalty for Sampana’s The law on adoption (RA 8552) requires that the adoption by the
malpractice and violation of the Code of Professional father of a child born out of wedlock obtain not only the consent
Responsibility to suspension from the practice of law for three (3) of his wife but also the consent of his legitimate children [if they
years. Sampana was likewise ordered to return to Nery the P100 are 10 years old or older]. [joint adoption by the husband and the
thousand with 12% interest per annum xxx and 6% interest per wife is mandatory – but there are exceptions, such as where a
annum. spouse seeks to adopt his or her own children born out of
[Other doctrine: Acceptance of money from a client establishes wedlock, but the spouse seeking to adopt must first obtain the
an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity consent of his or her spouse]. His submission of a fraudulent
to the client’s cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves affidavit of consent in her name cannot be considered
full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of compliance of the requisites of the law. Had Rosario been given
importance. A lawyer also owes it to the court, their clients, and notice by the trial court of the proceedings, she would have had
other lawyers to be candid and fair. Thus, the Code of a reasonable opportunity to contest the validity of the affidavit.
Professional Responsibility clearly states: CANON 15 - A lawyer Since her consent was not obtained, Jose was ineligible to adopt.
shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and The consent of the adopter's other children is necessary as it
transactions with his client. CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have
his possession. Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and to share their parent's love and care, as well as their future
property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x. CANON 17 legitimes, with another person. Since the trial court failed to
- A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be personally serve notice on Rosario and Joanne of the
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. CANON 18 - proceedings, it never validly acquired jurisdiction. There was
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. extrinsic fraud (the trial court granted the decree of adoption
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to under fraudulent circumstances). Jose's actions prevented
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 113
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Rosario and Joanne from having a reasonable opportunity to Section 20. Effects of Rescission. – If the petition [for rescission of
contest the adoption. Had Rosario and Joanne been allowed to adoption] is granted, the parental authority of the adoptee's
participate, the trial court would have hesitated to grant Jose's biological parent(s), if known, or the legal custody of the
petition since he failed to fulfill the necessary requirements under Department shall be restored if the adoptee is still a minor or
the law. (Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the incapacitated. The reciprocal rights and obligations of the
prevailing party in litigation committed outside of the trial of the adopter(s) and the adoptee to each other shall be extinguished. =
case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully applicable in this case by analogy (in case of death of adopter).
exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on Cornelio’s death at the time of John’s minority resulted in the
him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away from court, by restoration of petitioner’s parental authority over the adopted
giving him a false promise of a compromise, or where the child.
defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in Even though parental authority is severed by virtue of adoption,
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney the ties between the adoptee and the biological parents are not
fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat.). entirely eliminated. To demonstrate, the biological parents, in
[Badges of Fraud: the petition for adoption was filed in a place some instances, are able to inherit from the adopted, as can be
that had no relation to any of the parties, two different sets of gleaned from Art. 190 of the Family Code. It is apparent that the
fraudulent certificates were procured as to the birth certificates of biological parents retain their rights of succession to the estate
Jed and Regina, Jose blatantly lied to the trial court when he of their child who was the subject of adoption. While the
declared that his motivation for adoption was because he and his benefits arising from the death of an SSS covered employee do
wife, Rosario, were childless, to the prejudice of their daughter, not form part of the estate of the adopted child, the pertinent
Joanne. The consent of Rosario to the adoption was also disputed provision on legal or intestate succession at least reveals the
by Rosario and alleged to be fraudulent.] policy on the rights of the biological parents and those by
adoption vis-à-vis the right to receive benefits from the
BERNARDINA P. BARTOLOME, Petitioner, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY adopted. Consequently, the confluence of circumstances – from
SYSTEM and SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC., Cornelio’s death during John’s minority, the restoration of
Respondents. G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014 petitioner’s parental authority, the documents showing
John Colcol (John), born on June 9, 1983, was employed as singularity of address [Mag-ina lived together under one roof],
electrician by Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., on board the and John’s clear intention to designate petitioner as a beneficiary
vessel Maersk Danville, since February 2008. As such, he was [he indicated Bernardina as his beneficiary in his SSS application]
enrolled under the government's Employees' Compensation - effectively made petitioner, to Our mind, entitled to death
Program (ECP). Unfortunately, on June 2, 2008, an accident benefit claims as a secondary beneficiary under PD 626 as a
occurred on board the vessel whereby steel plates fell on John, dependent parent. Cornelio’s adoption of John, without more,
which led to his untimely death the following day. Thus, does not deprive petitioner of the right to receive the benefits
petitioner Bernardina P. Bartolome, John’s biological mother and, stemming from John’s death as a dependent parent given
allegedly, sole remaining beneficiary, filed a claim for death Cornelio’s untimely demise during John’s minority. Since the
benefits under PD 626 with the Social Security System (SSS). parent by adoption already died, then the death benefits under
However, the SSS denied the claim (saying that she cannot claim the Employees' Compensation Program shall accrue solely to
considering that John was legally adopted by Cornelio Colcol). The herein petitioner, John's sole remaining beneficiary.
denial was appealed to the Employees’ Compensation
Commission (ECC), which affirmed the ruling of the SSS. [
HABEAS CORPUZ (R-102)
Whether or not petitioner (biological mother) is entitled to the ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and
death benefits claim in view of John’s work-related demise – Yes. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, respondents. G.R.
Are the biological parents of the covered, but legally adopted, No. 139789 May 12, 2000
employee considered secondary beneficiaries and, thus, entitled, IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
in appropriate cases, to receive the benefits under the POTENCIANO ILUSORIO
Employees' Compensation Program (ECP)? Yes. The rule limiting ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-
death benefits claims to the legitimate parents is contrary to law. BILDNER, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO-YAP, JOHN DOES and JANE DOES,
"Parents" in the phrase "dependent parents" in the afore-quoted respondents. G.R. No. 139789 July 19, 2001
Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is used and ought to be taken in “Once again we see the sad tale of a prominent family shattered
its general sense and cannot be unduly limited to "legitimate by conflicts on expectancy in fabled fortune.”
parents" as what the ECC did. The phrase "dependent parents"
should, therefore, include all parents, whether legitimate or Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano Ilusorio contracted matrimony and
illegitimate and whether by nature or by adoption. When the law lived together for a period 30 years. In 1972, they separated from
does not distinguish, one should not distinguish. Plainly, bed and board for undisclosed reasons. Out of their marriage, the
"dependent parents" are parents, whether legitimate or spouses had 6 children. The children, Sylvia and Erlinda alleged
illegitimate, biological or by adoption, who are in need of support that during the time Potenciano arrived from US and lived with
or assistance. BERNARDINA qualifies as John’s dependent Erlinda for 5 months, their mother gave Potenciano an overdose
parent. of 200 mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft, an antidepressant drug
prescribed by his doctor in New York, U.S.A. As a consequence,
Potenciano’s health deteriorated. Erlinda then filed with RTC a
Section 20 of Republic Act No. 855222 (RA 8552), otherwise petition for guardianship over the person and property of
known as the Domestic Adoption Act, provides: Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latter’s advanced age, frail health,
poor eyesight and impaired judgment. Subsequently, after
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 114
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano Ilusorio Whether Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and Articles 68 and
did not return to Antipolo City and instead lived at Cleveland 69 of the Family Code may be used by petitioner-movant as
Condominium, Makati. Erlinda filed with the CA a petition for leverage so that the Court may declare that she and deceased
habeas corpus. She alleged that respondents (mga anak niya?!) spouse should have lived together. No, One reason why Erlinda K.
refused petitioner’s demands to see and visit her husband and Ilusorio sought custody of her husband was that respondents Lin
prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City. CA and Sylvia were illegally restraining Potenciano Ilusorio to
allowed visitation rights to Erlinda but ordered that the writ of fraudulently deprive her of property rights out of pure greed.
habeas corpus previously issued be recalled and the herein She claimed that her two children were using their sick and frail
petition for habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of unlawful father to sign away Potenciano and Erlinda' s property to
restraint or detention of the subject of the petition. companies controlled by Lin and Sylvia. She also argued that
since Potenciano retired as director and officer of Baguio Country
Whether a wife may compel her husband to live with her in Club and Philippine Oversees Telecommunications, she would
conjugal bliss by way writ of a writ of habeas corpus. NO. The logically assume his position and control. Yet, Lin and Sylvia were
evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention the ones controlling the corporations. The fact of illegal restraint
or deprivation of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio’s liberty that would has not been proved during the hearing at the Court of Appeals
justify the issuance of the writ. The fact that lawyer Potenciano on March 23, 1999. Potenciano himself declared that he was not
Ilusorio is about 86 years of age, or under medication does not prevented by his children from seeing anybody and that he had
necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. Soundness of no objection to seeing his wife and other children whom he
mind does not hinge on age or medical condition but on the loved. Erlinda highlighted that her husband suffered from various
capacity of the individual to discern his actions. After due hearing, ailments. Thus, Potenciano Ilusorio did not have the mental
the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no unlawful capacity to decide for himself. Hence, Erlinda argued that
restraint on his liberty. Potenciano be brought before the Supreme Court so that we
The Court of Appeals also observed that lawyer Potenciano could determine his mental state. We were not convinced that
Ilusorio did not request the administrator of the Cleveland Potenciano Ilusorio was mentally incapacitated to choose
Condominium not to allow his wife and other children from whether to see his wife or not. Again, this is a question of fact that
seeing or visiting him. He made it clear that he did not object to has been decided in the Court of Appeals. As to whether the
seeing them. As to lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio’s mental state, the children were in fact taking control of the corporations, these
Court of Appeals observed that he was of sound and alert mind, are matters that may be threshed out in a separate proceeding,
having answered all the relevant questions to the satisfaction of irrelevant in habeas corpus.
the court. Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the The law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live
capacity to make choices. In this case, the crucial choices revolve together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity. The sanction
on his residence and the people he opts to see or live with. The therefor is the "spontaneous, mutual affection between husband
choices he made may not appeal to some of his family members and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" to enforce
but these are choices which exclusively belong to Potenciano. consortium. Obviously, there was absence of empathy between
He made it clear before the Court of Appeals that he was not spouses Erlinda and Potenciano, having separated from bed and
prevented from leaving his house or seeing people. With that board since 1972. We defined empathy as a shared feeling
declaration, and absent any true restraint on his liberty, we have between husband and wife experienced not only by having
no reason to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals. With spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual
his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, communion. Marital union is a two-way process. Marriage is
Potenciano Ilusorio may not be the subject of visitation rights definitely for two loving adults who view the relationship with
against his free choice. Otherwise, we will deprive him of his right "amor gignit amorem” respect, sacrifice and a continuing
to privacy. Needless to say, this will run against his fundamental commitment to togetherness, conscious of its value as a sublime
constitutional right. The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority social institution.
when it awarded visitation rights in a petition for habeas corpus
where Erlinda never even prayed for such right. The ruling is not
consistent with the finding of subject’s sanity. When the court
ordered the grant of visitation rights, it also emphasized that the ATTY. EDWARD SERAPIO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
same shall be enforced under penalty of contempt in case of DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and PHILIPPINE
violation or refusal to comply. Such assertion of raw, naked power NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-GENERAL LEANDRO MENDOZA,
is unnecessary. The Court of Appeals missed the fact that the case respondents. G.R. No. 148468. January 28, 2003
did not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but the The records show that petitioner was a member of the Board of
right of a wife to visit a husband. In case the husband refuses to Trustees and the Legal Counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth
see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without Foundation, a non-stock, non-profit foundation established in
threat of any penalty attached to the exercise of his right. NO February 2000 ostensibly for the purpose of providing
COURT IS EMPOWERED AS A JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO COMPEL educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged but
A HUSBAND TO LIVE WITH HIS WIFE. Coverture cannot be deserving Muslim youth and students, and support to research
enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by and advance studies of young Muslim educators and scientists.
sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is a matter beyond Petitioner SERAPIO, as trustee of the Foundation, received on its
judicial authority and is best left to the man and woman’s free behalf a donation in the amount of (P200 Million) from Luis
choice. "Chavit" Singson. Petitioner received the donation and turned
--- over the said amount to the Foundation's treasurer who later
This is an MR to the decision in the 2000 case above. deposited it in the Foundation's account with the Equitable PCI
Bank. Gov. Singson publicly accused then President Joseph E.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 115
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Estrada and his cohorts of engaging in several illegal activities, exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an
including its operation on the illegal numbers game known as application for bail with the court where the criminal case is
jueteng. This triggered the filing with the Office of the pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed. The issuance
Ombudsman of several criminal complaints against Joseph of a writ of habeas corpus would not only be unjustified but would
Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and petitioner, together with other also preempt the Sandiganbayan's resolution of the pending
persons. Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan several application for bail of petitioner. The recourse of petitioner is to
Informations with plunder. No bail was recommended for the forthwith proceed with the hearing on his application for bail.
provisional release of all the accused, including petitioner.
Sandiganbayan finding probable cause to justify the issuance of PANFILO LACSON, MICHAEL RAY B. AQUINO and CESAR O.
warrants of arrest for the accused, including petitioner. MANCAO, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ,
Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order on the same P/DIRECTOR LEANDRO MENDOZA, and P/SR. SUPT. REYNALDO
date for the arrest of petitioner. When apprised of said order, BERROYA, respondents. G.R. No. 147780 May 10, 2001
petitioner voluntarily surrendered at 9:45 p.m. on the same day Former President Joseph Estrada was arrested upon the warrant
to Philippine National Police Chief Gen. Leandro Mendoza. issued by the Sandiganbayan in connection with the criminal case
Petitioner has since been detained at Camp Crame for said for plunder filed against him. Several hundreds of policemen were
charge. He filed a petition for bail but such was postponed several deployed to effect his arrest. At the time, a number of Mr.
times. The bail hearing on June 26, 2001 did not again proceed Estrada's supporters, who were then holding camp outside his
because on said date petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a residence in Greenhills Subdivision, sought to prevent his arrest.
motion to quash the amended Information. He further claims that A skirmish ensued between them and the police. The police had
the Sandiganbayan, through its questioned orders and to employ batons and water hoses to control the rock-throwing
resolutions postponing the bail hearings effectively denied him of pro-Estrada rallyists and allow the sheriffs to serve the warrant.
his right to bail and to due process of law. Hence, the filing of writ Mr. Estrada and his son and co-accused, Mayor Jinggoy Estrada,
of habeas corpus. were then brought to Camp Crame where, with full media
coverage, their fingerprints were obtained and their mug shots
Whether petitioner was deprived of his right to due process in the taken.
plunder case and should thus be released from detention via a Later that day, and on the succeeding days, a huge gathered at
writ of habeas corpus – No, As a general rule, the writ of habeas the EDSA Shrine to show its support for the deposed President.
corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained Senators Enrile, Santiago, Honasan, opposition senatorial
of his liberty in custody of an officer under a process issued by candidates including petitioner Lacson, as well as other political
the court which jurisdiction to do so. In exceptional personalities, spoke before the crowd during these rallies. In the
circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the courts even meantime, on April 28, 2001, Mr. Estrada and his son were
when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest brought to the Veterans memorial Medical Center for a medical
or his voluntary surrender, for this writ of liberty is recognized as check-up. It was announced that from there, they would be
"the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual transferred to Fort Sto. Domingo in Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" due to "its On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo, faced by an "angry
ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes." and violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed
Thus, in previous cases, we issued the writ where the deprivation weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons" assaulting
of liberty, while initially valid under the law, had later become and attempting to break into Malacañang, issued Proclamation
invalid, and even though the persons praying for its issuance were No. 38 declaring that there was a state of rebellion in the NCR.
not completely deprived of their liberty. The Court finds no basis She likewise issued General Order No. 1 directing the AFP and the
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in favor of petitioner. PNP to suppress the rebellion in the NCR. Warrantless arrests of
The general rule that habeas corpus does not lie where the several alleged leaders and promoters of the "rebellion" were
person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of thereafter effected. Pursuant to the proclamation, several key
an officer under process issued by a court which had jurisdiction leaders of the opposition were ordered arrested. Senator Enrile
to issue the same applies, because petitioner is under detention was arrested without warrant in his residence at around 4:00 in
pursuant to the order of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan the afternoon. Likewise arrested without warrant the following
after the filing by the Ombudsman of the amended information day was former Ambassador Ernesto Maceda. Senator Honasan
for plunder against petitioner and his co-accused. Petitioner had and Gen. Lacson were also ordered arrested but the authorities
in fact voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities upon have so far failed to apprehend them. Ambassador Maceda was
learning that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. The ruling temporarily released upon recognizance while Senator Ponce
in Moncupa vs. Enrile that habeas corpus will lie where the Enrile was ordered released by the Court on cash bond. Aggrieved
deprivation of liberty which was initially valid has become by the warrantless arrests, and the declaration of a "state of
arbitrary in view of subsequent developments finds no rebellion," which allegedly gave a semblance of legality to the
application in the present case because the hearing on arrests, the following four related petitions were filed before the
petitioner's application for bail has yet to commence. As stated Court – (1) G. R. No. 147780 for prohibition, injunction,
earlier, they delay in the hearing of petitioner's petition for bail mandamus, and habeas corpus (with an urgent application for
cannot be pinned solely on the Sandiganbayan or on the the issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction) filed by
prosecution for that matter. Petitioner himself is partly to be Panfilio M. Lacson, Michael Ray B. Aquino, and Cezar O. Mancao;
blamed. Moreover, a petition for habeas corpus is not the (2) G. R. No. 147781 for mandamus and/or review of the factual
appropriate remedy for asserting one's right to bail. It cannot be basis for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of corpus, with prayer for the suspension of the privilege of the writ
right but on the discretion of the court and the latter has not of habeas corpus, with prayer for a TRO filed by Miriam Defensor-
abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even Santiago; (3) G. R. No. 147799 for prohibition and injunction with
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 116
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining and careful scrutiny of the records, particularly the affidavit of
order filed by Ronaldo A. Lumbao; and (4) G. R. No. 147810 for arrest, reveals that no payment was ever made by the police
certiorari and prohibition filed by the political party Laban ng officers for the supposed object of the buy-bust operations. The
Demokratikong Pilipino. police officers have not even alleged in their affidavits that
payment was made to respondent in exchange for the shabu. No
Whether the arrest or impending arrest without warrant, buy-bust money was ever presented. The certificate of inventory
pursuant to a declaration of "state of rebellion" by the President does not show any buy-bust money. These stick out like a sore
of the above-mentioned persons and unnamed other persons thumb in the case at bar. Suffice it to say that one of the essential
similarly situated suspected of having committed rebellion is elements to be established in the prosecution of the drug "buy-
illegal, being unquestionably a deprivation of liberty and violative bust" cases, that is, "the delivery of the thing sold and the
of the Bill of Rights under the Constitution – Petitions were payment therefore" is wanting. It was aptly said in the case of
dismissed. All the foregoing petitions assail the declaration of a People v. Alilin, 206 SCRA 773, that: "To sustain a conviction for
state of rebellion by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the selling prohibited drugs, the same must be clearly and
warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having unmistakably established."
no basis both in fact and in law. Significantly, on May 6, 2001, The Justice Secretary directed the City Prosecutor of Cebu City to
President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of the declaration withdraw the information. PDEA filed a motion for
of a "state of rebellion" in Metro Manila. Accordingly, the instant reconsideration but was denied by the Justice Secretary. Finding
petitions have been rendered moot and academic. As to that Adam could not be held liable for the crime charged, Judge
petitioners' claim that the proclamation of a "state of rebellion" Ingles issued an Order on granting the Motion to Withdraw
is being used by the authorities to justify warrantless arrests, the Information and ordering the release of the accused, unless
Secretary of Justice denies that it has issued a particular order to otherwise held for another valid ground. The dispositive portion
arrest specific persons in connection with the "rebellion." He of the Order reads:
states that what is extant are general instructions to law Accordingly, the "Motion to Withdraw Information" is hereby
enforcement officers and military agencies to implement GRANTED and the accused is ordered immediately released
Proclamation No. 38. In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the unless another valid ground exists for her continued detention.
authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons The prosecution and/or PDEA are/is ordered to turn over to this
suspected of rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of court within three (3) days from receipt hereof the dangerous
the Rules of Court, if the circumstances so warrant. The drug described in the information which shall in turn be
warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not based on the confiscated in favor of the state for proper disposition unless the
declaration of a "state of rebellion." the prayer for prohibition prosecution intends to refile or file another case against the
and mandamus improper because they have other remedies (i.e., accused which it deems appropriate as double jeopardy has not
ask for preliminary investigation, etc.). At best, the instant attached. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
petition may be considered as an action for declaratory relief, confinement or detention in which any person is deprived of his
petitioner claiming that its right to freedom of expression and liberty, or in which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
freedom of assembly is affected by the declaration of a "state of from the person entitled to it. Its essential object and purpose is
rebellion" and that said proclamation is invalid for being contrary to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve
to the Constitution. SC has no jurisdiction over this because the a person from it if such restraint is illegal. The singular function
constitution limits the original jurisdiction of SC to cases affecting of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over freedom of physical liberty. But since Adam has been released
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, upon order of the trial judge, the petition has become moot.
and habeas corpus. PETITIONS are hereby dismissed but agents ANITA MANGILA, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE HERIBERTO M.
xxx are enjoined from arresting petitioners w/o the required PANGILINAN, ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR II LUCIA JUDY SOLINAP,
judicial warrant. and NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (DIRECTOR
ANISAH IMPAL SANGCA, petitioner, vs. THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF REYNALDO WYCOCO), Respondents. G.R. No. 160739, July 17,
CEBU CITY and THE PRESIDING JUDGE, Regional Trial Court, 2013
Branch 58, Cebu City, respondents. G.R. No. 175864 June 8, 2007 Anita and four others were charged of 7 criminal complaints with
On January 4, 2007, petitioner Anisah Impal Sangca filed the syndicated estafa. The complaints arose from the recruiting and
instant petition praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus promising of employment by Mangila and the others to the
and the release of Lovely Impal Adam who was detained in the private complainants as overseas contract workers in Toronto,
Cebu City Jail for alleged violation of Section 5, Article 2 of Canada, and from the collection of visa processing fees,
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous membership fees and on-line application the private
Drugs Act of 2002. (PDEA) received information that Adam was complainants without lawful authority from the POEA. Judge
engaged in illegal drug trafficking activities in Cebu City and Pangilinan conducted a preliminary investigation on the
neighboring cities and municipalities. Police Chief Inspector complaints. After examining one of the complainants, Judge
Josefino Ligan together with FO1 Rayford A. Yap and PO2 Dindo Pangilinan issued a warrant for the arrest of Mangila and her
M. Tuliao, planned an entrapment operation. The inquest cohorts without bail. On the next day, the entire records of the
prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case but was cases, including the warrant of arrest, were transmitted to the
disapproved by the City Prosecutor. Consequently, an City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City for further proceedings
information charging Adam with violation of Section 5, Article 2 and appropriate action in accordance with the prevailing rules. As
of R.A. No. 9165 was filed before the Regional Trial Court of a consequence, Mangila was arrested on June 18, 2003 and
Cebu City. On petition for review before the Department of detained at the headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila of the NBI.
Justice, Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez found no probable cause to Mangila filed in the CA petition for habeas corpus to obtain her
hold Adam liable for the offense charged, to wit: A very thorough release from detention. The CA denied the petition for habeas
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 117
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 corpus for its lack of merit (held that As a general rule, a writ of MA. LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for and in behalf of her
habeas corpus will not be granted where relief may be had or minor child, CHARLES CHRISTIAN ELEOSIDA, petitioner, vs. LOCAL
could have been procured by resort to another general remedy. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and CARLOS VILLENA
As pointed out in Luna vs. Plaza, if petitioner is detained by virtue BORBON, respondents. [G.R. No. 130277. May 9, 2002]
of a warrant of arrest, which is allegedly invalid, the remedy Petitioner Ma. Lourdes Eleosida filed a petition before the
available to her is not a petition for habeas corpus but a petition Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking to correct the
to quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for reinvestigation following entries in the birth certificate of her son, Charles
of the case by the Municipal Judge or by the Provincial Fiscal). Christian: first, the surname "Borbon" should be changed to
Mangila’s MR was denied hence she filed this appeal via petition "Eleosida;" second, the date of the parents' wedding should be
for review on certiorari. left blank; and third, the informant's name should be "Ma.
Lourdes B. Eleosida," instead of "Ma. Lourdes E. Borbon."
[Whether a petition for HC is the proper remedy in the present In support of her petition, petitioner alleged that she gave birth
case considering that Mangila was detained by virtue of a warrant to her son out of wedlock on May 24, 1992; that she and the boy's
of arrest issued by MTCC Puerto Princesa – No] Is habeas corpus father, Carlos Borbon, were never married; and that the child is
the proper remedy to release Mangila from detention? No. The therefore illegitimate and should follow the mother's surname.
high prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been devised as a The petition impleaded the Local Registrar of Quezon City and
speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful Carlos Villena Borbon as respondents. The trial court motu
restraint. Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor proprio dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It ruled: “It is an
intended as substitute for the trial court’s function. It cannot take established jurisprudence that, only CLERICAL ERRORS OF A
the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be HARMLESS AND INNOCUOUS NATURE like: misspelled name,
used to investigate and consider questions of error that might be occupation of the parents, etc., may be the subject of a judicial
raised relating to procedure or on the merits. It has also been held order (contemplated under Article 412 of the New Civil Code),
that where restraint is under legal process, mere errors and authorizing changes or corrections and: NOT as may affect the
irregularities, which do not render the proceedings void, are not CIVIL STATUS, NATIONALITY OR CITIZENSHIP OF THE PERSONS
grounds for relief by habeas corpus because in such cases, the INVOLVED. The matters desired to be cancelled and/or changed
restraint is not illegal. A writ of habeas corpus, which is regarded by petitioner cannot be considered falling under the ambit of the
as a "palladium of liberty," is a prerogative writ which does not words ‘clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.’
issue as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court
or judge. It is, however, a writ of right on proper formalities being Whether corrections of entries in the certificate of live birth
made by proof. Resort to the writ is not to inquire into the pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code, in relation to Rule 108
criminal act of which a complaint is made but unto the right of of the Rules of Court may be allowed even if the errors to be
liberty, notwithstanding the act, and the immediate purpose to corrected are substantial and not merely clerical errors of a
be served is relief from illegal restraint. The primary, if not the harmless and innocuous nature – Yes, Rule 108 of the Revised
only object of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum, is to Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or
determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is correction of entries in the civil registry. The proceedings under
held. With Mangila’s arrest and ensuing detention being by said rule may either be summary or adversary in nature. If the
virtue of the order lawfully issued by Judge Pangilinan, the writ correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then
of habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy to relieve her the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification
from the restraint on her liberty. This is because the restraint, affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is
being lawful and pursuant to a court process, could not be deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is
inquired into through habeas corpus. It was clear that under adversary.
Section 5, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the resolution of the investigating judge was not final but was still In Republic vs. Valencia, even substantial errors in a civil registry
subject to the review by the public prosecutor who had the power may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108
to order the release of the detainee if no probable cause should provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of
be ultimately found against her. In the context of the rule, the appropriate adversary proceeding (one where the trial court
Mangila had no need to seek the issuance of the writ of habeas has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been
corpus to secure her release from detention. Her proper recourse fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been
was to bring the supposed irregularities attending the conduct given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case, and
of the preliminary investigation and the issuance of the warrant where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and
for her arrest to the attention of the City Prosecutor, who had considered.). Procedure of adversary proceeding: the persons
been meanwhile given the most direct access to the entire who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the
records of the case, including the warrant of arrest, following cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are--(1)
Judge Pangilinan’s transmittal of them to the City Prosecutor for the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have or claim any
appropriate action. We agree with the CA, therefore, that the interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the
writ of habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute for petition, it becomes the duty of the court to--(1) issue an order
another available remedy. fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2)
Restraint that is lawful and pursuant to a court process cannot be cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three
inquired into through habeas corpus. (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the
CHANGE OF NAME VS. CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRIES, petition:--(1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or
AS AMENDED R.A. 9048 AND 10172 (RULE 103 VS. RULE 108) claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or
correction is sought.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 118
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 It is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be made for correction of entries in the subject documents despite the
by petitioner are not merely clerical or harmless errors but failure of respondents to implead the minors’ mother, Marivel, as
substantial ones as they would affect the status of the marriage an indispensable party and to offer sufficient evidence to warrant
between petitioner and Carlos Borbon, as well as the legitimacy the corrections with regard to the questioned “married” status of
of their son, Charles Christian. Changes of such nature, however, Carlito and his siblings’ parents, and the latter’s citizenship.
are now allowed under Rule 108 in accordance with our ruling in Petitioner also faulted the trial court for ordering the change of
Republic vs. Valencia provided that the appropriate procedural the name “Carlito John Kho” to “Carlito Kho” for non-
requirements are complied with. The records show that upon compliance with jurisdictional requirements for a change of
receipt of the petition, the trial court issued a notice of hearing name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. The CA denied
setting the hearing. The trial court likewise ordered the petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
publication of said notice once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation and its posting in In the present petition, petitioner contends that since the
selected places in Metro Manila. The notice stated that the changes sought by respondents were substantial in nature, they
petitioner shall prove her petition during said hearing and all could only be granted through an adversarial proceeding in
other persons having or claiming any interest thereon shall also which indispensable parties, such as Marivel and respondents’
appear and show if there is any reason why the petition should parents, should have been notified or impleaded. Petitioner
not be granted. Respondents Carlos Villena Borbon, the Local Civil further contends that the jurisdictional requirements to change
Registrar of Quezon City and the Solicitor General were all Carlito’s name under Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court
furnished with a copy of the notice of hearing together with a were not satisfied.
copy of the petition. The trial court issued a second order giving
the petitioner an opportunity to show compliance with the Whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents
jurisdictional requirements and to present evidence. The rendered the trial short of the required adversary proceeding and
foregoing satisfy all the requirements of Rule 108 to make it an the trial court’s judgment void – No, A similar issue was earlier
adversary proceeding. It was therefore an error for the trial court raised in Barco v. Court of Appeals. Verily, a petition for
to dismiss the petition motu proprio without allowing the correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not
petitioner to present evidence to support her petition and all the against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the
other persons who have an interest over the matter to oppose parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is
the same. validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice
If what is sought to be changed are not clerical errors but to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar
substantial ones, they may still be allowed (Rule 108) provided indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any
that the appropriate procedural requirements are complied with sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication
(notice of hearing and publication to make it an adversary of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case
proceeding) and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Given
the above ruling, it becomes unnecessary to rule on whether
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CARLITO I. KHO, MICHAEL KHO, Marivel or respondents’ parents should have been impleaded as
MERCY NONA KHO-FORTUN, HEDDY MOIRA KHO-SERRANO, parties to the proceeding. It may not be amiss to mention,
KEVIN DOGMOC KHO (Minor), and KELLY DOGMOC KHO (Minor) however, that during the hearing on January 31, 2002, the city
G.R No. 170340 JUNE 29, 2007 prosecutor who was acting as representative of the OSG did not
Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira raise any objection to the non-inclusion of Marivel and Carlito’s
filed before the RTC of Butuan City a verified petition for parents as parties to the proceeding. Parenthetically, it seems
correction of entries in the civil registry of Butuan City to effect highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings
changes in their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked to correct the entries in her children’s birth certificates, especially
the court in behalf of his minor children, Kevin and Kelly, to order since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court were all
the correction of some entries in their birth certificates. The Local sent to the residence she shared with Carlito and the children. It
Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent. As is also well to remember that the role of the court in hearing a
required, the petition was published for three consecutive weeks petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is to
in Mindanao Daily Patrol-CARAGA, a newspaper of general ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. Hence, while
circulation, after which it was set for hearing on August 9, 2001. the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs
The city civil registrar stated her observations and suggestions to petitions for change of name) were not complied with,
the proposed corrections in the birth records of Carlito and his observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect the
siblings but interposed no objections to the other amendments. correction sought for.
The OSG entered its appearance with an authorization to the city
prosecutor of Butuan City to appear in the case and render IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR
assistance to it (the OSG). The trial court directed the local civil CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF
registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in the record of JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG also known as JULIAN LIN WANG,
birth of Carlito. The last correction was ordered to be effected to be amended/corrected as JULIAN LIN WANG, JULIAN LIN
likewise in the birth certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy WANG, duly represented by his mother ANNA LISA WANG,
Nona, and Heddy Moira. Additionally, the trial court ordered the Petitioners, vs. CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by
correction of the birth certificates of the minor children of Carlito the Registrar OSCAR B. MOLO, Respondents. G.R. No. 159966.
to reflect the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel Dogmoc March 30, 2005
(Marivel) as January 21, 2000, instead of April 27, 1989, and the Petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his
name “Maribel” as “Marivel.” Petitioner appealed the RTC mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a petition for change of name
Decision to the CA, faulting the trial court in granting the petition and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 119
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle convenience. However, how such change of name would make
name and have his registered name changed from Julian Lin his integration into Singaporean society easier and convenient is
Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang. The RTC established the not clearly established. That the continued use of his middle
following facts: Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City name would cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute
on February 20, 1998 to parents Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered
Wang who were then not yet married to each other. When his complete name. In addition, petitioner is only a minor.
parents subsequently got married on September 22, 1998, ...they Considering the nebulous foundation on which his petition for
executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the child’s change of name is based, it is best that the matter of change of
name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin his name be left to his judgment and discretion when he reaches
Carulasan Wang…. The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan the age of majority. As he is of tender age, he may not yet
to stay in Singapore for a long time because they will let him understand and appreciate the value of the change of his name
study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine and granting of the same at this point may just prejudice him in
who was born in Singapore…. Since in Singapore middle names his rights under our laws.
or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a [in other cases, ginrant: Oshita case - recognized the tangible
person’s name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang animosity most Filipinos had during that time against the
will be discriminated against because of his current registered Japanese as a result of World War II, in addition to the fact of
name which carries a middle name. Julian and his sister might also therein petitioner’s election of Philippine citizenship. In Alfon, the
be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have Court granted the petition since the petitioner had been known
different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s since childhood by a name different from her registered name
Mandarin language since they do not have the letter "R" but if and she had not used her registered name in her school records
there is, they pronounce it as "L." It is for these reasons that the and voter’s registration records; thus, denying the petition would
name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to only result to confusion.]
Julian Lin Wang. RTC rendered a decision denying the petition. MA. CRISTINA TORRES BRAZA, PAOLO JOSEF T. BRAZA and
The trial court found that the reason given for the change of name JANELLE ANN T. BRAZA, Petitioners, vs. THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR
sought in the petition—that is, that petitioner Julian may be OF HIMAMAYLAN CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, minor PATRICK
discriminated against when studies in Singapore because of his ALVIN TITULAR BRAZA, represented by LEON TITULAR, CECILIA
middle name—did not fall within the grounds recognized by law. TITULAR and LUCILLE C. TITULAR, Respondents. G.R. No. 181174
The trial court ruled that the change sought is merely for the December 4, 2009
convenience of the child. Since the State has an interest in the Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres (Ma. Cristina) and Pablo Sicad
name of a person, names cannot be changed to suit the Braza, Jr. (Pablo), also known as "Pablito Sicad Braza," were
convenience of the bearers. Petitioner then filed this Petition for married on January 4, 1978. The union bore Ma. Cristina’s co-
Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45) petitioners Paolo Josef and Janelle Ann on May 8, 1978 and June
7, 1983, respectively, and Gian Carlo on June 4, 1980. Pablo died
Whether or not dropping the middle name should be granted – on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular accident in Bandung, West Java,
No, the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals Indonesia. During the wake following the repatriation of his
and entities for purposes of identification, and that a change of remains to the Philippines, respondent Lucille began introducing
name is a privilege and not a right, so that before a person can be her co-respondent minor Patrick as her and Pablo's son. Ma.
authorized to change his name given him either in his certificate Cristina thereupon made inquiries in the course of which she
of birth or civil registry, he must show proper or reasonable obtained Patrick's birth certificate from the Local Civil Registrar of
cause, or any compelling reason which may justify such change. Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental. Ma. Cristina likewise
obtained a copy of a marriage contract showing that Pablo and
Lucille were married on April 22, 1998, drawing her and her co-
Otherwise, the request should be denied. To justify a request for petitioners to file on December 23, 2005 before the RTC of
change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental a petition to correct the
compelling reason therefore but also that he will be prejudiced entries in the birth record of Patrick in the Local Civil Register.
by the use of his true and official name. Among the grounds for Contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the
change of name which have been held valid are: (a) when the supposed marriage between Lucille and Pablo, said marriage
name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or being bigamous on account of the valid and subsisting marriage
pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence, between Ma. Cristina and Pablo, petitioners prayed for (1) the
as in legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) correction of the entries in Patrick's birth record with respect to
when one has continuously used and been known since childhood his legitimation, the name of the father and his
by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a acknowledgment, and the use of the last name "Braza"; 2) a
sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former directive to Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and guardians of the minor Patrick, to submit Parick to DNA testing to
(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no determine his paternity and filiation; and 3) the declaration of
showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth
purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of the marriage
interest. The law does not allow one to drop the middle name of Lucille and Pablo as bigamous. On Patrick’s Motion to Dismiss
from his registered name. Middle names serve to identify the for Lack of Jurisdiction, the trial court dismissed the petition
maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further without prejudice, it holding that in a special proceeding for
distinguish him from others who may have the same given name correction of entry, the court, which is not acting as a family
and surname as he has. In the case at bar, the only reason court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an action
advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 120
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, initial hearing, jurisdictional requirements were established. No
hence, the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary opposition to the petition was made. Trial court rendered a
adversarial action. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration having decision in favor of petitioner. (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a
been denied, they filed the present petition for review. petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there
is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by
Whether the court a quo may pass upon the validity of marriage reason of sex alteration. Court of Appeals rendered a decision in
and questions on legitimacy even in an action to correct entries favor of the Republic.
in the civil registrar – No, In a special proceeding for correction
of entry under Rule 108, the trial court has no jurisdiction to Whether or not petitioner can change of his name and sex in his
nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation. birth certificate, W/N this is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of
the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA
9048 – No, A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412 of the Civil Code Ground of Sex Reassignment. The State has an interest in the
charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of
be cancelled or corrected. The proceeding contemplated therein identification. A change of name is a privilege, not a right.
may generally be used only to correct clerical, spelling, Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes. Article
typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry. A 376 of the Civil Code provides: No person can change his name
clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the or surname without judicial authority. This Civil Code provision
understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In particular,
mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a Section 1 of RA 9048 provides: SECTION 1. Authority to Correct
correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or
of the occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or
alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or
which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is typographical errors and change of first name or nickname
properly observed. which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or
The allegations of the petition filed before the trial court clearly municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the
show that petitioners seek to nullify the marriage between provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first
Patrick’s filiation in connection with which they ask the court to name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108
order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test. Petitioners insist, (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the
however, that the main cause of action is for the correction of Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for
Patrick’s birth records and that the rest of the prayers are change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. It likewise
merely incidental thereto. Petitioners’ position does not lie. lays down the corresponding venue, form and procedure. In sum,
Their cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name
and Lucille’s marriage as void for being bigamous and impugn are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial.
Patrick’s legitimacy, which causes of action are governed not by RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first
Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on name may be allowed:
March 15, 2003, and Art. 171 of the Family Code, respectively, SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The
hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in
provided in said Code. It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, any of the following cases: (lacers)
validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be (1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be
questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or
party, and not through collateral attack such as the petition filed pronounce;
before the court a quo.
(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. G.R. No.174689 October 22, 2007 known by that first name or nickname in the community; or
Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the (3) The change will avoid confusion.
change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was
Regional Trial Court of Manila and impleaded the civil registrar of his sex reassignment. However, a change of name does not alter
Manila as respondent. Petitioner alleged that his name was one’s legal capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not sanction a
registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather
live birth. His sex was registered as "male." He further alleged than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his
that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but declared purpose may only create grave complications in the
feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always civil registry and the public interest. Before a person can legally
identified himself with girls since childhood. Feeling trapped in a change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable
man’s body, he consulted several treatment and breast cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In
augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a "woman" addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of
culminated when he underwent sex reassignment surgery in his true and official name. In this case, he failed to show, or even
Bangkok, Thailand. From then on, petitioner lived as a female and allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his
was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have his true and official name. the petition in the trial court in so far as it
name in his birth certificate changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to prayed for the change of petitioner’s first name was not within
"Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female." On the scheduled that court’s primary jurisdiction as the petition should have been
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 121
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 filed with the local civil registrar concerned, assuming it could
be legally done. It was an improper remedy because the proper Whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries
remedy was administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048. in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender,
It was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition
the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth known as CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," under
certificate is kept. More importantly, it had no merit since the Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court - No. The determination
use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all. of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue
For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection,
petitioner’s petition in so far as the change of his first name was Article 412 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 412. No entry in a civil
concerned. register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.
[RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 the correction of Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was
clerical or typographical errors (does not include change of amended by Republic Act No. 9048 in so far as clerical or
nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner) – administrative typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of
proceedings na lang ito, no need for a judicial order, Rule 108 now such matters can now be made through administrative
applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in proceedings and without the need for a judicial order.
the civil register]. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108
No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now
Sex On the Ground of Sex Reassignment applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in
Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the the civil register. Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the
change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or
substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the
108 of the Rules of Court. Under the Civil Register Law, a birth applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The
certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable
time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles
visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by 407 and 408 of the Civil Code: Respondent here has simply let
examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to
law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly,
person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent
by error, is immutable. the words "male" and "female" in could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking
everyday understanding do not include persons who have lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical mold of
undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, "words that are a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead
employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known taken its due course in respondent’s development to reveal more
meaning are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the fully his male characteristics. In the absence of a law on the
context compels to the contrary." For these reasons, while matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a
petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and matter so innately private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle
appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law preferences, much less on whether or not to undergo medical
authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH. The Court
that reason. Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition for the will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to
correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate. undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female.
Neither May Entries in the Birth Certificate As to First Name or Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment
Sex Be Changed on the Ground of Equity (remedies involve and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as
questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the society commonly currently knows this gender of the human
legislature, not by courts.). species. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex
anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the
G.R. No. 166676 September 12, 2008 primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the
On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence
Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the of evidence that respondent is an "incompetent" and in the
RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna. In her petition, she alleged absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a
that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as a male will harm other members of society who are equally
female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid
developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to and justified the respondent’s position and his personal
have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition judgment of being a male. In so ruling we do no more than give
where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual
characteristics. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we
corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male respect respondent’s congenital condition and his mature
and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff. To prove her decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary
claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his
Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of unordinary state and thus help make his life easier, considering
the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a the unique circumstances in this case. As for respondent’s
medical certificate stating that respondent’s condition is known change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change
as CAH. The RTC granted respondent’s petition. Thus, this petition of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be
by the OSG seeking a reversal of the abovementioned ruling. exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 122
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 consequences that will follow. The trial court’s grant of reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows
respondent’s change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential
change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and
the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely another given to other persons who are not named in the
recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent’s petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or
change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the
the entry in his birth certificate from female to male. purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with
the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, vs. DR. NORMA S. concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so
LUGSANAY UY, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 198010 August 12, 2013 chooses. While there may be cases where the Court held that the
Respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties
Certificate of Live Birth. Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil may be cured by the publication of the notice of hearing, earnest
Registrar of Gingoog City. She alleged that she was born on efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible
February 8, 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and interested parties. Such failure was likewise excused where the
Sotera Lugsanay. Her Certificate of Live Birth shows that her full interested parties themselves initiated the corrections
name is "Anita Sy" when in fact she is allegedly known to her proceedings; when there is no actual or presumptive awareness
family and friends as "Norma S. Lugsanay." She further claimed of the existence of the interested parties; or when a party is
that her school records, Professional Regulation Commission inadvertently left out. It is clear from the foregoing discussion
(PRC) Board of Medicine Certificate, and passport bear the name that when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in
"Norma S. Lugsanay." She also alleged that she is an illegitimate the civil register involves substantial and controversial
child considering that her parents were never married, so she alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity
had to follow the surname of her mother. She also contended or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the
that she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated. If
bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos. the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed
Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate
entries with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are
to effect the corrections on her name and citizenship which was notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would
supposedly granted. However, the National Statistics Office (NSO) be set open, the consequence of which might be detrimental and
records did not bear such changes. Hence, the petition before the far reaching.
RTC. RTC issued an Order in favor of respondent. The RTC
concluded that respondent’s petition would neither prejudice the MINORU FUJIKI, PETITIONER, vs. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY,
government nor any third party. It also held that the names SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY,
"Norma Sy Lugsanay" and "Anita Sy" refer to one and the same AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF
person, especially since the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No.
has effected the correction. Considering that respondent has 196049 June 26, 2013
continuously used and has been known since childhood as Petitioner Minoru Fujiki is a Japanese national who married
"Norma Sy Lugsanay" and as a Filipino citizen, the RTC granted respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay in the Philippines on 23
the petition to avoid confusion. CA affirmed in toto the RTC January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s
Order. The CA held that respondent’s failure to implead other parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he
indispensable parties was cured upon the publication. As to resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other. In 2008,
whether the petition is a collateral attack on respondent’s Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara. Without the
filiation, the CA ruled in favor of respondent, considering that her first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were
parents were not legally married and that her siblings’ birth married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara
certificates uniformly state that their surname is Lugsanay and brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered
their citizenship is Filipino. Petitioner’s motion for physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to
reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated July 27, 2011. contact Fujiki. Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were
Hence, the present petition. able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped
Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which
Whether Uy’s failure to implead indispensable parties, viz, her declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on
parents and siblings, was cured by the subsequent publication - the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition
NO. We do not agree with the RTC and the CA. Respondent’s in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment
birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." RTC dismissed the
a Chinese citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera petition, citing the provisions of the Rule on Declaration of
Lugsanay. In filing the petition, however, she seeks the Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
correction of her first name and surname, her status from Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) which provides that a petition
"legitimate" to "illegitimate" and her citizenship from "Chinese" for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
to "Filipino." Thus, respondent should have impleaded and solely by the husband or the wife, in this case either Maekara or
notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but also her parents Marinay. Fujiki filed an MR, arguing that Rule 108 (Cancellation
and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court
by the changes or corrections respondent wanted to make. The is applicable. Rule 108 is the "procedural implementation" of the
fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of Civil Register Law (Act No. 3753) in relation to Article 413 of the
general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the Civil Code. The Civil Register Law imposes a duty on the
State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken. A "successful petitioner for divorce or annulment of marriage to
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 123
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 send a copy of the final decree of the court to the local registrar expectations, as well as respecting the jurisdiction of other states.
of the municipality where the dissolved or annulled marriage Since 1922 in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, Philippine courts have
was solemnized." Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that entries in recognized foreign divorce decrees between a Filipino and a
the civil registry relating to "marriages," "judgments of foreign citizen if they are successfully proven under the rules of
annulments of marriage" and "judgments declaring marriages evidence. Divorce involves the dissolution of a marriage, but the
void from the beginning" are subject to cancellation or correction. recognition of a foreign divorce decree does not involve the
The petition in the RTC sought (among others) to annotate the extended procedure under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the rules of
judgment of the Japanese Family Court on the certificate of ordinary trial. While the Philippines does not have a divorce law,
marriage between Marinay and Maekara. RTC denied MR, Philippine courts may, however, recognize a foreign divorce
considered the petition as a collateral attack on the validity of decree under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
marriage between Marinay and Maekara. The trial court held that Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarry when his or her
this is a "jurisdictional ground" to dismiss the petition. Moreover, foreign spouse obtained a divorce decree abroad. There is
the verification and certification against forum shopping of the therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the
petition was not authenticated as required under Section 529 of Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Hence, this also warranted the "immediate Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy. While the
dismissal" of the petition under the same provision. Fujiki filed a Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court
Rule 45 before the SC. SolGen filed a Comment, contended that judgment is fully consistent with Philippine public policy, as
the petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning under
may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding. Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article
[Corpuz v. Santo Tomas: The recognition of the foreign divorce 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the
decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance
object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section
Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
party or a particular fact. While Corpuz concerned a foreign
divorce decree, in the present case the Japanese Family Court Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition
judgment also affected the civil status of the parties, especially to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent
Marinay, who is a Filipino citizen. The Solicitor General asserted marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the
that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is the procedure to record ground of bigamy – Yes, Since the recognition of a foreign
"[a]cts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may be
persons" in the civil registry as required by Article 407 of the Civil made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of
Code. In other words, "[t]he law requires the entry in the civil entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences upon Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] special
a person’s legal capacity and status x x x." The Japanese Family proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
Court judgment directly bears on the civil status of a Filipino status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to
citizen and should therefore be proven as a fact in a Rule 108 rectify facts of a person’s life which are recorded by the State
proceeding.] pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts
of public consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which the
Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void State has an interest in recording. As noted by the Solicitor
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11- General, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that "[t]he
10-SC) is applicable. No, A petition to recognize a foreign recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule
judgment declaring a marriage void does not require relitigation 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such
under a Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish
for declaration of nullity of marriage. Philippine courts cannot the status or right of a party or a particular fact." Fujiki has the
presume to know the foreign laws under which the foreign personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family
judgment was rendered. They cannot substitute their judgment Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and
on the status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment
who is under the jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. For the same
courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact reason he has the personality to file a petition under Rule 108
according to the rules of evidence. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay and Maekara
Rules of Court provides that a foreign judgment or final order in the civil registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese
against a person creates a "presumptive evidence of a right as Family Court.
between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title." Moreover Section 48 of the Rules of Court Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse
states that "the judgment or final order may be repelled by of a subsisting marriage to question the validity of a subsequent
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, marriage on the ground of bigamy. On the contrary, when Section
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." Thus, Philippine 2(a) states that "[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
courts exercise limited review on foreign judgments. Courts are void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife"—it
not allowed to delve into the merits of a foreign judgment. Once refers to the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage.
a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a Philippine court, Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are
it can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e. , void from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage
"want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, are neither the husband nor the wife under the law. The husband
or clear mistake of law or fact." The rule on limited review or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has
embodies the policy of efficiency and the protection of party the personality to file a petition for declaration of absolute
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 124
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 nullity of void marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10- identity was used by an unknown person to contract marriage
SC. with a Korean national, it would not be feasible for respondent
to institute an action for declaration of nullity of marriage since it
Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign is not one of the void marriages under Articles 35 and 36 of the
judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries Family Code. Republic filed a Rule 45 before the SC.
in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court – Yes, A
petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil Whether Rule 108 applies only in cases where there are errors in
registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. entries sought to be cancelled or corrected, NO.
A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the Whether the cancellation of all entries in the wife portion of the
substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the alleged marriage contract results in the declaration of nullity of
Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. the subject marriage – No, It is true that in special proceedings,
Among these safeguards are the requirement of proving the formal pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with, and the
limited grounds for the dissolution of marriage, support pendente remedy [is] granted upon mere application or motion. However,
lite of the spouses and children, the liquidation, partition and a special proceeding is not always summary. The procedure laid
distribution of the properties of the spouses, and the down in Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per se. It requires
investigation of the public prosecutor to determine collusion. A publication of the petition; it mandates the inclusion as parties of
direct action for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage all persons who may claim interest which would be affected by
is also necessary to prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction of the cancellation or correction; it also requires the civil registrar
the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic and any person in interest to file their opposition, if any; and it
Act No. 8369), as a petition for cancellation or correction of states that although the court may make orders expediting the
entries in the civil registry may be filed in the Regional Trial Court proceedings, it is after hearing that the court shall either dismiss
"where the corresponding civil registry is located." In other the petition or issue an order granting the same. Thus, as long as
words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the the procedural requirements in Rule 108 are followed, it is the
mere expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil appropriate adversary proceeding to effect substantial
registry. However, this does not apply in a petition for correction corrections and changes in entries of the civil register. In this
or cancellation of a civil registry entry based on the recognition of case, the entries made in the wife portion of the certificate of
a foreign judgment annulling a marriage where one of the parties marriage are admittedly the personal circumstances of
is a citizen of the foreign country. There is neither circumvention respondent. The latter, however, claims that her signature was
of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under forged and she was not the one who contracted marriage with
Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. the purported husband. In other words, she claims that no such
No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to marriage was entered into or if there was, she was not the one
nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to who entered into such contract. It must be recalled that when
recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which respondent tried to obtain a CENOMAR from the NSO, it
presupposes a case which was already tried and decided under appeared that she was married to a certain Ye Son Sune. She
foreign law. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not then sought the cancellation of entries in the wife portion of the
apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment annulling a marriage certificate. In filing the petition for correction of entry
bigamous marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the under Rule 108, respondent made the Local Civil Registrar of
foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the jurisdiction Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband Ye Son Sune, as
of the foreign court. parties-respondents. It is likewise undisputed that the
procedural requirements set forth in Rule 108 were complied
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MERLINDA L. with. The Office of the Solicitor General was likewise notified of
OLAYBAR, Respondent. G.R. No. 189538 February 10, 2014 the petition which in turn authorized the Office of the City
Upon requesting for a Certificate of No Marriage from the NSO, Prosecutor to participate in the proceedings. More importantly,
respondent learned that she was allegedly married to a Korean trial was conducted where respondent herself, the
national named Ye Son Sune before the MTCC. Denying having stenographer of the court where the alleged marriage was
contracted said marriage and personally knowing said Ye Son conducted, as well as a document examiner, testified. Several
Sune, respondent filed with the RTC Cebu a Petition for documents were also considered as evidence. With the
Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the testimonies and other evidence presented, the trial court found
entries in the wife portion thereof, impleading both Local Civil that the signature appearing in the subject marriage certificate
Registrar of Cebu and the alleged husband. RTC granted was different from respondent’s signature appearing in some of
respondent’s petition, finding that the signature appearing in the her government issued identification cards. The court thus made
subject marriage contract was not that of respondent, the court a categorical conclusion that respondent’s signature in the
found basis in granting the latter’s prayer to straighten her record marriage certificate was not hers and, therefore, was forged.
and rectify the terrible mistake. Republic filed an MR on the ff Clearly, it was established that, as she claimed in her petition,
grounds: (1) there was no clerical spelling, typographical and no such marriage was celebrated.
other innocuous errors in the marriage contract for it to fall within [Indeed the Court made a pronouncement in the recent case of
the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; and (2) granting Minoru Fujiki v. Maria Paz Galela Marinay, Shinichi Maekara,
the cancellation of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleged Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, and the Administrator and
marriage contract is, in effect, declaring the marriage void ab Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office24 that: To
initio. RTC denied MR, held that it had jurisdiction to take be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in
cognizance of cases for correction of entries even on substantial the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a
errors under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court being the appropriate marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention
adversary proceeding required. Considering that respondent’s of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 125
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. Is the correction of entry in Onde’s birth certificate that his
xxx. A direct action for declaration of nullity or annulment of parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not
marriage is also necessary to prevent circumvention of the married" is substantial in nature requiring adversarial
jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of proceedings – Yes, Said correction is substantial as it will affect his
1997 (Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for cancellation or legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an
correction of entries in the civil registry may be filed in the illegitimate one. Corrections of entries in the civil register
Regional Trial Court where the corresponding civil registry is including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation,
located. In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial alterations.
marriage by the mere expedient of changing his entry of Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true
marriage in the civil registry.] Aside from the certificate of facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail
marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the themselves of the appropriate adversary proceedings. RTC’s
existence of marriage. Rather, respondent showed by dismissal is without prejudice. a petition seeking a substantial
overwhelming evidence that no marriage was entered into and correction of an entry in a civil register must implead as parties to
that she was not even aware of such existence. The testimonial the proceedings not only the local civil registrar, as petitioner did
and documentary evidence clearly established that the only in the dismissed petition for correction of entries, but also all
"evidence" of marriage which is the marriage certificate was a persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
forgery. While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to by the correction. This is required by Section 3, Rule 108 of the
determine the validity of marriage, we cannot nullify the Rules of Court. Thus, in his new petition, petitioner should at least
proceedings before the trial court where all the parties had been implead his father and mother as parties since the substantial
given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent; correction he is seeking will also affect them.
the procedures were followed, and all the evidence of the
parties had already been admitted and examined. Respondent PREROGATIVE WRITS
indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ, AURORA TAPUZ-MADRIAGA,
marriage to speak of, but the correction of the record of such LIBERTY M. ASUNCION, LADYLYN BAMOS MADRIAGA, EVERLY
marriage to reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence. TAPUZ MADRIAGA, EXCEL TAPUZ, IVAN TAPUZ AND MARIAN
Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject TIMBAS, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO,
certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 5 Kalibo, SHERIFF
the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as NELSON DELA CRUZ, in his capacity as Sheriff of the RTC, THE
there was no marriage to speak of. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE stationed in Boracay Island,
FRANCLER P. ONDE, Petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL represented by the PNP STATION COMMANDER, THE
CIVIL REGISTRATION OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondent. G.R. No. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IN CEBU 18th DIVISION,
197174, September 10, 2014 SPOUSES GREGORIO SANSON & MA. LOURDES T. SANSON,
Onde filed a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of respondents. G.R. No. 182484 June 17, 2008 [Tapuz vs. Del
live birth before the RTC and named respondent Office of the Rosario]
Local Civil Registrar as sole respondent. Petitioner alleged that he The private respondents spouses Sanson, filed with the Fifth
is the illegitimate child of his parents but his birth certificate MTCC of Buruanga-Malay, Aklan a complaint for forcible entry
stated that his parents were married. His birth certificate also and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
stated that his mother's first name is Tely (he wanted this to be preliminary mandatory injunction against the petitioners and
changed to Matilde) and that his first name is Franc Ler (he other John Does numbering about 120. In their Answer, the
wanted this to be changed to Francler). RTC dismissed the petitioners denied the material allegations of the complaint. They
petition for correction of entries on the ground that it is essentially claimed that: (1) they are the actual and prior
insufficient in form and substance. Hence this petition. possessors of the disputed land; (2) on the contrary, the private
respondents are the intruders; and (3) the private respondents'
Can the correction on the first name of Onde and his mother be certificate of title to the disputed property is spurious. They
done by the civil registrar under RA No. 9048? Yes (tama ung RTC), asked for the dismissal of the complaint and interposed a
the first name of petitioner and his mother as appearing in his counterclaim for damages. The MCTC, after due proceedings,
birth certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under rendered a decision in the private respondents' favor (Sanson). It
R.A. No. 9048. under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or found prior possession - the key issue in forcible entry cases - in
typographical errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected the private respondents' favour. The petitioners appealed the
and changes of first name can be done by the concerned city civil MCTC decision to the RTC then presided over by Judge Niovady
registrar without need of a judicial order. under R.A. No. 9048, M. Marin. On appeal, Judge Marin granted the private
jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now respondents' motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
primarily lodged with administrative officers. mandatory injunction with the issuance conditioned on the
The intent and effect of said law is to exclude the change of first private respondents' posting of a bond. The petitioners moved to
name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 reconsider the issuance of the writ; the private respondents, on
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the the other hand, filed a motion for demolition. The respondent
Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for Judge subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion for
change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. The Reconsideration and to Defer Enforcement of Preliminary
remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are Mandatory Injunction in an Order dated 17 May 2007.
primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. Thus petitioner Meanwhile, the petitioners opposed the motion for demolition.
can avail of this administrative remedy for the correction of his The respondent Judge nevertheless issued via a Special Order a
and his mother’s first name. writ of demolition to be implemented fifteen (15) days after the
Sheriff's written notice to the petitioners to voluntarily demolish
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 126
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 their house/s to allow the private respondents to effectively take a minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally deficient.
actual possession of the land. The petitioners thereafter filed on Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or
2 August 2007 with the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, a Petition for unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to
Review of the Permanent Mandatory Injunction and Order of life, liberty or security. The petition likewise has not alleged,
Demolition of the RTC of Kalibo, Br. 6 in Civil Case No. 7990. much less demonstrated, any need for information under the
Meanwhile, respondent Sheriff Nelson R. dela Cruz issued the control of police authorities other than those it has already set
Notice to Vacate and for Demolition on 19 March 2008. It was forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the
against this factual backdrop that the petitioners filed the issuance of the writ, based on the insufficiency of previous efforts
present petition last 29 April 2008. The petition contains and made to secure information, has not also been shown. In sum,
prays for three remedies, namely: a petition for certiorari under the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court; the issuance of a writ of more than the "fishing expedition" that this Court - in the course
habeas data under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data; and of drafting the Rule on habeas data - had in mind in defining what
finally, the issuance of the writ of amparo under the Rule on the the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not. In these lights, the
Writ of Amparo. outright denial of the petition for the issuance of the writ of
habeas data is fully in order.
Whether the filing of petition for certiorari and issuance of writ of
amparo and habeas data were proper – No. ARMANDO Q. CANLAS, MIGUEL D. CAPISTRANO, MARRIETA PIA,
The petition for certiorari: it is filed out of time, the petitioners petitioners, vs. NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASS’N., I – XIII, INC., ET
have a pending petition with the CA for the review of the same AL., respondents. G.R. No. 182795 June 5, 2008
RTC orders now assailed in the present petition, although the Canlas et al are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in
petitioners never disclosed in the body of the present petition the Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. They were the losing parties in
exact status of their pending CA petition. The CA petition, the case of G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038. Their
however, was filed with the CA on 2 August 2007, which indicates dwellings/houses have either been demolished as of the time of
to us that the assailed orders (or at the very least, the latest of filing of the petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a
the interrelated assailed orders) were received on 1 August 2007 court judgment. Canlas et al filed a petition for issuance of Writ
at the latest. of Amparo before the SC, alleged that the subject land titles
The present petition, on the other hand, was filed on April 29, invoked against them are spurious. It is therefore the ardent
2008 or more than eight months from the time the CA petition initiatives of the herein Petitioners, by way of the said prayer for
was filed. Thus, the present petition is separated in point of time the issuance of the Writ of Amparo, that these unprincipled Land
from the assumed receipt of the assailed RTC orders by at least Officials be summoned to answer their participation in the
eight (8) months, i.e., beyond the reglementary period of sixty issuances of these fraudulent and spurious titles, NOW, in the
(60) days from receipt of the assailed order or orders or from hands of the Private Respondents. The Courts of Justice, including
notice of the denial of a seasonably filed motion for this Honorable Supreme Court, are likewise being made to
reconsideration. Based on the same material antecedents, we believe that said titles in the possession of the Private
find too that the petitioners have been guilty of willful and Respondents were issued untainted with frauds. BUT, in the same
deliberate misrepresentation before this Court and, at the very petition, they prayed that the judgment in G.R. Nos. 177448,
least, of forum shopping. 180768, 177701, 177038 be reversed. That, Petitioners herein
knew before hand that: there can be no motion for
The writ of Amparo: The writ of amparo was originally conceived reconsideration for the second or third time to be filed before this
as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings Honorable Supreme Court. As such therefore, Petitioners herein
and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of are aware of the opinion that this present petition should not in
available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary any way be treated as such motions fore reconsideration. Solely,
concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the this petition is only for the possible issuance of the writ of
rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and amparo, although it might affect the previous rulings of this
independent remedy beyond those available under the Honorable Supreme Court in these cases, G.R. Nos. 177448,
prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. 180768, 177701 and 177038. Inherent in the powers of the
What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely Supreme Court of the Philippines is to modify, reverse and set
property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on aside, even its own previous decision, that can not be thwarted
amorphous and uncertain grounds. Consequently, the Rule on the nor influenced by any one, but, only on the basis of merits and
Writ of Amparo - in line with the extraordinary character of the evidence. This is the purpose of this petition for the Writ of
writ and the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands - Amparo.
requires that every petition for the issuance of the writ must be
supported by justifying allegations of fact. The writ shall issue if Whether the remedy of writ of amparo was properly resorted to
the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence – No, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides: Section 1.
of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available
that detail the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated
to or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
aggrieved party was or is being committed. public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
The Writ of Habeas Data: Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of disappearances or threats thereof. (Emphasis supplied.) The
Habeas Data requires the material allegations of ultimate facts in threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment
a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data. The allegations of the court, which in this case was affirmed with finality by this
obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires as Court in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 127
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper to property rights - No,
above-quoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data
is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they provides that the coverage of the writs is limited to the
still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to protection of rights to life, liberty and security, and the writs
them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security. There cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or
is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of omissions. Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: “As
amparo. Besides, the factual and legal basis for petitioners’ the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable
claim to the land in question is not alleged in the petition at all. problem of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances.”
The Court can only surmise that these rights and interest had Tapuz v. Del Rosario also teaches: “What it is not is a writ to
already been threshed out and settled in the four cases cited protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither
above. No writ of amparo may be issued unless there is a clear is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain
allegation of the supposed factual and legal basis of the right grounds.” threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty
sought to be protected. Under Section 6 of the same rules, the and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or
court shall issue the writ upon the filing of the petition, only if on omission. Evidently, the present controversy arose out of a
its face, the court ought to issue said writ. Section 6. Issuance of property dispute between the Provincial Government and
the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the acts
judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its complained of and its effect on respondents’ right to life, liberty
face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under and security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of
the seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or petitioners’ entry into the property. It bears emphasis that
the judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may respondents’ petition did not show any actual violation,
deputize any officer or person to serve it. The writ shall also set imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty and security.
the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall Bare allegations of petitioners will not suffice to prove
not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance. entitlement to the remedy of the writ of amparo. No undue
Considering that there is no legal basis for its issuance, as in this confinement or detention was present. In fact, respondents
case, the writ will not be issued and the petition will be were even able to post bail for the offenses a day after their
dismissed outright. This new remedy of writ of amparo which is arrest. It need not be underlined that respondents’ petitions for
made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the writs of amparo and habeas data are extraordinary remedies
highest possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to which cannot be used as tools to stall the execution of a final and
life, liberty and security. The Court will not spare any time or executory decision in a property dispute.
effort on its part in order to give priority to petitions of this
nature. However, the Court will also not waste its precious time WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper when there is a criminal
and effort on matters not covered by the writ. case already filed – Not in this case (?), Respondents’ filing of the
petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data should have been
P/SUPT. FELIXBERTO CASTILLO, POLICE OFFICERS ROMEO barred, for criminal proceedings against them had commenced
BAGTAS, RUPERTO BORLONGAN, EDMUNDO DIONISIO, RONNIE after they were arrested in flagrante delicto and proceeded
MORALES, ARNOLD TRIA, and GILBERTO PUNZALAN, ENGR. against in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of
RICASOL P. MILLAN, ENGR. REDENTOR S. DELA CRUZ, MR. Court. Validity of the arrest or the proceedings conducted
ANASTACIO L. BORLONGAN, MR. ARTEMIO ESGUERRA, "TISOY," thereafter is a defense that may be set up by respondents during
and JOHN DOES, Petitioners, vs. DR. AMANDA T. CRUZ, NIXON T. trial and not before a petition for writs of amparo and habeas
CRUZ, and FERDINAND T. CRUZ, Respondents. G.R. No. 182165 data.
[Castillo vs. Cruz] GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., Chief, Philippine National Police
Respondent Spouses Cruz, leased a parcel of land situated at (PNP); Police Chief Superintendent RAUL CASTAÑEDA, Chief,
Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos (the property), refused to vacate the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior
property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government Superintendent LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime
of Bulacan (the Province) which intended to utilize it for local and Emergency Response; and GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO, Regional
projects. Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their Director of ARMM, PNP, Petitioners, vs. MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS,
rights over the property. The pertinent case among the filed cases herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-
was the issuance by the MTC an alias Writ of Demolition in favor Fact,Respondent. G.R. No. 182498 June 22, 2010 [Razon vs.
of the Province. Respondents filed a motion for TRO in the RTC, Tagitis]
which was granted. However, the demolition was already Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Tagitis), a consultant for the World
implemented before the TRO issuance. On February 21, 2008, Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic
petitioners Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo et al., who Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, together with
were deployed by the City Mayor in compliance with a Arsimin Kunnong (Kunnong), an IDB scholar, arrived in Jolo by
memorandum issued by Governor Joselito R. Mendoza boat in the early morning of October 31, 2007 from a seminar in
instructing him to “protect, secure and maintain the possession Zamboanga City. They immediately checked-in at ASY Pension
of the property,” entered the property. Amanda and her co- House. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his
respondents refused to turn over the property, however. Insisting return trip the following day to Zamboanga. When Kunnong
that the RTC Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the returned from this errand, Tagitis was no longer around.
Province from repossessing it, they shoved petitioners, forcing Kunnong looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message to the
the latter to arrest them and cause their indictment for direct latter’s Manila-based secretary, who advised Kunnong to simply
assault, trespassing and other forms of light threats. Thus, wait for Tagitis’ return. On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and
respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data. Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim
studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB, reported
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 128
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. More than a available to the petitioner under the circumstances, while
month later, or on December 28, 2007, the respondent, May Jean presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s
Tagitis, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a Petition for the Writ rights to life, liberty and security through State or private party
of Amparo (petition) directed against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, action. The petition should likewise be read in its totality, rather
Commanding General, Philippine Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, than in terms of its isolated component parts, to determine if the
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Gen. Edgardo M. required elements – namely, of the disappearance, the State or
Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detention Group private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the
(CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and rights to life, liberty or security – are present.
Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director,
ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror Task Force Whether or not the presentation of substantial evidence by the
Comet (collectively referred to as “petitioners”), with the Court petitioner to prove her allegations is sufficient for the court to
of Appeals (CA). On the same day, the CA immediately issued the grant the privilege of the writ. YES, [T]he Amparo petitioner needs
Writ of Amparo and set the case for hearing on January 7, 2008. only to properly comply with the substance and form
On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision confirming that the requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition, as discussed above,
disappearance of Tagitis was an “enforced disappearance” and prove the allegations by substantial evidence. The rebuttable
under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Protection of case, of course, must show that an enforced disappearance took
All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The CA ruled that place under circumstances showing a violation of the victim’s
when military intelligence pinpointed the investigative arm of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security, and the failure on
PNP (CIDG) to be involved in the abduction, the missing-person the part of the investigating authorities to appropriately respond.
case qualified as an enforced disappearance. Hence, the CA Substantial evidence required in amparo proceedings – The
extended the privilege of the writ to Tagitis and his family, and [characteristics of amparo proceedings] – namely, of being
directed the petitioners to exert extraordinary diligence and summary and the use of substantial evidence as the required level
efforts to protect the life, liberty and security of Tagitis, with the of proof (in contrast to the usual preponderance of evidence or
obligation to provide monthly reports of their actions to the CA. proof beyond reasonable doubt in court proceedings) – reveal the
At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition against the then clear intent of the framers of the Amparo Rule to have the
respondents from the military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit judicially
Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the conducted, in addressing Amparo situations. Substantial evidence
military, that was involved. On March 31, 2008, the petitioners is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as
moved to reconsider the CA decision, but the CA denied the a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
motion in its Resolution dated April 9, 2008. Aggrieved, the conclusion.
petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Whether or not the writ of amparo determines guilt nor pinpoint
Whether or not the requirement that the pleader must state the criminal culpability for the alleged enforced disappearance of the
ultimate facts, i.e. complete in every detail in stating the subject of the petition for the writ. No, It embodies, as a remedy,
threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights, is indispensable the court’s directive to police agencies to undertake specified
in an amparo petition. --- No. However, it must contain details courses of action to address the disappearance of an individual,
available to the petitioner under the circumstances, while in this case, Engr. Morced N. Tagitis. It does not determine guilt
presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance; rather, it
rights to life, liberty and security. The requirement that the determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the
pleader must state the ultimate facts must be read in light of the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the
nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.
situation of uncertainty – The framers of the Amparo Rule never Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been
intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating the established by substantial evidence to have participated in
threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. As in any other whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced
initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall
facts constituting the cause of action, omitting the evidentiary craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal
details. In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper
be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure
which addresses a situation of uncertainty; the petitioner may of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited
not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the
disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined
him or her, or where the victim is detained, because these above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the
information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure;
who caused the disappearance. In this type of situation, to or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of
require the level of specificity, detail and precision that the extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule is to disappearance. The concept of “enforced disappearances” is
make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction. As the law now
of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security. stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this
jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the
component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the
addressing the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the Revised Penal Code and special laws.
petition should be to determine whether it contains the details
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 129
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is
AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXAS, applicable in an amparo petition- No?! Command responsibility
MELISSA C. ROXAS, Petitioner, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate –
GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that
AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON NILO establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal
A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition. As
GAMIDO LACADIN, AND CERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO BY THE held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo is a
NAME[S] DEX, RC AND ROSE, Respondents. G.R. No. 189155 protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting
September 7, 2010 [Roxas vs. GMA] of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may
be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or
Petitioner is an American citizen of Filipino descent. While in the threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or
United States, enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines security. It does not fix liability for such disappearance, killing or
with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative
America (BAYAN- USA) of which she is a member. After doing under the applicable substantive law. Since the application of
survey work on 19 May 2009, petitioner and her companions command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual
rested in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat. While liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or
Roxas and her companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men administrative case rather than in a summary amparo
in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of
inside a van. When they alighted from the van, she was informed command responsibility does not preclude impleading military
that she is being detained for being a member of Communist or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts
Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). She was in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect
then separated from her companions and was brought to a room, acquiescence. In which case, commanders may be impleaded —
from where she could hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes not actually on the basis of command responsibility—but rather
taking off and landing, and some construction bustle. She was on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.
interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to
abandon her communist beliefs. She was informed by a person Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the
named “RC” that those who tortured her came from the “Special identity and affiliation of the perpetrators is enough ground for
Operations Group” and that she was abducted because her name the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo – No? In
is included in the “Order of Battle.” On 25 May 2009, petitioner amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel
was finally released and returned to her uncle’s house in Quezon circumstances as evidence of military involvement depends
City. largely on the availability or non-availability of other pieces of
evidence that has the potential of directly proving the identity
Before being released, however, the abductors gave petitioner a and affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of identity,
cellular phone with a SIM card, a slip of paper containing an e- when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial
mail address with password, a plastic bag containing biscuits and evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the former
books, the handcuffs used on her, a blouse and a pair of shoes. indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true identity and
Petitioner was also sternly warned not to report the incident to affiliation of the perpetrators.
the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her
and her family. Sometime after her release, petitioner continued Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or
to receive calls from RC via the cellular phone given to her. Out of threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
apprehension that she was being monitored and also fearing for security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the writ
the safety of her family, petitioner threw away the cellular may be extended – Yes? An indispensable requirement before
phone with a SIM card. Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a the privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least
petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of
before the Supreme Court, impleading the high-ranking officials the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In the
of military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the belief case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or
that it was the government agents who were behind her threatened violation of such right. Hence, until such time that any
abduction and torture. The Court of Appeals was not convinced of the respondents were found to be actually responsible for the
that the military or any other person acting under the abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference regarding the
acquiescence of the government, were responsible for the existence of reports being kept in violation of the petitioner’s
abduction and torture of the petitioner. The appellate court right to privacy becomes farfetched, and premature. The Court
stressed that, judging by her own statements, the petitioner must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant of the
merely "believed" that the military was behind her abduction. privilege of the writ of habeas data.
Thus, the Court of Appeals absolved the public respondents from
any complicity in the abduction and torture of petitioner. The
petition was likewise dismissed as against public respondent EDITA T. BURGOS, Petitioner, v. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in view of her immunity JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ,
from suit. Accordingly, the petitioner’s prayers for the return of MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL.
her personal belongings were denied. Petitioner’s prayers for an MELQUIADES FELICIANO, AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR
inspection order and production order also met the same fate. CALDERON, Respondents. [Burgos vs. Esperon], 715 SCRA,
Hence, this appeal by the petitioner. February 2014
At around 1:00 in the afternoon of April 28, 2007, Jonas Joseph T.
Burgos – a farmer advocate and a member of Kilusang
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 130
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Magbubukid sa Bulacan was forcibly taken and abducted by (4) Justice, which were not included in their previous submissions to
men and a woman from the extension portion of Hapag Kainan the Commission on Human Rights, including such records as the
Restaurant, located at the ground floor of Ever Gotesco Mall, Commission on Human Rights may require, pursuant to the
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. On April 30, 2007, the authority granted under this Resolution; DIRECTED the PNP-CIDG
petitioner, Edita Burgos, held a press conference and announced to provide direct investigative assistance to the Commission on
that her son Jonas was missing. That same day, the petitioner Human Rights as it may require, pursuant to the authority
sought confirmation from the guard if the person abducted was granted under this Resolution;
her son Jonas. In a subsequent police investigation and Land AUTHORIZED the Commission on Human Rights to conduct a
Transportation Office (LTO) verification, it was discovered that comprehensive and exhaustive investigation that extends to all
plate number TAB 194 was registered to a 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle aspects of the case (not limited to the specific directives as
owned by a certain Mauro B. Mudlong. The said vehicle was outlined above), as the extraordinary measures the case may
seized and impounded on June 24, 2006 for transporting timber require under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo; and REQUIRED the
without permit. However, in May 2007, right after Jonas’ Commission on Human Rights to submit to this Court a Report
abduction was made public, it was discovered that plate number with its recommendations, copy furnished the petitioner, the
TAB 194 of this 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle was missing, and the incumbent Chiefs of the AFP, the PNP and the PNP-CIDG, and all
engine and other spare parts were “cannibalized.” The police was the respondents, within ninety (90) days from receipt of the
likewise able to generate cartographic sketches of two of the Resolution. In light of the retirement of Lt. General Alexander
abductors of Jonas based on its interview of eyewitnesses. (PNP- Yano and the reassignment of the other respondents who have
CIDG) presented Emerito Lipio a.k.a. Ka Tibo/Ka Cris, Marlon D. all been impleaded in their official capacities, all subsequent
Manuel a.k.a. Ka Carlo, and Melissa Concepcion Reyes a.k.a. Ka resolutions and actions from the Supreme Court were served on,
Lisa/Ramil to support the theory that elements of the New and directly enforceable by, the incumbents of the impleaded
People’s Army (NPA) perpetrated the abduction of Jonas. (CA) offices/units whose official action is necessary. The present
dismissed the petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Habeas respondents shall continue to be personally impleaded for
Corpus, denied the petitioner’s motion to declare the purposes of the responsibilities and accountabilities they may
respondents in contempt; and partially granted the privilege of have incurred during their incumbencies. The Supreme Court
the Writ of Amparo in favor of the petitioner. Essentially, the CA likewise affirmed the dismissal of the petitions for Contempt
found that the evidence the petitioner presented failed to and for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with respect to
establish her claimed direct connection between the abductors President Gloria Macapagal -Arroyo.
of Jonas and the military. It also found that the (AFP) and the PNP
did not fully exert their effort in the conduct of loose ends MARICRIS D. DOLOT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BAGONG ALYANSANG
regarding the identity of Ka Ramon and the allegation that Ka MAKABAYAN-SORSOGON, PETITIONER vs. HON. RAMON PAJE, IN
Ramon is indeed Jonas in the “Order of Battle.” As for the PNP- HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CIDG, the CA branded its investigation as “rather shallow” and ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REYNULFO A. JUAN,
“conducted haphazardly.” REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, DENR,
HON. RAUL R. LEE, GOVERNOR, PROVINCE OF SORSOGON,
Whether or not the failure of the PNP and AFP to conduct an ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, JR., VICTORIA A. AJERO, ALFREDO M.
exhaustive and meaningful investigation and to exercise AGUILAR, AND JUAN M. AGUILAR, ANTONES ENTERPRISES,
extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duties is fatal GLOBAL SUMMIT MINES DEV'T CORP., AND TR ORE,
to the grant of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo – Yes, ON RESPONDENTS. [Dolot vs. Paje] (continuing Mandamus) G.R. No.
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO. Considering the findings of 199199 August 27, 2013
the CA and our review of the records of the present case, we On September 15, 2011, petitioner Dolot, together with the
conclude that the PNP and the AFP have so far failed to conduct parish priest of the Holy Infant Jesus Parish and the officers of
an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into the Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog (petitioners), filed a petition
disappearance of Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary for continuing mandamus, damages and attorney’s fees with
diligence (in the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the the RTC of Sorsogon. Thus, they prayed for the following reliefs:
Writ of Amparo requires. Because of these investigative (1) the issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to
shortcomings, we cannot rule on the case until a more immediately stop the mining operations in the Municipality of
meaningful investigation, using extraordinary diligence, is Matnog; (2) the issuance of a temporary environment protection
undertaken. In disposing of the case, the Supreme Court issued order or TEPO; (3) the creation of an inter-agency group to
the following directives: DIRECTED the Commission on Human undertake the rehabilitation of the mining site; (4) award of
Rights to conduct appropriate investigative proceedings, damages; and (5) return of the iron ore, among others. The case
including field investigations – acting as the Court’s directly was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon,
commissioned agency for purposes of the Rule on the Writ of Branch 53 being the designated environmental court. In the
Amparo, REQUIRE the incumbent Chiefs of the Armed Forces of Order dated September 16, 2011, the case was summarily
the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to make dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners filed a motion
available and to provide copies, to the Commission on Human for reconsideration but it was denied. Petitioner Dolot went
Rights, of all documents and records in their possession and as straight to this Court on pure questions of law.
the Commission on Human Rights may require, relevant to the
case of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos, subject to reasonable regulations Whether the RTC-Branch 53 has jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case
consistent with the Constitution and existing laws; DIRECTED the No. 2011-8338 – Yes, None is more well-settled than the rule that
PNP-CIDG and its incumbent Chief to submit to the Commission jurisdiction, which is the power and authority of the court to hear,
on Human Rights the records and results of the investigation the try and decide a case, is conferred by law. It may either be over
PNP-CIDG claimed to have forwarded to the Department of the nature of the action, over the subject matter, over the person
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 131
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 of the defendants or over the issues framed in the pleadings. By Kalikasan; while the latter claim that it is entitled to a writ of
virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Kalikasan.
Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over special civil actions Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in the RTC. issuance of a writ of Kalikasan – Yes, the parties may raise
Particularly, Section 21(1) thereof provides that the RTCs shall questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan
exercise original jurisdiction – in the issuance of writs of certiorari, because the rules on the writ of kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases) allow the
injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective parties to raise, on appeal, questions of fact – and, thus,
regions. At this juncture, the Court affirms the continuing constitutes an exception to rule 45 of the Rules of Court –
applicability of Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 constituting the because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances
different "green courts" in the country and setting the surrounding the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.
administrative guidelines in the raffle and disposition of
environmental cases. While the designation and guidelines were Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of
made in 2008, the same should operate in conjunction with the Kalikasan – Yes, the validity of an eCC can be challenged via a
Rules. The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action writ of Kalikasan because such writ is principally predicated on
that may be availed of "to compel the performance of an act an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
specifically enjoined by law." The petition should mainly involve balanced and healthful ecology, which involves environmental
an environmental and other related law, rule or regulation or a damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial
right therein. The RTC’s mistaken notion on the need for a final boundaries. A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on
judgment, decree or order is apparently based on the definition alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC must not
of the writ of continuing mandamus under Section 4, Rule 1 of the only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but must also
Rules, to wit: (c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court provide a causal link or, at least, a reasonable connection
in an environmental case directing any agency or between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated
remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. The final court under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed
decree, order or decision erroneously alluded to by the RTC outright and the action re-filed before the proper forum with due
actually pertains to the judgment or decree that a court would regard to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
eventually render in an environmental case for continuing In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable connection
mandamus and which judgment or decree shall subsequently was shown or even attempted relative to the aforesaid second
become final. set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the perceived defects or
irregularities in the issuance of the ECC. By not presenting even
HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE a single expert witness, they were unable to discharge their duty
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES of proving to the Court that the completion and operation of the
(DENR), Petitioner, vs. HON. TEODORO A. CASIÑO, HON. power plant would bring about the alleged adverse effects to the
RAYMOND V. PALATINO, HON. RAFAEL V. MARIANO, HON. health of the residents of Bataan and Zambales and would cause
EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS, CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., HON. serious pollution and environmental degradation thereof. Hence,
ROLEN C. PAULINO, HON. EDUARDO PIANO, HON. JAMES DE LOS the denial of their petition. Casifio, et al. failed to substantiate
REYES, HON. AQUILINO Y. CORTEZ, JR., HON. SARAH LUGERNA their claim of an imminent and grave injury to the environment
LIPUMANO-GARCIA, NORAIDA VELARMINO, BIANCA CHRISTINE should the power project proceed.
GAMBOA ESPINOS, CHARO SIMONS, GREGORIO LLORCA
MAGDARAOG, RUBELH PERALTA, ALEX CORPUS HERMOSO, What is the best available and proper remedy for petitioners
RODOLFO SAMBAJON, REV. FR. GERARDO GREGORIO P. JORGE, Casifio, et al.? The special civil action for a writ of kalikasan under
CARLITO A. BALOY, OFELIA D. PABLO, MARIO ESQUILLO, ELLE Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC)
LATINAZO, EVANGELINE Q. RODRIGUEZ, JOHN CARLO DELOS or A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC. Its Section 1 reads: The writ [of kalikasan]
REYES, Respondents. is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity
[Paje vs. Carino] (Writ of Kalikasan), G.R. No. 207257, February 3, authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental
2015 organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
The DENR issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons
for a proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to be whose constitutionalright to a balanced and healthful ecology is
implemented by RP energy. Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
of legislators filed a petition for writ of kalikasan against RP omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR secretary on entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to
the ground that actual environmental damage will occur if the prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
power plant project is implemented and that the respondents cities or provinces. [The distinction between writ of kalikasan vs.
failed to comply with certain laws and rules governing or relating Rule 65 “certiorari” was discussed in this case – see full text]
to the issuance of an ECC and amendments thereto. The CA Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), et al. Petitioners, v.
denied the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan and invalidated the Rosario Gomez Lim, Respondent. G.R. No. 184769, 05 October
ECC. Both the DENR and Casino filed an appeal, the former 2010
imputing error in invalidating the ECC and its amendments, Rosario G. Lim (respondent), also known as Cherry Lim, an
arguing that the determination of the validity of the ECCC as well administrative clerk at the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO),
as its amendments is beyond the scope of a petition for a Writ of learned of an anonymous letter that was posted at the door of
the Metering Office of the Administration building of MERALCO
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 132
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Plaridel, Bulacan Sector, at which she is assigned, denouncing her. "betray[s] the real intent of management]" and could be a
The letter reads: “Cherry Lim: MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN LAHAT "punitive move." Her posture unwittingly concedes that the issue
NG BIYAYA NG MERALCO, NGAYON NAMAN AY GUSTO MONG is labor-related.
PALAMON ANG BUONG KUMPANYA SA MGA BUWAYA NG
GOBYERNO. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO, LUMAYAS KA RITO, WALANG DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN,
UTANG NA LOOB…” By Memorandum, petitioner Alexander Respondent. G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014
Deyto, Head of MERALCO’s Human Resource Staffing, directed [Lee vs. Ilagan]
the transfer of respondent to MERALCO’s Alabang Sector in Ilagan alleged that he and Dr. Joy were former common law
Muntinlupa as "A/F OTMS Clerk," in light of the receipt of "… partners. He visited Lee at her condo, rested for a while and
reports that there were accusations and threats directed against proceede to his office. Later on, he noticed that his digital camer
[her] from unknown individuals and which could possibly was missing hence he confronted Ilagan regarding a purported
compromise [her] safety and security." Respondent questions sex vide she discovered from the said camera involving Ilagan and
the propriety of MERALCO’s action in a letter as “highly another woman. Ilagan denied the video and demanded Lee to
suspicious…” and being “punitive”, but the latter never return the camera but to no avail. During the confrontation,
responded. Respondent filed a petition for the issuance of a writ Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a wall inside his
of habeas data against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court office and walked away. Subsequently, Lee utilized the said video
(RTC) of Bulacan. Additionally, respondent prayed for the as evidence in filing various complaints against Ilagan, namely: (a)
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the
petitioners from effecting her transfer to the MERALCO Alabang “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004,”
Sector. The trial court granted the prayers of respondent before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati; and (b) an
including the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction directing administrative complaint for grave misconduct before the
petitioners to desist from implementing respondent’s transfer National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). Ilagan filed a petition
until such time that petitioners comply with the disclosures for a writ of habeas data in his favor (alleging that Lee’s acts of
required. reproducing the subject video and threatening to distribute the
same to the upper echelons of the NAPOLCOM and uploading it
Whether the RTC lacked jurisdiction to over the case and cannot to the internet violated not only his right to life, liberty, security,
restrain MERALCO’s prerogative as employer to transfer the place and privacy but also that of the other woman). The RTC granted
of work of its employees - YES. The habeas data rule, in general, the privilege of the writ of habeas data in Ilagan’s favor hence Lee
is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image, filed this petition for review on certiorari.
privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an
individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right Whether or not the the privilege of the writ of habeas data in
to the truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the favor of Ilagan is correctly granted – No! A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, or
constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (Habeas Data Rule), was
security against abuse in this age of information technology. conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available
It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas data was remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of
conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available killings and enforced disappearances. It was conceptualized as a
remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially
killings and enforced disappearances. Its intent is to address the right to informational privacy of individuals, which is defined
violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a as “the right to control the collection, maintenance, use, and
remedy independently from those provided under prevailing dissemination of data about oneself.” the writ of habeas data
Rules. [W]rits of …habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely now stands as “a remedy available to any person whose right to
property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful. unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
Employment constitutes a property right under the context of private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting
the due process clause of the Constitution. It is evident that or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
respondent’s reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party.” Thus, in
legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of one’s order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ, Section
employment - are what prompted her to adopt the extraordinary 6 of the Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the petition
remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he manner the right to
inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters. privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to
life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party.” In other words,
Is the issuance of the writ outside the parameters expressly set the petition must adequately show that there exists a nexus
forth in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data? YES. There is no between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to
showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed life, liberty or security on the other. Corollarily, the allegations in
any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondent’s right to the petition must be supported by substantial evidence showing
privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or security. To argue that an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life,
petitioners’ refusal to disclose the contents of reports allegedly liberty or security of the victim. In this relation, it bears pointing
received on the threats to respondent’s safety amounts to a out that the writ of habeas data will not issue to protect purely
violation of her right to privacy is at best speculative. Respondent property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked
in fact trivializes these threats and accusations from unknown in support of the petitions therefor are vague and doubtful.
individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her letter as "highly Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy
suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all." in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the
And she even suspects that her transfer to another place of work
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 133
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
subject sex video. significance to society, or of paramount public interest. In the
While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the suppression of this landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public
video – which he fears would somehow find its way to Quiapo or right” of citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology which, for
be uploaded in the internet for public consumption – he failed to the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly
explain the connection between such interest and any violation incorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared that the right
of his right to life, liberty or security. The petition is dismissible to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
due to the inadequacy of the evidence presented. As the records Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights
show, all that Ilagan submitted in support of his petition was his guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of
self-serving testimony which hardly meets the substantial mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
evidence requirement as prescribed by the Habeas Data Rule. intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the
This is because nothing therein would indicate that Lee actually correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. On
proceeded to commit any overt act towards the end of violating the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors
Ilagan’s right to privacy in life, liberty or security. Nor would in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have
anything on record even lead a reasonable mind to conclude that legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights,
Lee was going to use the subject video in order to achieve they can do so in representation of their own and future
unlawful ends – say for instance, to spread it to the public so as generations.
to ruin Ilagan’s reputation. Contrastingly, Lee even made it clear
in her testimony that the only reason why she reproduced the Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages
subject video was to legitimately utilize the same as evidence in caused by USS Guardian - YES, The US respondents were sued in
the criminal and administrative cases that she filed against their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who
Ilagan. Hence, due to the insufficiency of the allegations as well had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew.
as the glaring absence of substantial evidence, the Court finds it The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate
proper to reverse the RTC Decision and dismiss the habeas data grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while
petition. they were performing official military duties. Considering that the
satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require
MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO et al vs. SCOTT H. SWIFT in his remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US
capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, et al [Arigo vs. government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
Swift] G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014 The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of
TOPIC: Writ of kalikasan, UNCLOS, Immunity from suit jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift,
Rice and Robling.
The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship
of the US Navy. In December 2012, the US Embassy in the
Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel “to The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss
enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to or damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance
arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship by a warship or other government ship operated for non-
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.” On January 6, commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal
2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay, arriving on January State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the
13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan. On January provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.
15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships
of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. operated for non-commercial purposes. Non-membership in the
while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the
northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and
miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear “international
incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil. responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed,
operations of the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause it is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and trading
environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect the partner, which has been actively supporting the country’s efforts
provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its
Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warship while
and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights transiting our internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a
to a balanced and healthful ecology. Government exercising leadership in international affairs,
unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to
Whether or not petitioners have legal standing - YES, Petitioners cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the marine
have legal standing. Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a environment as provided in Article 197 of UNCLOS. Although the
court of justice on a given question.” Specifically, it is “a party’s said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the
personal and substantial interest in a case where he has jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter’s
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result” of the act being territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the
challenged, and “calls for more than just a generalized territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws and regulations
grievance.” However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused
which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like by their warships or any other government vessel operated for
ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public non-commercial purposes under Article 31.
interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 134
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA Id., p. 15. Instead, the Court explained, “the need to give the
applies in this case – NO, The waiver of State immunity under the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated
VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of
actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws.” Id.,
Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the p. 16-17. Poli Notes: Do dolphins have locus standi to file a
Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a petition? SC said we need NOT rule on whether these resident
violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately. The mammals have locus standi to file a petition. After all, In their
Court considered a view that a ruling on the application or non- petition, they were joined (not represented) by human beings,
application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US and under Section 5 – citizen’s suit, rules for the enforcement of
personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the environmental laws, as a steward of God’s creation xxx; Full case:
USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a US said even rivers has locus standi. In remedial law – only
petition for a writ of Kalikasan. The Court also found unnecessary persons, natural or juridical Vs. In oposa – petitioners were
at this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity minors, represented by parents – there is locus standi.
is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages
which have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. [Other issue: Whether the service contract violated the Philippine
The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the Constitution or other domestic laws - The Court then held that
collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a while SC-46 was authorized Presidential Decree No. 87 on oil
separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal extraction, the contract did not fulfill two additional constitutional
action charging the same violation of an environmental law. requirements. Section 2 Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
requires a service contract for oil exploration and extraction to be
signed by the president and reported to congress. Because the
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon JAPEX contract was executed solely by the Energy Secretary, and
Strait vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes et Al., G.R. No. 180771, April not reported to the Philippine congress, the Court held that it
21, 2015 was unconstitutional. Id., pp. 24-25. In addition, the Court also
Summary: The Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines ruled that the contract violated the National Integrated Protected
ruled that a service contract for oil exploration, development, and Areas System Act of 1992 (NIPAS Act), which generally prohibits
production issued by the government of the Philippines in the exploitation of natural resources in protected areas. In order to
protected area of the Tañon Strait was unconstitutional. explore for resources in a protected area, the exploration must be
performed in accordance with an environmental impact
Two sets of petitioners filed separate cases challenging the assessment (EIA). The Court noted that JAPEX started the seismic
legality of Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) awarded to Japan surveys before any EIA was performed; therefore its activity was
Petroleum Exploration Co. (JAPEX). The service contract allowed unlawful. Id., pp. 33-34. Furthermore, the Tanon Strait is a NIPAS
JAPEX to conduct oil exploration in the Tañon Strait during which area, and exploration and utilization of energy resources can only
it performed seismic surveys and drilled one exploration well. be authorized through a law passed by the Philippine Congress.
The first petition was brought on behalf of resident marine Because Congress had not specifically authorized the activity in
mammals in the Tañon Strait by two individuals acting as legal Tañon Strait, the Court declared that no energy exploration
guardians and stewards of the marine mammals. The second should be permitted in that area. Id., p. 34.]
petition was filed by a non-governmental organization CELERINA J. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. RICARDO T. SANTOS,
representing the interests of fisherfolk, along with individual respondent. G.R. No. 187061 dated October 8, 2014 (737 SCRA
representatives from fishing communities impacted by the oil 637)
exploration activities. The RTC declared Celerina presumptively dead after her husband
The petitioners filed their cases in 2007, shortly after JAPEX began had filed a petition for declaration of absence or presumptive
drilling in the strait. In 2008, JAPEX and the government of the death for the purpose of remarriage. Later on, Celerina filed a
Philippines mutually terminated the service contract and oil petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals
exploration activities ceased. The Supreme Court consolidated on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. She
the cases for the purpose of review. argued that she was deprived her day in court when Ricardo,
In its decision, the Supreme Court first addressed the important despite his knowledge of her true residence, misrepresented to
procedural point of whether the case was moot because the the court that she was a resident of Tarlac City. According to her,
service contract had been terminated. The Court declared that her true residence was in Quezon City which has been their
mootness is “not a magical formula that can automatically conjugal dwelling until Ricardo left. As a result of Ricardo's
dissuade the courts in resolving a case.” Id., p. 12. Due to the misrepresentation, she was deprived of any notice of and
alleged grave constitutional violations and paramount public opportunity to oppose the petition declaring her presumptively
interest in the case, not to mention the fact that the actions dead. The CA ruled in favour of Ricardo (held that the proper
complained of could be repeated, the Court found it necessary to remedy was to file a sworn statement declaring her
reach the merits of the case even though the particular service reappearance). Hence, this petition.
contract had been terminated.
What is the proper remedy, petition for annulment of judgment
Whether marine mammals, through their stewards, have legal or an an affidavit of reappearance?
standing to pursue the case - As to standing, the Court declined
to extend the principle of standing beyond natural and juridical Petition for annulment of judgment. Annulment of judgment is
persons, even though it recognized that the current trend in the remedy when the RTC's judgment, order, or resolution has
Philippine jurisprudence “moves towards simplification of become final, and the "remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
procedures and facilitating court access in environmental cases.” relief (or other appropriate remedies) are no longer available
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 135
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 through no fault of the petitioner. The grounds for annulment of
judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Celerina filed
the petition within the four-year period allowed by law in case of
extrinsic fraud, and before the action is barred by laches, which is
the period allowed in case of lack of jurisdiction.

The filing of an affidavit of reappearance (which is the remedy

provided by the Family Court in terminating the subsequent
marriage) is an admission on the part of the first spouse that his
or her marriage to the present spouse was terminated when he
or she was declared absent or presumptively dead. Reappearance
of the absent or presumptively dead spouse will cause the
termination of the subsequent marriage only when all the
conditions enumerated in the Family Code are present (to wit, (1)
the non-existence of a judgment annulling the previous marriage
or declaring it void ab initio; (2) recording in the civil registry of
the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage of the
sworn statement of fact and circumstances of reappearance; (3)
due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage of the fact
of reappearance; and (4) the fact of reappearance must either be
undisputed or judicially determined.).
A subsequent marriage contracted in bad faith, even if it was
contracted after a court declaration of presumptive death, lacks
the requirement of a well-founded belief that the spouse is
already dead. The first marriage will not be considered as validly
terminated. Marriages contracted prior to the valid termination
of a subsisting marriage are generally considered bigamous and
void. Only a subsequent marriage contracted in good faith is
protected by law.
If the subsequent marriage will be considered valid, the children
of such marriage will be considered legitimate, the property
relations of the spouses will be the same as in valid marriages,
and a judgment declaring presumptive death is a defense against
prosecution for bigamy.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 136

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 guardianship. But incompetency, it is there already in the
Special Proceedings rules.
REMEDIAL LAW BAR OPERATIONS
Jurisdictional Aspect of this:
Criminal Procedure When incompetency is the ground in guardianship, it
Villa Real case on Probation should be filed with the RTC. But if it is a minor, it should
be filed with the Family Court.
Settlement of Estate is the most important on Special Proceedings
The Family Court is separate and distinct from the RTC
Salient Points:
1. Venue and Jurisdiction As to the Venue
The residence of the ward, prospective ward.
Venue – doctrine in fule, substantiated, latest case is San
Luis vs. San Luis And also the Bond
The venue in settlement of estates is the last
personal, physical abode of the decedent. When is Guardianship terminated?
When the ground, the cause for the petition for
Reprobate of the will guardianship ceases or ends, that is the termination of
Rule 77 guardianship.
When a will is executed abroad under the law where it was
executed, you cannot implement that in the country. You Carmen Caniza as represented by Amparo Evangelista vs.
have to file a petition for enforcement of a foreign CA; 1997 or 1998
judgment but that is strictly known as the Reprobate of Don’t read it as if the rule on termination of guardianship
the will. here was overturned. It is still the same. Read this
thoroughly.
Remember: 5 requirements of Reprobate of the will
Upon the death of the ward, the guardianship was
2. Claims against the Estate terminated. The case continues because the guardian is
Rule 86, Sec. 7 the niece of the ward. Even by substitution, it is still the
same.
When the estate is the mortgagor
The mortgagee has three options but one would exclude Case in QC of a Solfem old woman, the niece (Amparo
the other, the availment of one is the exclusion of the Evangelista) filed guardianship over the person and
other. property of her aunt. Petition was granted. While
1. File it as a claim against the estate under Rule 86; exercising her duties as a guardian, she found out that one
2. File judicial foreclosure under Rule 68; or of the properties is being leased to the Estradas. But it is
3. File Extrajudicial foreclosure under 3135 as amended not actually being leased but merely being occupied by
by 4118, he cannot ask for deficiency judgment in the Pedro Estrada who is the all-around worker of her aunt –
same action. Is there deficiency judgment? Yes but in the driver, gardener, and all. Since she needs medicine for
a separate action. her aunt, the property being occupied should be sold. But
since it is being occupied by the family of Pedro, she filed
If he chooses one, he waives the other. unlawful detainer as a guardian, representing the owner.
The petition was granted. However, Pedro’s family filed an
In Rule 87, the antithesis of 86, but take note also that Sec appeal. Therefore, the judgment cannot be executed since
5 regarding the fact that the estate is the mortgagee. the judgment is not yet final and executory. During the
pendency of the appeal, Carmen died. The niece is
3. Guardianship requesting to dismiss the appeal on the ground of
Oropesa vs. Oropesa improper party since there is no longer guardianship. You
cannot represent someone who is no longer around. CA
Two Rules on Guardianship dismissed the case. Hence, appeal to the SC.
1. Rule in the Rules of Court; and
2. The Administrative Matter or Guardianship over Was guardianship terminated?
Minors
Guardianship was terminated because the rule is very
To apply for guardianship over Minors, minority is not the clear that when either the ward or the guardian dies then
ground alone. Solely the fact of minority cannot be a wala na. It is likened to SPA. Pagnamatay na ang isa,
ground for guardianship. It should be qualified. whether the principal or the agent, wala ng SPA ganun din
ang guardianship.
e.g. Death of the parents; remarry of one of the parents
and incapacity on the part of the parents So the guardianship was terminated but will that call for
the dismissal of the case? SC said that NO because of
Minority before the amendatory rule, 2003, by being a substitution. Who is the compulsory heirs? Substitute the
mere minor that can already be a ground for petition for
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 137
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 ward by the guardian. And she is the niece. Therefore, the At present, the law governing adoption is Domestic
unlawful detainer case should continue. Adoption Act of 1998 and Intercountry Adoption Law of
1995.
Bonds on guardianship.
Intercountry Adoption Board – quasi-judicial
4. Hospitalization of the Insane Person instrumentality

Enlarged and enhanced the provisions of this during the The governing law is R.A. 8552, Domestic Adoption Act of
revised rules on special proceedings. 1998.

Medical commitment – new title of Hospitalization of the Rules of Procedure which took effect in 2002 (not sure of
Insane Person on the Revised Rules on Special the year)
Proceedings.
End 32:30
New Rule on the Hospitalization of the Insane Person
covers not only the insane but even the drug dependents R.A. 8043 and 8552 law on adoption, when you know the
and those who are with or afflicted by contagious law, you already know the rules.
diseases.
Definition. Child. Who can adopt?
Not only Secretary of Health can treat the contagious
diseases but even the Regional Health. Anyone below 18 years old – Domestic Adoption Act
Any child below 15 years old – Intercountry Adoption Law
But the new rules are not yet approved.
*Legal age is not the only requirement to qualify to adopt.

5. Adoption BAR MATTER

Liza is a 19-year-old Filipino, working and handsomely
Definition. What is adoption? earning who wants to adopt little Mario. Is she qualified to
adopt?
Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem, which
creates a relationship between two persons similar to that No, Liza cannot adopt because the she no full legal
of legitimate paternity and filiation. capacity. The law provides that a Filipino of legal age who
has full civil capacity. She doesn’t have a full civil capacity
A juridical act – it cannot be a subject of a contract. There because under our Civil Code, one has only full civil
must be a judicial order that is why it is a juridical act. It capacity at 21 years old. So, she does not have the full
must pass through the court. exercise of her civil rights.

Proceeding in rem – it binds the whole world. Under the Family Code, a 19-year-old girl cannot marry
without parental consent.
Which creates a relationship between two persons –
object or things are not included.
Prospective Adoptee
A relationship similar to that legitimate paternity and
filiation – only a relationship “similar” Must be legally available for adoption. When is one legally
available for adoption?
The law can never approximate or substitute nature. Anak
ay anak. Tatay ay tatay. OLD RULE: There must be a judicial declaration that the
adoptee is legally available for adoption. Judicial
Paternity and filiation – should not be interpreted literary. declaration means that you need to go to court.
Paternity – man, father
Filiation – son NEW RULE: In the very petition for adoption, you start
These are used generically. Includes maternity. with a judicial declaration that the prospective adoptee is
legally available for adoption. No need for a separate
Legitimate – it is accepted. All the rights of the natural petition.
father, mother, child also apply here.
Legally available for adoption
Rules on Adoption has taken a lot of changes through the 1. Voluntarily committed – the parents renounce their
years. Being adapted on the new trends. But substantially, parental authority and commit the child to DSWD;
it is the same. and
2. Involuntarily committed – the government forced the
Adoption was formerly governed by the Child and Welfare parents to commit the child to DSWD.
Code, PD 6303. This went through a lot of amendments. a. Abandoned child – must have been
abandoned for 6 months; and
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 138
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 b. Neglected child 1. Filipino – mentioned above;
2. Alien – always all the requirements of a Filipino and
Child placement agency can also be a Child caring agency residency requirement; with diplomatic relationship
but a Child caring agency is not necessarily child with the Philippines; and duly certified and qualified
placement. to adopt according to their home country law; and
3. Guardian – only after the termination of guardianship
Child Caring Agency – who takes care or provides support
materially, financially, psychologically to the child but they Consent is very important. Most of the cases refer to the
are not authorize to file adoption proceeding. requirement of consent. The consent of the adoptee if he
is at least 10 years old and the parents of the prospective
Child Placement Agency – not only care but they can ask adoptee, the mother and father; and the children of the
for the matching. adopter whether legitimate or illegitimate; and spouse
since adoption must always be joint.

Simulation of Birth Cang VS. CA

When you try to tamper with the Civil Registry and make Mr. and Mrs. Cang in the Philippines. Mr. Cang is a
it appear that you are the parents of a child who is not womanizer and Mrs. Cang wanted to end their marriage.
really your own. This is a criminal offense. So, Mr. Cang went abroad and stayed there to file a
divorce. He left behind three children, all minors. When
There is an amnesty on this. Mrs. Cang got sick, she wanted that their children be
adopted by her brother-in-law and sister who were
Case: IN RE: Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim childless. A petition was filed. When Mr. Cang knew about
it, he came back in the Philippines and opposed the
Husband and wife Lim. The wife is an optometric. A child petition on the ground that he did not give his consent.
was brought to her clinic who during that time is 11-day The petitioner claimed that the consent is no longer
old. She took care of the child and called her Michelle Lim. necessary because he already filed a divorce and in effect
The birth was simulated. After a year, the same woman he has abandoned the family already. When this reached
brought another child. Again, she simulated the birth of the SC, the SC denied the petition on the ground of lack of
this second child and named him, Michael Lim. When consent on the part of the husband. For the defense of
Domestic Adoption Act was enacted, Mrs. Lim already abandonment to be valid, it must be total and absolute
knew that simulation of birth is a criminal offense and abandonment. In the case, there is no absolute or full
there is amnesty. So, Mrs. Lim would like to adopt the abandonment of his parental authority. The husband
children. It is stated in the law that when you avail of this regularly communicated with the children and the
law then you will be exonerated. When she filed the husband sends certain amount of money to the children
petition of adoption, Michelle is already married and and sends gifts to the children on special occasions.
Michael is already of age. Mrs. Lim had a second husband
already who is an American citizen but they already have The SC states that how there can be full abandonment if
the plan of separating. But Mrs. Lim still acquired the the communication and good relationship continue. While
consents from her husband, from Michelle and Michael to adoption is always to the best interest of the prospective
adopt. The petition was eventually granted but appealed adoptee but that should not deprive parents their parental
by the Solicitor General. authority. This parental authority does not only consist of
in support but rather the relationship of the father and
And the decision of the SC was against the adoption on the children must always be considered. According to the
ground that the adoption must always be filed jointly by wife, in the course of the testimony, the children already
the husband and the wife even when there is a wanted to live with their uncle and aunty and they can
prospective plan to divorce and even the spouses are provide. According to the SC, you cannot delegate your
separated in fact. The adoption must be a joint adoption parental authority just like that simply because the
by the spouses. children wanted to be adopted does not mean that it is to
their best interest.

Adoption Requirements:

1. 18 years of age; Castro VS. Gregorio – Consent; Annulment of Judgment on

2. Full civil capacity; the ground of Extrinsic Fraud
3. Qualified emotionally, psychologically, financially,
and physically (totality of the person); and Atty. Jose Castro of Laoag was married to Rosario then
4. 16 year-age gap – between the adopter and the while they were married they had one child who died in
adoptee infancy. After the death of their first child, they decided to
Rationale: To lessen immoral or illicit relationships. separate. They remained to be good friends to the point
that they got back together. They had another child
R.A. 8552 Who can adopt? named Joana. Mrs. Castro separated from the husband on
the ground that Mr. Castro has homosexual tendencies.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 139
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Mrs. Castro continues to support their child and every now
and then Mr. Castro gives support as well. The lawyer We want to remove the middle name on the ground that
sought to adopt his two allegedly illegitimate children we are going to Singapore. And in Singapore, people has
from his house helper and the adoption was granted. Atty. no official middle name.
Castro died. Mrs. Castro was eventually informed about
the adoption and she said that she never knew the The SC disapproved on the same rationale as in the case
adoption. That her consent was not secured. That the of Stephanie Garcia wherein the court stated that the
adoption was filed in Batac which not Atty. Castro’s identity of a person depends not only on the paternal side
residence. but also on the maternal side. Depriving the middle name
is the deprivation of the person’s maternal identity.
BAR MATTER
What is the remedy of Mrs. Castro? BAR MATTER

Annulment of Judgment on the ground of fraud. With regard to consent, suppose the child is a product of
Fundamentally, there was no consent. But the facts of the egg transplant. The consent is need. The question is whose
case states that these two children are not really his consent is necessary. Is it the natural father or the
illegitimate children but the children of Larry to the house biological father. The biological father is the sperm donor.
helper. Larry is the husband of the house helper of Atty. The natural father is the one who took care of the child.
Castro and Atty. Castro’s lover. And in order to help his
lover, he adopted the children since Mr. Castro has There is no jurisprudence. You can only give
homosexual tendencies. There was fraud but rationalization. Considering here that it would be
fundamentally, the consent was not secured. detrimental; the sperm donor should be unknown. Reason
dictates that you should acquire the consent of the natural
ISSUE: Annulment of the decision of the adoption. father.

Check Santos VS. Santos However, if you are going to ask me on this, get the
consent of both if the sperm donor is known.
Grounds on Annulment of Judgment:
The law on recessional is different. The adopter can no
1. Lack of jurisdiction; longer rescind the adoption, it is only the adoptee who can
2. Lack of due process; and rescind the adoption.
3. Extrinsic Fraud.
Who is entitled upon the death of the adopter. It goes back
IN RE: STEPHANIE NATALY GARCIA to the biological parents.

Illegitimate child of Mr. Catindig. Mr. Catindig wanted to Bartolome VS. SSS
adopt his illegitimate child. Granted. But in the very 2014
petition for adoption. The petitioner asked that the child
would retain Garcia, the family name of the mother. A certain seaman was earning handsomely and he met an
Remember that in adoption, it is automatic that the family accident while on board a ship and he died. The biological
name of the petitioner/adopter is followed by the adoptee mother filed an application with the Compensation Act as
after the decree of the adoption. Following the adoption, beneficiary. This was disapproved by SSS on the ground
the family name now of Stephanie would be Catindig. But that during the childhood when he was only less than 2
Mr. Catindig wanted that the middle name now of years old (the seaman), he was already adopted by his
Stephanie should be Garcia. This was opposed by the grandfather. And because of that adoption, the parental
Solicitor General and stated that it should be in a separate authority seized. And under the Compensation Act,
petition. That would be Change of Name under Rule 103. according to the law, because of this the parental
Hence, appealed to SC. authority was never returned to the biological mother
even upon the death of the adopter.
SC reversed the decision. Today, Sec. 10 of the new Rules
allows in a petition for adoption, change of name and This is exceptional. SC found out that after adoption,
middle name. But at that time it is not yet allowed. There before the adoptee turned 2 years old, the adopter died.
is no provision in the rule that the family name of the Because the adopter died, the biological mother took care
illegitimate child carrying the name of the mother should of the child again until the child became a seaman.
also be maintained or retained. Neither is there a According to the SC, it should be the adopter who is
prohibition. Considering that the identity of a person supposed to benefit. But in this particular situation
depends not only on the paternal side but also on the considering that parental authority has returned to the
maternal side. There is no reason why he could not adopt biological mother because of the death of the adopter, the
Garcia as the middle name of Stephanie. The name now biological mother is entitled to the benefit. This is a
will carry, as pronounced by the court, Garcia as the peculiar case.
middle name of the child and Catindig as her surname.
Intercountry Adoption Law
Carula San Wang Case
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 140
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Can only be availed of by Filipino citizens living abroad or mother filed a petition for habeas corpus for illegal
those permanently residing abroad. You can file to the detention. In addition, Mrs. Potenciano requested for
court here in the Philippines under the Intercountry visitorial rights of a spouse.
Adoption Law or file to the Intercountry Adoption Board.
The Intercountry Adoption Board is not scattered all over The SC said that the record will show that Atty. Potenciano
the world, only located in some countries (i.e. Chicago). notwithstanding his more than 80 years of age is still of
You are trying to avoid the residency requirement. very sound and disposing mind. If you have a sound and
disposing mind and you left the conjugal home then there
Can a foreigner avail of the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 is no illegal detention or there is even no withholding of
as well? custody because when you get married you do not
Yes. Intercountry Adoption Act does not proscribe the surrender your privacy. As to Mrs. Potenciano requested
availment of Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. for visitorial rights of a spouse. Visitorial right only refers
to parents and children relationship but as to husband and
So a foreigner can stay here in the Philippines for at least wife there is no visitorial rights.
three years prior to the petition and comply with the
Domestic Adoption Act.

Emphasis on the Exception:

Foreigner who comes in the Philippines and seeks to adopt

a relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity –
requirement on residency will be removed.

Seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate child*

Seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the spouse*

*These are not only require an exemption for joint

adoption but as well on the residency requirement.

6. Habeas Corpus

Refers to all kinds of illegal confinement or detention or

illegal or unlawful withholding of custody from a person
entitled thereto.

Unlawful withholding of custody

- Happens to husband and wife as well

E.g. Unlawful withholding of custody from the mother

Illegal detention or confinement

- When it violates the constitution or the law

If the court that renders judgment without jurisdiction

then it can be subject for habeas corpus.

Serapio VS. Sandiganbayan

Filed a petition for habeas corpus. The SC said that the

remedy is wrong because you have a remedy against
illegal confinement in your case where you are confined
by virtue of a warrant of arrest, you can always ask for bail.

Doctrine: If there are other remedies, you cannot avail of

habeas corpus.

Buildner Case

Mr. and Mrs. Potenciano got separated and divided the 6

children to the spouses. After a vacation, he returned to
his wife. Then the two children who used to be with the
father told her mother that you are killing Dad. So, the
children brought the father in their Makati house. The
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 141
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
EVIDENCE Will that be relevant in robbery? Definitely it will not be relevant,
neither will it be material.
Basically, you have two things to consider here:
1. Admissibility Sometimes it may not be material, but it may tend to prove, or what
2. Credibility is called indirect evidence.

Evidence must not only be admissible but also credible. For Sanctioned – it is allowed, it is competent
evidence to be credible, it is not only credible by itself, it must also
come from a credible witness. The second requirement for admissibility of evidence is
competency. It is right in the very definition of evidence.
Example:
Cardinal Tagle is a very credible witness. But when you asked him, Competency, meaning allowed or sanctioned by the rules. Only the
“Your eminence, where were you on March 5, 2000?”, he rules?
answered, “I recall, on March 5, 2000, I was on my way to the
moon”. The testimony is very incredible. It comes from a very No. It may be disallowed as well by the Constitution. In fact, very
credible witness but is incredible. Admissible? Yes. fundamental, there are matters that may very relevant, very
material, but you cannot present them as evidence because they
On the other hand, Mr. X was an eye witness to the falsification of are not sanctioned or allowed by the rules.
document, when you started asking him, he said “I saw him sign, he
is not Juan dela Cruz, he is Petra Santos and not Juan dela Cruz, and Two landmark cases:
he was the one who signed there as Juan dela Cruz. On cross
examination you asked, where were you before you came here, “I Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals
just came out of prison, I was an inmate and incarcerated for Mag-asawa, yung asawa niyang doctor pinagsususpetyahan. The
falsification.” marriage was already in danger of being dissolved. Aside from the
filing of legal separation, there was also a case for disqualification
This is a very credible testimony but it came from an incredible to practice medicine.
witness.
One time, she went to the office of her husband and ransack the
First guide – memorize the definition of evidence, verbatim. office, got documents such as love letters, pictures. She tried to
present this as evidence in court. The SC said that these may be
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining in a relevant evidence but they are not sanctioned by the rules because
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. in securing these pieces of documentary evidence, wife has
violated the husband’s right to privacy.
This is your principal tool in answering any question in evidence.
From this very definition, the requirements for admissibility of The word rules is not limited to the rules, it may refer to a statute
evidence are inherent in its definition. (such as Anti-wire tapping Law). You cannot present evidence
violative of said law, they are inadmissible.
Two requirements for admissibility:
1. Relevancy; and In trial, there are things not sanctioned by the rules. That’s why
2. Competency you object: Objection, irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent.

Relevancy – that which tends to prove Ong Chia vs. Republic

Ong Chia was Chinese national, his petition for naturalization was
That is why the word “means” in the very definition signifies the granted. The OSG appealed that, and on appeal presented certain
first requirement for the admissibility of evidence which is documents which were not offered in the lower courts. Ong Chia
relevancy. questioned that it should not be admitted because it violates my
right to due process.
What is required is that evidence is relevant, materiality is not
required. Even if it is material, if it is not relevant, it doesn’t tend SC: The rules of court will not apply that. It is not sanctioned,
to prove, then it is not admissible. because the rules itself so provide that naturalization cases are not
governed by the rules of court, if ever, only suppletorily.
Example:
A gun is material in killing a person. But the person was killed by Sasan Jr. vs. NLRC
stabbing or drowning. Would the gun be relevant? It would not In labor cases, evidence not presented before the labor arbiter may
tend to prove the issue, although that would be material. still be presented on appeal to the NLRC. I am using the word
“appeal” very loosely here because in labor cases, there are no
Relevant and Material appeals.
An eye witness is testifying to the fact of robbery. He saw, his
testimony is very relevant and material as well. Suppose in the Ascertaining – to make sure that it is the real thing
course of his testimony, he tries to establish that the robber was
only in grade 1. Nature of evidence:
1. Object
2. Documentary
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 142
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 3. Testimonial
W: When I found that at the scene of the crime, I wrote in my
All of these must be ascertained. notebook the serial number.

How do you ascertain documentary evidence? Atty: Let’s compare.

1. Marking
2. Identification Afterwhich, you have already authenticated because it is easily
identifiable.
In may be a case of criminal or civil, when you present evidence you
have to make sure that it is the real thing. How do you do that? If the object is not easily identifiable, make them identifiable.
Authenticate.
Atty: What did you find at the scene of the crime?
The first step of authentication, identify it, and then mark it. That W: I found a knife
happens under the present dispensation, during the pretrial, or Atty: What kind of knife?
preliminary conference. The authentication proper takes place at W: I found a kitchen knife
the trial. The rationale behind the rule of marking and Atty: I have here a knife, how do you know that this is the knife?
identification in the pretrial is preparatory to authentication. W: When I found it, I put a mark there.

Mr. Witness, I have here a deed of sale. What relation has this to Objects which are not identifiable
the deed of sale you mentioned? That is the deed of sale. Example: Blood, oil, shabu

On the lower portion, there is the name Juan dela Cruz. Whose First possible question in the bar: Doctrine of chain of custody
signature is this? rule (RA 9165, Section 21)
That is may signature
Doctrinal cases which amended old doctrine:
You have now authenticated the document. People vs. Gani
People vs. Posing
How do you authenticate object evidence?
Before a witness is allowed to testify, he must take an oath. That is What do we mean by the chain of custody rule?
the authentication. This are the several steps in ascertaining that shabu confiscated
somewhere is now the shabu which is presented here in open
If the witness refuses to take an oath because of religion, he should court. If different, this is not admissible for failure to authenticate.
take an affirmation. But witness also refused to take affirmation.
Common defense by accused: Planted evidence
Which should be given preference, religious right or the right to
hear the truth? What is the purpose of the rule?
To preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.
In this particular case, the right to your religion gives way to the
right to what is true because this is a judicial proceeding. If witness There can be several links in the chain of custody rule. At least,
doesn’t want to swear or affirm, witness cannot testify. How sure there should be four in the chain of custody rule.
can the court be that he will say the truth?
1. Who confiscated it?
When one does not one to take an oath or affirmation, he cannot 2. To whom drug was given upon confiscation?
authenticate his testimony. Therefore, his testimony is 3. Who gave that to the laboratory?
inadmissible. 4. Who gave that to the court?

Object evidence The old doctrine, you have to present at least four chains. The new
doctrine (Gani, Posing), it is really very hard to bring them all to
There are object evidence which are easily identifiable, because by court and to establish the unbroken chain is quite improbable.
their very nature, they are already marked. Somewhere, somehow, the chain will be broken. But as long as you
can preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the object, then
For example, gun. You ask the witness, “what were you doing at you have complied with the chain of custody rule.
the scene of the crime?”. I was the police investigator.
Furthermore, you can only present one witness to establish the
“What did you find, if any?” I found a gun chain of custody rule, but this one witness that you are presenting
“What kind of a gun?” A 45-caliber knows all the chains.
“Is this the gun which you have found at the scene of the crime?”
Yes Sir Two witnesses are usually presented:
“How do you know that this is the gun that you found at the scene 1. The one who confiscated, brought to his boss and to the
of the crime?” lab
2. The one who examined
This is authentication, you have to authenticate/ make
sure/ascertain that it is the real thing.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 143
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
It can be one only, as long as he is able to establish the chain and The following will constitute judicial admission:
he has personal knowledge of the matters he is testifying to. 1. Admissions in the pleadings (whether complaint, reply or
even in motions
Section 21, RA 9165, requirements: 2. Admissions during the pre-trial or preliminary conference
Once you have confiscated, items must be inventoried. It must be 3. Admissions during the trial
done in the presence of the accused, member of the PDEA, elected Remember that the admissions in the original complaint
official and media. are judicial admissions, However, when that original
complaint is amended, the amended pleading supersedes
The truth respecting a matter of fact – offer of evidence the original pleadings. The admissions in the original
pleadings become or are turned to extra judicial
How do you offer testimonial evidence? Even before he speaks the admissions. In order for these to be admitted, you have
first testimonial word. After the oath or affirmation, you start to to prove them and offer them.
make the offer now.
Two kinds of judicial notices:
How do you offer documentary or object evidence? 1. Mandatory – mandated by the rules to be admitted
Before you rest your case, you have the make an offer for the (familiarize yourself)
documentary and object evidence. Even if presented, still you have
to make a formal offer of evidence. Local laws are not of judicial notice.

Different classifications of evidence: MTC judges are supposed to take judicial notice of city
Positive and negative ordinances where they sit. How about the RTC? The
An affirmation of something negative or an affirmation of non- statutes which govern or applicable only in that locality,
existence of something is a positive evidence. Denial is negative then they are of judicial notice.
evidence.
2. Discretionary – this can only be done, or availed of before
Direct and circumstantial or during the trial, but not after.

Cumulative and corroborative Three grounds before the court can take discretionary judicial
Corroborative is evidence of another nature. If both testimonial notice:
evidence, they do not corroborate. Cumulative is evidence of the
same nature. Both testimonial or both documentary. 1. Public knowledge – that which is beyond question; certain
(e.g., Senator Leila de Lima landed as no. 12 in the last
Adoptive evidence (in the case of Joseph Estrada) election, or that President Duterte won)
A written testimony which is believed to be true may be applied
and may be admissible to the person involved or mentioned in that 2. That which is known to judges by reason of their judicial
documentary evidence. Mentioned in lectures as the Angara diary. function
Technically hearsay.
Victim of rape, when she takes the witness stand, her
Collateral evidence, in general, are inadmissible. They are testimony consists of badges of truthfulness.
demonstrative evidence, they are not the real thing, but they Jurisprudence has already recognized that when a girl says
establish the truth of the real thing. what she is supposed to say, chances are she is telling the
truth.
Different kinds of admissibility of evidence:
1. Conditional – Minimum wage, witnesses in the country are afraid to
2. Multiple – one particular evidence may be admitted for testify, if you do not entice or urge them to testify, they
two or more purposes (e.g., in the hearsay rule, where a would not. This is known to judges by reason of their
1) dying declaration can also admitted as 2) declaration judicial function.
against interest or as a 3) part of the res gestae
3. Curative – Irrelevant or incompetent evidence is not to be 3. That which is easily demonstrable, easily established or
admitted. The adverse party must also be allowed to shown, in the open court.
present inadmissible evidence contradicting this evidence
which were erroneously admitted. The judge can take judicial notice, March 24, 2000, was
good Friday.
RULE 129 – WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Remember that foreign laws cannot be taken judicial notice of.
Under this rule, what is the effect of evidence? Proof. How about the records of the case in their own sala?
What is the use of evidence? To establish or prove a fact.
No. Not even the records in their own sala. In case #1 and #2, in
Two kinds: trying case #2, the court cannot take judicial notice of the records
1. Judicial Notice in case #1.
2. Judicial Admission
Rule 130
What constitutes judicial admission?
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 144
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
3 kinds of evidence this best evidence rule, when it is already impractical, because
1. OBJECT EVIDENCE (1 rule only) – strongest kind of evid, most nowadays all copies are original copies.
credible evid
2. Documentary Evidence – 3 rules only 4 EXEMPTIONS TO BEST EVIDENCE RULE (LASP)
3. Testimonial evidence – the weakest of all evid that’s why it has 1. the original was lost, destroyed (partially or totally)
so may rules. However, even if it is the weakest evid it is the without the fault of the offeror
most important evid. Since Object and Documentary evid 2. the original is with the adverse party and was not
cannot stand on their own and must be testified by someone! produced despite notice of the other party;
3. Records are so voluminous and I am only after the
Note: Person can be an object evidence. summary of the contents of the original.
You present Mahal. You present her as object evidence to establish 4. the original is a public record, it is in the custody of a public
dwarfism, that there is dwarfism in the country. Will you arrive at officer, of the public office
the conclusion that there is dwarfism in the country? Just consult your logic and reason you will know the exemption
No, someone must testify to show the entire world that there is to the best evidence rule.
dwarfism in the Philippines. It requires someone to sponsor object
evidence. 2. Parol Evidence Rule (a.k.a Evidence Outside the Document)
- When the terms of an agreement are set in writing, then
Another example is a calibre-45 gun, we need to offer or present there is no other evidence of the terms of the agreement
the gun to the judge to be marked. Someone must tell us, what except those found in the writing
relation has this to the fact in issue. What relation has this to the - GR: evidence aliunde is not admissible. Any evidence
corpus delicti or fact of the crime. So someone must sponsor that. outside of the document cannot establish the terms and
condition of the agreement.
I. OBJECT EVIDENCE - The general meaning of that is any document outside the
- It is described or defined as that which is addressed to the contract are inadmissible.
senses of the court.
- “To the senses of the court” means to the senses of the judge Rationale behind Parol Evidence:
or addressed to the judge. These refer to the five senses of man. When two persons enter into a contract and they put in writing
The kinds of object evidence depend on the kind of sense of man the terms and condition of the contract, they have already
to which it is addressed to. agreed that this will only be the terms and condition of the
contract. All the terms cannot be established by evidence
Sight visual aliunde, including oral evidence.
Hearing auricular Note: You cannot prove the terms and condition of the
Taste Gustatory contract under parole evidence by other contract which is also
a documents. Because that is outside evidence. So you don’t
Smell Olfactory
limit this to oral evidence.
Touch
If you ask me, which is the most important of them. It depends
on the fact of issue. EXEMPTIONS TO PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
1. If your contract is invalid! there is no contract to talk
about.
II. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
2. Imperfect contract. Not all agreements are included.
3 Rules in DOCUMENTARY Evidence (PEB) 3. Ambiguity of the terms used in the contract. It means it
1. Best evidence rule (a.k.a. ORIGINAL EVIDENCE RULE) – Not a can be subjected to at least two interpretations!
bar matter!
- When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a
Example Application of PAROL EVIDENCE RULE:
document, there is no other admissible evidence other
1. If I have to borrow money and asked, I will tell that I
than original.
borrowed Hong Kong Dollar, contrary to what you
- This term original descended for the rule is getting to be
may say that what I have borrowed is US dollar. So
passé already.
that is an ambiguous term.
Note: If the content of the document is not the subject of the 2. Will of the decedent. When you devised a real
inquiry, but you are only trying to establish the existence of the property to Mario Santos, and there happens to be
document or the age of the document, or the quality of the two Mario Santoses. You need to establish by parole
document, the best evidence rule will not apply. evidence. Because this agreement referred to here
includes wills. But before going into the exemptions,
- Under the best evidence rule is what is quite important is don’t forget the second paragraph, that is very
the original, the first copy. You have to present the original; important.
all other copies are not acceptable or admissible. That is the
best evidence rule! Note: Before going to exemptions of Parole evidence there is a
second or third paragraph which must be complied
Nowadays, when can you say that the document is original?
You only print one and have it xerox. Then you sign. They are
all original. So if I were the examiner why will I be asking about Second paragraph:
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 145
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 - It states, that the exemption must be put in the pleadings. example of the contract, he improves it makes certain
Must be set in the pleadings. corrections and send it back to you. That is electronic document.
- It means that when you are contesting certain terms and
condition that you want to establish by parole evidence or oral Suppose what you send is a contract of rescission, then it
evidence or by evidence outside the document. You have to extinguishes an obligation. As distinguished from simple
set that in the pleading. messages that do not create rights or obligation.

Supposed there is a complaint. The complaint is based on a III. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

document and when you run over the document you found
that there are imperfections in the document, and you want to
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of ascertaining in a
contest that.
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
In order to be allowed parol evidence or oral evidence or
evidence outside the document, otherwise known as evidence
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS (Section 20)
aliunde, you have to place in your answer the fact that a
- One who can perceive and perceiving and can make known his
contract is imperfect or there are mistakes or imperfection. If
perception can be a witness.
you do not allege that in your Answer then you cannot use
parol evidence. Okay this is regarding the parole evidence.
Can a blind man testify? Can a deaf-mute testify? Can a mental
retardate testify?
3. Electronic Evidence Rule (Bar Matter) It depends, If you forgot the landmark case, use that general rule.
- Note: The best evidence rule will not apply in electronic
evidence because electronic evidence are not considered Three requirements of a witness
original document. They are only, at best, reproduction. 1. one who can perceive - means the ability to observe.
2. Perceiving, the ability to remember, recollect or recall
3. Can make known his perception – ability to communicate
How do you authenticate electronic evidence? what he can recall.
- To authenticate electronic evidence, it must be by someone
privy to the document. One who is not privy to the document Who are disqualified to testify? (Sec 21)
has no right to authenticate the document. 1. whose mental condition is such that he is unable to
perceive or perceiving can not make known his
How about an expert witness? perception. Any of the three he cannot perform, then he
That could be an exemption. If you cannot get someone privy to the is disqualified.
document, then you can secure the testimony of an expert witness. 2. paragraph b, the children, because that has been
amended already. In the presentation of the problem, it
Say you are trying to present evidence of text message. In appears that children are presumed incompetent. The
authenticating it, You have to present your cellphone to the court. presumption is there is an inability to perceive and
And show to the court that these are the copies of the text perceiving can make known his perception.
messages which are hereby printed. Compare. So that we have to Under the rule on the examination of a child witness, the
mark here. But when presented, you have to authenticate before presumption now is that a child is a competent witness.
the court the messages you have received from somebody. In other
words you are privy to the document. Rule on the examination of a child witness (2015 BAR)
- The rule now favors the competency of a child. If you want to
Say Mr. X texted Mr. Y and these are the text messages (other assail the competency of the child you have the burden of
example, chats, email, etc.). You cannot do that in court because proof. So if you assail or impugn the competency of a child to
you are not privy to the document. testify, you have to establish it by the competency test
What is the possible expert witness here? provided for in section 6 of the rule on examination of a child
- the service provider. Although they are not privy but since they witness.
are expert they can authenticate the text messages. Electronic
evidence can only be authenticated by someone privy to the What is this competency test? (Sec 6)
document. It is not a psychological test but a regular observation of a searching
question of a judge to simply establish whether or not a child is
competent and how will the judge establish the competency of a
Electronic document consist of electronic data or message, but child? Through his questioning, he must determine if the child
these electronic document creates rights or establishes rights or knows the difference between truthfulness and falsity. That is the
extinguishes obligations. only objective of competency test. If the child does not find the
Vs. difference between the two, then he is incompetent.
Electronic data message is not electronic evidence proper since it
does not creates a right or extinguishes an obligation There is a jurisprudence that a four year old child was considered
competent to testify. But another, a two year old was considered
Say, you send a contract to the US through email. Of course you to be incompetent. While he is able to perceive, he cannot make
signed it, it is called electronic signature. Electronic signature, known his perception. Hence, the issue is whether a child can
you know, is not always a writing. Here in the Philippines determine what is falsehood or not.
Electronic signature can only be an electronic sign. Back to my
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 146
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
Under the rule, the competency test must be done in seclusion, only during the existence of 1. Husband and wife -
away from the general public. the marriage continues even if the
marriage has been
What is live link testimony? (Sec 25) dissolved
That is secluded testimony. You isolate the child from the general
publich wherein it is only the judge and sometimes with the lawyer GR: Marital Disqualification
and the judge will ask questions with the help of testimonial aids, XPN:
ect. (diaper, gun, person, play toy, anatomically correct doll). 1. If husband and wife have no commonality of interest

Distinguish Testimonial aid is different from support persons. Alvarez vs. Ramirez (2006 BAR)
Testimonial aid is any object to aid the chil that will help the child Being separated-in-fact, there is no commonality of interest to
in testifying ((diaper, gun, person, play toy, anatomically correct protect marital rights even if the marriage still subsist.
doll).. Support person is anyone who accompanies the child The following are the grounds why disqualification does not apply:
(relatives). You have also a term there called facilitator. 1. Commonality of interest no longer holds
2. Great temptation for perjury no longer holds since there is no
Who is a facilitator? more marriage to be protected.
A facilitator is one who propounds question to the child the
questions relayed by the parties concern. This facilitator is Here, the Husband was convicted of arson of the house of the sister
someone that the child has trust. of the wife where the latter resides after their separation, despite
the objection of the husband insisting marital disqualification rule.
Sexual abuse shield rule (BAR Matter)
- the sexual propensity of the child. You cannot ask regarding People vs. Judge Castaneda
past sexual encounters of the child. Subject matter is conjugal property, when the husband falsify the
- But there is an exemption to bar this rule. If you are going to signature of the wife, he is doing it against the wife
establish that the accused is not the source of the semen found
in the vagina of the child, then you can ask specific sexual Q: Why does the MARITAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
encounter of a child. disqualification subsist even after the marriage has been
dissolved?
Disqualifications A: It is because the knowledge of the spouse, which may have
Rule 130, Section 20 been gotten during the marriage being privileged, remains to be
Rule 130 - Bulk/meat/substance of evidence protected. It is not anymore the marriage, itself, which is to be
Qualifications of a witness may be summarized in the following protected, but rather the privileged communication. Unlike in
(coded in “one who can perceive and perceiving, can make known MDR, after the marriage has been dissolved, the disqualification
his perception”) no longer exists.
-ability to observe
-ability to recall or remember what you have observed Alvarez vs. Ramirez
-ability to communicate A case between husband and wife, who were separated-in-fact.
The wife left the conjugal home and live with her sister. One day,
Disqualifications the house of the wife’s sister got burned and the suspect, and in
1. The immature person - one who is mentally challenged (mental fact the one who was charged, was the husband. In the course of
sanity according to the Rule) the proceeding, when he was charged for arson, the estranged wife
was called upon to testify. The adverse party objected to the
Children now, are deemed competent. They are PRESUMED testimony of the wife on the ground of MARITAL
competent for the purpose of evidence, so that if a question on DISQUALIFICATION RULE and this was sustained until it was
competency of a witness child is raised, the Court has the brought up to the Supreme Court.
obligation to undertake COMPETENCY TEST.
ISSUE: Is the Marital Disqualification Rule applicable in this
COMPETENCY TEST must be undertaken in the presence of the instance?
judge. This is in connection with the rule on the examination of
Child Witness. HELD: No. The wife is no longer disqualified. She could testify. Since
the marriage is not dissolve for only being separated-in-fact, the
2. Sec. 22 - MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE (BAR MATTER) Marital Disqualification Rule, according to the SC, will not apply in
WHENEVER this disqualification is raised, the confusion lies on this case for the commonality of interest between the husband and
distinguishing this disqualification from MARITAL PRIVILEGED the wife no longer holds.
COMMUNICATION RULE, which is another disqualification. So at
the outset, you must know the distinction between MDR from One of the purposes why the husband or wife is disqualified to
the MPCR. To underscore the distinctions, emphasize on the testify during the marriage is because of the (1) common interest
word PRIVILEGED. to protect their marital rights. In this case, being separated-in-fact,
there is no more marital rights to be protected.
Marital Disqualification Rule Marital Privileged
(MDR) Communication Rule Another purpose of the disqualification of a spouse to testify
APPLICABILITY against or in favor of the other spouse is because it is a (2) great

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 147

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
temptation for PERJURY. However, in this case, said ground will not - only on MATTERS which is the subject of the lawyer-client
hold because there is no temptation for perjury, since there is no relationship.
more marital rights to be protected.
Rationale: To protect the legal profession, because when a client
People vs. Judge Castaneda goes to the office and confides matters that should not be divulged
The husband sold a parcel of land, which is a conjugal property, to the public.
but the marital conformity, which should be signed by his wife,
was instead signed by him without knowledge and consent of the • Tie this with the sub judice rule (also a protective mantle)
wife. During the charge of falsification, the wife was called to take
the witness’ stand to testify. The adverse party objected. This is Client went to a lawyer for consultation on annulment of marriage.
violative of the marital disqualification rule. But Judge Castaneda After narrating what happened with the marriage, the conversation
sustained the objection. somehow went to farming. Is that still covered by privileged
communication?
Was there a marriage in this case?
It is not covered for not being a subject matter for which the client
Yes, there was no intent to severe marital ties. Clearly, the MDR came to the lawyer for.
applies except if there is a civil case by one against the other.
Here, it is a criminal case. It is neither a case filed by a spouse NOTE: Atty-Client relationship is not limited to the lawyer alone but
against the other spouse. But using the doctrine held in Alvarez vs. also to the STAFFS in the law office (ex: Secretary), unlike the
Ramirez, there is no longer a commonality of interest. secretary in a doctor-client relationship wherein (1) secretaries are
mostly away with the conversation, (2) the medical terms are not
Considering that this is a conjugal property, when the husband of common knowledge to them.
falsified the signature of the wife, he is doing it against the wife.
Even if there is no actual case against the wife, the disqualification
Paredes case
will no longer hold because what the husband done is against the
If the communication between lawyer and client is for the purpose
interest of the wife. And the possibility of perjury is quite nil here.
of attempting to commit a crime, that is no longer a privileged
communication. Although it extends to the staff, still no longer
Q: There are multiple rape cases wherein the victim was the
privileged.
daughter of the accused. Can the wife testify against the
husband who rape their daughter?
3. Physician (Dr) - Patient Relationship
A: Yes. Jurisprudence provides that a crime or offense committed
- Only applicable in civil cases!
against the daughter is, in effect, a crime against the mother. Note
- Unlike in atty- client, the secretary of the doctor is not
that this is not limited to rape cases.
included in the physician-patient privileged
communication.
A communication being privileged means that it was never
intended to be known by others.
EXPN: Criminal Cases
- No prohibition of the privileged communication between
Q: Supposed one night, a family had a dinner. The husband and doctor and patient IN CRIMINAL CASES, only in CIVIL CASES.
wife were communicating with each other in the presence of the - If privileged communication can be invoked in criminal
children. Suppose, conjecturally, a case arose regarding husband cases and doctor cannot testify, it may be a source of
and wife where one may be asked to testify about what they have criminal attempts.
discussed during that dinner time, in the presence of the children.
Will the disqualification apply? 4. Priest/Minister - Penitent
A: Yes. That is still privileged even if the children are around, - Minister covers any kind of religion, there is always a
because the children belong to the family. It is still considered fiduciary relationship, a relationship of trust and confidence
privileged. between the minister and penitent.
- As long as the matters given by the penitent in confidence
Q: Supposed other people are present. Example: In a party, a wife, is in relation to religious matters only it is covered by
while having conversations with other wives, said that her privileged communication.
husband is a womanizer. Is that considered a privileged
communication? 5. Public Officer
A: No because IT IS NEVER INTENDED TO BE PRIVATE. - The relationship to which the privileged is attached is on
custody of public documents or conversations/
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (HAPPI) communications which are privileged.
1. Husband and Wife - - Executive privilege simply means that the President of the
- It must be intended to be private for privileged Philippines cannot be called into a congressional hearing. It
communication to apply. is absolute and extends to the alter-egos of the President.
- Applies even after the marriage
Almonte v. Vasques
2. Atty (Lawyer) - Client – the disqualification of a lawyer is not Gen. Almonte, head of EIIB, was asked to divulge certain
only for the protection of client but also protection of legal matters which were of national interest. But he refused
profession. since it borders on national security. From the doctrine held
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 148
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 in this case, national security, diplomatic matters, and under Rule 86. In other words, the liability is not personal to
those which will involve national safety and security are the executor or administrator but, rather, it is chargeable to
now privileged. the estate. Therefore, you file it against the executor or
administrator of the estate.
Ermita Case
Assailing EO 464 as unconstitutional. EO 464 states that the The rationale behind the Dead Man’s Statute:
following officers cannot testify in a congressional hearings - It is to avoid the temptation of perjury because a dead man
without the consent of the President of the Philippines, i.e. cannot rebut assertions of others.
Executive Department heads and General and Flag Officers - when nature or death closes the lips of one party, the law must
in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and those under close the lips of the other party as well, so the playing field is
them, which may be determined by the flag officers, among leveled.
others.
Sunga Chan v. Chan
Held: It is a balancing matter regarding the right to Doctrine: The Deadman’s Statute will no longer apply in
information as against national security, national safety, of counterclaim because it is the executor, as far as the
national interest, which should be privileged. There must counterclaim is concerned, that is the plaintiff. So, it removes
be a balancing factor. SC declared certain parts of the said from the mantle of the Deadman’s Statute. (1st requirement
EO unconstitutional because it encroaches upon the power missing)
of Congress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation.
The plaintiff filed a case against the executor or administrator.
6. Employer-employee Relationship But the executor or administrator, in answering the complaint,
Sy Hun Liong vs. Rivera (2015 Case) – BAR Matter set up a counterclaim. When the plaintiff took the witness’s
Doctrine: The privileged communication extends to stand, the executor or administrator invoke the Dead Man’s
employer-employee relationship if the communication is Statute.
in the performance of one’s duty by the employee to the
employer or by the employer to the employee. E. Razon v. IAC
Doctrine: Deadman’s statute not applicable if it the the
7. Dead Man’s Statute executor or administrator is the plaintiff of the case!

4 Requisites of Dead Man’s Statute (Sec. 23, Rule 130) In this case, the father of Vicente Chuidian owns certain shares
i. The person disqualified to testify: Plaintiff or assignor of of stocks in E. Razon and Vicente Chuidian is the administrator
Plaintiff; of the estate of his father. E. Razon who filed a claim.
ii. Action is against whom: Against the executor or administrator Accordingly, Vicente Chuidian was sought to be disqualified on
of the estate; the ground of the testimony (allegedly based on the Dead
iii. Subject-matter of the action: On claims against the estate; and Man’s Statute).
iv. Testimony refers to: Matters communicated to the other The Supreme Court said that the Dead Man’s Statute will no
before the death of the party [or which happened ante lite longer apply here because it was Vicente Chuidian,
motam (before the occurrence of death of the deceased)] representing the estate, which has the claim against E. Razon.
So the application of the requirements will not apply, as well.
Note:
If the case is against the executor or the administrator of the estate, 8. Parental - Filial Privilege
it would not be a claim against the estate. - This is actually not a disqualification because the formulation
It is conflicting as to what have been studied regarding Rule 86 in of the Rule says:
relation to Rule 87. “The child or the parent CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY
against the other.”
What are claimable against the estate? Sec. 5 of Rule 86 limits - The child can testify against the parent or the parent can testify
the claims against the estate to the following: against the child. But if they don’t want to, they cannot be
(1) Judgment for money, compelled.
(2) funeral expenses,
(3) expenses for the last illness, and ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
(4) money claims. However, Sec. 1 of Rule 87 states that other
claims must be filed against the executor or administrator of - Admissions were partly discussed in Rule 129, in relation to
the estate. Judicial Admission.
vs - What is referred in Sec. 26 onwards are EXTRAJUDICIAL
But if you go through Sec. 23 of Rule 130, the 2nd and 3rd ADMISSION.
requirements appear to be conflicting. Why? It is because the
2nd requirement said the “claim against the executor or What is the basic distinction between admission and confession?
administrator of the estate” and the 3rd requirement said it ADMISSION CONFESSION
must be a “claim against the estate”. - A statement or - It is not only a statement of
confirmation about a a fact but you even move
How to construe the contradicting requirements? The word fact forward than simply stating
“claim against the estate” must be correctly construed not
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 149
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 - An admission is not so. In so stating, you If the confession, is within the time frame of custodial
necessarily a confession. acknowledge your guilt. interrogation, was without the aid of counsel, which is
- In effect, a confession is an INADMISSIBLE.
admission.
- An acknowledgment of guilt c. Must be IN WRITING.
If all these things are present, the confession is
CONFESSION ADMISSIBLE.
It may either be a (1) judicial or (2) extrajudicial.
1. Judicial Confession – NOTE: One thing is the admissibility and another is the WEIGHT or
- the plea of guilty in criminal procedure CREDIBILITY of the confession.

When an accused enters a plea of guilty in a capital ADMISSION

offense, the judge is required to do three (3) things: - Read together Sections 26, 28 and 34 of Rule 130 to have a full
a. Undertake searching questions to determine the appreciation and understand on Rule on Admission.
voluntariness and comprehension of his entering the - RES INTER ALIOS ACTA Rule
plea of guilty to a capital offense; The premise on the Rule on Admission is on Sec. 26, which said
b. Direct the prosecution to present evidence to still that the act, declaration, or omission of a party is admissible
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable only as to the actor, declarant, or omitter and to no one else.
doubt; and (RES INTER ALIOS ACTA Rule). This is because human nature
c. Ask the accused whether he is willing to present tells us that we never accept our fault. We always pass on the
countervailing evidence. blame to others. Even if people were caught, still they try to
evade liability or responsibility.
Note: These requisites are important when death penalty is still in
effect. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA Rule Proper (Sec. 28)
- the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act,
2 requirements when an accused enters a plea of guilty to a lesser declaration, or omission of another.
offense (less than the capital offense)
1. Asking the court whether he understands what he is entering What was done by Mr. A cannot be applied to Mr. B, ect.
into (Pp vs. Mingote); and
2. Asking the prosecution to present evidence not for the purpose XPN of RES INTER ALIOS ACTA Rule:
of establishing the guilt but for the purpose of determining 1. When there is conspiracy, which must be established by acts
what penalty to impose. other than the acts involved in the res inter alios acta rule (not
by the conspiracy itself).
2. Extrajudicial Confessions - This must be established by other matters not by
conspiracy itself but by evidence aliunde
3 Requirements for it to be admissible: 2. Co-partner or Agent
a. Establish VOLUNTARINESS 3. Privies - There must be privity in relationship, privity in rights
- If there is a vice of consent [force, intimidation 4. Admission by Silence –
(either physical or psychological), undue pressure and XPN to XPN to Admission by Silence:
influence] established, the extrajudicial confession no 4.1 When the person is under advisement (when he has a
longer holds, hence, INADMISSIBLE. lawyer who tells him not to say anything).
4.2 When he does not understand what is going on; i.e.,
Say: Mr. A was interviewed in TV. You emphasize on language barrier
voluntariness.
EFFECT of the XPN to XPN: Said admission by Silence is
b. Needs and independent and competent counsel if NOT ADMISSIBLE as to him under legal advisement
confession was made during a custodial interrogation.
DOCTRINE OF INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS
If there is a confession, is it within the time frame of - This doctrine talks about several confessants. When there are
custodial interrogation or outside it? more than one who executed a confession and the allegations
Because if it is within the time frame of custodial in one are attributable to the other without any collusion
interrogation, it is ABSOLUTE that the confessant needs between them, the admission in one confession is admissible
and independent and competent counsel. as to the others.
- Confession of some or all without collotion interlocked.
When does the time frame begin?
When he is taken among the many, then, custodial
interrogation starts, not when a person suspected nor HEARSAY RULE
when he is in a line-up. And at that point in time, he can
already invoke his right to counsel. - misconception of Hearsay Rule. The layman often apply very
loosely, they simply say, oh that’s hearsay. Meaning to say, it
Note: is unbelievable. That is not the concept in legal parlance of
hearsay.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 150
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 - A hearsay rule in legal parlance is that which is not admissible. The first example is what we call, which is often given in the Bar,
because it is incompetent. the Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statement.
- You are not establishing the fact subject matter of the
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining in case, but you are only establishing the fact that there was
the judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact. The statement made to you by A.
word sanctioned, means competency. So hearsay is an
incompetent evidence because it is not allowed by the rules. It is What is the truth of the killing by B of C? That is
the only reason. The rationale behind the non-allowance of hearsay independent. What is relevant in that testimony is to
evidence maybe diverse. But fundamentally or basically, it is establish who is the killer. And the statement [that] A told
because the rule does not allow the admission of hearsay. X that B killed C. Are you establishing the fact that it was B
who really killed C? If that’s the purpose of your testimony,
- Hearsay for purposes of admissibility, we have always to it is hearsay. That is inadmissible. But if your purpose in so
consider the purpose. saying, in so testifying, is other than the fact that B is the
What is the purpose of the testimony in order that it will killer of C, that is independent of the fact that B killed C.
become hearsay? That is why you called that the Doctrine of Independently
This is the most important part of the hearsay rule. You have Relevant Statement.
to know what is the purpose of so saying of stating so because
if the purpose is not to establish the truth of the statement - If it is not to establish the truth of the out of court
which you heard from someone, that is not hearsay. declaration but other matter, then that is admissible
under the Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statement.
3 important requirements in Hearsay:
1. There must be an out of court statement or declaration; Let’s analyze the testimonies of Colangco. Some are hearsay,
2. That the out of court statement or declaration is repeated in because they simple establish the fact of drug business and it was
court; and taken from other sources. But if Colangco is stating or is trying to
But hearsay does not yet apply, what is the purpose of establish the fact that someone told him, that’s the end of it.
repeating that out of court statement in court? If the Independent of whether or not there is a drug business inside the
purpose is other than to establish the truth of that out of National Bilibid prision, that is admissible. Independent of the fact
court statement, it is not hearsay, it is, therefore, admissible. as the cause of the subject matter of the case.
3. That the out of court statement or declaration is repeated in
court for the purpose of establishing the truth of that out of
Exceptions [to the Hearsay Rule]:
court declaration.
1. Dying declaration.
Say: Mr. X is on the witness stand. He is in court. He testifies this - most important in a dying declaration is consciousness of
way, Mr. A told me that B killed C. Who is saying that? X. Where is impending death not just consciousness death since all of
X saying that? In Court, he is testifying. His testimony is that A told us are aware of death but uncertain when it will come.
him that B killed C. That is the out of court declaration. Who made - Consciousness of impending death can be established
the out of court declaration? It was A telling X that B killed C. even if no word was stated by the dying. The term
declaration of statement is not absolute.
Here the two composite of hearsay rule are present. - Applicable to both civil and criminal cases.
1. There is an out of court declaration repeated in court not by the
declarant but by Mr. X. So the 2 components are there already.
How does the rule construe of the word impending?
But is it hearsay? As of now, not yet because you don’t know the
You are aware that you are going to die six months from
purpose of that statement of X that A told him that B killed C. C
now?
is the victim. C is the subject matter of the case and X is
That is not an impending death.
testifying that A told him that B killed C.
You are aware that you are going to die one week from
now? That is not impending death!
Question: What is the purpose of X testifying that A told him that B
killed C. Suppose at the time of the testimony, the adverse party
You are aware that you are going to die NOW. This is what
said: Objection your honor, that’s hearsay. What is the purpose?
consciousness of impending death means.
The court asked now, why are you telling the court that A told you
that B killed C? [X] I want your honor to show that on that day that
A told me that B killed C. [However,] B was alive. The fact that B - Death is what you are going to testify to. The fact of death.
was alive, is that the subject matter of the case? No. Is that - Aside from impending death, you have also to establish
hearsay? No. Because what is under consideration is the death of the requirements which are basically: relevancy and
C. This is not hearsay. So the objection is overruled. competency.

For example, the declarant is blind, he was under the

Suppose the court ask X, Mr. X why are you telling that A told you
conscious of impending death, and he said: Mario shot
that B killed C? I want to show your honor that B is the killer. That
me! How can he know if he is blind? This exception to the
would be hearsay. That is inadmissible. That is the subject matter
hearsay rule, the court does not have to admit that who
of the case.
__________. You can still assail the testimony through the
requirements of admissibility of evidence which is either
relevancy or competency.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 151
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 So when you declare, that man with a samurai is the one [he]
Requisites of Dying Declaration did it, that is a startling occurrence, that is part of the res
1. Consciousness of impending death gestae. There is no time to contrive. It is spontaneaous.
- the declarant is dead already! Because if they are alive,
you should place them on the witness stand. Timeframe
2. The subject matter must be about the death of the declarant; - There is no hard and fast rule regarding time frame.
and Say: A victim of rape, after the act of rape was
consummated; the young girl just went on the corner of
2017 BAR the room and started crying. After two or three hours, the
Vic told Tito that the person who inflicted fatal wound to him mother found out, coming from market, finding the girl,
and to his co-victim, Joey, who died earlier is XYZ. her child, in the corner crying and asked her what
As to the statement surrounding the death of declarant Vic, his happened, and answered that a man raped her. It is
dying declaration is valid. But as to Joey such dying declaration considered as part of res gestae even after three hours
is not valid but only HEARSAY! from the time it was happened.
It is still considered as long as the effect on the person is
3. What is testified to, are the facts and circumstances still there. The effect of rape is not just a matter of hours;
surrounding the declaration. Surrounding the fact of death; it is a matter of years. Although, what was said is what is
and to be testified to why it is part of the res gestae.

- Statement should not always be in favor of the declarant. Vs

It can be also used against the declarant. It could be in
favor of the accused. So don’t limit it to the fact that a In another case, after 24 hours or the following day, the
dying declaration is always offered in favor of the victim of rape started narrating to the mother. The
declarant or in favor of the government. When I say Supreme Court said, it is no longer part of the res gestae
government, I am talking of a criminal case. Although this because there is already the possibility of contriving.
dying declaration is now no longer limited to criminal
cases. Even in civil cases, this is already admissible. It used - Based on examples above, If you are given a problem
to be only in homicide cases and later on it was admissible regarding this res gestae, answer it according to the facts
in criminal cases but now under the present rule, in all and circumstances and argue accordingly and your
cases. argument must not miss the fact that the effect of the
occurrence is still with the victim. The startling occurrence
RES GESTAE is still affecting the victim because you cannot fix it with
Parts of the Res Gestae time.
1. Part of the res gestae are acts which are stated or uttered
in a very dire situation (Yung mabilisan). The word is
Example of Verbal Acts
startling occurrence.
From a distance you saw Mr. A waving an envelope to Mr. B,
- Startling occurrence it is to an average individual.
and with the passes of that act, Mr. A was saying, ito na yung
10,000 na inutang ko sayo. So that is a verbal act. You cannot
2. words accompanying an act or sometimes called “Verbal
no longer say that it was a donation because of the verbal act.
Acts”.
Words accompanying acts can also be considered as part of
Dying declaration must always be tied up to the part of res
the res gestae.
gestae. As previously discussed regarding multiple
admissibility that statement or evidence may either be
admitted as a dying declaration or only part of the res gestae. 2. Declaration against interest.
It can even be considered a declaration against interest. With - It covers all kinds of declaration against interest not only
regard to part of the res gestae, sometime, it may not be pecuniary or financial declaration against interest; it can
admissible as a dying declaration but it can be admissible as also be psychological, emotional, or moral.
part of the res gestae. Sometime also, it is only part of the res - IMPORTANT: The declarant is not available to testify,
gastae or lying declaration but not part of the res gestae. otherwise, the hearsay rule will not apply.

Other exception on the part of the res gestae OR “THINGS Say: Allan said that that my companion is not a real wife.
DONE” Declaration against interest. Or I am not the owner of the land
. where my house stands. It is also a declaration against
Say: You are walking in Luneta and you were following a man, interest. But take note always of the requirements.
all of the sudden he saw you. About 10 meters away, you
were following a man and talked to each other. All of the 3. Declaration about Pedigree.
sudden you saw the head of the man rolling towards you. It
was hacked by a man. You mean to say that an average man - Pedigree is a notable fact in the life of an individual.-
will not be startled by that occurrence? - The enumeration there must be lumped together into a
notable fact, something important in the life of an
individual that is about Pedigree.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 152

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Example: relationship by affinity, by consanguinity, a fact But, if a person who is privy to the accident, he decided to
of marriage, relationship, this is about the Pedigree. report the accident, but instead he called his sibling to blotter
the accident then the police made a blotter. Is that admissible
4. Common reputation. as an exception to the hearsay rule? No. Because this is
known as hearsay on a hearsay.
This is not limited to statements. This is considered as acts.
7. Returns. They are exception to the hearsay rule;
Say: In Cavite there are some people with that common - Examples: Summons
reputation. In Tondo, Boy Tumbling. In Province, they don’t
know the real name but they are known in different name. 8. Learned treaties;
This can be part of common reputation. This is admissible as
evidence. 9. Commercial lists;

10. Testimony at the former trial. (BAR MATTER)

SaY: In the province you are looking for Juan Magsaysay. When you
asked the residence in the community you found Juan not because
This may be tied up with depositions.
of his surname but because you learned from the residence that he
is known as “Juan Pandak”.
Admissible? Yes. As an exception to the hearsay rule. But take
note, it must be the same parties and there was an
5. Entries in the course of business. (Possible bar question)
opportunity to cross examine the witness by the other party
to comply with the cross examination rule.
The entrant is not available to testify in court. This should
what you always look for in this exception, is not available.
Section 20 of Rule 3. Contractual money claim. There are
The general rule, testimony must be done in open court and
many interelations involved, it is interelated to Rule 39,
the exception is out of court. So if he is available, put him in
related to Rule 86, related to Rule 87, related to Rule 57. If
the witness stand. If he is not then that is the only time that
these will be asked in the Bar, they are the difficult questions.
you asked other who have heard him.
11. There is an exception to the hearsay rule which is not found
The requirements for entries in the course of business are:
there among the eleven (11) which is the Testimony of a child.
i. The entrant must not be available;
We have discussed this already under the child witness rule.
ii. The entry made by the entrant is in compliance with his
duty; (important requirement) not just by anybody who
made the entry, he must be performing a duty; and OPINION RULE
iii. This entrant is the one which is hearsay in effect, because
it is a declaration statement out of court repeated in court GR: A witness cannot give his opinion, the knowledge that came to
to establish the fact of the entry in the course of business. him was on account of his personal observation not what he opines.

- What is the concept of course of business? Should it really In actual practice, be very careful when you get to become lawyers.
be a business transaction? If you are coaching a witness, it does not necessarily [means] that
No. Not necessarily. What is referred to here is that to any you are cheating but you are teaching the witness how to correctly
transaction. testify. For example, you tell him never premise your testimony by
saying “I think” because that is already objectionable. That is
A baptismal certificate entered into a book or records of already a matter of opinion. “I believe” [is] already a matter of
baptism is now considered as an entry in the course of opinion. Opinion[s] are not allowed in the course of the testimony.
business.
4 Exceptions wherein an ordinary witness can give his opinion:
6. Entries in the official records. (HIMI)
1. When you testify in the handwriting of an individual;
- These are Registers, Court records, and Certificates. 2. When you testify on the identity of an individual;
3. When you testify on the mental sanity of the individual; and
How about police blotter? 4. When you testify about your impressions on the individual.
- GR: they are not because it is known as hearsay on
hearsay. For example, you call Mr. X on the witness stand and you show him
- EXPN: When it is given to the police by someone who has a document.
personal knowledge about the occurrence. That would be
an exception to the hearsay rule. Atty.: Mr. Witness, I have here a document, please go over
page four. What do you see on page four on the
Say there was a vehicular accident, a policeman arrived and right hand lower portion?
recorded the event and recorded it officially in the blotter,
could it be use as an exception to the hearsay rule? Yes, You find there a printed name Juan Dela Cruz, above which
because this is [an] entry in official record. is the signature. Atty.: Whose signature is that?

Mr. X: This is my signature.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 153
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Will that be an exemption to the hearsay rule? Of course 1. In Civil cases, any character, whether good or bad, can be
not. establish in civil cases if it is relevant to the case at issue.
Atty.: This is the signature of Juan Dela Cruz. How do you vs
know that it is the signature of Juan dela Cruz? 2. In criminal cases, you can establish the character only in
Mr. X: Well, I was his employee for the past twenty years, rebuttal.
I know his signature, I am familiar with his
signature. Rule 131: Burdens of proof and presumptions.
It is an exception, that is an opinion.
Atty.: Mr. Witness, do you know Mr. Juan Dela Cruz? Burden of proof
Mr. X: Yes I know him. - The burden of proof is the duty of a party to establish his claim
Atty.: How do you describe his mental sanity? - Whoever has the claim has the burden of proof. It is not always
Mr. X: I think he is mentally challenged. the plaintiff because you may be trying to establish the claim
Atty.: Why mentally challenged? in a counter-claim and, therefore, if it is the claim in the
Mr. X: Well, we were together in the mental hospital. He counter-claim, it is the defendant which has the burden of
just left ahead of me. proof.
- Whoever has a claim has the duty to prove his claim.
The other exception is that of an Expert Witness. - Burden of proof ALWAYS REMAIN TO THE ONE WHO HAS A
CLAIM.
EXPERT WITNESS
- when you present an expert witness, you have always to In criminal cases
lay the bases, lay the predicate - The burden of proof sticks or remains with the prosecution.
- if you do not establish his expertise on a particular matter, - The criminal case is nothing else but to show that the accused
then you cannot ask him about his opinion. So lay first the is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There is no other purpose
bases. in criminal case but to show that the accused is guilty for which
he was charge.
In actual practice, if you are going to present an expert witness, you - The obligation to prove that guilt never leaves the prosecution
should prepare already the biodata of your expert witness. And at all times from the start to the end because in criminal case,
before you present him in the witness stand, you furnish a copy of there is no counter-claim, cross-claim, third-party or fourth-
his biodata to the Fiscal, if criminal case or to the adverse counsel party complaint, there is even no intervention. That is why the
if it is civil case. That’s why when you go to the court, you simply burden of proof sticks to the prosecution because there is no
ask the adverse counsel if they are going to accept his expertise. other thing to determine in the criminal case except the guilt
of the accused.
For example, the fiscal said, “no, I don’t accept his expertise,” it will
take time to lay the predicate. You have to lay always the bases. Note: Self-Defense
However, when the accused interposes self-defense, (remember
When you have already established the expertise of this witness, Rule 6 in kinds of pleadings, affirmative, self-defense) meaning to
you can ask him opinions because that is an exception. say that he already accepts the facts for which he was charged.

Note: Once the expert witness has testified, generally, don’t cross He has not confessed. He already admits the fact of killing but he
examine. When you present a expert witness, as a general does not confess to the fact of killing.
rule, if you are not an expert on the subject, you should not
cross examine because you will not get any from him because That is why even in an affirmative defense, the burden of proof
he is an expert and you are not an expert on the subject unless never leaves the prosecution because the only thing that the
he is a lawyer and discusses legal matters, then you can cross accused does is to admit the fact and never confess to guilt or
examine him. But if he has another field, let us say Structural acknowledgment of guilt. But because of this admission what shifts
Engineer, what do you know about it? None. now the burden of evidence.

After you controvert that expert testimony, you controvert him by Burden of evidence
presenting also an expert witness or even a more expert witness. - The burden of evidence is coming forth forward with the
Then let the court evaluate who is the better witness between the evidence. Meaning, who will now present evidence?
two. - In self-defense the burden of evidence is with the accused. This
is sometimes called reverse trial. The burden of evidence now
Lay Witness or Lay Evidence (possible bar question). is with the accused. He now starts to present setting forth
- Opposite of expert witness forward the evidence of his claim. Since he has now a claim,
- It is simply the testimony of a non-expertise witness on self-defense. But has he the burden of proof now? No, only the
ordinary matters. burden of evidence.

Rule 130, the Character (Not Bar Matter) It is easy to understand the Burden of Proof than the Burden of
Evidence in Criminal Cases than in Civil Cases. Because the Burden
GR: Character evidence is inadmissible. Not admittable. of evidence in civil cases is shifting many times. But the burden of
proof will always remain on one who has a claim. Also, it is not
EXCEPTIONS: always the plaintiff who has the claim, it can be the defendant,

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 154

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
third, fourth or fifth defendant, that is why the burden of evidence deny anymore the authority of lessor in leasing
shifts but not the burden proof. unto you the property.

Elmer was 16 years old when he was presented as the primary child Say: A leased to B a parcel of land. B cultivates it.
witness against the accused. 5 yrs. thereafter, he was again Later on B found that A is not the owner. He stop
presented as a witness to be examined in the same case. His paying rental for the said reason. Is the reason
statement 5 yrs. ago became inconsistent with his current valid? No! When he enter into the contract, he
statement. May his statement 5 yrs. ago which was conceded as acknowledge the fact that A has authority to lease
privileged be still appreciated? the property unto him. He is therefor in estoppel.

Ans.: What ONCE privileged it remains to be privileged. It will not b. Disputable presumption – there are 37 disputable
change through the years. This is only conjectural. Unang una presumptions (“a-kk”). (Atty. Brondial pointed out only what
meron ng rule ngaun the 1 day-examination of witness rule kaya are possible bar questions)
malabo nang mangyyari yan.
i. Paragraph “e” (Suppression of Evidence).
May he be impeached? It is another matter covered by Section 11
of Rule 132. Impeachment of a Witness. You can always impeached 3 requisites are as follows:
witness provided there are grounds. It will be discussed later. (i) Willful suppression.
(ii) Evid. must be material not just corroborative; and
Burden of Proof and Presumption. (iii) evidence is not available to both parties
Presumption - is an inference. You arrived at a conclusion – a logical (Improtant!)
conclusion.
Example #1 (negative): In a case of rape, victim was not
Two (2) kinds of inferences: presented as a witness. When the accused was convicted,
1. Presumption of Facts – is a simple inference. he appealed. One of the ground raised was suppression of
evidence.
Example: Any object which is lighter than air will have to fall
down when thrown. Pag tumapon ka and that object is SC: There was no suppression of evidence in this instance
heavier than air it will fall. Inference: Living things grow and because evidence which is testimonial is available to both
die. Very simple inference. parties. If prosecution did not present victim as a witness,
you could have subpoena the victim and present as hostile
2. Presumption of Law – is an inference directed/governed by witness. While the 1st and 2nd requisite may be present, 3rd
laws. Under our rules, there are only two kinds: requisite is not. All requisites mentioned above must be
complied with. If one is lacking, there is no suppression of
Note: There are 37 disputable presumptions and only 2 evidence.
conclusive presumptions!
Example #2 (positive): My client (former law student in
Two (2) kinds of presumption of law: AUSL) filed a case against hospital charging it as a
a. Conclusive presumption – that which cannot be corporation, as well as the doctor, nurse chief of Dept., for
controverted. Court has no other choice but to accept damages, because his son died.
Nanganak, premature ang anak but died on 43rd day.
Two (2) Conclusive Presumption During trial, I was taking direct exam. I have hospital
i. Estoppel in Pais (principle of estoppel) record. I noticed I have only record from day 1-40, wala
- when you make a representation to somebody ung days 41 to 42. In open court, I manifested that I need
and that somebody on the basis of your this 2 missing records immediately preceding the death.
representation acted on it whether negatively or The defendants said we will produce the record. They
positively, then you can no longer deny the fact of were given certain period of time but unable to produce
your representation. You are estopped! record. Requested extension but still failed to comply. I
moved for the suppression of evidence which the court
Say. I am the agent of Mr. X selling to you property of granted! What is the effect? That I want to establish is
X and you on the basis of my representation believed deemed establish. There is clear suppression of evidence
that I am the agent of X, you enter into a contract because all the three (3) requisites are present. Namatay
through the principle of agency with me. I can no ung bata kc my misfeeding, hndi napadede sa tamang oras
longer deny agency because I am in estoppel which may contain in that record, I assume.
conclusive presumption; cannot be controverted.
ii. Paragraph “m” (Chain of custody rule). Regularity in the
ii. Estoppel by a Tenant (lessor/lessee; performance of a public function.
landlord/tenant estoppel) –
- A lessee for example who is the occupant of the Commonly applied in drug cases – buy-bust operation.
premises on the basis of accepting the fact of
contract of lease. You accept the fact that lessor
duly authorized to enter into contract. You cannot
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 155
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Rule: If there are steps to be followed and one of the
steps is not complied with, the disputable presumption Note: Manifest before the court, if you found error in the TSN.
is not applicable. Ex., there is error in parag. # xx page xx, so on and so forth (isa-
isahin mo!). Sometimes, error is very substantial/fatal, in fact
iii. Paragraph “w” – Absence. Gen Rule: any one who has if you ask for correction, other party will not agree. What will
been absent for seven (7) consec. Years without news of you do? Recall. If trial is not yet ended, you can ask for
the absentee being alive, he is presumed dead. This is continuation of direct/cross examination. You think of ways
disputable presumption. how to correct the error.

Exception: Note: Tie this up with Appeal. If appeal with the Appellate
1. for the purpose of opening one’s sucession, absence Court, record must be complete.
must be at least 10 years. Exception to the
exception: unless the person who disappears was at What if record is incomplete?
least 75 yrs. old. Inform the court so that it will be completed. Supposed it can
(2) Instead of 7 years, there are certain circumstance no longer be completed, ex. nasunog, you should file a Petition
where period of absence is only 4yrs. (i) goes to for Reconstitution of Judicial Records. Otherwise, appeal
war, and has not returned after war ended; (ii) cannot be done. Remember that the requirements for Appeal
there was earthquake, plane crash, etc.; are complete records and attachments of certified true copy of
(3) with regard to marriage, it can also 4 yrs. Under judgment.
circumstances mentioned above (war, earthquake,
etc.), presumptive death of 2 yrs. for purpose of • In the course of presentation of witness, you should respect
remarriage. him/her as individual with constitutional rights. You should not
keep him longer as she is supposed to. Do not ask him question
Absence in settlement of estate – estate exists only that are irrelevant.
when someone died. Death can either be factual or
presumptive. • In criminal case, one of the rights of the accused is the right
against self-incrimination. It can be invoked anytime before or
iv. Paragraph “aa” (Cohabitation). When a man and a during the time of testimony.
woman deports themselves as Husband & wife, it is
presumed that they entered into a lawful marriage, That • Order of Presentation of Evidence is difference from Order of
is disputable presumption. Trial. Under Rule 132, you have the order of presentation of
evidence as against the order of trial under Rule 30 (Trial). In
v. Paragraph “bb” Whether capable of getting married the latter, you start with the Plaintiff, Defendant, Co-
means effort are undertaken jointly defendant, 3th Party, etc. and the last to present is the
Intervenor (if there is any).
vi. Paragraph “jj” (Survivorship rule). Who survives when
two persons alleged to have died together (matter of Under Rule 132, when Plaintiff presents, what should be the
minutes, hour, etc.) Presumption provided by the Rules, order?
ex. Male survived over females. a) Direct exam
b) Cross-exam
In legitimacy – no presumtpion, one who claims the c) Re-direct
legitimacy or illegitimacy has the burden of proof. d) Re-cross

RULE 132 • In Rule 23, we discussed about Depositions. This is the same in
giving testimony in open court. Ang mahirap sa depositions,
Three Parts (PAO) ung written interrogatories, you should prepare it ahead of the
1. Presentation of Evidence (Sections 1-18) examination (questions on direct exam, cross, etc.). You
2. Proof and Authentication (Sections 19-33) prepare it even without answer yet kya mahirap.
3. Offer and Objection (Sections 34-40)
• Trial proper starts with Direct Exam of Evidence in Chief – not
Presentation of Evidence (Sections 1-18) limited only to principal witness. In direct exam, there are
- must be in open court. prohibited modes.
- Public means open court ---- testimony and gathering of i. Leading questions – those which suggest the answer.
evidence must be in open court. Opposite: in-chamber. Generally, questions answerable by yes or no are leading
Exception and in-chamber usually when it is a crucial case or questions.
involved privileged communication. Ex. Support, annulment, You have to distinguish that from misleading
rape case, etc. question – those that assume a fact to have been
testified when in truth it has not been or assumed a
- All trials/proceedings must be recorded. All courts now are fact different from that which has been testified to.
“courts of record. There is official recorder (stenographer). The Misleading questions are not allowed. But there are
recordings is called the Transcript of Stenographic Notes lawyers who ask misleading questions purposely
“TSN”. Under the rule, TSN is prima facie correct. e.g., to find out whether adverse party is paying
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 156
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 attention to what is going on (kung 3. Impeaching character/reputation – dangerous! Why?
natutulog/tatanga-tanga and kalaban ppasok ang Because you might go to character evidence and
question mo). character evidence is inadmissible. You have to clearly
lay down that his honesty and integrity is questionable.
Nowadays, judicial affidavit (JA) is being used, but You must have basis in the course of exam.
with more reason that you should examine the JA.
Under JA rule, there may be a lot of leading and Section 4, Rule 23 (Use of Depositions) already give
misleading questions. Remember that it is direct example in impeaching witness through contradictory
exam, leading questions are not allowed. As adverse evidence. Any depositions can be used to impeach the
party, you should bother to examine because most testimony of a deponent, i.e., by showing the
of the questions in the JA is answerable by yes or no. deponent that his statement in deposition is
contradictory against his testimony in court.
• If you go immediately to cross exam, all the leading questions
there are deemed waived. So even before you undertake the Ex. Former statements – witness now testifying that he
cross, you should made the proper manifestation, Your honor, saw the accused, In fact, the prosecution asked him to
I object to the following questions… xxxx”. I moved to strike out describe the accused. The witness described the
the following questions #1, # 3, xxx for being leading questions. accused something like this, “fair complexion, wearing
white tshirt, etc. xxx”. In order to impeach him, you
Supposed the court said it remains, what will happen if confront him with his Sinumpaang Salaysay before the
you cross exam? You put on record that you object in precint, he stated there, “how can I describe the
not striking out the question for being a leading accused when I did not see him clearly”. The foregoing
question. are contrary statements. That is how t impeach.

• Leading questions are allowed in certain circumstances under Do not confuse that with Sec. 29 (Impeachment of Judicial
the rule: Records). How to impeach?
1. Preliminary question – you call the witness. Say: Mr. W are (i) Lack of jurisdiction;
you the Plaintiff in this case. (Preparatory only and that is (ii) (ii) Collusion; and
allowed. Laying the predicate yet). (iii) (iii) Fraud
2. Child witness – child must be lead. They are presumed to
be truthful or not yet capable of telling lies. Sec. 16 Memorandum
3. Adverse witness (kalaban). You don’t have to lay predicate
because it is of record. Ex. Defendant - you never find There are two principles here:
cooperation with that kind of witness. 1. Present Memory revived
4. Hostile/Unwilling Witness – Remember when you witness 2. Past Recollection recorded
is hostile or unwilling, you have to qualify it. You lay the
basis, otherwise you can ask leading questions. As a basis: remember that you can only testify on something
that your personally know. While testifying dapat wala ka
Ex. Counsel: Mr. X, I am calling him as hostile witness. kodigo. You tell what you actually saw, heared, etc. You are not
Judge: Why counsel? allowed to read.
Counsel: The record will show the three (3) subpoena ad
testificandum were issued to this witness but never complied. What is present memory revived? – With leave of court,
Judge: Why is he here now? Counsel can ask the court to allow you to revive your memory.
Counsel: I moved for the issuance of warran If ever there are notes/writing that will refresh your memory so
t that you can correctly state the truth, court may or may not
How can you expect him to cooperate? allow that.
That is why you have to qualify for you to
ask leading questions. Ex. on you way home, you saw a man clubbed by the robbers
10-m away from your residence. You look over, he was being
5. Cross examination – you go over or cross-over the attended to, you saw two wounds from his body, blood
bridge. You can never expect cooperation against oozing and about to die. When you arrived home, you are
the adverse party that is why leading questions are fond of writing diaries as to what transpired for the day. You
allowed. wrote there what you witness. Then you called in a witness
stand, and ask about what you saw, you said it was already
• Incidentally, you can never impeach your own witness, more than 2 yrs. ago and you cannot recall. Counsel will ask
you should not unless hostile/adverse/unwilling. If it is the court to invoke present memory revived. If allowed, you
the witness of the other, then on cross exam , you can can go over you diary and then testify.
impeach the testimony.
Limitations: After testifying, you cannot moved that diary be
marked as documentary evidence because the purpose of
3 Ways to Impeach (Testimony Adverse) diary is only to refresh --- cannot be corroborative evidence.
1. Contradictory evidence
2. Contrary statement in some other forums or other
occasions
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 157
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Past recollection Recorded – witness has no recollection rule refers to the word in the definition “ascertaining”
whatsoever to what transpired. It can only testify based on the which is actually authenticating or making sure that it is
record/memorandum. You can have memorandum mark in the real thing.
evidence unlike the present memory revived.
Under this Section (beginning with Rule 19 of Rule 132), there are
Ex. One who is conducting autopsy in medico-legal cases. two kinds of documents:
Supposed on the witness stand the doctor said, he is
conducting 3 autopsy a day. 1. Public documents – rule does not define but enumerate only
Counsel: Do you recall conducting Cadaver X?
Doctor: Yes Ex. public records kept in the agency or the office, of private
Counsel: What is the result? writings
Doctor: Let me refer now to my memorandum. (see enumerations in Sec. 19; Rule 132)
Cadaver X - 3 gunshot wounds; one was fatal and
which pierce his heart, went out, trajectory, etc. 2. Private documents – all other writing are private.

The doctor has absolutely no recollection unless with the Ex. Marriage contract – private writing not a public document.
memorandum. Counsel will move that the report/memo be If you file a Petition for Nullity, marriage contract is needed.
marked in evidence as Exhibit “L” for instance. You should get from NSO, it must be authenticated. You get
public record pf private writing. So that, when you present
(Brondial: Referring to above, the possibility of being asked is that, you don’t have to call as witness the priest who
minimal) solemnized because if from NSO, it is already authenticated.

Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony Documents acknowledge before a notary public (not a

- How is testimonial evidence completed? When all parties simple jurat). No need to be authenticated if there is
are given opportunity as provided for by the rules. acknowledgment.
Meaning to say, direct, cross, re-direct, etc. If you forgot
something, then your remedy is (i) recall of the witness Ancient document Rule – don’t need authentication.
(not a matter of right); or (ii) additional direct, cross, Requirements: (i) any document more than 30 yrs. old. (ii)
redirect. Unless it is completed, testimony is incomplete. not only the age but it is required that document must be
found where it should supposed to be found; (iii) no
Is incomplete testimony admissible to the point that it will alterations; and (iv) no circumstances of suspicions.
be used as the basis for judgment/decision?
Answer: You have to qualify as to who cause the Offer and Objection
incompleteness of the testimony. If cause by the party,
then it will be disadvantageous to him. • Discussed on the definition of evidence, “the truth respecting
a matter of fact”
Ex. During direct examination the counsel has completed
it saying, I have completed the direct testimony. Next • How do you offer? It depends.
cross. The lawyer said, I have another hearing. I moved 1. Testimonial evidence – make the offer even before the
for continuance. The Court granted and the hearing was witness says his 1st testimonial word. Offer must be brief
reset 2 weeks from said date. On the day set, the witness but complete.
died. 2. Documents and Real Evidence – offer before you rest
your case.
What happens to the incomplete testimony? Will it form
part of the record? YES! The cause of the incompleteness Incidentally, formal offer of evidence as a general rule
is the Defense and the witness is for the Plaintiff. must be oral. Formal offer in writing is the
Whoever cause the incompleteness will be to his “exception” but it should be orally done. If you are
disadvantage. going to offer few documents (ex. 10 only), do it, be
ready! Ung ibang judges very strict after presenting
Other side: I am undertaking a direct exam. Then after my last witness, will direct to do formal offer of evidence.
direct, the Court said, “Ok counsel, cross”. Then the Be ready that when you present your last witness,
direct examiner (Plaintiff this time) moved for make now the formal offer. It must be oral (general
continuance. Court reset two weeks after. When witness rule), exception and “in writing” especially the
died on the day, direct exam will not be considered as document that you are going to formally offer consist
part of the record because the cause of the of volumes.
incompleteness is the Plaintiff.
That is the doctrine of incomplete testimony. Objection.

Proof and Authentication • How do you interpose objection? You interpose objection in the
- Partly discussed under the definition of Evidence – means course of the offer, not in the course of authentication.
sanctioned by the rule ascertaining in a judicial proceeding Remember that authentication consist of three (3) parts: (i)
the truth respecting a matter of fact. This portion of the

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 158

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 marking; (ii) identification during the pretrial/preliminary Weight – quantum of evidence defends on the following kinds of
conference; (iii) authentication proper in the course of trial. evidence
1. Overwhelming evidence – highest; any evidence which is
You should not make any objection there,that will be beyond controversy; conclusive; cannot be controverted
premature.
The time to object should be at the time of offer. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt – (applies in criminal cases)
the quantum of evidence which produces in an unprejudiced
• When do you object in the course of the trial? During mind a conviction of truth. You are convince that something
testimonial evidence. This is what you call oral objection which really happens. It may be doubtful but to an unprejudiced
must be ruled upon immediately by the court. Pag pinalampas mind, it produces conviction. No absolute certainty, moral
mo yan during trial, there is a waiver. So right there in there, certainty or a mind that is impartial. No remorse of conscience.
you object. If you doubt, you acquit.

What are the kinds of objection? 3. Clear and convincing evidence – quantum of evidence lower
1. Substantial Objection – violative of the best evidence rule, than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than
parole evidence. preponderance of evidence (used in (i) labor cases; (ii)
2. Formal Objection – ex. objection to leading question which establish forgery; (iii) overturn disputable presumption; (iv)
goes to form only when the accused interposed affirmative defenses)
3. Both formal and substantial
4. Preponderance of evidence – (applies in civil cases) more
4. Other objections: weighty/heavy than the other.

Broad side objection – general objection that you do not state Equiposed Doctrine – evidence for both parties are on
anymore the grounds because it is understood usually in the equilibrium.
ground of irrelevancy and competency of evidence.
How do you determine which is heavier? Ans. Not only by
Continuing objection – you objected to the line of questioning number because even if only one but it can convict. There are
but yet the proponent continues the same way of asking lot of considerations.
questions. SO instead of always standing up and making
objection, you make a manifestation of continuing objection 5. Substantial evidence – quantum of evidence required only in
so that it will be properly recorded. administrative cases; lower than preponderance

Tender of excluded evidence 6. Probable cause – quantum of evidence consisting of several

facts and circumstances known to the person to arrive at the
Asked in the bar: What is proffer of evidence? To what kind of probability that the person charged is probably guilty thereof
evidence does this apply? To all kind whether testimonial. (hindi impossibility). Used in
(i) preliminary investigation; and (ii) preliminary examination
Ex. My next witness is Mr. X. After he took the witness stand, (issuance of warrant of arrest)
the adverse party stood up. Your honor, he does not want to
take the oath. Court: Please step down, you cannot testify. 7. Prima Facie evidence – quantum which becomes conclusive;
not controverted
You can now make a proffer of proof.
8. Iota of Evidence – cannot convict. Must be understood with
What do you do now? Your Honor, if Mr. X is allowed to circumstantial evidence – consist of several
testify, he would have establish the following: (enumerate facts/circumstances in order for it to convict, there must be
1..2..xx) more than one circumstances; and it should be brought
together to lead a conclusion.
Supposed documentary evidence. Exhibit A, B, C (all the rest
not admitted) Say: You put it now in writing. Attach it and PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
submit a tender of excluded evidence. ONG CHIA, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
What is the purpose? In case of appeal, those evidence not G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000
admitted may be appreciated by the appellate court Ong Chia was born in China, arrived in PH when he was 9 years
especially if important/crucial. old, stayed in PH, married and started his own business herein.
Ong Chia (On July 4, 1989, at the age of 66) filed a verified
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence petition to be admitted as a Filipino citizen under the Revised
Naturalization Law before RTC Koronadal, South Cotabato. He
Premise: admissibility vs. credibility. It is two different thing then testified as to his qualifications and presented three
witnesses to corroborate his testimony. RTC granted Petitioner’s
• Admissibility of evidence – matter of law. application for naturalization. SolGen appealed to CA,
• Weight and sufficiency/credibility – matter of contending that petition must fail because (1) petitioner failed
perception/judicial evaluation. to state all the names by which he is or had been known, (2)

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 159

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 failed to support his petition with the appropriate documentary evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification
evidence, among others, in addition to his name of "Ong Chia," from the practice of medicine which she had filed against PR.
he had likewise been known since childhood as "Loreto Chia Alfredo then instituted an action against Cecilia for specific
Ong.", annexed income tax returns allegedly filed by petitioner performance before RTC Manila, seeking to recover the said
from 1973 to 1977 to show that his net income could hardly documents and to make the latter pay damages. RTC in favor of
support himself and his family. Alfredo, declared that the documents were properties of the PR
CA reversed, It ruled that due to the importance naturalization and ordered Petitioner to return the same and to pay damages.
cases, the State is not precluded from raising questions not Cecilia appealed to CA. CA affirmed. Cecilia filed a Rule 45 before
presented in the lower court and brought up for the first time on the SC, cited Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr. where the Court
appeal. Ong Chia filed a Rule 45 before the SC, alleging that: The held that the documents and papers (which were also forcibly
appellate court erred in considering the documents which had taken from the owner) were admitted in evidence, hence, the
merely been annexed by the State to its appellant's brief and, on use of the same did not constitute malpractice or gross
the basis of which, justified the reversal of the trial court's misconduct on the part of the lawyer who used the same
decision, Not having been presented and formally offered as
evidence, they are mere "scrap(s) of paper devoid of any Whether the subject documents, which were forcibly taken from
evidentiary value," so it was argued, because under Rule 132, their owner, herein PR, may be admitted in evidence against the
§34 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the court shall consider no latter in a case for legal separation and disqualification from the
evidence which has not been formally offered. practice of medicine filed by his wife – No, Petitioner's
contention has no merit. The case against Atty. Felix, Jr. was for
Whether the rules of evidence are applicable in a petition for disbarment. Among other things, private respondent, Dr.
naturalization in that the evidence presented by the SolGen Alfredo Martin, as complainant in that case, charged that in
before the CA should no longer be admissible, the same being using the documents in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed
presented for the first time on appeal. No, the rule on formal malpractice or gross misconduct because of the injunctive order
offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34) now being invoked by of the trial court. Thus, the acquittal of Atty. Felix, Jr. in the
petitioner is clearly not applicable to the present case involving administrative case amounts to no more than a declaration that
a petition for naturalization. The only instance when said rules his use of the documents and papers for the purpose of securing
may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in such cases is when Dr. Martin's admission as to their genuiness and authenticity did
it is "practicable and convenient." That is not the case here, since not constitute a violation of the injunctive order of the trial
reliance upon the documents presented by the State for the first court. By no means does the decision in that case establish the
time on appeal, in fact, appears to be the more practical and admissibility of the documents and papers in question. Indeed
convenient course of action considering that decisions in the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
naturalization proceedings are not covered by the rule on res evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy
judicata. Consequently, a final favorable judgment does not of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no
preclude the State from later on moving for a revocation of the less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
grant of naturalization on the basis of the same documents. aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against
Petitioner claims that as a result of the failure of the State to whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
present and formally offer its documentary evidence before the exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a
trial court, he was denied the right to object against their "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order
authenticity, effectively depriving him of his fundamental right requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this
to procedural due process. We are not persuaded. Indeed, the provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any
reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence which purpose in any proceeding." The intimacies between husband
has not been formally offered is to afford the opposite party and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers
the chance to object to their admissibility. Petitioner cannot and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale
claim that he was deprived of the right to object to the evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage,
authenticity of the documents submitted to the appellate court does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
by the State. Furthermore, the Court notes that these individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to
documents — namely, the petition in SCN Case No. 031767, him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of
petitioner's marriage contract, the joint affidavit executed by communication between the spouses by making it privileged.
him and his wife, and petitioner's income tax returns — are all Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other
public documents. As such, they have been executed under without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage
oath. They are thus reliable. Since petitioner failed to make a subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the
satisfactory showing of any flaw or irregularity that may cast other as to any communication received in confidence by one
doubt on the authenticity of these documents, it is our from the other during the marriage, save for specified
conclusion that the appellate court did not err in relying upon exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite
them. CA decision was affirmed. another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows
with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of
CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and fidelity that each owes to the other. Petition was denied.
ALFREDO MARTIN, respondents. G.R. No. 107383 February 20,
1996 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JOEL YATAR alias
Cecilia, wife of PR Alfredo Martin, forcibly took from the latter’s "KAWIT", Appellant. G.R. NO. 150224 May 19, 2004
office certain documents in the presence of his mother, driver Yatar was convicted by RTC Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25
and secretary. Said documents were allegedly communications with rape with homicide and sentenced him to death. RTC’s
between PR and his paramours which Petitioner may use as findings:
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 160
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Judilyn Pas-a (prosecution witness) = that at 8:30AM on the day conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
when the incident occurred she was with the victim, her cousin conducted the tests. In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon
seventeen year old Kathylyn Uba at the house of their Abogado de Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an
grandmother, Isabel; that at 9AM, she left the said house; expert witness on DNA print or identification techniques. In
Kathylyn told her that she may be going to Tuguegarao or staying Daubert v. Merrell Dow, it was ruled that pertinent evidence
at home and washing the clothes instead; that at 12:30PM, she based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as
saw the appellant, wearing a white shirt with collar and black it was relevant and reliable. Under Philippine law, evidence is
pants, descending from the 2nd floor to the back of the house of relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce
Isabel; that at 1:30PM, she saw the appellant again, wearing a belief in its existence or non-existence. Applying the Daubert
black shirt without collar and blue pants, near her house and told test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence obtained through PCR
her that he will no longer be getting the lumber that he had testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by
stacked the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably
Anita Wania and fifteen year old Beverly Deneng (prosecution based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and
witnesses) = that at 10AM, they stopped by the house of Isabel, molecular biology. [On the appellant’s contention that the
the grandmother of the victim; that they saw the appellant at blood sample taken from him as well as the DNA tests were
the back of the said house; that, upon inquiry, appellant told conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his
them that he was there to get lumber to bring to the house of right against self-incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III
his mother of the Constitution] = untenable, The kernel of the right is not
Isabel Dawang (prosecution witness) = that she arrived home in against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The
the same evening and saw the lifeless body of Kathylyn at the right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal
second floor, with multiple stab wounds, Semen was later on process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission
found inside the genitals of Kathylyn and that, through of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test, the same was identical the excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence.
semen to be that of appellants gene type. An automatic review
by the SC pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as Whether appellant’s defense of denial and alibi may be
amended, ensued sustained – No, against the likely harm that would result from its
Yatar maintained used the defense of denial and alibi. Yatar admission. The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only
contended, among others, that the witnesses’ credibility was when there is relevant evidence from which the court can
questionable and that the taking of his semen for the purpose of properly find or infer that the accused is guilty beyond
subjecting the same to DNA test and presenting the result before reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires
the court was violative of his constitutional right against self- moral certainty of guilt in order to sustain a conviction. Moral
incrimination and that the resort thereto is tantamount to an ex certainty is that degree of certainty that convinces and directs
post facto law. the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of
those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. However, as
Whether the credibility of the witnesses may be ruled upon by a matter of procedure, and for the purpose of meeting the
the Supreme Court – No, the issue regarding the credibility of requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is
the prosecution witnesses should be resolved against essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity
appellant. This Court will not interfere with the judgment of the of the culprit. Thus, appellant’s motive to sexually assault and
trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless kill the victim was evident in the instant case. It is a rule in
there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is established by
and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the
which has been misinterpreted. Well-entrenched is the rule that accused before or immediately after the commission of the
the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are offense, deeds or words that may express it or from which his
entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are motive or reason for committing it may be inferred.
presented necessitating a reexamination if not the disturbance In rape committed by close kin, such as the victim’s father, step-
of the same; the reason being that the former is in a better and father, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not
unique position of hearing first hand the witnesses and necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral
observing their deportment, conduct and attitude. Absent any influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and
showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or intimidation. The fact that the victim’s hymen is intact does not
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would negate a finding that rape was committed as mere entry by the
affect the result of the case, the trial judges assessment of penis into the lips of the female genital organ, even without
credibility deserves the appellate courts highest respect. Where rupture or laceration of the hymen, suffices for conviction of
there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution rape. The strength and dilatability of the hymen are invariable;
were actuated by improper motive, their testimonies are it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during
entitled to full faith and credit. intercourse. Being a relative by affinity within the third civil
degree, appellant is deemed in legal contemplation to have
Whether the circumstance of the DNA test result has probative moral ascendancy over the victim.
value as to the guilt of the appellant – Yes, In assessing the
probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter NENA LAZALITA* TATING, Petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD TATING
alia, the following factors: how the samples were collected, how MARCELLA, represented by SALVADOR MARCELLA, CARLOS
they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the TATING, and the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. G.R. No.
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, 155208 March 27, 2007
whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 161
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 A parcel of land denominated as Lot 56 of Subdivision plan Psd- party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the
31182, located at Abelarde St., Cadiz City, Negros Occidental, affiant. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for
was owned by one Daniela Solano Vda. de Tating (Daniela). being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on the
Daniela sold the property to granddaughter, Nena (registered witness stand to testify thereon. The trial court and CA
under the name of Nena and declared by her for tax purposes). committed error in giving the sworn statement probative weight
However, the land remained in possession of Daniela. Daniela Since Daniela is no longer available to take the witness stand as
then executed a sworn statement claiming that she had actually she is already dead. Private respondents should have presented
no intention of selling the property; the true agreement other evidence to sufficiently prove their allegation that Daniela,
between her and Nena was simply to transfer title over the in fact, had no intention of disposing of her property when she
subject property in favor of the latter to enable her to obtain a executed the subject deed of sale in favor of petitioner.
loan by mortgaging the subject property for the purpose of Moreover, the Court agrees with petitioner that if the subject
helping her defray her business expenses; she later discovered Deed of Absolute Sale did not really reflect the real intention of
that Nena did not secure any loan nor mortgage the property; Daniela, why is it that she remained silent until her death; she
she wants the title in the name of Nena cancelled and the never told any of her relatives regarding her actual purpose in
subject property reconveyed to her. Daniela died, leaving her executing the subject deed; she simply chose to make known her
children as her heirs, namely: Ricardo, Felicidad, Julio, Carlos and true intentions through the sworn statement she executed on
Cirilo (predeceased Daniela and was represented by Nena December 28, 1977, the existence of which she kept secret from
(Cirilo’s daughter)). Carlos demanded the return of the land, her relatives; and despite her declaration therein that she is
filing a complaint with RTC against Nena. Nena filed an answer, appealing for help in order to get back the subject lot, she never
denying any fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of the took any concrete step to recover the subject property from
Deed of Sale. RTC ruled in favor of Carlos (and Felicidad), petitioner until her death more than ten years later. Since
declaring that the deed of sale between Daniela and Nena was private respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving
null and void. Nena appealed to CA but CA still ruled in favor of their allegation that the contract of sale between petitioner
Carlos et. al. hence Nena filed Rule 65 before the SC. and Daniela was simulated, the presumption of regularity and
validity of the October 14, 1969 Deed of Absolute Sale stands.
Whether Rule 65 was correctly resorted to – No, Considering
that the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA finally PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RODRIGO
disposed of the case, the proper remedy is a petition for review SALAFRANCA y BELLO, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 173476
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. There is no allegation that February 22, 2012
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. On the other hand, Salafranca was convicted of murder for the fatal stabbing of
the petition actually avers errors of judgment, rather than of Johnny Bolanon by the RTC Manila. RTC’s findings:
jurisdiction, which are the proper subjects of a petition for The evidence is clear that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who
review on certiorari. Hence, in accordance with the liberal spirit delivered two (2) stabbing blows to the victim while holding
pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, the Johnny Bolanon with his left arm encircled around Bolanon’s
Court decided to treat the present petition for certiorari as neck stabbing the latter with the use of his right hand at the right
having been filed under Rule 45, especially considering that it sub costal area which caused Bolanon’s death. Not only because
was filed within the reglementary period for filing the same. it was testified to by Augusto Mendoza but corroborated by
Rodolfo Estaño, the victim’s uncle who brought Bolanon to the
Whether the subject sworn statement made by Daniela deserves hospital and who relayed to the court that when he aided
probative weight in that it sufficiently proved that the prior deed Bolanon and even on their way to the hospital while the latter
of sale was void – No, The CA and the trial court ruled that the was suffering from hard breathing, victim Bolanon was able to
contract of sale between petitioner and Daniela is simulated. A say that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who stabbed him.
contract is simulated if the parties do not intend to be bound Appreciated treachery based on the testimony of Prosecution
at all (absolutely simulated) or if the parties conceal their true witness Mendoza on how Salafranca had effected his attack
agreement (relatively simulated). The primary consideration in against Bolanon, observing that by "encircling his (accused) left
determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the arm, while behind the victim on the latter’s neck and stabbing
parties. Such intention is determined from the express terms of the victim with the use of his right hand," Salafranca did not give
their agreement as well as from their contemporaneous and Bolanon "any opportunity to defend himself." The RTC noted
subsequent acts. The main evidence presented is the sworn inconsistencies in Salafranca’s and his witness’ testimonies, as
statement of Daniela dated December 28, 1977. There is no well as the fact that he had fled from his residence the day after
issue in the admissibility of the subject sworn statement. the incident and had stayed away in Bataan for eight years until
However, the admissibility of evidence should not be equated his arrest. The RTC opined that had he not been hiding, there
with weight of evidence.22 The admissibility of evidence would be no reason for him to immediately leave his residence,
depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of especially because he was also working near the area. Salafranca
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its appealed to CA, CA affirmed his conviction, citing the dying
tendency to convince and persuade. Thus, a particular item of declaration made to his uncle pointing to Salafranca as his
evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends assailant, and Salafranca’s positive identification as the culprit
on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules by Mendoza. It stressed that Salafranca’s denial and his alibi of
of evidence. It is settled that affidavits are classified as hearsay being in his home during the incident did not overcome the
evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant positive identification, especially as his unexplained flight after
but by another who uses his own language in writing the the stabbing, leaving his home and employment, constituted a
affiant’s statements, which may thus be either omitted or circumstance highly indicative of his guilt. Salafranca appealed
misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse to SC
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 162
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately
Whether Salafranca’s denial and alibi should be sustained over before, during, or immediately after the commission of the
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Mendoza and crime when the circumstances are such that the statements
Estaño – No, Discrediting Mendoza and Estaño as witnesses were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by
against Salafranca would be unwarranted. The RTC and the CA the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity
correctly concluded that Mendoza and Estaño were credible and for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false
reliable. The determination of the competence and credibility statement. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the
of witnesses at trial rested primarily with the RTC as the trial res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or
court due to its unique and unequalled position of observing exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the
their deportment during testimony, and of assessing their principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as
credibility and appreciating their truthfulness, honesty and a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly
candor. Absent a substantial reason to justify the reversal of the negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
assessment made and conclusions reached by the RTC, the CA as testimony.
the reviewing court was bound by such assessment and SCC CHEMICALS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
conclusions, considering that the CA as the appellate court could COURT OF APPEALS, STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., DANILO
neither substitute its assessment nor draw different conclusions ARRIETA and LEOPOLDO HALILI, respondent. G.R. No. 128538
without a persuasive showing that the RTC misappreciated the February 28, 2001
circumstances or omitted significant evidentiary matters that SCC Chemicals Corporation (SCC for brevity) through its
would alter the result. Salafranca did not persuasively show a chairman, private respondent Danilo Arrieta and vice president,
misappreciation or omission by the RTC. Hence, the Court, in this Pablo (Pablito) Bermundo, obtained a loan from State
appeal, is in no position to undo or to contradict the findings of Investment House Inc., (hereinafter SIHI) in the amount of
the RTC and the CA, which were entitled to great weight and P129,824.48. The loan carried an annual interest rate of 30%
respect. Salafranca’s denial and alibi were worthless in the face plus penalty charges of 2% per month on the remaining balance
of his positive identification by Mendoza as the assailant of of the principal upon non-payment on the due date-January 12,
Bolanon. The lower courts properly accorded full faith to such 1984. To secure the payment of the loan, Danilo Arrieta and
incrimination by Mendoza considering that Salafranca did not private respondent Leopoldo Halili executed a Comprehensive
even project any ill motive that could have impelled Mendoza to Surety Agreement binding themselves jointly and severally to
testify against him unless it was upon the truth. There is pay the obligation on the maturity date. SCC failed to pay the
treachery. loan when it matured. SIHI then sent demand letters to SCC,
Arrieta and Halili, but notwithstanding receipt thereof, no
Whether Bolanon’s statements in identifying Salafranca may be payment was made. SIHI filed Civil Case No. 84-25881 for a sum
given credence by the court – yes, A dying declaration, although of money with a prayer for preliminary attachment against SCC,
generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, Arrieta, and Halili before RTC Manila. SCC filed its answer,
may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites Affirmative defense: lack of COA. SIHI anchored its cause of
concur, namely: action was null, void, and of no binding effect for lack or failure
(a) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding of consideration.
circumstances of the declarant’s death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is During trial: SIHI presented one witness to prove its claim. The
under a consciousness of an impending death; cross-examination of said witness was postponed several times
(c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and due to one reason or another at the instance of either party. The
(d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, case was calendared several times for hearing but each time,
murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim. All the SCC or its counsel failed to appear despite notice. SCC was finally
requisites were met herein. A declaration or an utterance is declared by the trial court to have waived its right to cross-
deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence examine the witness of SIHI and the case was deemed
as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites submitted for decision. RTC in favor of SIHI, SCC appealed to CA.
concur, to wit: On appeal, SCC contended that SIHI had failed to show, by a
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; preponderance of evidence, that the latter had a case against it.
(b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to SCC argued that the lone witness presented by SIHI to prove its
contrive or devise; and claim was insufficient as the competency of the witness was not
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and established and there was no showing that he had personal
its immediately attending circumstances. The requisites for knowledge of the transaction. SCC further maintained that no
admissibility of a declaration as part of the res gestae concur proof was shown of the genuineness of the signatures in the
herein. documentary exhibits presented as evidence and that these
signatures were neither marked nor offered in evidence by SIHI.
The term res gestae has been defined as "those circumstances Finally, SCC pointed out that the original copies of the
which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act documents were not presented in court. CA affirmed RTC;
and which are admissible when illustrative of such act." In a denied ensuing MR. SCC filed a Rule 45 before SC.
general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and
declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to Whether the subject documents presented by SIHI were
illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and correctly admitted by the RTC, considering that SCC was unable
contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of to cross-examine SIHI’s witness relative to the said documents –
deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae Yes, On all those scheduled hearing dates, petitioner was
encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either supposed to cross-examine the lone witness offered by SIHI to
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 163
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 prove its case. Petitioner now charges the appellate court with riceland at P46,000.00, or a total of P703,137.00, which is
committing an error of law when it failed to disallow the beyond respondents' valuation of P623,000.00. The court
admission in evidence of said testimony pursuant to the further awarded compounded interest at P79,732.00 in cash. CA
"hearsay rule" contained in Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of affirmed in toto. Landbank contended that the RTC, in
Court. Rule 130, Section 36 reads: SEC. 36. Testimony generally determining the just compensation merely took judicial notice
confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A witness of the average production figures in the Rodriguez case pending
can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal before it and applied the same to this case without conducting a
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, hearing and worse, without the knowledge or consent of the
except as otherwise provided in these rules. Petitioner's reliance parties
on Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is misplaced. As a
rule, hearsay evidence is excluded and carries no probative Whether the RTC judge was correct in taking judicial notice of
value. However, the rule does admit of an exception. Where a the figures in the Rodriguez case, which was pending before it,
party failed to object to hearsay evidence, then the same is for the purpose of determining the just compensation applicable
admissible. The rationale for this exception is to be found in the in the instant case – NO, Well-settled is the rule that courts are
right of a litigant to cross-examine. It is settled that it is the not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
opportunity to cross-examine which negates the claim that the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or
matters testified to by a witness are hearsay. However, the are pending in the same court or before the same judge. They
right to cross-examine may be waived. The repeated failure of may only do so "in the absence of objection" and "with the
a party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver of knowledge of the opposing party," which are not obtaining
such right. Petitioner was afforded several opportunities by the here. Furthermore, as earlier stated, the Rules of Court shall
trial court to cross-examine the other party's witness. apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. In
Petitioner repeatedly failed to take advantage of these this regard, Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
opportunities. No error was thus committed by the respondent is explicit on the necessity of a hearing before a court takes
court when it sustained the trial court's finding that petitioner judicial notice of a certain matter, thus: "SEC. 3. Judicial notice,
had waived its right to cross-examine the opposing party's when hearing necessary. – During the trial, the court, on its own
witness. It is now too late for petitioner to be raising this matter initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention
of hearsay evidence. to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
heard thereon. "After the trial, and before judgment or on
Whether SIHI’s other pieces of evidence were correctly admitted appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a
– Yes, the witness of SIHI was a competent witness as he party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
testified to facts, which he knew of his personal knowledge. parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a
Thus, the requirements of Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of material issue in the case." The RTC failed to observe the above
Court as to the admissibility of his testimony were satisfied. provisions. While the determination of just compensation
Respecting petitioner's other submissions, the same are moot involves the exercise of judicial discretion, however, such
and academic. As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, discretion must be discharged within the bounds of the law.
petitioner's admission as to the execution of the promissory Here, the RTC wantonly disregarded R.A. 6657, as amended, and
note by it through private respondent Arrieta and Bermundo its implementing rules and regulations. (DAR Administrative
at pre-trial sufficed to settle the question of the genuineness of Order No. 6, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No.11).
signatures. The admission having been made in a stipulation of Petition was granted.
facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated as a judicial
admission. Under Section, 411 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAILON
judicial admission requires no proof. Nor will petitioner's KULAIS, CARLOS FALCASANTOS @ "Commander Falcasantos,"
reliance on the "best evidence rule" advance its cause. AWALON KAMLON HASSAN @ "Commander Kamlon," MAJID
Respondent SIHI had no need to present the original of the SAMSON @ "Commander Bungi," JUMATIYA AMLANI DE
documents as there was already a judicial admission by FALCASANTOS, NORMA SAHIDDAN DE KULAIS, SALVADOR
petitioner at pre-trial of the execution of the promissory note MAMARIL y MENDOZA, HADJIRUL PLASIN y ALIH, JAINUDDIN
and receipt of the demand letter. It is now too late for petitioner HASSAN y AHMAD, IMAM TARUK ALAH y SALIH, JALINA HASSAN
to be questioning their authenticity. DE KAMMING, FREDDIE MANUEL @ "Ajid" and several JOHN and
JANE DOES, accused, JAILON KULAIS, appellant. G.R. No. 100901
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED July 16, 1998
LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES RTC convicted Appellant Kulais with 5 counts of kidnapping for
VICENTE BANAL and LEONIDAS ARENAS-BANAL, respondents. ransom, 1 count of kidnapping a woman and public officer, and
G.R. No. 143276 July 20, 2004 2 counts of slight illegal detention for the kidnapping of Monico
Spouses Banal were the owners of an agricultural land, a portion Saavedra and Calixto Francisco. RTC likewise found Jainuddin
thereof having been appropriated by the government pursuant Hassan, Jailon Kulais, Salvador Mamaril and Hadjirul Plasin guilty
to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Landbank provided as conspirators in the 8 cases of kidnapping. During trial:
a valuation of Php 173,918.55. Spouses Banal rejected the said Prosecution (which presented 15 witnesses including some of
valuation. A summary administrative proceeding was conducted the victims themselves) - that a group of public officials, which
before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to were organized as a monitoring team to inspect government
determine the valuation of the land. PARAD affirmed valuation projects in Zamboanga City, was headed to Lincomo Elementary
by Landbank. Spouses Banal filed a petition for determination of School to check its classrooms; that the said group was
just compensation before the RTC. RTC computed the just composed as Virginia Gara, as the head, Armando Bacarro,
compensation for the coconut land at P657,137.00 and for the representing COA, Felix del Rosario, representing an NGO,
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 164
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Edilberto Perez, representing the City Assessor’s Office, Jessica MENANDRO B. LAUREANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Calunod and Allan Basa, representing the City Budget Office, and AND SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED, respondents.
Monico Saavedra, the driver from the City Engineer's Office; that G.R. No. 114776 February 2, 2000
the said group was not able to reach the said school because Menandro was hired by private respondent Singapore Airlines
they were stopped by 9 men who pointed guns at them; that Limited (SAL) as an expatriate B-707 captain for an original
the armed men took their belongings; that their leader period of 2 years, which appointment was affirmed after he
introduced himself as Commander Falcasantos; that while they passed the probation period of 6 months. The contract was then
were walking towards the mountains, they encountered extended to 5 years (Jan 21, 1979 – Jan 20 1984). Menandro,
government troops; that said encounter cause the group to be while in the employ of PR committed the ff infractions: August
divided into 2, the others joining a certain Commander Kamlon; 24, 1980  noise violation offense; apologized, Sometime in
that they were held in captivity for 54 days in the forests; that 1980: tail scraping incident wherein the tail of the aircraft
they were released after a ransom amounting to P122,000 was scraped or touched the runway during landing; suspended for a
paid. Defense: that accused-appellant Jumatiya Amlani was few days until investigation; reprimanded. After attending a
picked up by soldiers while she was weeding their farm; that training, Menandro was confirmed for his solo duty as captain of
when she was picked up by the military, she has just escaped the Airbus A-300 and subsequently appointed as captain of the
captivity of Carlos Falcasantos and company, where she was A-300 fleet. Recession came and SAL had to resort to cost-
made to sleep with Falcasantos and aide his wives; that accused- cutting measures. Menandro was advised by SAL to take
appellant Jaliha Hussin was likewise a kidnap victim who escaped advanced leaves but, thinking that recession would only be for a
the captivity of Daing Kamming; that accused appellant Norma short time, did not immediately terminate its A-300 pilots. SAL
Sahiddan was likewise arrested by soldiers without telling her then reviewed the qualifications of the expatriate pilots and
the reason behind her arrest. RTC acquitted Freddie Manuel subsequently promoted 12 out of the 17 to the B-747 fleet,
alias "Ajid", and Imam Taruk Alaas they were not positively where Menandro was not included. On October 5, 1982,
identified and convicted the rest who were positively identified. defendant informed plaintiff of his termination effective
Kulais et al appealed to SC. As earlier noted, Jumatiya Amlani, November 1, 1982 and that he will be paid three (3) months
Jaliha Hussin and Norma Sahiddan had withdrawn their appeal, salary in lieu of three-month notice. Menandro requested for
and as such, the third and fourth assigned errors, which pertain the 3-month notice instead. SAL granted him a 2-month notice
to them only, will no longer be dealt with. Only the following and a 1-month salary. Menandro then instituted a case against
issues pertaining to Appellant Jailon Kulais will be discussed: (1) PR before the LA but subsequently withdrew the same,
judicial notice of other pending cases, (2) sufficiency of the Menandro thereafter filed a case for damages due to illegal
prosecution evidence, and (3) denial as a defense. termination of contract of services before the RTC Manila. SAL
raised the issue of jurisdiction, among others. RTC applying PH
Whether the taking of judicial notice by the trial court judge of a law, ruled in favor of Menandro. SAL appealed to CA, CA
material testimony of Lt. Melquiades Feliciano in another case reversed and set aside RTC’s decision, the action for damages
resulted in the denial of the appellants’ constitutional right to due to illegal termination was filed by plaintiff-appellee only on
cross-examine the witnesses against him – NO, Appellant Kulais January 8, 1987 or more than four (4) years after the effectivity
argues that he was denied due process when the trial court took date of his dismissal on November 1, 1982, hence, has
judicial notice of the testimony given in another case by one Lt. prescribed. Menandro filed a Rule 45 before SC, Petitioner now
Melquiades Feliciano, who was the team leader of the raises the issue of whether his action is one based on Article
government troops that captured him and his purported 1144 or on Article 1146 of the Civil Code. According to him, his
cohorts. Because he was allegedly deprived of his right to cross- termination of employment effective November 1, 1982, was
examine a material witness in the person of Lieutenant based on an employment contract which is under Article 1144,
Feliciano, he contends that the latter's testimony should not be so his action should prescribe in 10 years as provided for in said
used against him. True, as a general rule, courts should not take article. Thus he claims the ruling of the appellate court based
judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, on Article 1146 where prescription is only four (4) years, is an
even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court, error. The appellate court concluded that the action for illegal
or have been heard and are actually pending before the same dismissal originally filed before the Labor Arbiter on June 29,
judge. This is especially true in criminal cases, where the 1983, but which was withdrawn, then filed again in 1987 before
accused has the constitutional right to confront and cross- the Regional Trial Court, had already prescribed.
examine the witnesses against him. Having said that, we note,
however, that even if the court a quo did take judicial notice of Whether the trial court is correct in applying PH laws,
the testimony of Lieutenant Feliciano, it did not use such notwithstanding that the other party to the case is a foreign
testimony in deciding the cases against the appellant. Hence, entity – Yes, At the outset, we find it necessary to state our
Appellant Kulais was not denied due process. His conviction concurrence on the assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional
was based mainly on the positive identification made by some Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9. The trial court rightly ruled on
of the kidnap victims, namely, Jessica Calunod, Armando the application of Philippine law, thus: Neither can the Court
Bacarro and Edilberto Perez. These witnesses were subjected to determine whether the termination of the plaintiff is legal under
meticulous cross-examinations conducted by appellant's the Singapore Laws because of the defendant's failure to show
counsel. At best, then, the trial court's mention of Lieutenant which specific laws of Singapore Laws apply to this case. As
Feliciano's testimony is a decisional surplusage which neither substantially discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the
affected the outcome of the case nor substantially prejudiced Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of
Appellant Kulais. Singapore. The defendant that claims the applicability of the
RTC decision was affirmed (with modification as to the penalty) Singapore Laws to this case has the burden of proof. The
defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 165
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 should be applied. However, the CA was correct in ruling that Mere reference to a foreign law in a pleading does not suffice
the action has already prescribed. In illegal dismissal, it is for it to be considered in deciding a case. American law does not
settled, that the ten-year prescriptive period fixed in Article govern in this jurisdiction. Instead, Section 40(d) of the Local
1144 of the Civil Code may not be invoked by petitioners, for the Government Code calls for application in the case before us,
Civil Code is a law of general application, while the prescriptive given the fact that at the time Arnado filed his certificate of
period fixed in Article 292 of the Labor Code [now Article 291] candidacy, he was not only a Filipino citizen but, by his own
is a SPECIAL LAW applicable to claims arising from employee- declaration, also an American citizen. It is the application of this
employer relations. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals: The law and not of any foreign law that serves as the basis for
language of Art. 291 of the Labor Code does not limit its Arnado’s disqualification to run for any local elective position.
application only to "money claims specifically recoverable under The renunciation of foreign citizenship must be complete and
said Code" but covers all money claims arising from an unequivocal. Allowing the subsequent use of a foreign passport
employee-employer relations", It should be noted further that because it is convenient for the person to do so is rendering the
Article 291 of the Labor Code is a special law applicable to oath a hollow act. It devalues the act of taking of an oath,
money claims arising from employer-employee relations; thus, reducing it to a mere ceremonial formality.
it necessarily prevails over Article 1144 of the Civil Code, a
general law. Basic is the rule in statutory construction that PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KHADDAFY
"where two statutes are of equal theoretical application to a JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO
particular case, the one designed therefore should prevail." TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, GAPPAL BANNAH ASALI a.k.a.
Petitioner claims that the running of the prescriptive period was Maidan or Negro, JAINAL SALI a.k.a. Abu Solaiman, ROHMAT
tolled when he filed his complaint for illegal dismissal before the ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Jackie or Zaky, and other JOHN and JANE
Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission. DOES, Accused,
However, this claim deserves scant consideration; it has no legal GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu
leg to stand on. In Olympia International, Inc., vs., Court of Khalil, and ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky,
Appeals, we held that "although the commencement of a civil Accused-Appellants. G.R. No. 188314 January 10, 2011
action stops the running of the statute of prescription or In 2005, an RRCG bus was plying its usual southbound route,
limitations, its dismissal or voluntary abandonment by the from its Navotas bus terminal towards its Alabang bus terminal
plaintiff leaves in exactly the same position as though no action via EDSA. Around 6:30 to 7:30 in the evening, while they were
had been commenced at all." Petition was dismissed; CA about to move out of the Guadalupe-EDSA southbound bus stop,
decision was affirmed. two suspicious men rode on the bus. Afterwards, Andales said
he became more suspicious because both men kept on asking
CASAN MACODE MACQUILING, PETITIONER, vs. COMMISSION him if the bus was going to stop at Ayala Avenue. The witness
ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y CAGOCO, AND LINOG G. also noticed that the man at the back appeared to be slouching,
BALUA. RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 195649 July 2, 2013 with his legs stretched out in front of him and his arms hanging
This an MR of the decision of the SC dated April 16, 2013: out and hidden from view as if he was tinkering with something.
Respondent ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO is disqualified from As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of Ayala
running for any local elective position. CASAN MACODE Avenue and EDSA, the two men insisted on getting off the bus.
MAQUILING is hereby DECLARED the duly elected Mayor of Eventually, the bus driver gave in and allowed the two
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in the 10 May 2010 elections. passengers to alight. The two immediately got off the bus and
Arnado has already successfully ended his term. While the relief ran towards Ayala Avenue. Moments after, Andales felt an
sought can no longer be granted, ruling on the motion for explosion. He then saw fire quickly engulfing the bus. He ran out
reconsideration is important as it will either affirm the validity of of the bus towards a nearby mall. After a while, he went back to
Arnado’s election or affirm that Arnado never qualified to run where the bus was. He saw their bus passengers either lying on
for public office. the ground or looking traumatized. A few hours after, he made
Arnado  raises the ff points in this MR: Respondent failed to a statement before the Makati Police Station narrating the
advance any argument to support his plea for the reversal of this whole incident. The prosecution presented documents
Court’s Decision dated April 16, 2013. Instead, he presented his furnished by the Department of Justice, confirming that shortly
accomplishments as the Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte before the explosion, the spokesperson of the Abu Sayyaf
and reiterated that he has taken the Oath of Allegiance not only Group – Abu Solaiman – announced over radio station DZBB
twice but six times, cites Section 349 of the Immigration and that the group had a Valentine’s Day "gift" for former President
Naturalization Act of the United States as having the effect of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. After the bombing, he again went on
expatriation when he executed his Affidavit of Renunciation of radio and warned of more bomb attacks. As stipulated during
American Citizenship on April 3, 2009 and thus claims that he pretrial, accused Trinidad gave ABS-CBN News Network an
was divested of his American citizenship. exclusive interview some time after the incident, confessing his
participation in the Valentine’s Day bombing incident. In
Whether SC may take judicial notice of Section 349 of the another exclusive interview on the network, accused Baharan
Immigration and Naturalization Act of the United States thereby likewise admitted his role in the bombing incident. Finally,
warranting a decision in favor of Arnado – No, If indeed, accused Asali gave a television interview, confessing that he had
respondent was divested of all the rights of an American citizen, supplied the explosive devices for the 14 February 2005
the fact that he was still able to use his US passport after bombing. The bus conductor identified the accused Baharan
executing his Affidavit of Renunciation repudiates this claim. and Trinidad, and confirmed that they were the two men who
The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws, which had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14 February. On
must be presented as public documents of a foreign country their arraignment for the multiple murder charge (Crim. Case
and must be "evidenced by an official publication thereof." No. 05-476), Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 166
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 guilty. On the other hand, upon arraignment for the multiple conspirators. Thus, in People v. Palijon, the Court held the
frustrated murder charge (Crim. Case No. 05-477), accused Asali following: We must make a distinction between extrajudicial and
pled guilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan pled not guilty. judicial confessions. An extrajudicial confession may be given in
Rohmat pled not guilty to both charges. In the light of the evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused
pretrial stipulations, the trial court asked whether accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him.
Baharan and Trinidad were amenable to changing their "not A judicial confession is admissible against the declarant’s co-
guilty" pleas to the charge of multiple frustrated murder, accused since the latter are afforded opportunity to cross-
considering that they pled "guilty" to the heavier charge of examine the former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
multiple murder, creating an apparent inconsistency in their applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions and not to
pleas. Defense counsel conferred with accused Baharan and testimony at trial where the party adversely affected has the
Trinidad and explained to them the consequences of the pleas. opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Mercene’s
The two accused acknowledged the inconsistencies and admission implicating his co-accused was given on the witness
manifested their readiness for re-arraignment. After the stand. It is admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon.
Information was read to them, Baharan and Trinidad pled guilty Moreover, where several accused are tried together for the
to the charge of multiple frustrated murder. same offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating his co-
accused is competent evidence against the latter.
Is the trial court correct in accepting accused-appellants’ plea of
guilt despite insufficiency of searching inquiry into the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of (FOURTH DIVISION), JOSE L. AFRICA (substituted by his heirs),
the said plea – Yes, "all trial judges … must refrain from accepting MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., FERDINAND E. MARCOS (substituted by
with alacrity an accused's plea of guilty, for while justice his heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR.,
demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be JUAN PONCE ENRILE, and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted
extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, by his heirs), Respondents. G.R. No. 152375 December 16, 2011
he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of Republic (through PCGG) filed complaint (docketed as Civil Case
an inevitable conviction." Thus, trial court judges are required to No. 0009) against Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand
observe the following procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Juan
the Rules of Court. The requirement to conduct a searching Ponce Enrile, and Potenciano Ilusorio (collectively, the
inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment. In People v. respondents) for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
Galvez, the Court noted that since accused-appellant's original restitution, and damages before the Sandiganbayan, alleged,
plea was "not guilty," the trial court should have exerted careful inter alia, that the respondents illegally manipulated the
effort in inquiring into why he changed his plea to "guilty." The purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless
conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as Limited in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI).
they are mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that the Civil Case No. 0009 spawned numerous incidental cases, among
accused had not been under coercion or duress; mistaken them, Civil Case No. 0130 – during the pendency of PCGG’s
impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, petition, the PCGG filed with this court a "Very Urgent Petition
and consequences of their guilty plea. This requirement is for Authority to Hold Special Stockholders’ Meeting for [the]
stringent and mandatory. Nevertheless, The Court further notes Sole Purpose of Increasing [ETPI’s] Authorized Capital Stock"
that prior to the change of plea to one of guilt, accused Baharan (Urgent Petition). In our May 7, 1996 Resolution, we referred
and Trinidad made two other confessions of guilt – one through this Urgent Petition to the Sandiganbayan for reception of
an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews, as evidence and immediate resolution. In the proceedings to
stipulated by both accused during pretrial), and the other via resolve the Urgent Petition, the testimony of Mr. Maurice V.
judicial admission (pretrial stipulation). Considering the Bane (former director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI) was
foregoing circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the taken– at the petitioner’s instance and after serving notice of
sufficiency of the "searching inquiry" in this instance. Remanding the deposition-taking on the respondents – on October 23 and
the case for re-arraignment is not warranted, as the accused’s 24, 1996 by way of deposition upon oral examination (Bane
plea of guilt was not the sole basis of the condemnatory deposition) before Consul General Ernesto Castro of the
judgment under consideration. Convictions based on an Philippine Embassy in London, England. Republic filed a motion
improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the to admit Bane’s deposition in Civil Case No. 0009, [The
sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient petitioner] wishes to adopt in [Civil Case No. 0009] their
and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction testimonies and the documentary exhibits presented and
must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on identified by them, since their testimonies and the said
the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his documentary exhibits are very relevant to prove the case of the
commission of the offense charged. [petitioner] in [Civil Case No. 0009]. SB promulgated the 1998
resolution DENYING the motion to admit, Republic filed an
Whether conspiracy was sufficiently established, considering Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice, SB denied.
that Asali’s testimony implicating the herein appellants were
made AFTER the termination of their conspiracy – Yes, It is true Whether the Bane deposition, which had already been
that under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, previously introduced and admitted in Civil Case No. 0130,
statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are should have been taken judicial notice of by the Sandiganbayan
admissible only when made during the existence of the in Civil Case No. 0009 – No, Judicial notice is the cognizance of
conspiracy. However, if the declarant repeats the statement in certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without
court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial proof because these facts are already known to them. Put
admission, making the testimony admissible as to both differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact without
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 167
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 need of further traditional evidentiary support. The principle is positive of shabu and that of the five empty sachets, four were
based on convenience and expediency in securing and positive of containing residue of the same substance. She further
introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily admitted that all seven sachets were delivered to the laboratory
capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed. by Esternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant
General Rule: courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of was executed except that it was not she but rather a certain Mrs.
the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases Ofelia Garcia who received the items from Esternon at the
have been tried or are pending in the same court, and laboratory. The trial court finds accussed guilty of the crime
notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or are charged and reasoned that the fact that shabu was found in the
actually pending before the same judge. house of petitioner was prima facie evidence of petitioner's
Exceptions: As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court animus possidendi sufficient to convict him of the charge
may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case inasmuch as things which a person possesses or over which he
filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending exercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. It
before it, when, with the knowledge of, and absent an objection also noted petitioner's failure to ascribe ill motives to the police
from, the adverse party, reference is made to it for that purpose, officers to fabricate charges against him. Aggrieved, petitioner
by name and number or in some other manner by which it is filed a Notice of Appeal. The Court of Appeals rendered the
sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the assailed decision affirming the judgment of the trial court but
former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the modifying the prison sentence. Petitioner moved for
archives at the court's direction, at the request or with the reconsideration but the same was denied by the appellate court.
consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of Hence, the instant petition which raises substantially the same
the case then pending. Courts must also take judicial notice of issues.
the records of another case or cases, where sufficient basis
exists in the records of the case before it, warranting the Whether the chain of custody rule was strictly complied with –
dismissal of the latter case. Supreme Court do NOT agree that No, Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
the supposed relationship of Civil Case 0130 and Civil Case 0009 necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a
warrants the taking of judicial notice, reasons: first, the prohibited substance be established with moral certainty,
supporting cases w/c the Republic cited are inapplicable either together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law.
because these cases involve only a single proceeding or an The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of
exception to the rule, which proscribes the courts from taking the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases. conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity
Second, the petitioner’s proposition is obviously obnoxious to a of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as
system of orderly procedure. If we follow the logic of the it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice
petitioner’s argument, we would be espousing judicial confusion to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to
by indiscriminately allowing the admission of evidence in one sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession,
case, which was presumably found competent and relevant in the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place
another case, simply based on the supposed lineage of the cases. is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be
It is the duty of the petitioner, as a party-litigant, to properly lay established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
before the court the evidence it relies upon in support of the requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody
relief it seeks, instead of imposing that same duty on the court. requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY removed.
JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
No. 172953 April 30, 2008 rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the constitutional question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such
guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
his culpability. happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in
On the strength of a warrant of search and seizure issued by the which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
RTC of Sorsogon City, a team of five police officers raided the to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
residence of petitioner in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City on 4 describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
February 2003. The search—conducted in the presence of change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for
barangay kagawad Delfin Licup as well as petitioner himself, his someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
wife Sheila and his mother, Norma—allegedly yielded two (2) Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the
plastic sachets of shabu and five (5) empty plastic sachets confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as Garcia,
containing residual morsels of the said substance. Accordingly, the person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized
petitioner was charged with violation of The Comprehensive items for chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Petitioner entered a negative presented in court to establish the circumstances under which
plea. Supt. Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo), the forensic chemist who they handled the subject items. Any reasonable mind might then
administered the examination on the seized items, was ask the question: Are the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from
presented as an expert witness to identify the items submitted petitioner the very same objects laboratory tested and offered
to the laboratory. She revealed that the two filled sachets were in court as evidence? The prosecution's evidence is incomplete
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 168
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 to provide an affirmative answer. The blind reliance by the trial chain that would have shown that the shabu presented in court
court and the Court of Appeals on the presumption of regularity was the very same specimen seized from the appellant
in the conduct of police duty is manifestly misplaced. The NARCISO SALAS v. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM, G.R. No. 180284,
presumption of regularity is merely just that—a mere September 11, 2013
presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when On May 26, 1995, respondent filed a complaint for
challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding Support/Damages against petitioner in the RTC of Cabanatuan
truth. City (Civil Case No. 2124-AF). Respondent claimed that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FELIMON PAGADUAN petitioner is the father of her son Christian Paulo Salas who was
y TAMAYO, Appellant, G.R. No. 179029 August 12, 2010 born on December 28, 1994. Petitioner, already 56 years old at
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with the time, enticed her as she was then only 24 years old, making
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The appellant her believe that he is a widower. Petitioner rented an apartment
pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial on the merits, where respondent stayed and shouldered all expenses in the
thereafter, followed. Buy bust operation was conducted delivery of their child, including the cost of caesarean operation
wherein appellant was apprehended. The RTC convicted the and hospital confinement. However, when respondent refused
appellant. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. the offer of petitioner’s family to take the child from her,
WON there was a valid chain of custody that can be admitted as petitioner abandoned respondent and her child and left them to
Real or Object Evidence – None, the SC resolved to acquit the the mercy of relatives and friends. Respondent further alleged
appellant for the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond that she attempted suicide due to depression but still petitioner
reasonable doubt. Specifically, the prosecution failed to show refused to support her and their child. Respondent thus prayed
that the police complied with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II for support pendente lite and monthly support in the amount
of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of of P20,000.00, as well as actual, moral and exemplary damages,
this Act. Requirement under Section 21: and attorney’s fees. Petitioner filed his answer with special and
In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under affirmative defenses and counterclaims. He described
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the respondent as a woman of loose morals, having borne her first
following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, child also out of wedlock when she went to work in Italy. At the
the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the trial, respondent and her witness Grace Murillo testified.
thing sold and the payment therefor. To remove any doubt or Petitioner was declared to have waived his right to present
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence and the case was considered submitted for decision
evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in based on respondent’s evidence. Murillo corroborated
court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the respondent’s testimony. On April 5, 1999, the trial court
appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug rendered its decision in favor of respondent. Petitioner
pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails. The required procedure on the appealed, the CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner filed
seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA.
paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states: (1) The
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling that
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, respondent’s evidence sufficiently proved that her son Christian
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence Paulo is the illegitimate child of petitioner - YES. Under Article
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate filiation
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or may be established in the same way and on the same evidence
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department as legitimate children.
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states: The
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the
thereof. The records of the present case are bereft of evidence following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register
showing that the buy-bust team followed the outlined or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in
procedure despite its mandatory terms. The apprehending team a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
failed to show why an inventory and photograph of the seized signed by the parent concerned.
evidence had not been made either in the place of seizure and In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation
arrest or at the nearest police station (as required by the shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of
Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests). the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series by the Rules of Court and special laws. Respondent presented
of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines "chain of the Certificate of Live Birth of Christian Paulo Salas in which the
custody" as follows: "Chain of Custody" means the duly name of petitioner appears as his father but which is not signed
recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs by him. We have held that a certificate of live birth purportedly
or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to had a hand in the preparation of the certificate. Thus, if the
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing of his
record of movements and custody of seized item shall include name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary incompetent evidence of paternity. Baptismal certificate w/c
custody of the seized item, the date and time when such also indicated petition as the father is NOT necessarily
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein with
use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. In the respect to the child’s paternity. The rest of the documentary
present case, the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the evidence (handwritten notes and letters, etc.) are not sufficient
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 169
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 to establish filiation to petitioner as they were not signed by the not interpose any evidence in support of his defense aside from
petitioner and contained no statement of admission by his bare denial. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
petitioner that he is the father of said child. An illegitimate child
is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by “any Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of illegal sale and
other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,” like possession of dangerous drugs, and in the course of the
his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in investigation and trial, whether the integrity of the evidence was
which his name has been entered, common reputation preserved - YES. Both agreed that the illegal sale of shabu was
respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies proven beyond reasonable doubt. For the successful
of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under
130 of the Rules of Court. Reviewing the records, we find the Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements
totality of respondent’s evidence insufficient to establish that must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object
petitioner is the father of Christian Paulo. and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUPER the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for
POSING y ALAYON, Accused-Appellant. illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction
G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013 or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
A buy bust operation was conducted to arrest Ruper Posing court of evidence of corpus delicti. Section 1(b) of Dangerous
(Posing), a known drug pusher. A one hundred peso bill Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements
(P100.00) was given by Chief Caballes with his initials, to serve R.A. No. 9165 defines "Chain of Custody" as follows: "Chain of
as the marked money. SPO1 Angeles met Posing beside the Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and
basketball court, where he was introduced by the informant as custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant
a buyer of shabu. The former asked if he could buy one hundred sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
peso (P100.00) worth of shabu for personal use. Posing then stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
pulled out one (1) transparent plastic sachet from his pocket and forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
gave it to SPO1 Angeles in exchange for the buy-bust money. destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized
Afterwards, SPO1 Angeles took out his cap to alert his item shall include the identity and signature of the person who
companions that the deal was already concluded. PO1 Cortez held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
and PO1 Nicart rushed to the scene and introduced themselves when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
as police officers. Posing was frisked, and the buy-bust money safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
and another transparent plastic sachet were recovered from disposition. Jurisprudence is consistent in stating that less than
him. Afterwards, the suspect and the evidence were taken to the strict compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of
station. Prior to the turnover of the evidence to the desk custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items
officer, SPO1 Angeles placed his marking on the two (2) small inadmissible. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act
heat sealed transparent plastic sachets. The same were then No. 9165 provides: Section 21. Custody and Disposition of
turned over to PO2 John Sales (PO2 Sales), who prepared a Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
request for laboratory examination. On the same day, the Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
specimens were delivered by PO1 Nicart to the Philippine Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for quantitative and Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
qualitative examination, wherein each sachet was found to all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
contain 0.03 gram and tested positive for methylamphetamine controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. On the contrary, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
Posing testified that when he was arrested by PO1 Cortez and confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
PO1 Nicart, who he came to know based on their name plates. the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial
When he asked the officers what his violation was, they custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
replied: "Nag-mamaang-maangan ka pa." He was then led to and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
their vehicle and was brought to Station wherein he was asked same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
to point to a certain "Nene" whom he did not know. He such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
refused, which was why he was detained and charged with representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
violation of R.A. No. 9165. Upon arraignment on 2 December the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
2003, Posing entered a plea of "not guilty" on both charges. On who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
2 December 2008, the trial court found Posing GUILTY of given a copy thereof; x x x. RA 9165 and its subsequent
violation of both Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of R.A. 9165. On Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict
appeal, the accused-appellant, contended that the trial court compliance as to the chain of custody rule. x x x We have
gravely erred when it failed to consider the police officers’ emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the
failure to comply with the proper procedure in the handling and integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
custody of the seized drugs, as provided under Section 21 of R. same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
A. No. 9165, which ultimately affected the chain of custody of innocence of the accused." Briefly stated, non-compliance with
the confiscated drugs. The People, through the Office of the the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative
Solicitor General, countered that although the requirements to the custody, photographing, and drugtesting of the
under Section 21 of R. A. No. 9165 has been held to be apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void
mandatory, non-compliance with the same, does not necessarily the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. As
warrant an acquittal. In addition, it was averred that the police to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
officers are entitled to the presumption of regularity in the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the
performance of official duties. Finally, the accused-appellant did accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 170
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not prosecution’s testimonial and documentary evidence, including
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously the corpus delicti of the crime, the RTC found accused-
possessed the drug. In the case at hand, the prosecution was appellants’ defenses of denial and alibi implausible and devoid
able to prove that the accused-appellant was in possession of of credence. In the end, the RTC found accused-appellants
one (1) plastic sachet of shabu, when he was frisked on the guilty of the crime charged and sentenced them. Accused-
occasion of his arrest. There was also no showing that he had the appellants appealed the foregoing RTC judgment to the Court of
authority to possess the drugs that was in his person. This Court Appeals which affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision. Hence, the
held in a catena of cases that mere possession of a regulated instant appeal.
drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a Whether the chain of custody rule was strictly complied with –
satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi Yes, the combined testimonial, documentary, and object
is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or evidence of the prosecution produced a detailed account of the
animus possidendi. buy-bust operation against accused-appellants and proved all
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ASIR GANI y ALIH and NORMINA the essential elements of the crime charged against them. In
GANI y GALOS, G.R. No. 198318 November 27, 2013 the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs,
Accused-appellants were charged in conspiracy with one the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the
another of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165 buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery
in relation to Art. 62, Par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code. When of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to
arraigned on July 28, 2004, accused-appellants pleaded not the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
guilty. At the pre-trial conference held on September 15, 2004, that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the
the parties arrived at the following stipulation of facts: SI Saul presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.
coordinated with the PDEA and formed a buy- bust team to set Contrary to accused-appellants’ averment, prosecution witness,
up the accused Asir and Normina Gani. SI Saul was designated SI Saul, was able to explain why there were a total of four
as the poseur-buyer and was given the marked money sachets of shabu presented during trial, when SI Saul only
constituting of two P1,000.00 bills, with several P20.00 bills in bought two sachets during the buy- bust operation. SI Saul
between, to make it appear that the money was worth testified that in addition to the two plastic sachets of shabu sold
P150,000.00, the purchase price agreed upon by SI Saul and to him by accused-appellants, there were two more sachets of
accused-appellant Normina for the shabu. Accused-appellants shabu recovered from accused-appellants’ possession by the
were arrested during the buy-bust operation and duly advised of buy-bust team during the body search conducted incidental to
their constitutional rights. During the search incidental to accused-appellants’ lawful arrest. The Court further finds that
accused-appellants’ arrest, the buy-bust team seized from the arresting officers had substantially complied with the rule
accused-appellants’ possession two other sachets of shabu, the on the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs as provided
marked money, accused-appellant Asir’s .45 caliber pistol, and under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. In this case,
the motorcycle. The buy- bust team and accused-appellants testimonial and documentary evidence for the prosecution
then proceeded to the FTI Barangay Hall. At the FTI Barangay proved that immediately after accused-appellants’ arrest, they
Hall, SI Saul conducted an inventory of the items recovered were brought to the FTI Barangay Hall. Thus, the Court of
from accused-appellants, including the two plastic sachets of Appeals was correct in its observation that the failure of the
shabu subject of the sale, which SI Saul marked "ES-1 05-06-04" buy-bust team to take pictures of the seized drugs immediately
and "ES-2 05-06-04," representing SI Saul’s initials and the date upon seizure and at the site of accused-appellants’
of the buy-bust. All these were done in the presence of accused- apprehension, and to mark and make an inventory of the same
appellants and two barangay officials. SI Saul’s inventory report, in the presence of all the persons named in Section 21 of
however, did not include the two other sachets of shabu seized Republic Act No. 9165, are not fatal and did not render the
from accused-appellants’ possession. Thereafter, the buy-bust seized drugs inadmissible in evidence given that the
team brought accused-appellants to the NBI Headquarters in prosecution was able to trace and establish each and every link
Manila. in the chain of custody of the seized drugs and, hence, the
At the NBI Headquarters, accused-appellants were booked and identity and integrity of the said drugs had been duly
further investigated. The following day, May 7, 2004, several preserved. For the same reasons, it was not imperative for the
members of the buy- bust team executed the Joint Affidavit of prosecution to present as witnesses before the RTC the two
Arrest of accused-appellants. SI Saul also executed an incident barangay officials who witnessed the conduct of the inventory.
report, requested for laboratory examination of the contents At best, the testimonies of these two barangay officials will only
of the plastic sachets marked "ES-1 05-06-04" and "ES-2 05-06- be corroborative, and would have no significant impact on the
04," and submitted the said specimens to the NBI Forensic identity and integrity of the seized drugs.
Chemistry Division where they were received by NBI Forensic
Chemist II Patingo. The two plastic sachets submitted for DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
laboratory examination had a combined weight of 98.7249 CITIBANK, N.A. MASTERCARD vs. EFREN S. TEODORO, G.R. No.
grams. Based on the forensic analysis by NBI Forensic Chemist II 150905. September 23, 2003
Patingo and Forensic Chemist III Viloria-Magsipoc, the contents Respondent Teodoro made various purchases through his credit
of said sachets tested positive for Methamphetamine card. Accordingly, he was billed by petitioner for those
Hydrochloride. The evidence for the defense consisted of purchases, for which he tendered various payments. Petitioner
accused-appellants’ testimonies. Both denied the crime charged claims that as of January 20, 1995, the obligations of respondent
against them and claimed that they were the victims of stood at P191,693.25, inclusive of interest and service charges.
extortion. They were charged only because they failed to Several times it demanded payment from him, but he refused
produce the money demanded from them. Weighed against the to pay, claiming that the amount demanded did not correspond
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 171
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 to his actual obligations. His refusal prompted petitioner to file original sales invoices was established by the photocopies and
a Complaint for collection on January 25, 1996 before the RTC the testimony of Hernandez. Petitioner, however, failed to
of Makati City. The RTC, in an Order dismissed the Complaint for prove that the originals had been lost or could not be produced
lack of jurisdiction over the amount involved. The case was then in court after reasonable diligence and good faith in searching
transferred to MTC of Makati City. During the trial, petitioner for them. Indeed, the loss of the originals and reasonable
presented several sales invoices or charge slips, which added diligence in the search for them were conditions that were not
up to only P24,388.36. Although mere photocopies of the met, because the sales invoices might have been found by
originals, the invoices were marked in evidence as Exhibits F to Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he had requested the
F-4. Because all these copies appeared to bear the signatures of originals from Equitable, failed to show that he had
respondent, the trial court deemed them sufficient proof of his subsequently followed up the request. Finally, when more than
purchases with the use of the credit card. Accordingly, the MTC one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have
in its July 25, 2000 Decision ordered him to pay petitioner the been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before
amount of P24,388.36 plus interest and penalty fee. Thereafter, secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may
respondent appealed the MTC judgment to the RTC of Makati not be used without accounting for the other originals. In the
City but the RTC affirmed the MTC Decision. Ruling of the Court present case, triplicates were produced, although the
of Appeals: The focal issue of the case according to the CA was cardholder signed the sales invoice only once. During the trial,
whether the photocopies of the sales invoices or charge slips, Hernandez explained that an original copy had gone to
marked as Exhibits F to F-4, were competent proofs of the respondent, another to the merchant, and still another to
obligations of respondent. These were the only evidence petitioner. Each of these three copies is regarded as an original
presented by petitioner that could prove the actual amount of in accordance with Section 4 (b) of Rule 130 of the Rules of
obligation he had incurred in favor of the former. In reversing Court. Petitioner failed to show that all three original copies
the trial courts, the CA ruled that this evidence was insufficient were unavailable, and that due diligence had been exercised in
to prove any liability on respondent’s part. Although petitioner the search for them.
was able to prove the existence of the original sales invoices, it
failed to prove their due execution or to account for their loss or WILGEN LOON, vs POWER MASTER, INC., TRI-C GENERAL
unavailability. Hence, this Petition. SERVICES, and SPOUSES HOMER and CARINA
ALUMISIN,Respondents. G.R. No. 189404 December 11, 2013
Whether or not the photocopies of the sales invoices or charge Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services
slips marked during trial as Exhibits F to F-4 are admissible in employed and assigned the petitioners as janitors and leadsmen
evidence – No, the burden of proof rests upon petitioner, as in various Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT)
plaintiff, to establish its case based on a preponderance of offices in Metro Manila area. Subsequently, the petitioners filed
evidence. It is well-settled that in civil cases, the party that a complaint for money claims against the respondents. The
alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Petitioner failed to petitioners alleged in their complaint that they were not paid
prove that respondent had an obligation in the principal amount minimum wages, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive
of P24,388.36, because the photocopies of the original sales leave, and thirteenth month pays. They further averred that the
invoices it had presented in court were inadmissible in respondents made them sign blank payroll sheets. The
evidence. Moreover, had they been admissible, they would still petitioners amended their complaint and included illegal
have had little probative value. The original copies of the sales dismissal as their cause of action.
invoices are the best evidence to prove the alleged obligation. Notably, the respondents did not participate in the
Photocopies thereof are mere secondary evidence. As such, proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. The respondents’ counsel
they are inadmissible because petitioner, as the offeror, failed also appeared in a preliminary mandatory conference. However,
to prove any of the exceptions provided under Section 3 of Rule the respondents neither filed any position paper nor proffered
130 of the Rules of Court, as well as the conditions of their pieces of evidence in their defense despite their knowledge of
admissibility. Because of the inadmissibility of the photocopies the pendency of the case. Labor Arbiter partially ruled in favor
in the absence of the originals, respondent’s obligation was not of the petitioners. However, the LA denied the petitioners’
established. Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states: claims for backwages, overtime, holiday, and premium pays. The
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. When the LA observed that the petitioners failed to show that they
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be rendered overtime work and worked on holidays and rest days
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or without compensation. The LA further concluded that the
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on petitioners cannot be declared to have been dismissed from
his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its employment because they did not show any notice of
contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of termination of employment. Both parties appealed the LA’s
witnesses in the order stated. Applying the above Rule to the ruling with the National Labor Relations Commission. The
present case, before a party is allowed to adduce secondary respondents insisted that they were not personally served with
evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, summons and other processes. They also claimed that they
the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due paid the petitioners minimum wages, service incentive leave
execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the and thirteenth month pays. As proofs, they attached
original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on photocopied and computerized copies of payroll sheets to their
the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the memorandum on appeal. They further maintained that the
unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct petitioners were validly dismissed. Respondents filed an
order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and unverified supplemental appeal. They attached photocopied
contents. At the sound discretion of the court, this order may be and computerized copies of list of employees with automated
changed if necessary. In the present case, the existence of the teller machine (ATM) cards to the supplemental appeal. This list
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 172
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 also showed the amounts allegedly deposited in the employees’ adverse if produced. Viewed in these lights, the scales of justice
ATM cards. Petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation and must tilt in favor of the employees. This conclusion is consistent
Motion where they asked for the deletion of the supplemental with the rule that the employer’s cause can only succeed on the
appeal from the records because it allegedly suffered from strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
infirmities. First, the supplemental appeal was not verified. employee’s evidence.
Second, it was belatedly filed six months from the filing of the [Other issues: Whether NLRC correctly admitted the pieces of
respondents’ notice of appeal with memorandum on appeal. evidence which Power Master presented for the first time on
NLRC partially ruled in favor of the respondents. The NLRC appeal – No; Whether the photocopies of the subject documents
affirmed the LA’s awards of holiday pay and attorney’s fees. It deserve credence – No]
allowed the respondents to submit pieces of evidence for the THERESITA, JUAN, ASUNCION, PATROCINIA, RICARDO, and
first time on appeal on the ground that they had been deprived GLORIA, all surnamed DIMAGUILA, Petitioners, vs. JOSE and
of due process. The NLRC denied the petitioners’ motion for SONIA A. MONTEIRO, Respondents; G.R. No. 201011 January 27,
reconsideration in a resolution. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed 2014
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court Respondent spouses Monteiro filed their Complaint for Partition
before the CA. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling. The CA denied and Damages before the RTC, against the petitioners Dimaguilas.
the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated The complaint alleged that all the parties were co-owners and
August 28, 2009, prompting the petitioners to file the present prayed for the partition of a residential house and lot located
petition. at Gat. Tayaw St., Liliw, Laguna. Spouses Monteiro anchored
their claim on a deed of sale executed in their favor by the heirs
Whether the respondents were estopped from submitting of Pedro Dimaguila (Pedro). In their Answer, the Dimaguilas and
pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal – Yes, In labor the other defendants countered that there was no co-
cases, strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is ownership to speak of in the first place. They alleged that the
not required. Time and again, we have allowed evidence to be subject property had long been partitioned equally. During the
submitted for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the course of the proceedings, several incidents were initiated.
interest of substantial justice. However, this liberal policy Upon resumption of the proceedings, Spouses Monteiro filed
should still be subject to rules of reason and fairplay. The their Motion for Leave to Amend and/or Admit Amended
liberality of procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: Complaint. The RTC granted their motion. In amending their
(1) a party should adequately explain any delay in the complaint, Spouses Montiero adopted the Dimaguilas'
submission of evidence; and (2) a party should sufficiently partitioned. Spouses Monteiro further averred that Pedro's
prove the allegations sought to be proven. The reason for these share was sold by his heirs to them through a Bilihan ng Lahat
requirements is that the liberal application of the rules before Naming Karapatan (Bilihan) with the acquiescence of the heirs
quasi-judicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate injustice of Esperanza and Leandro appearing in an Affidavit of
and hamper the just resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on Conformity and Waiver; and that when they attempted to take
liberal construction a license to disregard the rules of procedure. possession of the share of Pedro, they discovered that the
The NLRC capriciously and whimsically admitted and gave subject portion was being occupied by the Dimaguilas. In their
weight to the respondents’ evidence despite its finding that Answer to the amended complaint, the Dimaguilas admitted
they voluntarily appeared in the compulsory arbitration that the subject property was inherited by, and divided equally
proceedings. The NLRC blatantly disregarded the fact that the between Perfecto and Vitaliano, but denied the admission in
respondents voluntarily opted not to participate, to adduce their original answer that it had been actually divided into
evidence in their defense and to file a position paper despite southern and northern? portions. Instead, they argued that the
their knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings before the Extrajudicial Partition mentioned only the division of the subject
LA. The respondents were also grossly negligent in not informing property "into two and share and share alike." In effect, they
the LA of the specific building unit where the respondents were argued the existence of a co-ownership, contrary to their
conducting their business and their counsel’s address despite original position. The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Monteiro and
their knowledge of their non-receipt of the processes. ordered the Dimaguilas to turn over the possession of the
Furthermore, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the subject 1 /3 portion of the southern-half of the property.
allegations sought to be proven. Why the respondents’ The RTC found that although the extrajudicial partition merely
photocopied and computerized copies of documentary evidence divided the property into two share and share alike, evidence
were not presented at the earliest opportunity is a serious aliunde was appreciated to show that there was an actual
question that lends credence to the petitioners’ claim that the division of the property into south and north between Perfecto
respondents fabricated the evidence for purposes of appeal. and Vitaliano, and that such partition was observed and
While we generally admit in evidence and give probative value honored by their heirs. These pieces of evidence were the
to photocopied documents in administrative proceedings, cadastral map of Liliw and a corresponding list of claimants,
allegations of forgery and fabrication should prompt the adverse which showed that the subject property had long been
party to present the original documents for inspection. It was registered as Lot 876 (northern-half), claimed by Buenaventura
incumbent upon the respondents to present the originals, Dimaguila (Buenaventura), an heir of Vitaliano, and Lot 877
especially in this case where the petitioners had submitted (southern-half), claimed by Perfecto. As to the authenticity of
their specimen signatures. Instead, the respondents effectively the Bilihan, the RTC found the document to be regular and
deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to examine and authentic absent any piece of evidence to the contrary. The CA
controvert the alleged spurious evidence by not adducing the affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA denied the petitioners'
originals. This Court is thus left with no option but to rule that motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.
the respondents’ failure to present the originals raises the
presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 173
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Whether the rule on hearsay and best evidence rule were following requirements have been met: (i) Plaintiff will cause the
violated – No, Anent the best evidence rule, Section 3(d) of Rule segregation of his right of way amounting to 398 sq. m.; (ii)
130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the subject of Plaintiff will submit to the defendants the approved plan for the
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be segregation; (iii) Plaintiff will put up a strong wall between his
admissible other than the original document itself, except when property and that of defendants' lot to segregate his right of
the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or way; (iv) Plaintiff will pay the capital gains tax and all other
is recorded in a public office. Section 7 of the same Rule provides expenses that may be incurred by reason of sale. x x x." During
that when the original of a document is in the custody of a public trial, private respondent Oscar Inocentes, a former judge,
officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be orally testified that the sale was subject to the above
proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody conditions, although such conditions were not incorporated in
thereof. Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of public the deeds of sale. Despite petitioner's timely objections on the
documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer ground that the introduction of said oral conditions was barred
having the legal custody or the record. by the parol evidence rule, the lower court nonetheless,
Certified true copies of the cadastral map of Liliw and the admitted them and eventually dismissed the complaint as well
corresponding list of claimants of the area covered by the map as the counterclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
were presented by two public officers. The first was Crisostomo affirmed the court a quo. Hence, this petition.
Arves, Clerk III of the Municipal Assessor's Office, a repository of WON the parol evidence is admissible – No, the parol evidence
such documents. The second was Dominga Tolentino, a DENR herein introduced is inadmissible. First, private respondents'
employee, who, as a record officer, certifies and safekeeps oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a party
records of surveyed land involving cadastral maps. The cadastral who has an interest in the outcome of the case, depending
maps and the list of claimants, as ce1iified true copies of original exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or
public records, fall under the exception to the best evidence documentary evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously
rule. unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform
As to the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of language. Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130
Court similarly provides that entries in official records are an of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were
exception to the rule. The rule provides that entries in official reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all
records made in the performance of the duty of a public officer the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be
of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty admitted other than the contents thereof. Considering that the
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts written deeds of sale were the only repository of the truth,
therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the whatever is not found in said instruments must have been
inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official's waived and abandoned by the parties. Examining the deeds of
attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable sale, we cannot even make an inference that the sale was
transactions in the course of his duty. The document's subject to any condition. As a contract, it is the law between
trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of the parties. Secondly, to buttress their argument, private
performance of official duty. respondents rely on the case of Land Settlement Development,
Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The DENR is Co. vs. Garcia Plantation where the Court ruled that a condition
the department tasked to execute, supervise and manage the precedent to a contract may be established by parol evidence.
conduct of cadastral surveys. It is, therefore, clear that the However, the material facts of that case are different from this
cadastral map and the corresponding list of claimants qualify as case. In the former, the contract sought to be enforced expressly
entries in official records as they were prepared by the DENR, as stated that it is subject to an agreement containing the
mandated by law. As such, they are exceptions to the hearsay conditions-precedent which were proven through parol
rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. evidence. Whereas, the deeds of sale in this case, made no
reference to any pre- conditions or other agreement. In fact,
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – PAROLE EVIDENCE the sale is denominated as absolute in its own terms. Third, the
RAFAEL S. ORTAEZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would vary,
OSCAR INOCENTES, AND ASUNCION LLANES INOCENTES, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument, hence,
respondents. G.R. No. 107372. January 23, 1997 contrary to the rule that: The parol evidence rule forbids any
On September 30, 1982, private respondents sold to petitioner addition to x x x the terms of a written instrument by testimony
two (2) parcels of registered land in Quezon City for a purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the
consideration of P35,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively. document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by
Private respondents received the payments for the above- the parties. Fourth, we disagree with private respondents'
mentioned lots, but failed to deliver the titles to petitioner. On argument that their parol evidence is admissible under the
April 9, 1990 the latter demanded from the former the delivery exceptions provided by the Rules, specifically, the alleged failure
of said titles. Private respondents, however, refused on the of the agreement to express the true intent of the parties. Such
ground that the title of the first lot is in the possession of another exception obtains only in the following instance: "[W]here the
person, and petitioner's acquisition of the title of the other lot is written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the
subject to certain conditions. Offshoot, petitioner sued private contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from
respondents for specific performance before the RTC. In their a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic
answer with counterclaim private respondents merely alleged evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the relations
the existence of the following oral conditions which were never of the parties to each other, and of the facts and circumstances
reflected in the deeds of sale: "3.3.2 Title to the other property surrounding them when they entered into the contract may be
(TCT No. 243273) remains with the defendants (private received to enable the court to make a proper interpretation
respondents) until plaintiff (petitioner) shows proof that all the of the instrument." In this case, the deeds of sale are clear,
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 174
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 without any ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less disbelieved petitioner Tans claim that the loans were his
obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof. Fifth, we are not personal loans as the promissory notes evidencing them showed
persuaded by private respondents contention that they "put in upon their faces that these were obligations of the petitioner
issue by the pleadings" the failure of the written agreement to Foundation, as contracted by petitioner Tan himself in his official
express the true intent of the parties. Record shows that private and personal character. Applying the parol evidence rule, the CA
respondents did not expressly plead that the deeds of sale were likewise rejected petitioner Tans assertion that there was an
incomplete or that it did not reflect the intention of the buyer unwritten agreement between him and the respondent Bank
(petitioner) and the seller (private respondents). Such issue that he would pay the loans from the proceeds of his shares of
must be "squarely presented." Private respondents merely stocks in the Lapulapu Industries Corp.
alleged that the sale was subject to four (4) conditions which
they tried to prove during trial by parol evidence. Obviously, this Whether Tan’s assertion as regards the unwritten agreement
cannot be done, because they did not plead any of the between him and the respondent Bank that he would pay the
exceptions mentioned in the parol evidence rule. Their case is loans from the proceeds of his shares of stocks in the Lapulapu
covered by the general rule that the contents of the writing are Industries Corp. may be given credence by the court – No, the
the only repository of the terms of the agreement. Considering Court particularly finds as incredulous petitioner Tans allegation
that private respondent Oscar Inocentes is a lawyer (and former that he was made to sign blank loan documents and that the
judge) he was "supposed to be steeped in legal knowledge and phrase IN MY OFFICIAL/PERSONAL CAPACITY was superimposed
practices" and was "expected to know the consequences" of by the respondent Banks employee despite petitioner Tans
his signing a deed of absolute sale. Had he given an iota's protestation. The Court is hard pressed to believe that a
attention to scrutinize the deeds, he would have incorporated businessman of petitioner Tans stature could have been so
important stipulations that the transfer of title to said lots were careless as to sign blank loan documents.
conditional. In contrast, as found by the CA, the promissory notes clearly
showed upon their faces that they are the obligation of the
LAPULAPU FOUNDATION, INC. and ELIAS Q. TAN, petitioners, vs. petitioner Foundation, as contracted by petitioner Tan in his
COURT OF APPEALS (Seventeenth Division) and ALLIED BANKING official and personal capacity. Moreover, the application for
CORP., respondents G.R. No. 126006. January 29, 2004 credit accommodation, the signature cards of the two accounts
Sometime in 1977, petitioner Elias Q. Tan, then President of the in the name of petitioner Foundation, as well as New Current
co-petitioner Lapulapu Foundation, Inc., obtained four loans Account Record, all accompanying the promissory notes, were
from the respondent Allied Banking Corporation covered by four signed by petitioner Tan for and in the name of the petitioner
promissory notes in the amounts of P100,000 each. As of Foundation. These documentary evidence unequivocally and
January 23, 1979, the entire obligation amounted to categorically establish that the loans were solidarily contracted
P493,566.61 and despite demands made on them by the by the petitioner Foundation and petitioner Tan.
respondent Bank, the petitioners failed to pay the same. The As a corollary, the parol evidence rule likewise constrains this
respondent Bank was constrained to file with the Regional Trial Court to reject petitioner Tans claim regarding the purported
Court of Cebu City a complaint seeking payment by the unwritten agreement between him and the respondent Bank on
petitioners, jointly and solidarily, of the sum of P493,566.61 the payment of the obligation. Section 9, Rule 130 of the of the
representing their loan obligation, exclusive of interests, penalty Revised Rules of Court provides that [w]hen the terms of an
charges, attorney’s fees and costs. In its answer to the agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered
complaint, the petitioner Foundation denied incurring as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
indebtedness from the respondent Bank alleging that the loans between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no
were obtained by petitioner Tan in his personal capacity, for evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
his own use and benefit and on the strength of the personal agreement. In this case, the promissory notes are the law
information he furnished the respondent Bank. The petitioner between the petitioners and the respondent Bank. These
Foundation maintained that it never authorized petitioner Tan promissory notes contained maturity dates as follows: February
to co-sign in his capacity as its President any promissory note 5, 1978, March 28, 1978, April 11, 1978 and May 5, 1978,
and that the respondent Bank fully knew that the loans respectively. That these notes were to be paid on these dates is
contracted were made in petitioner Tans personal capacity and clear and explicit. Nowhere was it stated therein that they would
for his own use and that the petitioner Foundation never be renewed on a year-to-year basis or rolled-over annually until
benefited, directly or indirectly, therefrom. For his part, paid from the proceeds of petitioner Tans shares in the Lapulapu
petitioner Tan admitted that he contracted the loans from the Industries Corp. Accordingly, this purported unwritten
respondent Bank in his personal capacity. According to agreement could not be made to vary or contradict the terms
petitioner Tan, the respondent Banks employee required him to and conditions in the promissory notes. Evidence of a prior or
affix two signatures on every promissory note, assuring him that contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not
the loan documents would be filled out in accordance with their admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid
agreement. However, after he signed and delivered the loan contract. While parol evidence is admissible to explain the
documents to the respondent Bank, these were filled out in a meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of
manner not in accord with their agreement, such that the incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous
petitioner Foundation was included as party thereto. Further, conditions which are not mentioned at all in writing, unless
prior to its filing of the complaint, the respondent Bank made no there has been fraud or mistake. No such allegation had been
demand on him. RTC ruled in favor of Allied Bank. On appeal, the made by the petitioners in this case.
CA affirmed with modification the judgment of the court a quo
by deleting the award of attorney’s fees in favor of the MODESTO LEOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. CASIMERO VALDEZ,
respondent Bank for being without basis. The appellate court Respondent, G.R. No. 169985 June 15, 2011
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 175
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Maria Sta. Maria and Dominga Manangan were the registered contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of these
owners of a parcel of land located in Pangasinan. Sta. Maria sold terms can be admitted other than what is contained in the
her share to Benigna Llamas. When Benigna died in 1944, she written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is
willed her share equally to her sisters Alejandra Llamas and understood to have been waived and abandoned. To avoid the
Josefa Llamas. Thus, Alejandra and Josefa each owned one-half operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court allows a
(½) of Benigna’s share. party to present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the
Alejandra’s heirs sold their predecessor’s one-half (½) share to terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading,
the respondent, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Josefa as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to express
sold her own one-half (½) share (subject property) to the the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the
respondent and the petitioner, as evidenced by another Deed of written agreement to express the true intention of the parties is
Absolute Sale. On even date, the respondent and the petitioner either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
executed an Agreement, allotting their portions of the subject accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the
property. Petitioner and the respondent executed an Affidavit of minds of the parties. At the trial, the petitioner attempted to
Adverse Claim over the subject property. The parties took prove, by parol evidence, the alleged true intention of the
possession of their respective portions of the subject property parties by presenting the Affidavit, which allegedly corrected the
and declared it in their name for taxation purposes. Respondent mistake in the previously executed Agreement and confirmed
asked the Register of Deeds on the requirements for the transfer his ownership of the parcels of land covered by his titles. It was
of title over the portion allotted to him on the subject property. the petitioner’s staunch assertion that the respondent co-
To his surprise, the respondent learned that the petitioner had executed this Affidavit supposedly to reflect the parties’ true
already obtained in his name two transfer certificates of title intention. In the present petition, however, the petitioner made
(TCTs). Respondent filed a complaint for Annulment of Title, a damaging admission that the Benigna Deed is fabricated,
Reconveyance and Damages against the petitioner, seeking the thereby completely bolstering the respondent’s cause of action
reconveyance of the disputed property on the ground that the for reconveyance of the disputed property on the ground of
petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square meters identified fraudulent registration of title. Since the Affidavit merely
in the parties’ Agreement. The respondent assailed the Benigna reflects what is embodied in the Benigna Deed, the petitioner’s
Deed by presenting Benigna’s death certificate. The respondent admission, coupled with the respondent’s denial of his
argued that Benigna could not have executed a deed because purported signature in the Affidavit, placed in serious doubt the
Benigna already died in 1944. Respondent denied his purported reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the
signature appearing in the Affidavit. The RTC dismissed the petitioner’s defense.
complaint. The court ruled that the respondent failed to
preponderantly prove that the Benigna Deed and the Affidavit ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
are fabricated and, consequently, no ground exists to nullify the HEIRS OF LOURDES SAEZ SABANPAN vs. ALBERTO C.
petitioner’s titles. The court observed that the respondent did COMORPOSA, G.R. No. 152807. August 12, 2003
not even compare his genuine signature with the signatures The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its
appearing in these documents. On appeal, the CA reversed the probative value. Just because a piece of evidence is admitted
RTC by ruling against the authenticity of the Benigna Deed and does not ipso facto mean that it conclusively proves the fact in
the Affidavit. The CA gave weight to Benigna’s death certificate dispute.
which shows the impossibility of Benigna’s execution of the
deed in 1969. The CA also noted the discrepancy between the A Complaint for unlawful detainer with damages was filed by
respondent’s signatures as appearing in the Affidavit, on one petitioners against respondents before the Santa Cruz, Davao
hand, and the documents on record, on the other. The CA added del Sur Municipal Trial Court. The Complaint alleged that Marcos
that the respondent’s failure to compare his genuine signature Saez was the lawful and actual possessor of the disputed
from his purported signatures appearing in the petitioner’s property. In 1960, he died leaving all his heirs, his children and
documents is not fatal, since Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of grandchildren. In 1965, Francisco Comorposa who was working
Court allows the court to make its own comparison. Petitioner in the land of Oboza was terminated from his job. The
filed the present appeal by certiorari, claiming that the CA termination of his employment caused a problem in relocating
committed "gross misappreciation of the facts" by going his house. Out of pity and for humanitarian consideration,
beyond what the respondent sought in his complaint. Adolfo Saez allowed Francisco Comorposa to occupy the land
of Marcos Saez. Francisco Comorposa left for Hawaii, U.S.A. He
Whether or not the respondent was able to prove his title over was succeeded in his possession by the respondents who
the disputed potions? Yes, the respondent adequately proved likewise did not pay any rental and are occupying the premises
his ownership of the disputed property by virtue of the (i) Deed through petitioners tolerance. On 1998, a formal demand was
of Absolute Sale executed by Josefa in favor of the parties; (ii) made upon the respondents to vacate the premises but the
the parties’ Affidavit of Adverse Claim; and (iii) the parties’ latter refused to vacate the same and claimed that they were
Agreement, which cover the subject property. The petitioner the legitimate claimants and the actual and lawful possessors
does not dispute the due execution and the authenticity of these of the premises. Thus, an action for unlawful detainer was filed
documents, particularly the Agreement. However, he claims that by petitioners against respondents. Respondents, in their
since the Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the Answer, denied the material allegations of the Complaint and
parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in order to alleged that they entered and occupied the premises in their
reflect the parties’ true intention. own right as true, valid and lawful claimants, possessors and
The petitioner’s argument calls to fore the application of the owners of the said lot way back in 1960 and up to the present
parole evidence rule, i.e., when the terms of an agreement are time; that they have acquired just and valid ownership and
reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to possession of the premises by ordinary or extraordinary
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 176
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 prescription, and that the Regional Director of the DENR, Region Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) allegedly conducted an
XI has already upheld their possession possessors and were, investigation to verify the veracity of such report. The CIU served
therefore, entitled to the issuance of a title. The Municipal Trial petitioner with a Memorandum of Charges for dishonesty,
Court of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur rendered judgment in favor of serious misconduct, fraud and violation of office rules and
petitioners but the Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, regulations which were considered grave offenses where the
on appeal, reversed and set aside the said decision. Affirming the penalty imposable is dismissal. On the same day, another
RTC, the CA upheld the right of respondents as claimants and Memorandum was issued to petitioner informing him of the
possessors. The appellate court held that -- although not yet charge of dishonesty. Petitioner was then required to explain in
final -- the Order issued by the regional executive director of the writing within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Petitioner wrote Manager Bangsil a letter
remained in full force and effect, unless declared null and void. explanation/refutation of the charges against him. He denied
The CA added that the Certification issued by the DENRs any involvement or participation in any fraudulent manipulation
community environment and natural resources (CENR) officer of the CMR or padding of the slot machine receipts, and he asked
was proof that when the cadastral survey was conducted, the for a formal investigation of the accusations against him. On
land was still alienable and was not yet allocated to any person. August 4, 2007, petitioner received a letter dismissing him from
Hence, this Petition. the service. Petitioner then filed with the CSC a Complaint
against PAGCOR and its Chairman Efraim Genuino for illegal
Whether the subject CENR Certification was correctly admitted dismissal, non-payment of backwages and other benefits.
by the RTC, considering that it was a mere facsimile – Yes, In Respondent PAGCOR filed its Comment wherein it alleged,
Garvida, the Court held: "A facsimile or fax transmission is a among others, that petitioner failed to perfect an appeal within
process involving the transmission and reproduction of printed the period and manner provided by the Uniform Rules on
and graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one elemental Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Law. On June 23, 2008,
area at a time, and representing the shade or tone of each area the CSC, treating petitioner's complaint as an appeal from the
by a specified amount of electric current. x x x" Pleadings filed PAGCOR's decision dismissing petitioner from the service, issued
via fax machines are not considered originals and are at best Resolution No. 081204 denying petitioner's appeal. Petitioner's
exact copies. As such, they are not admissible in evidence, as motion for a reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed with
there is no way of determining whether they are genuine or the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
authentic. The Certification, on the other hand, is being seeking to set aside the twin resolutions issued by the CSC. The
contested for bearing a facsimile of the signature of CENR Officer CA issued its assailed decision dismissing the petition for lack of
Jose F. Tagorda. The facsimile referred to is not the same as that merit. In dismissing the petition, the CA found that petitioner
which is alluded to in Garvida. The one mentioned here refers to failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that he had filed
a facsimile signature, which is defined as a signature produced a motion for reconsideration. It found insufficient to merit
by mechanical means but recognized as valid in banking, consideration petitioner's claim that he had sent through a
financial, and business transactions. Note that the CENR officer facsimile transmission a letter/reconsideration dated August 13,
has not disclaimed the Certification. In fact, the DENR regional 2007 addressed to PAGCOR's Chairman, members of the Board
director has acknowledged and used it as reference in his Order of Directors and the Merit Systems Protection Board; that
dated April 2, 1998: "x x x. CENR Officer Jose F. Tagorda, in a assuming arguendo that a letter reconsideration was indeed
'CERTIFICATION' dated 22 July 1997, certified among others, sent through a facsimile transmission, such facsimile
that: x x x per records available in his Office, x x x the transmission is inadmissible as electronic evidence under the
controverted lot x x x was not allocated to any person x x x." If Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. Hence, this petition.
the Certification were a sham as petitioner claims, then the
regional director would not have used it as reference in his Whether the letter of reconsideration allegedly sent by Torres
Order. Instead, he would have either verified it or directed the through facsimile transmission, assuming that such was in fact
CENR officer to take the appropriate action, as the latter was sent, may be considered as a pleading which necessarily tolls the
under the former's direct control and supervision. Petitioners' period to appeal to the CSC – No.
claim that the Certification was raised for the first time on appeal WON the facsimile transaction is considered as an electronic
is incorrect. As early as the pretrial conference at the Municipal document that would render the petitioner’s MR filed within the
Trial Court (MTC), the CENR Certification had already been reglementary period – No, Clearly, as to CSC’s rules, a motion
marked as evidence for respondents as stated in the Pre-trial for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or personal
Order. The Certification was not formally offered, however, delivery. When a motion for reconsideration was sent by mail,
because respondents had not been able to file their position the same shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the
paper. Neither the rules of procedure nor jurisprudence would postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the
sanction the admission of evidence that has not been formally records of the case. On the other hand, in case of personal
offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is applicable delivery, the motion is deemed filed on the date stamped
only to ordinary trials, not to cases covered by the rule on thereon by the proper office. And the movant has 15 days from
summary procedure -- cases in which no full-blown trial is held. receipt of the decision within which to file a motion for
ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and reconsideration or an appeal therefrom. Even assuming
GAMING CORPORATION, represented by ATTY. CARLOS R. arguendo that petitioner indeed submitted a letter
BAUTISTA, G.R. No. 193531 December 14, 2011 reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimile
Petitioner was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor of transmission, such letter reconsideration did not toll the period
respondent PAGCOR. On the basis of an alleged intelligence to appeal. The mode used by petitioner in filing his
report of padding of the Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of the slot reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on
machines at PAGCOR-Hyatt Manila, respondent PAGCOR's Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As we stated earlier,
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 177
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 the motion for reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, spontaneous manner. The crying of the victim during her
either by mail or personal delivery. In Garvida v. Sales, Jr., we testimony is evidence of the credibility of her charges with the
found inadmissible in evidence the filing of pleadings through fax verity borne out of human nature and experience." Thus, in its
machines and ruled that: A facsimile or fax transmission is a Decision dated August 1, 2001, the RTC found Rustan guilty of
process involving the transmission and reproduction of printed the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On Rustan’s appeal to
and graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one elemental the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter rendered a decision dated
area at a time, and representing the shade or tone of each area January 31, 2008, affirming the RTC decision. The CA denied
by a specified amount of electric current. The current is Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April
transmitted as a signal over regular telephone lines or via 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on certiorari.
microwave relay and is used by the receiver to reproduce an
image of the elemental area in the proper position and the Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the
correct shade. The receiver is equipped with a stylus or other obscene picture presented in the case.
device that produces a printed record on paper referred to as a Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a
facsimile. A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should
It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as
original. Without the original, there is no way of determining provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic
on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC). But, firstly, Rustan is raising this
authentic and was originally signed by the party and his objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit A,
counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading. for the first time before this Court. The objection is too late
Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not considered as an since he should have objected to the admission of the picture
electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act. In on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He
MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, the should be deemed to have already waived such ground for
SC determined the question of whether the original facsimile objection. Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the
transmissions are "electronic data messages" or "electronic present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence
documents" within the context of the Electronic Commerce Act: applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and
The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic administrative proceedings. In conclusion, this Court finds that
document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime
2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a charged beyond reasonable doubt.
facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic People v. Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, 10 March 2014
evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under Appellants Enojas, Gomez, Santos and Jalandoni were charged
the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic for the crime of Murder before the Regional Trial Court. P02
evidence. Gregorio testified that he was with P02 Pangilinan when they
saw a suspiciously parked taxi, of which the driver was appellant
RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS Enojas, they invited the said driver to the police station for
and IRISH SAGUD, G.R. No. 182835 April 20, 2010 further questioning; appellant Enojas voluntarily went with the
The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Irish police officers. However, on their way to the police station, they
Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan stopped at a convenience store, wherein they had an encounter
University. Rustan courted Irish and they became "on-and-off" with suspected robbers. P02 Pangilinan was able shoot one of
sweethearts towards the end of 2004. When Irish learned the suspects dead, but was shot, causing his death. Upon
afterwards that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his hearing the shots, P02 Gregorio responded but was
wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke up with him. unsuccessful. The suspected robbers successfully fled, and upon
Before Rustan got married, however, he got in touch with Irish return to the police mobile, appellant Enojas fled as well.
and tried to convince her to elope with him, saying that he did Suspecting that appellant Enojas was involved, the police
not love the woman he was about to marry. Irish rejected the officers searched the abandoned taxi and found a mobile
proposal and told Rustan to take on his responsibility to the phone belonging to appellant Enojas, of which they used to
other woman and their child. Irish changed her cellphone monitor and to communicate with the accused appellants.
number but Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent Thereafter, they were able to conduct an entrapment
her text messages. Irish received through multimedia message operation that resulted to the arrest of herein appellants.
service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs Appellants pointed out that they were entitled to an acquittal
and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure. The sender’s since they were all illegally arrested and since the evidence of
cellphone number, stated in the message, one of the numbers the text messages were inadmissible, not having been properly
that Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of identified. The trial Court rendered its decision finding the
her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003. accused appellants guilty of murder. On appeal, the appellate
Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who Court affirmed the decision of the court a quo, hence this
referred her to the police. Under police supervision, Irish appeal.
contacted Rustan through the cellphone numbers he used in
sending the picture and his text messages. Irish asked Rustan to Whether or not the electronic evidence may be admitted as to
meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, criminal cases – Yes, the Court held that the appellate Court did
and he did. He came in a motorcycle. After parking it, he walked not erred when it held the admissibility of electronic evidence to
towards Irish but the waiting police officers intercepted and text messages. As to the admissibility of the text messages, the
arrested him. They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson RTC admitted them in conformity with the Court’s earlier
P900 cellphone and several SIM cards. After trial, the RTC found Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal
Irish’s testimony completely credible, given in an honest and actions. Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 178
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge W/N the text message is considered a privileged communication
of them. Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, – yes, In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview
exchanged text messages with the other accused in order to of a qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1,
identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made
sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the
Cambi had personal knowledge of such messages and was communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which
competent to testify on them. The accused lament that they interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made;
were arrested without a valid warrant of arrest. But, assuming (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or
that this was so, it cannot be a ground for acquitting them of the superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who
crime charged but for rejecting any evidence that may have has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the
been taken from them after an unauthorized search as an statements in the communication are made in good faith and
incident of an unlawful arrest, a point that is not in issue here. without malice. In the case at bar, it was Lumapas who informed
At any rate, a crime had been committed—the killing of PO2 Rivera of either the delay or denial of the latter's claims for
Pangilinan—and the investigating police officers had personal payment of salaries, benefits and incentives by Syhunliong.
knowledge of facts indicating that the persons they were to Rivera expressed through the subject text message her
arrest had committed it. The text messages to and from the grievances to Lumapas. At that time, Lumapas was the best
mobile phone left at the scene by accused Enojas provided person, who could help expedite the release of Rivera's claims.
strong leads on the participation and identities of the accused. Rivera's text message falls within the ambit of a qualified
Indeed, the police caught them in an entrapment using this privileged communication since she "was speaking in response
knowledge. NB: A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Re: Expansion of the to duty [to protect her own interest] and not out of an intent to
Coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, September 24, injure the reputation"45 of Syhunliong. Besides, "[t]here was no
2002. unnecessary publicity of the message beyond [that] of conveying
it to the party concerned.”
RAMON A. SYHUNLIONG, Petitioner, vs. TERESITA D. RIVERA,
Respondent., G.R. No. 200148 dated June 4, 2014 TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – Disqualifications (Mental incapacity
Syhunliong is the President of BANFF while Rivera used to be the or immaturity)
accounting manager of BANFF. About three years after, Rivera, LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS Petitioner, vs. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE
citing personal and family matters, tendered her resignation to DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., namely NONITA NAVARRO,
be effective on February 3, 2006. However, Rivera actually FRANCISCA NAVARRO MALAPITAN, SOLEDAD NAVARRO
continued working for BANFF until March of the same year to BROCHLER, NONITA BARRUN NAVARRO, JR., IMELDA NAVARRO,
complete the turn over of papers under her custody to Jennifer ANDRES NAVARRO III, MILAGROS NAVARRO YAP, PILAR
Lumapas (Lumapas), who succeeded her. Sometime in April of NAVARRO, TERESA NAVARRO-TABITA, and LOURDES BARRUN-
2006, Rivera called Lumapas to request for the payment of her REJUSO, Respondents, G.R. No. 198240 July 3, 2013
remaining salaries, benefits and incentives. Lumapas informed Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents are
Rivera that her benefits would be paid, but the check claiming exclusive ownership of the subject lot. Respondents
representing her salaries was still unsigned, and her incentives based their claim on the Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property
were put on hold by Syhunliong. Rivera sent the following text dated May 19, 1954 where Andres, Sr. donated the subject lot
message to one of the official cellular phones held by Lumapas: to Andres, Jr. Believing that the affidavit is a forgery, the sisters,
I am expecting that[.] [G]rabe talagasufferings ko dyan through Assistant Fiscal Andres Marcos, requested a
hanggang pagkuha nglast pay ko. I don’t deserve this [because] handwriting examination of the affidavit. The PNP handwriting
I did my job when I [was] still there. God bless ras[.] [S]ana yung expert PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.’s
pagsimba niya, alam niya real meaning. Kailangan release niya signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard signatures
lahat [nang] makukuha ko diyanincluding incentive up to the last of Andres, Sr. were not written by one and the same person.
datena nandyan ako para di na kami abot sa labor. Thus, the sisters sued the respondents for annulment of the
Subsequently, Rivera filed before the NLRC a complainat against deed of donation before the RTC of Masbate. After the pre-trial,
Syhunliong for underpaid salaries, etc. totaling P698 thousand. respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness.
Pending the resolution of the said labor case, Syhunliong They argued that the RTC did not authorize the handwriting
instituted against Rivera a complaint for libel on 4/16/2007. RTC examination of the affidavit. They added that presenting PO2
ruled in favor of Syhunliong. On appeal, the court of appeals Alvarez as a witness will violate their constitutional right to due
ruled in favor of Rivera hence this petition. [andaming issue na process since no notice was given to them before the
pinresent si Syhunliong pero hindi na diniscuss ni SC kasi nga examination was conducted. Thus, PO2 Alvarez’s report is a
prescribed na daw] worthless piece of paper and her testimony would be useless
and irrelevant. The RTC granted respondents’ motion and
W/N the action for liber is already prescribed – Yes, Syhunliong disqualified PO2 Alvarez as a witness. The RTC ruled that PO2
filed his complaint against Rivera more than one year [Articles Alvarez’s supposed testimony would be hearsay as she has no
90 and 91 of the RPC provides a 1-year prescriptive period for personal knowledge of the alleged handwriting of Andres, Sr.
instituting actions for LIBEL] after the allegedly libelous message Also. The sisters sought reconsideration of the order but the RTC
was sent to Lumapas. from the moment the State has lost or denied their motion. Aggrieved, the sisters filed a petition for
waived such right, the defendant may, at any stage of the certiorari before the CA, which however, dismissed their
proceeding, demand and ask that the same be finally dismissed petition on the ground that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 5215
and he be acquitted from the complaint xxx. has mooted the issue of PO2 Alvarez’s disqualification as a
witness. Hence, this appeal.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 179

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Whether PO2 Alvarez is qualified as a witness – Yes, In AFP technical nature of the procedure in examining forged
Retirement and Separation Benefits System v. Republic, we said documents. More important, analysis of the questioned
that a witness must only possess all the qualifications and none signature in the deed of donation executed by the late Andres
of the disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court. Section Navarro, Sr. in crucial to the resolution of the case. In sum, the
20, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence provides: SEC. 20. RTC should not have disqualified P02 Alvarez as a witness. She
Witnesses; their qualifications.–Except as provided in the next has the qualifications of witness and possess none of the
succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and disqualifications under the Rules. The Rules allow the opinion of
perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be an expert witness to be received as evidence. In Tamani, we used
witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome the opinion of an expert witness. The value of P02 Alvarez's
of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided expert opinion cannot be determined if P02 Alvarez is not even
by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. allowed to testify on the handwriting examination she
Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under conducted.
Sections 21 to 24, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. Section 21 People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Golimlim @ “Badong”, GR
disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or No. 145225 dated 4/2/2004
immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a witness by reason of Private complainant Evelyn G. Canchela (Evelyn), is a mental
marriage. Section 23 disqualifies a witness by reason of death or retardate. When her mother, Amparo Hachero, left for
insanity of the adverse party. Section 24 disqualifies a witness by Singapore to work as a domestic helper, she entrusted Evelyn to
reason of privileged communication. Sections 19 and 20 of Rule the care and custody of her sister Jovita Guban and her husband
130 provide for specific disqualifications. Section 19 disqualifies Salvador Golimlim. Jovita left the conjugal residence to meet a
those who are mentally incapacitated and children whose certain Rosing leaving Evelyn with appellant. Golimlim took
tender age or immaturity renders them incapable of being advantage of the situation and raped Evelyn. Evelyn told Jovita
witnesses. Section 20 provides for disqualification based on about what happened but she didn’t believe her. When Evelyn
conflicts of interest or on relationship. Section 21 provides for was fetched by Lorna, her half-sister, it was discovered that she
disqualification based on privileged communications. Section 15 was pregnant, only then did the crime committed to victim
of Rule 132 may not be a rule on disqualification of witnesses actually surfaced. The Medico-Legal findings confirmed the
but it states the grounds when a witness may be impeached by pregnancy as well as the hymen lacerations of Evelyn. A
the party against whom he was called. As a handwriting expert criminal complaint was filed by Evelyn, assisted by Lorna,
of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and make known against Golimlim. While the case was pending, Evelyn gave birth
her perception to others. We have no doubt that she is to a girl named Joana. The trial court convicted Golimlim. In his
qualified as a witness. She cannot be disqualified as a witness defense, Golimlim argues that Evelyn’s testimony is not
since she possesses none of the disqualifications specified categorical and is replete with contradictions, thus
under the Rules. Respondents’ motion to disqualify her should engendering grave doubts as to his criminal culpability.
have been denied by the RTC for it was not based on any of these
grounds for disqualification. The RTC rather confused the WON THE CONTRADICTORY AND IMPLAUSIBLE TESTIMONY OF
qualification of the witness with the credibility and weight of her EVELYN CANCHELA, A MENTAL RETARDATE SHOULD BE GIVEN
testimony. Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of WEIGHT AND CREDENCE - Yes. In upholding the trial court’s
Evidence is clear that the opinion of an expert witness may be ruling, the Supreme Court said that the fact that Evelyn is a
received in evidence. For instance, in Tamani v. Salvador, we mental retardate does not disqualify her as a witness nor
were inclined to believe that Tamani’s signature was forged after render her testimony bereft of truth. Sections 20 and 21 of Rule
considering the testimony of the PNP document examiner that 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provide: SEC. 20. Witnesses;
the case involved simulated or copied forgery, such that the their qualifications. – Except as provided in the next succeeding
similarities will be superficial. We said that the value of the section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere known their perception to others, may be witnesses. SEC. 21.
statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. –
assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, The following persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those whose
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and mental condition, at the time of their production for
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently
or detection from an unpracticed observer. Thus, we disagree making known their perception to others; (b) Children whose
with the RTC that PO2 Alvarez’s testimony would be hearsay. mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
Under Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, PO2 perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of
Alvarez is allowed to render an expert opinion, as the PNP relating them truthfully.
document examiner was allowed in Tamani. But the RTC already In People v. Trelles, the Court stated that a mental retardate or
ruled at the outset that PO2 Alvarez’s testimony is hearsay even a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a
before her testimony is offered and she is called to the witness witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her
stand. Under the circumstances, the CA should have issued a credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual
corrective writ of certiorari and annulled the RTC ruling. True, weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid
the use of the word "may" in Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter
on Evidence signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the
is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. matter testified to. It cannot then be gainsaid that a mental
Jurisprudence is also replete with instances wherein this Court retardate can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to
dispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to prove relate what he or she knows. If his or her testimony is coherent,
forgeries. However, we have also recognized that handwriting the same is admissible in court. To be sure, modern rules on
experts are often offered as expert witnesses considering the evidence have downgraded mental incapacity as a ground to
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 180
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 disqualify a witness and has become a modern trend of danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
evidence. Thus, in a long line of cases, the Court has upheld the Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of
conviction of the accused based mainly on statements given in private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but
court by the victim who was a mental retardate. From a ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a void in the
meticulous scrutiny of the records of this case, there is no unhappy home. Therefore, Esperanza may testify over the
reason to doubt Evelyn’s credibility. To be sure, her testimony objection of her husband. The disqualification of a witness by
is not without discrepancies, given of course her reason of marriage under Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
feeblemindedness. of Court has its exceptions as where the marital relations are
so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved. The
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – Disqualifications (Marital acts of the petitioner stamp out all major aspects of marital life.
disqualification) On the other hand, the State has an interest in punishing the
MAXIMO ALVAREZ vs. SUSAN RAMIREZ, G.R. No. 143439 guilty and exonerating the innocent, and must have the right
October 14, 2005 to offer the testimony of Esperanza over the objection of her
Respondent Susan Ramirez was the complaining witness in a husband.
criminal case of arson pending before the RTC. The accused was
petitioner Maximo Alvarez, stranged husband of Esperanza PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. MARIANO C. CASTAÑEDA,
Alvarez, sister of respondent. On June 21, 1999, Esperanza JR., G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979
Alvarez was called to the witness stand as the first witness Benjamin Manaloto was charged with the crime of Falsification
against petitioner, her husband. Petitioner filed a motion to of Public Document. The complaint was filed by his wife,
disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him pursuant to Victoria Manaloto. That on or about the 19th day of May, 1975,
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital in the Municipality of San Fernando, province of Pampanga,
disqualification. Respondent filed an opposition to the motion. Philippines, Benjamin falsified in a deed of sale the house and
Pending resolution of the motion, the trial court directed the lot belonging to the conjugal partnership in favor of Ponciano
prosecution to proceed with the presentation of the other Lacsamana, making it appear that his spouse gave her marital
witnesses. On September 2, 1999, the trial court issued the consent to said sale. At the trial, the prosecution called the wife
questioned Order disqualifying Esperanza Alvarez from further to the witness stand but the defense moved to disqualify her as
testifying and deleting her testimony from the records. The a witness, invoking Sec. 20, Rule 130. The prosecution stated
prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in that it is a "criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other assailed Order dated October 19, 1999. This prompted the other." Notwithstanding such opposition, respondent Judge
respondent to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for granted the motion, disqualifying Victoria.
certiorari with application for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order. On May 31, 2000, the Appellate Whether Victoria should be disqualified under the marital
Court rendered a Decision nullifying and setting aside the privilege rule – No, the case is an exception to the marital
assailed Orders issued by the trial court. Hence, this petition for disqualification rule. WHEN AN OFFENSE DIRECTLY ATTACKS,
review on certiorari. OR DIRECTLY AND VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE CONJUGAL
RELATION, IT COMES WITHIN THE EXCEPTION to the statute
Whether or not Esperanza can testify over the objection of her that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a
estranged husband on the ground of marital privilege – Yes, criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against
Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Sec. the other. In the case, it must be noted that had the sale of the
22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their said house and lot, and the signing of the wife's name by her
marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or husband in the deed of sale, been made with the consent of the
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, wife, no crime could have been charged against said husband. It
except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal is the husband's breach of his wife's confidence which gave rise
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the to the offense charged. And it is this same breach of trust which
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. The reasons given for prompted the wife to make the necessary complaint. With more
the rule are: 1. There is identity of interests between husband reason must the exception apply to the instant case where the
and wife; 2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there victim of the crime and the person who stands to be directly
is consequent danger of perjury; 3. The policy of the law is to prejudiced by the falsification is not a third person but the wife
guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the herself. And it is undeniable that the act had the effect of directly
risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. This is apparent not
disunion and unhappiness; and 4. Where there is want of only in the act of the wife in personally lodging her complaint
domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, but also in her insistent
through the hostile testimony of the other. But like all other efforts in connection with the instant petition, which seeks to set
general rules, the marital disqualification rule has its own aside the order disqualifying her from testifying against her
exceptions, both in civil actions between the spouses and in husband. Taken collectively, the actuations of the witness-wife
criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other. underscore the fact that the martial and domestic relations
Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound reasons between her and the accused-husband have become so strained
which, in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the that there is no more harmony to be preserved said nor peace
general rule. For instance, where the marital and domestic and tranquility which may be disturbed. In such a case, identity
relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, based on that identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a
the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In situation, the security and confidence of private life which the
such a case, identity of interests disappears and the consequent
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 181
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698; Go Chi Gun, et al. v. Co Cho, et
their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. al., 622 [1955]) The rule, however, delimits the prohibition it
contemplates in that it is applicable to a case against the
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – Disqualifications (Death or insanity – administrator or its representative of an estate upon a claim
dead man’s statute) against the estate of the deceased person. (See Tongco v.
ENRIQUE RAZON, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698 [1927])
COURT and VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN, in his capacity as In the instant case, the testimony excluded by the appellate
Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased JUAN T. CHUIDIAN, court is that of the defendant (petitioner herein) to the affect
respondents. G.R. No. 74306 March 16, 1992 that the late Juan Chuidian, (the father of private respondent
In his complaint, Vicente B. Chuidian prayed that defendants Vicente Chuidian, the administrator of the estate of Juan
Enrique B. Razon, E. Razon, Inc. and others be ordered to deliver Chuidian) and the defendant agreed in the lifetime of Juan
certificates of stocks representing the shareholdings of the Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. are
deceased Juan T. Chuidian in the E. Razon, Inc. The evidence of actually owned by the defendant unless the deceased Juan
the plaintiff shows that he is the administrator of the intestate Chuidian opted to pay the same which never happened. The
estate of Juan Telesforo Chuidian. The then Court of First case was filed by the administrator of the estate of the late Juan
Instance of Manila, now Regional Trial Court of Manila, declared Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. allegedly
that Enrique Razon, the petitioner in G.R. No. 74306 is the owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian. It is clear, therefore, that
owner of the said shares of stock. The then Intermediate the testimony of the petitioner is not within the prohibition of
Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, however, reversed the the rule. The case was not filed against the administrator of the
trial court's decision and ruled that Juan T. Chuidian, the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the estate.
deceased father of petitioner Vicente B. Chuidian in G.R. No. Furthermore, the records show that the private respondent
74315 is the owner of the shares of stock. Both parties filed never objected to the testimony of the petitioner as regards
separate motions for reconsideration. Enrique Razon wanted the true nature of his transaction with the late elder Chuidian.
the appellate court's decision reversed and the trial court's The petitioner's testimony was subject to cross-examination by
decision affirmed while Vicente Chuidian asked that all cash and the private respondent's counsel. Hence, granting that the
stock dividends and all the pre-emptive rights accruing to the petitioner's testimony is within the prohibition of Section 20(a),
1,500 shares of stock be ordered delivered to him. The Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the private respondent is deemed
appellate court denied both motions. Hence, these petitions. to have waived the rule. We ruled in the case of Cruz v. Court of
Petitioner Enrique Razon assails the appellate court's decision Appeals (192 SCRA 209 [1990]): It is also settled that the court
on its alleged misapplication of the dead man's statute rule. cannot disregard evidence which would ordinarily be
According to him, the "dead man's statute" rule is not incompetent under the rules but has been rendered admissible
applicable to the instant case. Moreover, the private by the failure of a party to object thereto. Thus: . . . The
respondent, as plaintiff in the case did not object to his oral acceptance of an incompetent witness to testify in a civil suit, as
testimony regarding the oral agreement between him and the well as the allowance of improper questions that may be put to
deceased Juan T. Chuidian that the ownership of the shares of him while on the stand is a matter resting in the discretion of the
stock was actually vested in the petitioner unless the deceased litigant. He may assert his right by timely objection or he may
opted to pay the same; and that the petitioner was subjected to waive it, expressly or by silence. In any case the option rests with
a rigid cross examination regarding such testimony. him. Once admitted, the testimony is in the case for what it is
worth and the judge has no power to disregard it for the sole
Whether or not the petitioner's testimony is admissible? YES. reason that it could have been excluded, if it had been objected
Section 20(a) Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (Section 23 of the to, nor to strike it out on its own motion. (Marella v. Reyes, 12
Revised Rules on Evidence) States: Sec. 20. Disqualification by Phil. 1.)
reason of interest or relationship — The following persons
cannot testify as to matters in which they are interested directly LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN and CECILIA SUNGA vs. LAMBERTO T.
or indirectly, as herein enumerated. (a) Parties or assignors of CHUA, G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001
parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is In this case, petitioners question the correctness of the finding
prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that a partnership
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of existed between respondent Chua and Jacinto Sunga from
unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of 1977 until Jacinto’s death. In the absence of any written
such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, document to show such partnership between respondent and
cannot testify as to any matter of fact accruing before the death Jacinto, petitioners argue that these courts were proscribed
of such deceased person or before such person became of from hearing the testimonies of respondent and his witness,
unsound mind." The purpose of the rule has been explained by Josephine, to prove the alleged partnership three years after
this Court in this wise: The reason for the rule is that if persons Jacinto’s death. To support this argument, petitioners invoke
having a claim against the estate of the deceased or his the “Dead Man’s Statute” or “Survivorship Rule” under Section
properties were allowed to testify as to the supposed 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court that provides: “SEC. 23.
statements made by him (deceased person), many would be Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party.–
tempted to falsely impute statements to deceased persons as Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose
the latter can no longer deny or refute them, thus unjustly behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator
subjecting their properties or rights to false or unscrupulous or other representative of a deceased person, or against a
claims or demands. The purpose of the law is to "guard against person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the
the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the estate of such deceased person, or against such person of
transaction in question on the part of the surviving party." unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 182
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 before the death of such deceased person or before such person like the finding of the existence of a partnership between
became of unsound mind.” Petitioners thus implore this Court respondent and Jacinto cannot be inquired into by this Court on
to rule that the testimonies of respondent and his alter ego, review. This Court can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs
Josephine, should not have been admitted to prove certain presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them
claims against a deceased person, now represented by to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were
petitioners. correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of
evidence of one party or the other. It must be also pointed out
whether or not the “Dead Man’s Statute” applies to this case so that petitioners failed to attend the presentation of evidence
as to render inadmissible respondent’s testimony and that of his of respondent. Petitioners cannot now turn to this Court to
witness, Josephine – NO, The “Dead Man’s Statute” provides question the admissibility and authenticity of the documentary
that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from evidence of respondent when petitioners failed to object to the
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the admissibility of the evidence at the time that such evidence
surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving was offered.
his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction. But before this rule can be successfully invoked to TERESITA P. BORDALBA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF
bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: NICANOR JAYME, G.R. No. 112443 January 25, 2002
“1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or A land known as Lot No. 1242 (Lot No. 799-C) located at Barrio
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. Looc, Mandaue City, is the subject of the controversy. This lot is
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other originally owned by the late spouses Carmeno Jayme and
representative of a deceased person or a person of unsound Margarita Espina de Jayme. Built on the land adjudicated to the
mind; heirs of the spouses is Nicanor Jayme’s house, which his family
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against occupied since 1945.
the estate of such deceased person or against person of unsound Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez alleged that the lot sought to be
mind; registered was originally a part of a land owned by her late
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred parents, the spouses Carmeno Jayme and Margarita Espina de
before the death of such deceased person or before such person Jayme; and that 1/3 of said land was adjudicated to her in an
became of unsound mind.” extra-judicial partition. She further stated that a portion of the
Two reasons forestall the application of the “Dead Man’s lot for which title is applied for is occupied by Nicanor Jayme
Statute” to this case. First, petitioners filed a compulsory with her permission. Nicanor opposed stating that the land
counterclaim against respondent in their answer before the sought to be registered also covers the land adjudicated to him
trial court, and with the filing of their counterclaim, petitioners by way of extra judicial partition. Petitioner was successfully
themselves effectively removed this case from the ambit of the granted Free Patent No and Original Certificate of Title over said
“Dead Man’s Statute”. Well entrenched is the rule that when it lot. Private respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of
is the executor or administrator or representatives of the Mandaue City, the instant complaint against petitioner Teresita
estate that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein Bordalba, spouses Genaro U. Cabahug, and Rita Capala, Rural
respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death of the Bank of Mandaue and the Director of the Bureau of Lands.
deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant Petitioner, on the other hand, averred that Lot No. 1242 (799-C)
in the counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from was acquired by her through purchase from her mother who was
testifying as to matters of fact occurring before the death of the in possession since 1947. The trial court, finding that fraud was
deceased, said action not having been brought against but by employed by petitioner in obtaining Free Patent No and OCT
the estate or representatives of the deceased. Second, the and declared said patent and title void and ordered its
testimony of Josephine is not covered by the “Dead Man’s cancellation. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the
Statute” for the simple reason that she is not “a party or decision of the trial court. Thus, petitioner filed the instant
assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case petition, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals.
is prosecuted”. Records show that respondent offered the Petitioner contends that the testimonies given by the witnesses
testimony of Josephine to establish the existence of the for private respondents which touched on matters occurring
partnership between respondent and Jacinto. Petitioners’ prior to the death of her mother should not have been
insistence that Josephine is the alter ego of respondent does not admitted by the trial court, as the same violated the dead mans
make her an assignor because the term “assignor” of a party statute. Likewise, petitioner questions the right of private
means “assignor of a cause of action which has arisen, and not respondents to inherit from the late Nicanor Jayme and
the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has Asuncion Jayme-Baclay, as well as the identity between the
arisen.” Plainly then, Josephine is merely a witness of disputed lot and the parcel of land adjudicated in the Deed of
respondent, the latter being the party plaintiff. Extra-judicial Partition.
Petitioners’ reliance alone on the “Dead Man’s Statute” to
defeat respondent’s claim cannot prevail over the factual WON the testimonies given by the witnesses for private
findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that a respondents which touched on matters occurring prior to the
partnership was established between respondent and Jacinto. death of her mother should not have been admitted by the trial
Based not only on the testimonial evidence, but the court, as the same violated the dead man’s statute – No?! The
documentary evidence as well, the trial court and the Court of contentions are without merit. It is doctrinal that findings of
Appeals considered the evidence for respondent as sufficient to facts of the Court of Appeals upholding those of the trial court
prove the formation of a partnership, albeit an informal one. are binding upon this Court. While there are exceptions to this
Notably, petitioners did not present any evidence in their favor rule, petitioner has not convinced us that this case falls under
during trial. By the weight of judicial precedents, a factual matter one of them. As to the alleged violation of the dead man’s
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 183
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 statute, suffice it to state that said rule finds no application in 2. It is of course possible to treat Josielene’s motion for the
the present case. The dead man’s statute does not operate to issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital
close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to records as a motion for production of documents, a discovery
his knowledge in any other way than through personal dealings procedure available to a litigant prior to trial in accordance
with the deceased person, or communication made by the with Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. But the
deceased to the witness. Since the claim of private respondents right to compel the production of documents has a limitation:
and the testimony of their witnesses in the present case is based, the documents to be disclosed are "not privileged.” Josielene of
inter alia, on the 1947 Deed of Extra-judicial Partition and other course claims that the hospital records subject of this case are
documents, and not on dealings and communications with the not privileged since it is the "testimonial" evidence of the
deceased, the questioned testimonies were properly admitted physician that may be regarded as privileged. Section 24(c) of
by the trial court. Rule 130 states that the physician "cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined" regarding
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – Disqualifications (Privileged their professional conversation. The privilege, says Josielene,
communication) does not cover the hospital records, but only the examination of
JOSIELENE LARA CHAN vs. JOHNNY T. CHAN, G.R. No. 179786 the physician at the trial. To allow, however, the disclosure
July 24, 2013 during discovery procedure of the hospital records—the results
Josielene Lara Chan filed before the RTC a petition for the of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s
declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Johnny illness, and the advice or treatment he gave him—would be to
Chan, the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, and allow access to evidence that is inadmissible without the
the award of custody of their children to her. Josielene claimed patient’s consent. Physician memorializes all these information
that Johnny failed to care for and support his family and that a in the patient’s records. Disclosing them would be the
psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on privileged
incessant drinking and excessive use of prohibited drugs. matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without the
Indeed, she had convinced him to undergo hospital latter’s prior consent.
confinement for detoxification and rehabilitation. During the 3. Josielene argues that since Johnny admitted in his answer to
pre-trial conference, Josielene pre-marked the Philhealth Claim the petition before the RTC that he had been confined in a
Form that Johnny attached to his answer as proof that he was hospital against his will and in fact attached to his answer a
forcibly confined at the rehabilitation unit of a hospital. The form Philhealth claim form covering that confinement, he should be
carried a physician’s handwritten note that Johnny suffered deemed to have waived the privileged character of its records.
from "methamphetamine and alcohol abuse." Josielene filed Josielene invokes Section 17, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence
with the RTC a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces that provides: SEC. 17. When part of transaction, writing or
tecum addressed to Medical City, covering Johnny’s medical record given in evidence, the remainder admissible. — When
records when he was there confined. The request was part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is
accompanied by a motion to "be allowed to submit in evidence" given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject
the records sought by subpoena duces tecum. Johnny opposed may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act,
the motion, arguing that the medical records were covered by declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence,
physician-patient privilege. Court sustained the opposition and any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record
denied Josielene’s motion. It also denied her motion for necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.
reconsideration, prompting her to file a special civil action of But, trial in the case had not yet begun. Consequently, it cannot
certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), imputing grave be said that Johnny had already presented the Philhealth claim
abuse of discretion to the RTC. CA denied Josielene’s petition. form in evidence, the act contemplated above which would
justify Josielene into requesting an inquiry into the details of his
Whether or not the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum hospital confinement. Johnny was not yet bound to adduce
covering Johnny’s hospital records should be denied on the evidence in the case when he filed his answer. Any request for
ground that these are covered by the privileged character of the disclosure of his hospital records would again be premature. For
physician-patient communication. Yes, for the following all of the above reasons, the CA and the RTC were justified in
reasons: denying Josielene her request for the production in court of
1. The case presents a procedural issue, given that the time to Johnny’s hospital records.
object to the admission of evidence, such as the hospital JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
records, would be at the time they are offered. The offer could Court, Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and Pairing Judge, Branch 30,
be made part of the physician’s testimony or as independent Complainant, vs. ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA and ATTY. OLIVIA
evidence that he had made entries in those records that concern VELASCO-JACOBA, A.C. No. 5921 March 10, 2006
the patient’s health problems. Section 36, Rule 132, states that The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff
objections to evidence must be made after the offer of such Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer
evidence for admission in court. Since the offer of evidence is against defendant Federico Barrientos. The MTC rendered
made at the trial, Josielene’s request for subpoena duces judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the
tecum is premature. She will have to wait for trial to begin Regional Trial Court. The case was raffled to Branch 30 where
before making a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge. Judge Lacurom
tecum covering Johnny’s hospital records. It is when those issued a Resolution reversing the earlier judgments rendered in
records are produced for examination at the trial, that Johnny favor of Veneracion. Veneracions counsel filed a Motion for
may opt to object, not just to their admission in evidence, but Reconsideration with Request for Inhibition. Judge Lacurom
more so to their disclosure. Section 24(c), Rule 130 of the Rules ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and explain
of Evidence is about non-disclosure of privileged matters. why she should not be held in contempt of court for the very
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 184
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 disrespectful, insulting and humiliating contents of the motion. A complaint was filed by Samala against Atty. Valencia for
In her Explanation, Comments and Answer, Velasco-Jacoba Disbarment on the following grounds: (a) serving on two
claimed that His Honor knows beforehand who actually separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b)
prepared the subject Motion; records will show that the knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary
undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for
this case. Nevertheless, Velasco-Jacoba expressed willingness to nonpayment of rental fees; and (d) having a reputation of being
apologize for whatever mistake may have committed. On 13 immoral by siring illegitimate children. After respondent filed his
September 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for
contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for five days. investigation, report and recommendation. The Commissioner
Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration. She recounted that found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the
on her way out of the house for an afternoon hearing, Atty. Ellis Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the
Jacoba stopped her and asked her to sign the motion. Velasco- penalty of suspension for six months. In a minute Resolution,
Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her guilty of the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report
contempt without conducting any hearing. She argued that and recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased the
Judge Lacurom should have inhibited himself from the case out penalty of suspension from six months to one year.
of delicadeza because Veneracion had already filed against him Records show that in Civil Case filed in the RTC for nonpayment
criminal cases before the Office of the City Prosecutor of of rentals, herein respondent, while being the counsel for
Cabanatuan City and before the Ombudsman. defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay,
Judge Lacurom issued another order this time directing Jacoba Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and
to explain why he should not be held in contempt. Jacoba Compliance before the RTC.
complied by filing an Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition,
wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July 2001 Whether an attorney is precluded from representing a new
motion. Against Velasco-Jacobas statements implicating him, client whose interest is adverse to his former client upon the
Jacoba invoked the marital privilege rule in evidence. Judge termination of the attorney-client relationship - YES, Rule
Lacurom later rendered a decision finding Jacoba guilty of 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
contempt of court and sentencing him to pay a fine of P500. provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
Judge Lacurom filed the present complaint against respondents except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The IBP Board disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty
adopted IBP Commissioner Navarros Report and of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose
Recommendation, except for the length of suspension which the interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He
IBP Board reduced to three months. Several days later, Velasco- may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more
Jacoba sought reconsideration of the IBP Board decision. than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is
founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It
WON the rule on marital privilege is applicable to render the springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of
statements of Velasco-Jacoba inadmissible? Jacoba asserts the trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep
inadmissibility of Velasco-Jacoba’s statement pointing to him as inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
the author of the July 30 motion. The Court cannot easily let appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
Jacoba off the hook. Firstly, his Answer with Second Motion for litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
Inhibition did not contain a denial of his wife’s account. Instead, which is of paramount importance in the administration of
Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by stating justice.
that he "trained his guns and fired at the errors which he
perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental." One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the
Secondly, we find Velasco-Jacoba’s version of the facts more acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of
plausible, for two reasons: (1) her reaction to the events was the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
immediate and spontaneous, unlike Jacoba’s defense which was invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
raised only after a considerable time had elapsed from the performance of that duty. The stern rule against representation
eruption of the controversy; and (2) Jacoba had been counsel of of conflicting interests is founded on principles of public policy
record for Veneracion in Civil Case No. 2836, supporting Velasco- and good taste. It springs from the attorney's duty to represent
Jacoba’s assertion that she had not "actually participate[d]" in his client with undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate the
the prosecution of the case. Moreover, Jacoba filed a client's confidence as well as from the injunction forbidding the
Manifestation in Civil Case No. 2836, praying that Judge Lacurom examination of an attorney as to any of the privileged
await the outcome of the petition for certiorari before deciding communications of his client. We held in Nombrado v.
the contempt charge against him. This petition for certiorari Hernandez that the termination of the relation of attorney and
anchors some of its arguments on the premise that the motion client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an
was, in fact, Jacoba’s handwork. The marital privilege rule, interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.
being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the The reason for the rule is that the client's confidence once
claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any conduct reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional
that may be construed as implied consent. This waiver applies employment. In this case, respondent's averment that his
to Jacoba who impliedly admitted authorship of the 30 July 2001 relationship with Alba has long been severed by the act of the
motion. latter of not turning over the proceeds collected in Civil Case No.
98-6804, in connivance with the complainant, is unavailing.
CLARITA J. SAMALA, vs. ATTY. LUCIANO D. VALENCIA, Termination of the attorney-client relationship precludes an
Respondent., A.C. No. 5439 January 22, 2007 attorney from representing a new client whose interest is
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 185
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 adverse to his former client. Alba may not be his original client recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on military,
but the fact that he filed a case entitled "Valdez and Alba v. diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege is based upon
Bustamante and her husband," is a clear indication that public interest of such paramount importance as in and of itself
respondent is protecting the interests of both Valdez and Alba in transcending the individual interests of a private citizen, even
the said case. Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer- though, as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot enforce
client relationship between him and Alba has long been severed his legal rights. Where the claim of confidentiality does not rest
without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court on the need to protect military, diplomatic or other national
wherein the written consent of his client is required. security secrets but on a general public interest in the
COMMISSIONER JOSE T. ALMONTE, VILLAMOR C. PEREZ, NERIO confidentiality of his conversations, courts have declined to
ROGADO, and ELISA RIVERA,petitioners, vs. HONORABLE find in the Constitution an absolute privilege of the President
CONRADO M. VASQUEZ and CONCERNED CITIZENS, against a subpoena considered essential to the enforcement of
respondents. MENDOZA, J., G.R. No. 95367 May 23, 1995 criminal laws. In the case at bar, there is no claim that military
The case is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the production of
to annul the subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by records pertaining to the personnel of the EIIB. Indeed, EIIB's
respondent Ombudsman, requiring petitioners Neria Rogado function is the gathering and evaluation of intelligence reports
and Elisa Rivera, as chief accountant and record custodian of the and information regarding "illegal activities affecting the
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce national economy, such as, but not limited to, economic
all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar salting." Consequently,
1988 and all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the whole while in cases which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to
plantilla of EIIB for 1988 and to enjoin him from enforcing his determine from the circumstances of the case that there is
orders. An anonymous and unsigned letter purportedly written reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose
by an employee of the EIIB, was sent to the Secretary of Finance, military matters without compelling. production, no similar
with copies furnished to several government offices, including excuse can be made for a privilege resting on other
the Office of the Ombudsman. In the letter were allegations as considerations. Nor has our attention been called to any law or
to the misuse of funds from the savings of unfulfilled plantilla regulation which considers personnel records of the EIIB as
positions, among other forms of corruption and abuse of classified information. To the contrary, COA Circular No. 88-293,
power. As a response to the letter-complaint, petitioner which petitioners invoke to support their contention that there
Almonte denied allegations. Petitioner Perez also denied the is adequate safeguard against misuse of public funds, provides
issue for the savings realized from the implementation of E.O. that the "only item of expenditure which should be treated
No. 127, since the DBM only allotted for the remaining 947 strictly confidential" is that which refers to the "purchase of
personnel, and that the disbursement of funds for the plantilla information and payment of rewards."
positions for overt and covert personnel had been cleared by
COA. Jose F. Sano, the Graft Investigation Officer of the Cfr. Syhunliong vs. Rivera, 725 SCRA
Ombudsman’s office found their responses unsatisfactory; -see above-
therefore he asked for authority to conduct an investigation. Discuss Executive Privilege under the doctrine laid down in
Anticipating the grant of his request, he issued a subpoena to Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (488 SCRA)
petitioners, compelling them to submit their counter-affidavits Executive privilege is "the power of the Government to withhold
and the affidavits of their witnesses, as well as subpoena duces information from the public, the courts, and the Congress."
tecum to the chief of the EIIB’s Accounting Division, ordering him Similarly, Rozell defines it as "the right of the President and high-
to bring all documents relating to Personal Service Funds for the level executive branch officers to withhold information from
year 1988 and all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.
whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988. Petitioners then moved to quash Upon a determination by the designated head of office or by the
the subpoena (which was granted by the Ombudsman since no President that an official is "covered by the executive privilege,"
affidavit was filed against petitioners) and the subpoena duces such official is subjected to the requirement that he first secure
tecum, which was denied, since it was directed to the Chief the consent of the President prior to appearing before
Accountant, petitioner Nerio Rogado. In addition the Congress. This requirement effectively bars the appearance of
Ombudsman ordered the Chief of the Records a Section of the the official concerned unless the same is permitted by the
EIIB, petitioner Elisa Rivera, to produce before the investigator President. The proviso allowing the President to give its consent
"all documents relating to Personnel Service Funds, for the year means nothing more than that the President may reverse a
1988, and all documents, salary vouchers for the whole plantilla prohibition which already exists by virtue of E.O. 464.
of the EIIB for 1988, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof." Discuss Executive Privilege under the doctrine laid down in Neri
Petitioners filed for a motion of reconsideration, which was vs. Senate Committees (435 SCRA)
denied. ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS,
Whether petitioners can be ordered to produce documents SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE, AND SENATE
relating to personal services and salary vouchers of EIIB COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY, G.R. No.
employees on the plea that such documents are classified - YES. 180643, March 25, 2008
Petitioners do not question the power of the Ombudsman to
issue a subpoena duces tecum nor the relevancy or materiality On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and
of the documents required to be produced, to the pending Communication (DOTC) entered into a contract with Zhong Xing
investigation in the Ombudsman's office. Accordingly, the focus Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of
of discussion should be on the Government's claim of privilege. equipment and services for the National Broadband Network
At common law a governmental privilege against disclosure is
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 186
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 (NBN) Project in the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290 correspondence between the President and public officials”
(approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be necessary in “her executive and policy decision-making
financed by the People’s Republic of China. The Senate passed process” and, that “the information sought to be disclosed
various resolutions relative to the NBN deal. In the September might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with
18, 2007 hearing Jose de Venecia III testified that several high the People’s Republic of China.” Simply put, the bases are
executive officials and power brokers were using their influence presidential communications privilege and executive privilege
to push the approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA. Neri, the on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations. Using the
head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue above elements, we are convinced that, indeed, the
Ribbon. He appeared in one hearing wherein he was communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered
interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he admitted that by the presidential communications privilege. First, the
Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M in exchange communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable
for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that he power” of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an
informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that executive agreement with other countries. This authority of
she instructed him not to accept the bribe. However, when the President to enter into executive agreements without the
probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been
petitioner refused to answer, invoking “executive privilege”. In recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the
particular, he refused to answer the questions on: communications are “received” by a close advisor of the
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN President. Under the “operational proximity” test, petitioner
Project, can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President
(b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and Arroyo’s cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve. compelling need that would justify the limitation of the
He later refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere
letter to the senate averring that the communications between by an appropriate investigating authority.
GMA and Neri are privileged and that the jurisprudence laid Respondent Committees further contend that the grant of
down in Senate vs Ermita be applied. He was cited in contempt petitioner’s claim of executive privilege violates the
of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and constitutional provisions on the right of the people to
detention until such time that he would appear and give his information on matters of public concern. We might have
testimony. agreed with such contention if petitioner did not appear before
them at all. But petitioner made himself available to them during
Are the communications elicited by the subject three (3) the September 26 hearing, where he was questioned for eleven
questions covered by executive privilege? Yes, The (11) hours. Not only that, he expressly manifested his willingness
communications are covered by executive privilege. The to answer more questions from the Senators, with the exception
revocation of EO 464 (advised executive officials and employees only of those covered by his claim of executive privilege. The
to follow and abide by the Constitution, existing laws and right to public information, like any other right, is subject to
jurisprudence, including, among others, the case of Senate v. limitation. Section 7 of Article III provides: the right of the
Ermita when they are invited to legislative inquiries in aid of people to information on matters of public concern shall be
legislation.), does not in any way diminish the concept of recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and
executive privilege. This is because this concept has papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
Constitutional underpinnings. The claim of executive privilege is well as to government research data used as basis for policy
highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the limitations as may be provided by law.
President, such as the area of military and foreign relations.
Under our Constitution, the President is the repository of the ADMISSIONS
commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic OSCAR CONSTANTINO, MAXIMA CONSTANTINO and CASIMIRA
powers. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, MATURINGAN, vs. HEIRS OF PEDRO CONSTANTINO, JR.,
the information relating to these powers may enjoy greater represented by ASUNCION LAQUINDANUM, G.R. No. 181508
confidentiality than others. October 2, 2013
Several jurisprudence cited provide the elements of presidential Pedro Constantino, Sr., ancestors of the petitioners and
communications privilege: respondents, owned several parcels of land, one of which is an
1) The protected communication must relate to a unregistered parcel of land situated at Sta. Monica, Hagonoy,
“quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.” Bulacan. Pedro, Sr., upon his death, was survived by his six (6)
2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and children. Respondents Asuncion Laquindanum and Josefina
received” by a close advisor of the President or the President Cailipan, great grandchildren of Pedro Sr., in representation of
himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in Pedro, Jr. filed a complaint against petitioners Oscar
“operational proximity” with the President. Constantino, Maxima Constantino and Casimira Maturingan,
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified grandchildren of Pedro Sr., for the nullification of a document
privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, denominated as "Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman’ In the said
such that the information sought “likely contains important complaint, respondents alleged that petitioners asserted their
evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere claim of ownership over the whole parcel of land (240 sq m)
by an appropriate investigating authority. In the case at bar, owned by the late Pedro Sr., to the exclusion of respondents
Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive who are occupying a portion thereof. Thus, respondents sought
privilege on the ground that the communications elicited by to annul the "Pagmamana sa Labas ngHukuman" as well as the
the three (3) questions “fall under conversation and Tax Declarations that were issued on the basis of such
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 187
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 document. The petitioners claimed that the document 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court reads: Section 7. Record of pre-
"Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman" pertaining to the 240 sq m trial. – The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon
lot was perfectly valid and legal, as it was a product of mutual the termination thereof, the court shall issue an order which
and voluntary agreement between and among the descendants shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the
of the deceased Pedro Sr. Further, petitioners alleged that the action taken thereon, the amendments allowed to the
respondents have no cause of action against them considering pleadings, and the agreements or admissions made by the
that the respondents’ lawful share over the estate of Pedro Sr., parties as to any of the matters considered. Should the action
had already been transferred to them as evidenced by the Deed proceed to trial, the order shall, explicitly define and limit the
of Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver executed by Angelo issues to be tried. The contents of the order shall control the
Constantino, Maria Constantino (mother of respondent subsequent course of the action, unless modified before trial
Asuncion), Arcadio Constantino and Mercedes Constantino, all to prevent injustice. In addition, Section 4 of Rule 129 of the
heirs of Pedro Jr. Pre-trial conference was conducted wherein Rules of Court, provides that: An admission, verbal or written,
the parties entered into stipulations and admissions as well as made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
identification of the issues to be litigated. Thereupon, trial on the case, does not require proof. The admission may be
merits ensued. RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the contradicted only by showing that it was made through
respondents finding that the parties are in pari delicto, whereby palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. As
the law leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either contemplated in the aforementioned provision of the Rules of
one of them. Parties who are equally guilty cannot complain Court, the general rule regarding conclusiveness of judicial
against each other. Not convinced, the respondents appealed admission upon the party making it and the dispensation of
the afore quoted decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) raising, proof admits of two exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the
among others, the erroneous application by the trial court of the admission was made through palpable mistake, and 2) when it is
doctrine of "in pari delicto" in declaring the validity of the shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter
document "Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman." CA ruled in exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that
favor of the respondents heirs of Pedro, Jr., declaring that the he made such an admission. However, respondents failed to
"Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver" covering the 192 sq mlot refute the earlier admission/stipulation before and during the
actually belongs to Pedro Jr., hence, not part of the estate of trial. While denying ownership by Pedro Sr. of the 192 sq m lot,
Pedro Sr. respondent Asuncion Laquindanum, when placed on the stand,
offered a vague explanation as to how such parcel of land was
WON the CA erroneously disregarded the stipulations and acquired by Pedro Jr. Hence, in the execution of the Extra-
admissions during the pre-trial conference on which the Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale in
application of the doctrine of in pari delicto was based - Yes. favour of spouses Uy, all the heirs of Annunciation should have
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the participated. Considering that Eutropia and Victoria were
admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the admittedly excluded and that then minors Rosa and Douglas
instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under were not properly represented therein, the settlement was not
Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that valid and binding upon them and consequently, a total nullity.
the contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROLENDO GAUDIA "LENDOY" or
course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues "DODO", G.R. No. 146111 February 23, 2004
to be tried. In Bayas, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, et. al., this Court Information for the crime of rape was filed against “Lendoy”,
emphasized that: Once the stipulations are reduced into writing appellant herein. The prosecution presented Remelyn’s mother,
and signed by the parties and their counsels, they become Amalia Loyola, as its primary witness. Amalia stated in her
binding on the parties who made them. They become judicial complaint affidavit that two weeks after the incident, Remelyn
admissions of the fact or facts stipulated. Even if placed at a told her, that Lendoy is crazy, he brought me to the ipil-ipil trees.
disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to The prosecution also presented Tulon Mik, Remelyns neighbor
rescind them unilaterally, it must assume the consequences of and a barangay kagawad in their area. Mik testified that on 24
the disadvantage. March 1997, at about 4:00 p.m., he and his wife were on their
Moreover, in Alfelor v. Halasan, this Court declared that: A party way home after registering at the COMELEC office. They were in
who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the fact as a hurry as their child was running a fever. Mik saw appellant
judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of carrying a small girl in his arms. He identified the little girl as
evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes Remelyn Loyola, daughter of Amalia Loyola. Appellant and
an admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an Remelyn were on their way toward the ipil-ipil trees. The
admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the appellant, ROLENDO GAUDIA, interposed the defense of alibi.
party making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, After trial, the trial court found that there was sufficient
and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should circumstantial evidence to convict appellant for the crime of
be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. rape with the qualifying circumstance that the victim was
The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a below seven years of age. Appellant was sentenced to death.
pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot
subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent with WON the offer of compromise by appellant’s parents as
what was pleaded. tendered to Amalia Loyola should be taken against him - No,
We are aware that the last paragraph of Section 7, Rule 18 of the while the offer of compromise he allegedly made to Amalia’s
Rules of Court serves as a caveat for the rule of conclusiveness husband, as relayed by Amalia in her testimony, should be
of judicial admissions – for, in the interest of justice, issues that excluded as evidence for being hearsay (as to offer of
may arise in the course of the proceedings but which may not compromise) – Yes. [But despite these errors, his conviction is
have been taken up in the pre-trial can still be taken up. Section sustained]. Appellant’s charge that the offers of compromise
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 188
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 allegedly made by the parents of the appellant to Amalia, and by funds were actually cash advances of employees in the
the appellant himself to Amalia’s husband should not have been municipality. The petitioner could have offered in evidence the
taken against him by the trial court, even if sustained, will not documents evidencing the names of the recipients and amounts
exculpate him. To be sure, the offer of compromise allegedly of the cash advances, but failed to do so. Moreover, the
made by appellant to Amalia Loyola’s husband is hearsay petitioner wrote the Provincial Auditor and offered to refund the
evidence, and of no probative value. It was only Amalia who missing funds as follows: P200,000.00 on September 15, 1995,
testified as to the alleged offer, and she was not a party to the P200,000.00 on or before October 31, 1995, and P884,139.66 on
conversation which allegedly transpired at the Hagonoy November 30, 1995. He was able to pay only P200,000.00 on
Municipal Jail. A witness can only testify on facts which are September 15, 1995, and failed to remit the balance of his
based on his personal knowledge or perception. The offer of shortage. Such partial restitution of the petitioners of the cash
compromise allegedly made by the appellant’s parents to Amalia shortage is an implied admission of misappropriation of the
may have been the subject of testimony of Amalia. However, missing funds. The ruling of the CA on this matter is correct: On
following the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non September 15, 1995, not too long after the shortages in the
debet, the actions of his parents cannot prejudice the municipal funds were discovered, appellant made a partial
appellant, since he was not a party to the said conversation, payment/settlement in the amount of 200,187.80 pesos as
nor was it shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise evidenced by Official Receipt. With respect to the balance of the
made by them to the mother of the victim. They cannot be missing funds, appellant promised to pay the same in
considered as evidence against appellant but we reiterate that installment basis. Appellant, though, failed to comply with his
these errors are not enough to reverse the conviction of the undertaking. Said payment is of no moment and could not have
appellant. legally brought acquittal for the appellant. On the contrary, as
CONRADO C. DOLDOL vs AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, PEOPLE OF THE guided by Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, We hold
PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. that said payment, particularly when taken in conjunction with
164481 September 20, 2005 appellants commitment to gradually pay the remainder of the
Two informations for malversation of public funds were then missing funds, is a clear offer of compromise which must be
filed against Doldol in the RTC. The State Auditors discovered treated as an implied admission of appellants guilt that he
that Doldol had a shortage of P801,933.26. They also noted that embezzled or converted the missing funds to his personal use.
on June 5, 1995, he made cash withdrawals from the
municipality’s deposit account with the Land Bank of the CONFESSIONS
Philippines (LBP) amounting to P360,000.59. The withdrawal, JOSUE R. LADIANA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
purportedly for salaries, wages, allowances and mid-year G.R. No. 144293 December 4, 2002
bonuses of municipal officers and employees, had not been The accused, a public officer, being then a member of the
recorded in the General Fund Cashbook as of June 8, 1995. The Integrated National Police (INP now PNP) assigned at the
State Auditors also noted that Doldol made adjustments in the Lumban Police Station, Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to his
said cashbook on June 8, 1995, increasing his P801,933.26 duty which is primarily to enforce peace and order within his
shortage to P1,134,421.54. The State Auditors then conducted jurisdiction, taking advantage of his official position confronted
another audit of the said account, this time covering the period Francisco San Juan why the latter was removing the steel pipes
of June 8, 1995 to July 19, 1995. They discovered that Doldol which were previously placed to serve as barricade to prevent
incurred an added cash shortage of P149,905.92. Instead of the entry of vehicles along P. Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac,
pursuing his request for a re-audit, Doldol opted to refund the Lumban, Laguna, purposely to insure the safety of persons
missing funds. On September 15, 1995, he remitted passing along the said street and when Francisco San Juan told
P200,000.00 to the Acting Municipal Treasurer for which he was the accused that the latter has no business in stopping him, said
issued Official Receipt No. 436756. Doldol promised to pay the accused who was armed with a firearm, attacked and shot
balance of his shortage, as follows: P200,000.00 on October 31, Francisco San Juan with the firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at
1995, and P884,139.66 on or before November 30, 1995. his head and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds thereby
However, he reneged on his promise. The Provincial Auditor causing the death of Francisco San Juan. Petitioner admitted
transmitted the Memorandum and Consolidated Report of the that he shot the victim while the latter was attacking him.
State Auditors to the Ombudsman, and requested that Doldol “Kaya itong si Kapitan San Juan ay sumugod at hinawakan ako sa
be charged for malversation of public funds. Despite the may leeg ng aking suot na T-shirt upang ako ay muling saksakin;
extensions given to him, Doldol failed to file his counter- sa dahilang hindi ako makatakbo o makaiwas sa kabila ng aking
affidavit. Doldol testified that the funds which the State Auditors pananalag hanggang magpaputok ako ng pasumala sa kanya; sa
found missing were, in fact, cash advances availed of by the bilis ng pangyayari ay hindi ko alam na siya ay tinamaan” The
municipal employees. He insisted that not a single centavo was Sandiganbayan ruled that the prosecution had been able to
used for his personal benefit. He averred that the charges lodged establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The
against him were premature because the same were based on court a quo held that his Counter-Affidavit, in which he had
an incomplete audit. RTC convicted the accused of the crimes admitted to having fired the fatal shots that caused the victims
charged. On appeal, the CA rendered judgment affirming the death, may be used as evidence against him. It underscored the
appealed decision, and, likewise, denied Doldols motion for admission made by the defense as to the authorship, the
reconsideration. Hence, this present Petition for Review on authenticity and the voluntariness of the execution of the
Certiorari. Counter-Affidavit. In short, it ruled that the document had
sufficiently established his responsibility for the death of the
WON Doldol committed misappropriation of public funds? Yes. victim. However, it found no evidence of treachery; thus, it
Except for his bare testimony, the petitioner offered no convicted him of homicide only. Hence, this Petition
competent and credible evidence to prove that the missing
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 189
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 WON the contents in counter affidavit is considered as an appellant, the said cases were brought to the Supreme Court on
admission or confession - It is only an admission. Sections 26 and automatic appeal.
33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence distinguish one
from the other as follows: Whether or not Ulit’s plea of guilty in the criminal case was
"SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. – The act, declaration or imprudently made – Yes, the trial court should conduct a
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension
evidence against him. "SEC. 33. Confession. – The declaration of of the consequences of his plea. The following are the
an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or guidelinesas to how the trial court may conduct its searching
of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in inquiry:
evidence against him." (1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in an into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the
admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and
involving an acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal intent preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he
to commit the offense with which one is charged. Thus, in the was detained and interrogated during the investigations.
case at bar, a statement by the accused admitting the These the court shall do in order to rule out the possibility
commission of the act charged against him but denying that it that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state
was done with criminal intent is an admission, not a confession. of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming
The Counter-Affidavit in question contains an admission that from malevolent or avenging quarters.
petitioner actually shot the victim when the latter was attacking (2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether
him. Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting he had conferred with, and completely explained to, the
the victim -- which eventually led to the latter’s death -- but accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
denies having done it with any criminal intent. In fact, he claims (3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the
he did it in self-defense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a accused, such as his age, socio-economic status, and
confession or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy
against him. Further, we do not doubt the voluntariness of the index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of
Counter-Affidavit. Petitioner himself submitted it to the public guilty.
prosecutor to justify his actions in relation to the charges hurled (4) Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or
against him. It escapes this Court how he can cavalierly deny a nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that
document that he has voluntarily submitted and originally relied he will serve such sentence. Not infrequently indeed an
upon in his defense. In general, admissions may be rebutted by accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or
confessing their untruth or by showing they were made by upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities
mistake. The party may also establish that the response that or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or
formed the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious, express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it that
manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true the accused does not labor under these mistaken
state of facts. Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization impressions.
why such admissions had been made, thus, leaving them (5) Require the accused to fully narrate the incident that
unrebutted. In addition, admissions made under oath, as in the spawned the charges against him or make him reenact the
case at bar, are evidence of great weight against the declarant. manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or cause him to
They throw on him the burden of showing a mistake. Having supply missing details or significance.
admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner had the In this case, the trial court failed to make a searching inquiry
duty of showing that the killing was justified, and that the latter into the appellants voluntariness and full comprehension of his
incurred no criminal liability therefor. Petitioner should have plea of guilty. The trial court did not ask the appellant his
relied on the strength of his own evidence and not on the reasons for changing his plea, whether he was assisted by
weakness of that for the prosecution. Even if his evidence be counsel, why he was pleading guilty to a rape.
weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted
the killing. Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that Despite the above improvident plea, whether or not Ulit should
indirectly raised the issue of self-defense. Hence, he could not still be convicted – Yes, the prosecution adduced proof of the
be bound by it. This argument deserves scant consideration. As appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
discussed earlier, the declarations contained in his Counter- The trial court convicted the appellant of rape on the basis of
Affidavit are admissions that may be used as evidence against Lucelle’s (the niece/victim’s) sworn statement, the testimony of
him. The Sandiganbayan did not unfairly presume that he had her mother, Lourdes Serrano, the appellant’s statement
indeed raised the theory of self-defense, because this argument executed in the Barangay Chairman’s Office, and the testimony
had already been laid out in his Counter- Affidavit. No of Dr. Armie Soreta-Umil. Although the appellant was not
presumption was necessary, because the admission was clear assisted by counsel at the time he gave his statement to the
and unequivocal. barangay chairman and when he signed the same, it is still
admissible in evidence against him because he was not under
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. FELICIANO ULIT y arrest nor under custodial investigation when he gave his
TAMPOY, appellant., G.R. Nos. 131799-801. February 23, 2004 statement. Also, The barangay chairman is not deemed a law
Feliciano Ulit y Tampoy was found guilty beyond reasonable enforcement officer (includes police, NBI officer and other police
doubt of several counts of qualified rape and acts of agencies) for purposes of applying Section 12(1) and (3) of
lasciviousness by the RTC. He did not appeal the decision. In view Article III of the Constitution. Under these circumstances, it
of the trial courts imposition of the death penalty on the cannot be successfully claimed that the appellant’s statement
before the barangay chairman is inadmissible.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 190
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 during custodial investigation have been strictly complied with,
Whether or not death is the proper penalty – No, for the especially when the extrajudicial confession has been
prosecutions failure to prove the age of the victim by any means denounced. The rationale for this requirement is to allay any fear
set forth in Pruna case, and considering that the relationship of that the person being investigated would succumb to coercion
uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationships while in the unfamiliar or intimidating environment that is
mentioned in Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code (spouse, inherent in custodial investigations. Therefore, even if the
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother confession may appear to have been given voluntarily since the
or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the confessant did not file charges against his alleged intimidators
offender. The relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by for maltreatment, the failure to properly inform a suspect of his
any of the relationships mentioned.), as amended, the appellant rights during a custodial investigation renders the confession
can only be convicted of rape in its aggravated form, the valueless and inadmissible. Apart from the absence of an
imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua to death. express waiver of his rights, the confession contains the passing
There being no modifying circumstances attendant to the of information of the kind held to be in violation of the right to
commission of the crimes, the appellant should be sentenced to be informed under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. In
suffer reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, conformably to People v. Jara, the Court explained: The stereotyped "advice"
Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions which are
later repudiated has assumed the nature of a "legal form" or
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. BENJAMIN SAYABOC model. Police investigators either automatically type it together
y SEGUBA, PATRICIO ESCORPISO y VALDEZ, MARLON BUENVIAJE with the curt "Opo" as the answer or ask the accused to sign it
y PINEDA, and MIGUEL BUENVIAJE y FLORES, G.R. No. 147201 or even copy it in their handwriting. Its tired, punctilious, fixed,
January 15, 2004 and artificially stately style does not create an impression of
Before the Court is the decision of 9 November 2000 of the voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused.
Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, in The showing of a spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving
Criminal Case No. 2912 finding appellant Benjamin Sayaboc up of a right is missing. The right to be informed requires "the
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and transmission of meaningful information rather than just the
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death; and (2) finding ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
appellant Marlon Buenviaje guilty as principal and appellants constitutional principle." It should allow the suspect to consider
Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso guilty as accomplices in the effects and consequences of any waiver he might make of
the crime of homicide. On December 2, 1994, in the Municipality these rights. More so when the suspect is one like Sayaboc, who
of Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and the has an educational attainment of Grade IV, was a stranger in
accused attacked, and assaulted Joseph Galam y Antonio, Nueva Vizcaya, and had already been under the control of the
inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and police officers for two days previous to the investigation, albeit
immediate cause of his death thereafter, to the damage and for another offense.
prejudice of his heirs. The appellants argue that the extrajudicial
confession of Sayaboc may not be admitted in evidence against CARLOS L. TANENGGEE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
him because the PAO lawyer who was his counsel during the 179448 June 26, 2013
custodial investigation, was not a competent, independent, Five separate Informations for estafa through falsification of
vigilant, and effective counsel. He was ineffective because he commercial documents were filed against petitioner. The RTC
remained silent during the entire proceedings. He was not entered a plea of not guilty for the petitioner after he refused to
independent, as he was formerly a judge in the National Police enter a plea. The cases were then consolidated and jointly tried.
Commission, which was holding court inside the PNP Command The prosecution alleged that on different occasions, appellant
of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. caused to be prepared promissory notes and cashier’s checks
in the name of Romeo Tan. Appellant approved and signed the
WON THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED SAYABOC cashier’s check as branch manager of Metrobank Commercio
SHOULD BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE CONSIDERING IT WAS Branch. Appellant affixed, forged or caused to be signed the
TAKEN WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A COMPETENT AND signature of Tan as endorser and payee of the proceeds of the
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOR BY AN EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT checks at the back of the same to show that the latter had
COUNSEL. – No, Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession cannot be indeed endorsed the same for payment. He handed the checks
used in evidence in this case. to the Loans clerk, Maria Dolores Miranda, for encashment.
Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: Sec. Once said documents were forged and falsified, appellant
12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an released and obtained from Metrobank the proceeds of the
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain alleged loan and misappropriated the same to his use and
silent and to have competent and independent counsel benefit. After the discovery of the irregular loans, an internal
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the audit was conducted and an administrative investigation was
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights held in the Head Office of Metrobank, during which appellant
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of signed a written statement in the form of questions and
counsel.… answers. Valentino Elevado, a member of the Internal Affairs
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Department of Metrobank, testified that he conducted and
the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence against interviewed the appellant in January 1998; that in said interview,
him. Jurisprudence provides that extrajudicial confessions are appellant admitted having committed the allegations in the
presumed to be voluntary. The condition for this presumption, Informations, specifically forging the promissory notes; that
however, is that the prosecution is able to show that the the proceeds of the loan were secured or personally received
constitutional requirements safeguarding an accused’s rights by the appellant although it should be the client of the bank
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 191
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 who should receive the same; and that all the answers of the order to show criminal propensity on the part of appellant
appellant were contained in a typewritten document voluntarily Santos, the defense objected to admission of such sworn
executed, thumbmarked, and signed by him (Exhibit "N"). After statement; the trial court sustained the objection and rejected
the joint trial, the RTC rendered a consolidated Decision dated the evidence for the purpose it was initially offered. However,
June 25, 1999 finding petitioner guilty of the crimes charged. the trial court admitted the same as falling within one or more
Petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction to the CA. The of the exceptions set out in Section 34, Rule 130 of the Rules of
CA promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the RTC Court, which reads: Sec. 34. Similar Acts as Evidence. —
Decision. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the CA Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time
denied. Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove
a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme,
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s admission in habit, custom or usage and the like. (Emphasis supplied).
evidence of the petitioner’s written statement based on its Appellant Santos now complains that the affidavit of Ronaldo
finding that he was not in police custody or under custodial Guerrero was hearsay evidence, considering that the
interrogation when the same was taken - NO. Petitioner’s prosecution did not present Ronaldo Guerrero as a witness
written statement is admissible in evidence. The constitutional during the trial. We consider that the trial court did not commit
proscription against the admissibility of admission or reversible error in admitting the Guerrero affidavit for the
confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III limited purpose for proving knowledge or plan or scheme, and
of the Constitution, as correctly observed by the CA and the more specifically, that appellant knew that the particular corner
OSG, is applicable only in custodial interrogation. Custodial of two (2) particular streets in Manila was a good place to
interrogation means any questioning initiated by law ambush a vehicle and its passengers. Appellant also had waived
enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or the hearsay character of this evidence by failure seasonably to
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant object to the admission of the affidavit; it is too late in that day
manner. Indeed, a person under custodial investigation is to raise the hearsay rule in the appellant's memorandum after
guaranteed certain rights which attach upon the prosecution and defense had presented their respective cases
commencement thereof, viz: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have and had made their respective offers of evidence. Finally, and in
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own any case, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, the exclusion
choice, and (3) to be informed of the two other rights above. In of the Guerrero affidavit would not result in any change in the
the present case, while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an result reached by the trial court. For that result is essentially and
uncounselled written statement regarding an anomaly adequately based upon the positive identification of appellant
discovered in the branch he managed, the following are clear: Santos as one of the gunmen by Bautista and Bohol. That it took
(1) the questioning was not initiated by a law enforcement the police authorities five (5) months to locate and apprehend
authority but merely by an internal affairs manager of the appellant Santos who, it turned out, resided close by the very
bank; and, (2) petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of locale of the ambush-slaying, did not in any way weaken the
his liberty in any significant manner during the questioning. evidence of the prosecution of detract from the conclusions
Clearly, petitioner cannot be said to be under custodial reached by the trial court. The length of that period of time
investigation and to have been deprived of the constitutional shows only that police procedures are not always as efficient as
prerogative during the taking of his written statement. they could be and that witnesses are frequently reluctant to
Moreover, in Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, we declared volunteer information to the police authorities in criminal.
that the right to counsel "applies only to admissions made in a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO
criminal investigation but not to those made in an NARDO y ROSALES, G.R. No. 133888. March 1, 2001
administrative investigation." Here, petitioner’s written This case is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional
statement was given during an administrative inquiry conducted Trial Court of Legazpi City, Albay, Branch III, which imposed on
by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he accused-appellant the death penalty for rape in Criminal Case
allegedly committed in the course of his employment. No error No. 7170.
can therefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in
evidence and in giving due consideration to petitioner’s written The victim, Lorielyn Nardo, is the eldest daughter of accused-
statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its appellant. She was born on September 11, 1981 and, at the time
admissibility. of the incident, was fourteen (14) years old. During the trial, the
defense endeavored to portray the victim as an incorrigible liar.
CONDUCT AND CHARACTER Occasions were cited wherein the victim supposedly lied in order
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAUL to obtain money or her parents' permission to leave the house.
SANTOS Y NARCISO, MARIO MORALES Y BACANI, PETER DOE and The defense also presented Atty. Gonzales (employer of the
RICHARD DOE, Accused, RAUL SANTOS y NARCISO, accused- accused) as a witness which describes the victim as the one
appellant., G.R. Nos. 100225-26 May 11, 1993 capable of concocting lies.
Santos in effect questions the trial court for admitting a sworn
statement by one Ronaldo Guerrero, a witnesses in another Whether or not the crime of rape was established.
criminal case (Criminal Case No. 8117) where appellant Santos While lying may constitute a habit, the court believes that the
was also charged with the murder of one Daniel Nuguera which falsehoods committed by the victim assuming them for the
had taken place in the very same site where Bautista and moment to be true, are petty and inconsequential. They are
Cupcupin were ambushed, i.e., at the corner of Yangco Street not as serious as charging one's own father of the sordid crime
and Estrella Street, Malabon, Metro Manila. When the of rape, with all of its serious repercussions. Rule 130, Section
prosecution first presented the sworn statement of Guerrero in 34, of the Rules of Court provides that: "Evidence that one did
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 192
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to Cartagena took the witness stand and opened himself to cross-
prove that he did nor did not do the same or a similar thing at examination, the Investigation Report he had submitted to the
another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent director of the Bureau of Lands constitutes part of his testimony.
or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or Those portions of the report that consisted of his personal
usage, and the like." On the argument of the accused-appellant knowledge, perceptions and conclusions are not hearsay. On the
that the trial court should have given credence to the witness, other hand, the part referring to the statement made by Recio
Atty. Santer G. Gonzales, because he is a member of the bar, the may be considered as independently relevant. The doctrine on
court reasoned out that the witness took the witness stand not independently relevant statements holds that conversations
as a lawyer but as an ordinary person. He testified in his communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted
capacity as accused- appellant's employer. As such, no special as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were
privilege should be accorded him by the trial court by reason of actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is
his being a member of the bar. He did not appear in that case as not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact
an officer of the court but as a mere witness, and hence should in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of
be treated as one. Sifting through the entire body of evidence such fact. Since Cartagena’s testimony was based on the report
presented in this case, the court find nothing which would of the investigation he had conducted, his testimony was not
destroy the moral certainty of accused- appellant's guilt. While hearsay and was, hence, properly admitted by the trial court.
there may be some inconsistencies in the testimony of the
victim, these are considered as minor inconsistencies which ANNA LERIMA PATULA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
serve to strengthen her credibility as they are badges of truth 164457 April 11, 2012
rather than indicia of falsehood. Minor inconsistencies do not Petitioner was charged with estafa under an information filed
affect the credibility of witnesses, as they may even tend to in the RTC in Dumaguete City that the said accused, being then
strengthen rather than weaken their credibility. Inconsistencies a saleswoman of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores, Inc., Dumaguete
in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor City, having collected and received the total sum ofP131,286.97
details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance from several customers of said company under the express
of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their obligation to account for the proceeds of the sales and deliver
testimony. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a the collection to the said company, but far from complying with
testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities. Besides, a her obligation and after a reasonable period of time despite
rape victim cannot be expected to recall vividly all the sordid repeated demands therefore, and with intent to defraud the
details of the violation committed against her virtue. said company, fail to deliver the said collection to the said
company but instead, did, then and there misapply and convert
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Department the proceeds of the sale to her own use and benefit, to the
of Environment and Natural Resources, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF damage and prejudice of the said company in the aforesaid
FELIPE ALEJAGA SR., G.R. No. 146030 December 3, 2002 amount of P131,286.97. Petitioner pled not guilty to the offense
On Dec. of 1978, Alejaga Sr. filed a Free Patent Application with charged in the information. At pre-trial, no stipulation of facts
the District Land Office is Roxas City. On March of 1979, the free was had, and petitioner did not avail herself of plea bargaining.
patent was ordered to be issued to him. The Defendant (Register Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The Prosecution’s first
of Deeds) also issued the OCT for the parcel of land. On April of witness was Lamberto Go, who testified that he was the branch
that same year, Ignacio Arrobang requested the Director of manager of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores, Inc. in Dumaguete City
Lands in manila, through a letter, to investigate for irregularities since October 8, 1994. The only other witness for the
in the issuance of the title of a foreshore land in favor of Alejaga Prosecution was Karen Guivencan, whom Footlucker’s
Sr. The investigator, Isagani Cartagena recommended to the employed as its store auditor since November 16, 1995 until her
Director to file a civil proceeding to cancel the Free Patent resignation on March 31, 2001. She declared that Go had
issued to Alejaga Sr. On April 18, 1990, the government through requested her to audit petitioner after some customers had told
the Solicitor General instituted an action for him that they had already paid their accounts but the office
Annulment/Cancellation of Patent and Title and Reversion ledger had still reflected outstanding balances for them; that
against Alejaga Sr. He died pending the proceeding. He was she first conducted her audit by going to the customers in places
substituted by his heirs. The RTC declared Isagani’s testimony as from Mabinay to Zamboanguitain Negros Oriental, and then in
hearsay and the Patent null and void, and the CA reversed the Siquijor; that she discovered in the course of her audit that the
RTC brushing aside as hearsay Isagani Cartagena’s testimony amounts appearing on the original copies of receipts in the
that Land Inspector Efren L. Recio had not conducted an possession of around 50 customers varied from the amounts
investigation on the free patent application of Felipe Alejaga Sr. written on the duplicate copies of the receipts petitioner
submitted to the office; that upon completing her audit, she
Whether Isagani’s testimony can be consider as hearsay hence submitted to Go a written report denominated as "List of
cannot be properly admitted in court? No. The report of Special Customers Covered by Saleswoman LERIMA PATULA w/
Investigator Isagani P. Cartagena has not been successfully Differences in Records as per Audit Duly Verified March 16-20,
rebutted. In that report, Recio supposedly admitted that he had 1997" marked as Exhibit A; and that based on the report,
not actually conducted an investigation and ocular inspection of petitioner had misappropriated the total amount
the parcel of land. Cartagena’s statement on Recio’s alleged ofP131,286.92. RTC, stating that inasmuch as petitioner had
admission may be considered as “independently relevant.” A opted "not to present evidence for her defense" the
witness may testify as to the state of mind of another person - Prosecution’s evidence remained "unrefuted and
- the latter’s knowledge, belief, or good or bad faith -- and the uncontroverted," rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty
former’s statements may then be regarded as independently of estafa. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the
relevant without violating the hearsay rule. Thus, because RTC denied the motion on May 7, 2004.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 193
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 particular, to answer any question, to solve any difficulties, to
Whether or not Guivencan’s testimony on the ledgers and reconcile any contradictions, to explain any obscurities, to
receipts (Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives) inclusive to remove any ambiguities; and that she entrenches herself in the
prove petitioner’s misappropriation or conversion was simple assertion that she was told so, and leaves the burden
inadmissible for being hearsay. Yes, Testimonial and entirely upon the dead or absent author. Thus, the rule against
documentary evidence, being hearsay, did not prove petitioner’s hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was no
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The testimony may
have been given under oath and before a court of justice, but if
Did the Prosecution adduce evidence that proved beyond it is offered against a party who is afforded no opportunity to
reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner for the estafa charged cross-examine the witness, it is hearsay just the same.
in the information? NO. To establish the elements of estafa Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is understandably not
earlier mentioned, the Prosecution presented the testimonies of the only rule that explains why testimony that is hearsay should
Go and Guivencan, and various documents consisting of: (a) the be excluded from consideration. Excluding hearsay also aims to
receipts allegedly issued by petitioner to each of her customers preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the
upon their payment, (b) the ledgers listing the accounts original declarant claiming to have a direct knowledge of the
pertaining to each customer with the corresponding notations transaction or occurrence. If hearsay is allowed, the right stands
of the receipt numbers for each of the payments, and (c) the to be denied because the declarant is not in court. It is then to
confirmation sheets accomplished by Guivencan herself. The be stressed that the right to cross-examine the adverse party’s
ledgers and receipts were marked and formally offered as witness, being the only means of testing the credibility of
Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives, inclusive. On his part, Go witnesses and their testimonies, is essential to the
essentially described for the trial court the various duties of administration of justice. To address the problem of controlling
petitioner as Footlucker’s sales representative. On her part, inadmissible hearsay as evidence to establish the truth in a
Guivencan conceded having no personal knowledge of the dispute while also safeguarding a party’s right to cross-examine
amounts actually received by petitioner from the customers or her adversary’s witness, the Rules of Court offers two solutions.
remitted by petitioner to Footlucker’s. This means that persons The first solution is to require that all the witnesses in a judicial
other than Guivencan prepared Exhibits B to YY and their trial or hearing be examined only in court under oath or
derivatives, inclusive, and that Guivencan based her testimony affirmation. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court formalizes
on the entries found in the receipts supposedly issued by this solution, viz: Section 1. Examination to be done in open
petitioner and in the ledgers held by Footlucker’s court. - The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
corresponding to each customer, as well as on the unsworn hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
statements of some of the customers. Accordingly, her being affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
the only witness who testified on the entries effectively deprived question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of
the RTC of the reasonable opportunity to validate and test the the witness shall be given orally. (1a) The second solution is to
veracity and reliability of the entries as evidence of petitioner’s require that all witnesses be subject to the cross-examination
misappropriation or conversion through cross-examination by by the adverse party. Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
petitioner. The denial of that opportunity rendered the entire ensures this solution thusly: Section 6. Cross-examination; its
proof of misappropriation or conversion hearsay, and thus purpose and extent. – Upon the termination of the direct
unreliable and untrustworthy for purposes of determining the examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse
guilt or innocence of the accused. To elucidate why the party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or
Prosecution’s hearsay evidence was unreliable and connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to
untrustworthy, and thus devoid of probative value, reference is test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or
made to Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, a rule that states bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon
that a witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of the issue. Although the second solution traces its existence to a
her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from her Constitutional precept relevant to criminal cases, i.e., Section 14,
own perception, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of (2), Article III, of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees that:
Court. The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall xxx enjoy the right
prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that xxx to meet the witnesses face to face xxx," the rule requiring
establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of the cross-examination by the adverse party equally applies to
personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon non-criminal proceedings. We thus stress that the rule excluding
for that purpose because her testimony derives its value not hearsay as evidence is based upon serious concerns about the
from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence due to its
but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source not being given under oath or solemn affirmation and due to
of her information. In case a witness is permitted to testify its not being subjected to cross-examination by the opposing
based on what she has heard another person say about the counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
facts in dispute, the person from whom the witness derived the articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon
information on the facts in dispute is not in court and under whose reliability the worth of the out-of-court statement
oath to be examined and cross-examined. The weight of such depends. Based on the foregoing considerations, Guivencan’s
testimony then depends not upon the veracity of the witness but testimony as well as Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives,
upon the veracity of the other person giving the information to inclusive, must be entirely rejected as proof of petitioner’s
the witness without oath. The information cannot be tested misappropriation or conversion.
because the declarant is not standing in court as a witness and
cannot, therefore, be cross-examined. It is apparent, too, that a
person who relates a hearsay is not obliged to enter into any
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 194
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 JOSE ESPINELI a.k.a. DANILO ESPINELI, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE fishing along the seashore at Pangabuan, Toledo City with Joven
OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Respondent, G.R. No.179535 June Hintogaya and the deceased, he heard a gunshot coming from
9, 2014 the direction of the house of Perlito. He rushed to the scene and
Danilo was charged with the crime of murder for killing Berbon, saw his brother lying prostrate. Perlito was still then alive but
a 49-year old Senior Desk Coordinator of the radio station barely breathing when he said that he was on the verge of
DZMM who was shot in the head and different parts of the body death and mentioned Montañez’ name three times as the one
in front of his house in Imus, Cavite. Meanwhile, the group of who shot him. Joven Hintogaya corroborated Edmundo’s
Atty. Dizon of the NBI arrested and took into custody one Romeo testimony. He testified that Perlito was his brother-in-law. He
Reyes (Reyes) for the crime of Illegal Possession of Deadly was carrying a kerosene lamp as he and Perlito were on their
Weapon. Reyes confided to the group of Atty. Dizon that he was way home that fateful night. Perlito was about seven meters
willing to give vital information regarding the Berbon case. In away from him. Suddenly, he heard a gunshot and saw that
due course, NBI Agent Dave Segunial(NBI Agent Segunial) Perlito was hit. He fell to the ground. Joven went near Perlito,
interviewed Reyes on February 10, 1997 and reduced his still carrying the kerosene lamp, and saw the appellant holding a
statement into writing whereby Reyes claimed that on long handgun in his right hand. In the meantime, the appellant
December 15, 1996, he saw petitioner and Sotero Paredes went near Perlito and dropped a piece of paper with writings in
(Paredes) board a red car while armed with a .45 caliber firearm the Cebuano dialect, then left. When Perlito was carried by
and armalite, respectively; and that petitioner told Paredes that Edmundo to the hospital, the former died on the way. Trial court
"ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon." convicted Montañez with murder being principal and Sumaylo
Subsequently, Reyes posted bail and was released on February with homicide. CA affirmed.
14, 1997. Thenceforth, he jumped bail and was never again The appellant contends that both the trial court and the
heard of. NBI Agent Segunial testified on these facts during the appellate court erred in giving credence and full probative
trial. RTC found Danilo guilty of murder. On appeal, the CA found weight to the testimonies of Edmundo and Joven. He insists that
him guilty only of homicide. Hence this petition. he was in the house of Emilia Antipolo, one-and-a-half
kilometers away from the house of the victim, when the latter
W/N the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Reyes should not be admitted was shot. Besides, Sumaylo already confessed to being the sole
in evidence for being hearsay and inadmissible – No, Regardless assailant, and thereby absolved him of any criminal liability for
of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the victim’s death. The appellant argues that it was illogical for
the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule the trial court to convict him of murder as an accomplice,
does not apply and the statement may be shown. This is known although Sumaylo, who was the principal by direct participation
as the doctrine of independently relevant statements. The for the killing of the victim, was convicted of homicide. There is
testimony of NBI Segunial that Reyes confided to him xxx cannot no evidence on record that he conspired with Sumaylo in killing
be regarded as hearsay evidence. what the prosecution sought the victim. His mere presence at the scene of the killing did not
to be admitted was the fact that Reyes made such narration of render him criminally liable as an accomplice.
facts in his sworn statement and not necessarily to prove the
truth thereof Whether or not the testimony of Edmundo is admissible in
evidence. Yes. Perlito’s statement that it was the appellant
Whether the prosecution has amply proved by circumstantial who shot him was a dying declaration. The statement is highly
evidence petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Yes, reliable, having been made in extremity when the declarant is
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly at the point of death and when any hope of survival is gone,
proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and when the
draws from the evidence established." Under Section 4, Rule 133 mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak
of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence would be the truth. Even if the declarant did not make a statement that
sufficient to convict the offender "if i)there is more than one he was at the brink of death, the degree and seriousness of the
circumstance; ii) the facts from which the inference is derived words and the fact that death superseded shortly afterwards
are proven; and iii) the combination of all circumstances is such may be considered as substantial evidence that the declaration
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." was made by the victim with full realization that he was in a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld dying condition.
provided that the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THEODORE BERNAL, JOHN
points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty DOE and PETER DO, G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997
person. Accused-appellant Theodore Bernal, together with two other
In addition, the identification and recognition through persons whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown,
photograph by Rodolfo of the 1971 Ford Escort red colored car were charged with the crime of kidnapping Bienvenido Openda
as the same car he had sold to Sotero in September 1996 clearly Jr. in Regional Trial Court of Davao City,
and convincingly prove that it was the very same red car used in A plea of not guilty having been entered by Bernal during his
the killing of Alberto on December 15, 1996. arraignment, trial ensued. The prosecution presented certain
Salito Enriquez who testified that Openda Jr. had an illicit affair
HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE with Bernal’s wife Naty and this was the motive behind the
People vs. Cesario Montañez and Daniel Sumaylo dated March Bernal’s kidnapping of Openda Jr. Another witness who testified
17, 2004 for the prosecution was one, Adonis Sagarino, a childhood friend
This is a murder case of one Perlito Ollanes filed against Cesario and neighbor of the victim who overheard at the billiard hall at
Montañez and Daniel Sumaylo. During trial, Edmundo Ollanes, about 11AM with his two companions that a certain person has
older brother of the deceased Perlito, testified that after their to be kidnapped and it turned out to be Openda Jr. RTC rendered
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 195
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 judgment finding Bernal "guilty beyond reasonable doubt of several joint affidavits executed by third persons all of which she
the crime of kidnapping for the abduction and disappearance identified and explained in the course and as part of her
of Bienvenido Openda Jr. under Article 267 of the Revised Penal testimony. The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining
Code. Bernal assails the lower court for giving weight and the relationship between the parties concerned is the testimony
credence to the prosecution witnesses' allegedly illusory of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller
testimonies and for convicting him when his guilt was not proved Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime in 1946, categorically
beyond reasonable doubt. declared that the former is Teodora's niece. Such a statement is
considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible,
Whether or not the testimony of Salito is admissible. Yes. as an exception to the hearsay rule, under Section 39, Rule 130
Openda, Jr.’s revelation to Enriquez regarding his illicit of the Rules of Court, subject to the following conditions: (1)
relationship with Bernal’s wife is admissible in evidence, that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the
pursuant to Section 38, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the
Evidence, viz.: “Sec. 38. Declaration against interest. -- The subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown by
declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, evidence other than the declaration; and (4) that the
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only
declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to before the commencement of the suit involving the subject
declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his position matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has
would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to arisen thereon. There is no dispute with respect to the first,
be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his second and fourth elements. What remains for analysis is the
successors-in-interest and against third persons.” With the third element, that is, whether or not the other documents
deletion of the phrase “pecuniary or moral interest” from the offered in evidence sufficiently corroborated the declaration
present provision, it is safe to assume that “declaration against made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime regarding the
interest” has been expanded to include all kinds of interest, pedigree of petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison or, if at all, it is
that is, pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal. A necessary to present evidence other than such declaration. The
statement may be admissible when it complies with the general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming seeks
following requisites, to wit: “(1) that the declarant is dead or recovery against a relative common to both claimant and
unable to testify; (2) that it relates to a fact against the interest declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's
of the declarant; (3) that at the time he made said declaration estate, the relationship of the declarant to the common
the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. There
aforesaid interest; and (4) that the declarant had no motive to must be some independent proof of this fact. As an exception,
falsify and believed such declaration to be true.” Openda, Jr., the requirement that there be other proof than the declarations
having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called upon of the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply where it
to testify. His confession to Enriquez, definitely a declaration is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not
against his own interest, since his affair with Naty Bernal was a merely to establish a right through his declarations to the
crime, is admissible in evidence because no sane person will be property of some other member of the family. We are
presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment. sufficiently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is one
instance where the general requirement on evidence aliunde
CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON and RENE R. DEZOLLER vs. COURT may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the
OF APPEALS and TEODORA DOMINGO, G.R. No. 121027 July 31, estate of the declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration
1997 made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is
This is a case of an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land her niece, is admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of such
and an apartment. Teodora Guerrero died and left a parcel of relationship, notwithstanding the fact that there was no other
land and an apartment. Her husband Martin Guerrero preliminary evidence thereof, the reason being such declaration
adjudicates the said land to him and consequently sold to is rendered competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving
Teodora Domingo. The nephews and nieces Tison et al seek to such evidence to avoid a failure of justice. More importantly,
inherit by right of representation from the property disputed there is in the present case an absolute failure by all and sundry
presenting documentary evidence to prove filial relation. The to refute that declaration made by the decedent. From the
respondent contended that the documents/evidence foregoing disquisitions, it may thus be safely concluded, on the
presented is inadmissible for being hearsay since the affiants sole basis of the decedent's declaration and without need for
were never presented for cross-examination. The trial court further proof thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephew
issued an order granting the demurrer to evidence and of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. As held in one case, where the
dismissing the complaint for reconveyance. In upholding the subject of the declaration is the declarant's own relationship to
dismissal, respondent Court of Appeals declared that the another person, it seems absurb to require, as a foundation for
documentary evidence presented by herein petitioners, such as the admission of the declaration, proof of the very fact which
the baptismal certificates, family picture, and joint affidavits are the declaration is offered to establish. The preliminary proof
all inadmissible and insufficient to prove and establish filiation. would render the main evidence unnecessary.
Hence, this appeal.
Francisco Jison vs. CA and Monina Jison, February 24, 1998
WON the evidences are all admissible and sufficient to prove This is a case pertaining to the recognition as an illegitimate child
filiation? YES, Petitioners' evidence, as earlier explained, consists of Francisco Jison by one Monina Jison. Monina presented a total
mainly of the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison, the of 11 witnesses as to her relationship with Francisco Jison whom
baptismal, death and marriage certificates, the various she allegedly called “Daddy” since she was a child. She also
certifications from the civil registrar, a family picture, and presented certifications issued by the Local Civil Registrar of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 196
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Dingle, Iloilo and her baptismal certificate all to prove her other family books or charts, engravings on rights [and] family
allegation that Francisco impregnated her mother (deceased) portraits.” We hold that the scope of the enumeration contained
Esperanza Amolar who was then employed as the nanny of in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule of
Francisco’s daughter, Lourdes. However, Francisco refuted all ejusdem generis, is limited to objects which are commonly
the allegations of Monina. Trial court resolved the complaint known as “family possessions,” or those articles which
against Monina the latter being barred by estoppel by the deed represent, in effect, a family’s joint statement of its belief as to
which the latter allegedly signed when she was 25 years old the pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects
withdrawing her claim as the daughter of Francisco. CA reversed. “openly exhibited and well known to the family,” or those
“which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a
Whether or not the evidence presented is enough to establish family tradition.” Other examples of these objects which are
filiation - No. MONINA’s reliance on the certification issued by regarded as reflective of a family’s reputation or tradition
the Local Civil Registrar concerning her birth (Exhs. E and F) is regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments
clearly misplaced. It is settled that a certificate of live birth or coffin plates. Plainly then, Exhibits S to V, as private
purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent documents not constituting "family possessions" as discussed
evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing above, may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 40.
that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said Neither may these exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130,
certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority Section 41 regarding common reputation, it having been
to record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the observed that: [T]he weight of authority appears to be in favor
information of a third person. Simply put, if the alleged father of the theory that it is the general repute, the common
did not intervene in the birth certificate, e.g., supplying the reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in
information himself, the inscription of his name by the mother community, that is a material element of evidence going to
or doctor or registrar is null and void; the mere certificate by establish pedigree. xxx [Thus] matters of pedigree may be
the registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of proved by reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the
voluntary acknowledgment on the latter’s part. In like manner, neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question
FRANCISCO’s lack of participation in the preparation of the is marriage which may be proved by common reputation in the
baptismal certificates (Exhs. C and D) and school records (Exhs. community. Their inadmissibility notwithstanding, Exhibits “S”
Z and AA) renders these documents incompetent to prove to “V,” inclusive, may, in like manner as MONINA's school
paternity, the former being competent merely to prove the records, properly be admitted as part of her testimony to
administration of the sacrament of baptism on the date so strengthen her claim that, indeed, relatives of FRANCISCO
specified. However, despite the inadmissibility of the school recognized her as his daughter. All told, MONINA’s evidence
records per se to prove paternity, they may be admitted as part hurdled “the high standard of proof” required for the success of
of MONINA’s testimony to corroborate her claim that an action to establish one’s illegitimate filiation when relying
FRANCISCO spent for her education. upon the provisions regarding “open and continuous
As to Exhibits “S,” “T,” “U” and “V,” the various notes and letters possession” or “any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
written by FRANCISCO’s relatives, namely Mike Alano, Emilio and special laws;” moreover, MONINA proved her filiation by
Jison, Mariquit Lopez and Fernando Lopez, respectively, more than mere preponderance of evidence.
allegedly attesting to MONINA’s filiation, while their due
execution and authenticity are not in issue, as MONINA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANK
witnessed the authors signing the documents, nevertheless, LOBRIGAS, MARLITO LOBRIGAS (At Large) and TEODORICO
under Rule 130, Section 39, the contents of these documents MANTE (acquitted) FRANK LOBRIGAS, G.R. No. 147649
may not be admitted, there being no showing that the December 17, 2002
declarants-authors were dead or unable to testify, neither was This is a murder case of one Felix Taylaran who was already 76
the relationship between the declarants and MONINA shown by years old filed against Frank Lobrigas. Taylaran was a regular
evidence other than the documents in question. As to the farmhand of Castor Guden and on February 19, 1996, he asked
admissibility of these documents under Rule 130, Section 40, permission not to work for it was raining and he had to go to the
however, this requires further elaboration. store of Teodorico Mante. However, around 4PM, Felix returned
Rule 130, Section 40, provides: Section 40. Family reputation or to Castor Guden’s house with bruises and injuries all over his
tradition regarding pedigree. -- The reputation or tradition body and told the latter that he was mauled by accused. Felix
existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to spent the night in Castor’s house and left the following morning
the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in to go to the seaside house of Lorie Aguilar, his cousin, to heal
evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of wounds in the saltwater. However, the next day he died. Rosa
the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family Taylaran, daughter of Felix, testified that a day after the mauling
bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, her father came to her house and told her that he was beaten
family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of up by Frank Lobrigas, Marlito Lobrigas and Teodorico Mante.
pedigree. (underscoring supplied) It is evident that this provision Accused-appellant contends that there was no direct evidence
may be divided into two (2) parts: the portion containing the first linking him as one of the assailants. He claims that while there
underscored clause which pertains to testimonial evidence, were ante-mortem declarations made by the victim to the two
under which the documents in question may not be admitted as prosecution witnesses pointing to him as one of the maulers, the
the authors thereof did not take the witness stand; and the trial court, nevertheless, dismissed them as invalid dying
section containing the second underscored phrase. What must declaration since they were uttered by the victim not under a
then be ascertained is whether Exhibits S to V, as private consciousness of an impending death. Neither should such
documents, fall within the scope of the clause “and the like” as declarations be considered as part of res gestae since the victim
qualified by the preceding phrase “[e]ntries in family bibles or was drunk and very mad at Teodorico Mante for confiscating his
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 197
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 knife while he was being attacked by his assailants. Lastly, the Doctrines: The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the
evidence of flight is not sufficient to overcome the constitutional crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for, even if the
presumption of innocence. On the other hand, the prosecution commission of the crime can be established, there can be no
argues that: (1) the victim’s declarations naming accused- conviction without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond
appellant as one of the assailants are admissible in evidence as reasonable doubt. Every conviction for crime must rest on the
part of the res gestae since they were made immediately after a strength of the evidence of the State, not on the weakness of the
startling occurrence; (2) the flight of accused-appellant after the defense.
incident and his subsequent escape from custody were The close relationship of Remedios and Francisco with the victim
indicative of his guilt; and (3) there was no improper motive on as well as their familiarity with the accused who were their
the part of the prosecution witnesses when they testified neighbors assured the certainty of their identification as Haide’s
against accused-appellant. assailants. In Marturillas v. People,27 the Court observed that
the familiarity of the witness with the assailant erased any doubt
Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the that the witness could have erred; and noted that a witness
evidence of flight are sufficient to establish the guilt of accused- related to the victim had a natural tendency to remember the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt - NO. The trial court held faces of the person involved in the attack on the victim, because
that although the foregoing declarations cannot be deemed a relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with
dying declaration since they do not appear to have been made seeking justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before
by the declarant under the expectation of a sure and impending the law.
death, the same are nonetheless part of the res gestae. A declaration or an utterance is thus deemed as part of the res
However, only the declaration made to Castor Guden are gestae that is admissible in evidence as an exception to the
admissible in evidence as such. A declaration is deemed part of hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (a) the
the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the
hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the statements were made before the declarant had time to
principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the
statements were made before the declarant had time to occurrence in question and its immediately attending
contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the circumstances.
occurrence in question and its immediately attending Truly, a positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and
circumstances. All these requisites concur in the case at bar. devoid of any showing of ill or vile motive on the part of the
The principal act, the mauling of the victim, was a startling Prosecution witnesses always prevails over alibi and denial that
occurrence. The declarations were made shortly after the are in the nature of negative and self-serving evidence.
mauling incident while the victim was still under the exciting Treachery was properly alleged to qualify the killing of Heide
influence of the startling occurrence, without any prior Cagatan to murder.
opportunity to contrive a story implicating accused-appellant.
The declaration concerns the circumstances surrounding the PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC vs. JAIME M. RAMOS, NILDA RAMOS,
mauling of Felix Taylaran. However, the declaration made by ERLINDA ILANO, MILAGROS ILANO, DANIEL ILANO AND FELIPA
the victim to his daughter, Rosa does not satisfy the second JAVALERA, G.R. No. 92740 March 23, 1992
requirement of spontaneity because they were made a day Plaintiffs Jaime Ramos, Nilda Ramos, Erlinda Ilano, Milagros
after the incident and the exciting influence of the startling Ilano, Daniel Ilano and Felipe Javalera, are officers of the Negros
occurrence was no longer present. Nevertheless, we hold that Telephone Company who held confirmed tickets for PAL Flight
Rosa Solarte’s testimony on what her father told her constitutes No. 264 from Naga City to Manila on September 24, 1985,
independent relevant statements distinct from hearsay, and scheduled to depart for Manila at 4:25 p.m. The tickets were
are thus admissible not as to the veracity thereof, but as proof brought sometime in August 1985. Plaintiffs claim in their
of the fact that they had been uttered. Under the doctrine of Complaint that they went to the check-in counter of the
independently relevant statements, only the fact that such defendant's Naga branch at least one (1) hour before the
statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity published departure time but no one was at the counter until 30
thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply, hence, minutes before departure, but upon checking -in and
the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the presentation of their tickets to the employee/clerk who showed
making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the up, their tickets were cancelled and the seats awarded to
statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be chance passengers; plaintiffs had to go to Manila by bus, and
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. seek actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GILBERTO for breach of contract of carriage. The trial court rendered
VILLARICO, SR. @ “BERTING”, GILBERTO VILLARICO, JR., JERRY judgment finding defendant guilty of breach of contract of
RAMENTOS, and RICKY VILLARICO, accused-appellants. G.R. No. carriage in bumping-off the plaintiffs from its F264 flight of
158362. April 4, 2011. September 25, 1985, and ordered defendant to sum of money.
An information for murder was filed in the Regional Trial Court PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals w/c ruled in favor of
in Misamis Occidental (RTC) against all the accused who pleaded Ramos, et. al.
not guilty. The accused denied the accusations and each
proffered an alibi. After trial, the RTC convicted the four accused Is PAL guilty of breach of contract of carriage - No. Under Section
of homicide aggravated by dwelling. On appeal, the CA convicted 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, each party in a case is required
the accused instead of murder because the killing was attended to prove his affirmative allegations. In civil cases, the degree of
by treachery. Hence this petition. evidence required of a party in order to support his claim is
preponderance of evidence or that evidence adduced by one
W/N they should be convicted/they are guilty – Yes. party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 198
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 other party (Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of SAID SECTION 44, RULE 130 ITSELF HOWEVER, THE POLICE
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 83376, May 29, 1989, 173 SCRA 619, BLOTTER IS MERELY A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS
625). In the absence of any controverting evidence, the STATED THEREIN WHICH MAY BE NULLIFIED BY OTHER
documentary evidence presented to corroborate the EVIDENCE.
testimonies of PAL's witnesses are prima facie evidence of the
truth of their allegations. The plane tickets of the private Whether or not the police blotter is admissible as evidence -
respondents, exhs. "1," "2," "3," "4," (with emphasis on the Yes. The police blotter was admitted under Rule 130, Section 44
printed condition of the contract of carriage regarding check-in of the Rules of Court. Under the said rule, the following are the
time as well as on the notation "late 4:02" stamped on the flight requisites for its admissibility:
coupon by the check-in clerk immediately upon the check-in of (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by another
private respondents) and the passenger Manifest of Flight PR person, specially enjoined by law to do so;
264, exh. "5," (which showed the non-accommodation of Capati (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of
and Go and the private respondents) are entries made in the his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
regular course of business which the private respondents failed specially enjoined by law;
to overcome with substantial and convincing evidence other (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient
than their testimonies. The hearsay rule will not apply in this knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been
case as statements, acts or conduct accompanying or so nearly acquired by him personally or through official information.
connected with the main transaction as to form a part of it, and We agree with the trial and appellate courts in finding that the
which illustrate, elucidate, qualify or characterize the act, are police blotter was properly admitted as they form part of
admissible as a part of the res gestae. Their failure to come on official records. Entries in police records made by a police
time for check-in should not militate against PAL. Their non- officer in the performance of the duty especially enjoined by
accommodation on that flight was the result of their own law are prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and
action or inaction and the ensuing cancellation of their tickets their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified
by PAL is only proper. by other competent evidence. Although police blotters are of
little probative value, they are nevertheless admitted and
Rudy Lao vs. Standard Insurance Co., Inc., August 14, 2003 considered in the absence of competent evidence to refute the
Petitioner Rudy Lao is the owner of a Fuso truck. The truck was facts stated therein.
insured with respondent Standard Insurance Co., Inc. for the
maximum amount of P200,000 and an additional sum of P50,000 MEYNARDO SABILI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
to cover any damages that might be caused to his goods. While FLORENCIO LIBREA, G.R. No. 193261 April 24, 2012
the policy was in effect, an accident occurred. At around 8:00 When petitioner filed his COC for mayor of Lipa City for the 2010
p.m. of April 24, 1985, in Barangay Buhang, Jaro, Iloilo City, the elections, he stated therein that he had been a resident of the
insured truck bumped another truck. Petitioner filed a claim with city for two (2) years and eight (8) months. Prior to the 2010
the insurance company for the proceeds from his policy. elections, he had been twice elected (in 1995 and in 1998) as
However, the claim was denied by the insurance company on Provincial Board Member representing the 4th District of
the ground that when its adjuster went to investigate the Batangas. During the 2007 elections, petitioner ran for the
matter, it was found that the driver of the insured truck, position of Representative of the 4th District of Batangas, but
Leonardo Anit, did not possess a proper driver’s license at the lost. The 4th District of Batangas includes Lipa City. However, it
time of the accident. The restriction in Leonardo Anits driver’s is undisputed that when petitioner filed his COC during the 2007
license provided that he can only drive four-wheeled vehicles elections, he and his family were then staying at his ancestral
weighing not more than 4,500 kgs. Since the insured truck he home in Barangay (Brgy.) Sico, San Juan, Batangas. Private
was driving weighed more than 4,500 kgs., he therefore violated respondent Florencio Librea filed a "Petition to Deny Due Course
the authorized driver clause of the insurance policy. In addition, and to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and to Disqualify a
respondent cited the contents of the police blotter of the Iloilo Candidate for Possessing Some Grounds for Disqualification"
INP which stated that it was Leonardo Anit who drove the truck against him before the COMELEC. Citing Section 78 in relation to
at time of incident. Petitioner claims that at the time of the Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, private respondent
accident, it was in fact another driver named Giddie Boy Y Coyel alleged that petitioner made material misrepresentations of
who was driving the insured truck. Giddie Boy possessed a fact in the latter’s COC and likewise failed to comply with the
driver’s license authorizing him to drive vehicles such as the one-year residency requirement under Section 39 of the Local
truck which weighed more than 4,500 kgs. As evidence, Government Code. Allegedly, petitioner falsely declared under
petitioner presented the Motor Vehicle Accident Report oath in his COC that he had already been a resident of Lipa City
wherein the Investigating Officer, Pat. Felipe D. Villahermosa, for two years and eight months prior to the scheduled 10 May
stated that it was Giddie Boy driving the insured truck and not 2010 local elections. For ease of later discussion, petitioner’s
Leonardo Anit. Hence, petitioner filed the civil case before the evidence shall be grouped as follows: (1) his Income Tax Returns
RTC but the RTC dismissed the case. On appeal with the Court of and corresponding Official Receipts for the years 2007 and 2008;
Appeals, the RTC decision was affirmed. The petition was (2) Certification from the barangay captain of Pinagtong-ulan; (3)
dismissed and the motion for reconsideration was denied. In his Affidavit of his common-law wife, Bernadette Palomares; and (4)
petition for review, petitioner averred that the HONORABLE Affidavits from a previous property owner, neighbors, Certificate
COURT OF APPEALS AND THE LOWER COURT RELIED MAINLY ON of Appreciation from the barangay parish and Memorandum
SECTION 44, RULE 130 OF THE RULES OF COURT IN UPHOLDING from the local chapter of Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. The
THE ENTRY IN THE POLICE BLOTTER WHICH STATED THAT THE COMELEC Second Division granted the Petition of private
DRIVER OF THE INSURED VEHICLE WAS LEONARDO ANIT Y respondent, declared petitioner as disqualified from seeking
PANES, WHO WAS NOT AN AUTHORIZED DRIVER. UNDER THE the mayoralty post in Lipa City, and cancelled his Certificate of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 199
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Candidacy. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the 26 COMELEC for its failure to consider Honrade’s Certification on
January 2010 Resolution of the COMELEC, during the pendency the sole ground that it was initially not notarized.
of which the 10 May 2010 local elections were held. The next
day, he was proclaimed the duly elected mayor of Lipa City after Manila Electric Company (Meralco) vs. Hon. Quisumbing and
garnering the highest number of votes cast for the said position. Meralco Employees and Workers Association (MEWA), February
He accordingly filed a Manifestation with the COMELEC en banc 22, 2000
to reflect this fact. MEWA, the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-
The COMELEC en banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration of file employees of MERALCO informed the latter of its intention
petitioner. Hence, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition to re-negotiate the terms and conditions of their existing
under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Thereafter, collective
the annulment of the 26 January 2010 and 17 August 2010 bargaining negotiations proceeded. However, despite the series
Resolutions of the COMELEC. Petitioner attached to his Petition of meetings between the negotiating panels of MERALCO and
a Certificate of Canvass of Votes and proclamation of Winning MEWA, the parties failed to arrive at “terms and conditions”
Candidates for Lipa City Mayor and Vice-Mayor issued by the acceptable to both of them which prompted MEWA to file a
City/Municipal Board of Canvassers, as well as a copy of his Oath Notice of Strike with the National Capital Region Branch of the
of Office. He also attached to his Petition another Certification National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the DOLE
of Residency issued by Pinagtong-ulan Barangay Captain on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor
Dominador Honrade and sworn to before a notary public. practices. Upon the existence of the strike, MERALCO filed an
Urgent Petition with the DOLE Secretary praying that the latter
Whether the Certification issued by Pinagtong-ulan Barangay should assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute and to enjoin
Captain Dominador Honrade should be considered despite the the striking employees to go back to work. Acting on such
fact that the said Certification was not sworn to before a notary petition, the Labor Secretary granted and resolved the labor
public - YES. The COMELEC did not consider in the first instance dispute by ordering the grant of a 4,500 wage increase, as well
the Certification issued by Pinagtong-ulan Barangay Captain as a new and improved fringe benefits under the remaining 2
Dominador Honrade (Honrade) that petitioner had been years of the CBA for the rank-and-file employees. Unsatisfied,
residing in Brgy Pinagtong-ulan since 2007. When this oversight MERALCO filed a supplement to the motion for reconsideration
was raised as an issue in petitioner’s Motion for alleging that the Secretary did not property appreciate the effect
Reconsideration, the COMELEC brushed it aside on the ground of the awarded wages and benefits on MERALCO’s financial
that the said Certification was not sworn to before a notary viability. Hence, in a decision on January 27, 1999, the orders of
public and, hence, "cannot be relied on." Subsequently, the Secretary were set aside and the wage increase is now from
petitioner presented another, substantially identical, 1,900 to 2,200. MERALCO warns that if the wage increase of
Certification from the said Pinagtong-ulan Barangay Captain, 2,200 per month as ordered by the Secretary is allowed, it would
save for the fact that it had now been sworn to before a notary simply pass the cost covering such increase to the consumers
public. We disagree with the COMELEC’s treatment of the through increase in the rate of electricity.
Barangay Captain’s Certification and find the same tainted with
grave abuse of discretion. Even without being sworn to before Whether or not the argument is tenable - No. This is a non
a notary public, Honrade’s Certification would not only be sequitur. The Court cannot be threatened with such a misleading
admissible in evidence, but would also be entitled to due argument. An increase in the prices of electric current needs the
consideration. Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court approval of the appropriate regulatory government agency and
provides: SEC. 44. Entries in official records.—Entries in official does not automatically result from a mere increase in the wages
records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of petitioner’s employees. Besides, this argument presupposes
of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty that petitioner is capable of meeting a wage increase. The All
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts Asia Capital report upon which the Union relies to support its
therein stated. In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. position regarding the wage issue can not be an accurate basis
Lianga Bay and Community Multi-purpose Cooperative, Inc., we and conclusive determinant of the rate of wage increase.
explained that the following three (3) requisites must concur for Section 45 of Rule 130 Rules of Evidence provides:
entries in official records to be admissible in evidence: (a) The "Commercial lists and the like. - Evidence of statements of
entry was made by a public officer, or by another person matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation
specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) It was made by the public contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published
officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and (c) relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for
The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally
the facts stated by him, which facts must have been acquired used and relied upon by them therein." Under the afore-quoted
by him personally or through official information. As to the first rule, statement of matters contained in a periodical may be
requisite, the Barangay Secretary is required by the Local admitted only "if that compilation is published for use by
Government Code to "keep an updated record of all inhabitants persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and
of the barangay." Regarding the second requisite, we have relied upon by them therein." As correctly held in our Decision
explicitly recognized in Mitra v. Commission on Elections, that "it dated January 27, 1999, the cited report is a mere newspaper
is the business of a punong barangay to know who the residents account and not even a commercial list. At most, it is but an
are in his own barangay." Anent the third requisite, the Barangay analysis or opinion which carries no persuasive weight for
Captain’s exercise of powers and duties concomitant to his purposes of this case as no sufficient figures to support it were
position requires him to be privy to these records kept by the presented. Neither did anybody testify to its accuracy. It cannot
Barangay Secretary. Accordingly, there is basis in faulting the be said that businessmen generally rely on news items such as
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 200
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 this in their occupation. Besides, no evidence was presented that Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. - The
the publication was regularly prepared by a person in touch with testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to
the market and that it is generally regarded as trustworthy and testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
reliable. Absent extrinsic proof of their accuracy, these reports administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter,
are not admissible. In the same manner, newspapers containing may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had
stock quotations are not admissible in evidence when the the opportunity to cross-examine him. Under the aforecited
source of the reports is available. With more reason, mere rules, the accused in a criminal case is guaranteed the right of
analyses or projections of such reports cannot be admitted. In confrontation. Such right has two purposes: first, to secure the
particular, the source of the report in this case can be easily opportunity of cross-examination; and, second, to allow the
made available considering that the same is necessary for judge to observe the deportment and appearance of the
compliance with certain governmental requirements. witness while testifying. This right, however, is not absolute as
it is recognized that it is sometimes impossible to recall or
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LANIE ORTIZ- produce a witness who has already testified in a previous
MIYAKE accused-appellant, [G.R. Nos. 115338-39. September proceeding, in which event his previous testimony is made
16, 1997] admissible as a distinct piece of evidence, by way of exception
Accused-appellant Lanie Ortiz-Miyake was charged with illegal to the hearsay rule. The previous testimony is made admissible
recruitment in large scale in the Regional Trial Court of Makati because it makes the administration of justice orderly and
on a complaint initiated by Elenita Marasigan, Imelda Generillo expeditious. Under these rules, the adoption by the Makati trial
and Rosamar del Rosario. In addition, she was indicted for estafa court of the facts stated in the decision of the Parañaque trial
by means of false pretenses in the same court, the offended court does not fall under the exception to the right of
party being Elenita Marasigan alone. Upon arraignment, confrontation as the exception contemplated by law covers only
appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and the cases were the utilization of testimonies of absent witnesses made in
tried jointly in Regional Trial Court of Makati. Of the three previous proceedings, and does not include utilization of
complainants in the case for illegal recruitment in large scale, previous decisions or judgments. A previous decision or
Marasigan was the only one who testified at the trial. The two judgment, while admissible in evidence, may only prove that an
other complainants, Generillo and Del Rosario, were unable to accused was previously convicted of a crime. It may not be used
testify as they were then abroad. The prosecution sought to to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a
prove that Generillo and Del Rosario, the two other subsequent case, in lieu of the requisite evidence proving the
complainants in the illegal recruitment case, were also commission of the crime, as said previous decision is hearsay. To
victimized by appellant. In lieu of their testimonies, the sanction its being used as a basis for conviction in a subsequent
prosecution presented as witnesses Lilia Generillo, the mother case would constitute a violation of the right of the accused to
of Imelda Generillo, and Victoria Amin, the sister of Del Rosario. confront the witnesses against him. As earlier stated, the
The final witness for the prosecution was Riza Balberte, a Makati court’s utilization of and reliance on the previous
representative of the POEA, who testified that appellant was decision of the Parañaque court must be rejected. Every
neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas conviction must be based on the findings of fact made by a trial
employment, POEA certificate certification. On the other hand, court according to its appreciation of the evidence before it. A
appellant, who was the sole witness for the defense, denied that conviction may not be based merely on the findings of fact of
she recruited the complainants for overseas employment and another court, especially where what is presented is only its
claimed that the payments made to her were solely for decision sans the transcript of the testimony of the witnesses
purchasing plane tickets at a discounted rate as she had who testified therein and upon which the decision is based.
connections with a travel agency. The evidence presented by Furthermore, this is not the only reason why appellant may not
the parties were thus contradictory but the trial court found the be held liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. An evaluation
prosecutions evidence more credible. Judgment was rendered of the evidence presented before the trial court shows us that,
by said court convicting appellant of both crimes as charged. In apart from the adopted decision in the previous estafa case,
convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale, the there was no other basis for said trial court’s conclusion that
lower court adopted a previous decision of Branch 78 of the illegal recruitment in large scale was committed against all three
Metropolitan Trial Court of Paranaque as a basis for the complainants. The testimonies of Generillo’s mother, Lilia
judgment. Said previous decision was a conviction for estafa, Generillo, and Del Rosario’s sister, Victoria Amin, reveal that
involving the same circumstances in the instant case, wherein these witnesses had no personal knowledge of the actual
complainants Generillo and Del Rosario charged appellant with circumstances surrounding the charges filed by Generillo and
two counts of estafa. This decision was not appealed and had Del Rosario for illegal recruitment in large scale. Neither of these
become final and executory. In thus convicting appellant in the witnesses was privy to the transactions between appellant and
illegal recruitment case, the decision therein of the Regional each of the two complainants. The witnesses claimed that
Trial Court stated that the facts in the foregoing estafa cases appellant illegally recruited Generillo and Del Rosario.
were the same as those in the illegal recruitment case before Nonetheless, we find their averments to be unfounded as they
it. It, therefore, adopted the facts and conclusions established were not even present when Generillo and Del Rosario
in the earlier decision as its own findings of facts and as its negotiated with and made payments to appellant. For
rationale for the conviction in the case before it. insufficiency of evidence and in the absence of the third
element of illegal recruitment in large scale, particularly, that
Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to warrant the “the offense is committed against three or more persons,” we
conviction of the respondent for illegal recruitment in large scale cannot affirm the conviction for illegal recruitment in large
- No. It will be noted that the principle embodied is likewise scale. Nonetheless, we agree with the finding of the trial court
found in the following provision of Rule 130: Section 47.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 201
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 that appellant illegally recruited Marasigan, for which she must doubt as to the availability of conditional examination of
be held liable for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment. witnesses – both for the benefit of the defense, as well as the
prosecution. The Court's ruling in the case of Vda. de Manguerra
HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO, vs. THE v. Risos explicitly states that - "x x x As exceptions, Rule 23 to 28
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET of the Rules of Court provide for the different modes of
AL. G.R. No. 185527 July 18, 2012 discovery that may be resorted to by a party to an action. These
Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of
charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila witnesses or as modes of discovery. In criminal proceedings,
for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code Sections 12, 13 and 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
(RPC) docketed as Criminal Case No. 396447. Upon arraignment, Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000,
petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution's allow the conditional examination of both the defense and
complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessman from prosecution witnesses." But for purposes of taking the
Laos, Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution
Philippines in order to attend the hearing. However, trial dates witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the
were subsequently postponed due to his unavailability. The testimonial examination should be made before the court, or
private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required
Deposition of Li Luen Ping, alleging that he was being treated for by the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised
lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Rules of Criminal Procedure. The pertinent provision reads thus:
Cambodia and that, upon doctor's advice, he could not make the SEC. 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. – When it
long travel to the Philippines by reason of ill health. satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too
Notwithstanding petitioners' Opposition, the MeTC granted the sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, or
motion after the prosecution complied with the directive to has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning,
submit a Medical Certificate of Li Luen Ping. Petitioners sought he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court
its reconsideration which the MeTC denied, prompting where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence
petitioners to file a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC. The of the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to
RTC granted the petition and declared the MeTC Orders null and attend the examination has been served on him shall be
void. The RTC held that Section 17, Rule 23 on the taking of conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial.
depositions of witnesses in civil cases cannot apply suppletorily Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination
to the case since there is a specific provision in the Rules of after notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken
Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused. Since the
witnesses in criminal cases, which is primarily intended to conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take
safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to meet the place at no other place than the court where the case is pending,
witness against him face to face. Upon denial by the RTC of their the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion
motion for reconsideration through an Order dated March 5, to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine
2006, the prosecution elevated the case to the CA. On February consular official in Laos, Cambodia. We quote with approval the
19, 2008, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision which held RTC's ratiocination in this wise:
that no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed upon the MeTC The condition of the private complainant being sick and of
for allowing the deposition-taking of the complaining witness Li advanced age falls within the provision of Section 15 Rule 119 of
Luen Ping because no rule of procedure expressly disallows the the Rules of Court. However, said rule substantially provides that
taking of depositions in criminal cases and that, in any case, he should be conditionally examined before the court where the
petitioners would still have every opportunity to cross-examine case is pending. Thus, this Court concludes that the language of
the complaining witness and make timely objections during the Section 15 Rule 119 must be interpreted to require the parties
taking of the oral deposition either through counsel or through to present testimony at the hearing through live witnesses,
the consular officer who would be taking the deposition of the whose demeanor and credibility can be evaluated by the judge
witness. On November 28, 2008, the CA denied petitioners' presiding at the hearing, rather than by means of deposition.
motion for reconsideration. Nowhere in the said rule permits the taking of deposition
outside the Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not.
WON the MTCC was correct in allowing to take the deposition of Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness
the witness outside the PH notwithstanding the constitutional elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is
guarantee given to the accused - NO. We rule in favor of pending would not only deprive a detained accused of his right
petitioners The Procedure for Testimonial Examination of an to attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the
Unavailable Prosecution Witness is Covered Under Section 15, opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment
Rule 119. The examination of witnesses must be done orally and properly assess his credibility, which is especially intolerable
before a judge in open court. This is true especially in criminal when the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case
cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his right against the accused. It is argued that since the Rules of Civil
to a public trial and to meet the witnessess against him face to Procedure is made explicitly applicable in all cases, both civil and
face. The requirement is the "safest and most satisfactory criminal as well as special proceedings, the deposition-taking
method of investigating facts" as it enables the judge to test the before a Philippine consular official under Rule 23 should be
witness' credibility through his manner and deportment while deemed allowable also under the circumstances. Considering
testifying. It is not without exceptions, however, as the Rules of that Rule 119 adequately and squarely covers the situation in the
Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and instant case, we find no cogent reason to apply Rule 23
the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of suppletorily or otherwise."
direct court testimony. Even in criminal proceedings, there is no
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 202
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN her incapable of testifying and of relating the incident truthfully.
IBANEZ y ALBANTE and ALFREDO (FREDDIE) NULLA y IBANEZ, With exceptions provided in the Rules of Court, all persons who
Accused-appellants. G.R. No. 197813 September 25, 2013 can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception
Appellants Edwin and Alfredo, with Jesus Monsillo y Taniares to others, may be witnesses. That is even buttressed by the Rule
(Jesus), were all charged in an Information for Murder under on Examination of a Child Witness which specifies that every
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. During arraignment, child is presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this
Edwin and Alfredo pleaded not guilty. Jesus, on the other hand, presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging
remained at large; the case against him was archived. the child's competence. Only when substantial doubt exists
Thereafter, trial ensued. The prosecution’s version was testified regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember,
to by the victim’s wife and daughter, in succession. On that communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate
fateful day, Wilfredo was invited by Alfredo to a drinking session the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or
with Jesus and Edwin making them a party of four. Rachel, on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a
Wilfredo’s daughter, an adolescent at the time, was underneath child. Thus, petitioners’ flimsy objections on Rachel’s lack of
the house (silong in the vernacular) of a neighbor, three (3) education and inability to read and tell time carry no weight and
meters away from the place where Wilfredo and his companions cannot overcome the clear and convincing testimony of Rachel
were ostensibly in merrymaking. Rachel saw Edwin snatched a t- as to who killed her father. We likewise note that the line of
shirt from a nearby clothesline, and hooded the t-shirt over the questioning of the defense during cross-examination on the
head and face of Wilfredo. Robbed of vision as his head was fully competency of Rachel to read and tell time did not distract her
covered, Wilfredo was wrestled and pinned down by Edwin, in recollecting how her father was attacked by accused-
while Alfredo boxed the left side of Wilfredo’s chest. Jesus, appellants. From her position underneath the house of her
armed with a long iron bar, swung at and hit Wilfredo in the "Kuya Unyo," she saw her father, Wilfredo, attacked by accused-
head. Terrified, Rachel stood immobilized as she watched the appellants. Although she was astonished as the happening
attack on father. Thereafter, she saw her mother running out of unfolded, her ability to perceive, remember, and make known
their house and crying for help. Edwin and Alfredo stood beside her perception was not diminished.
Jesus; Edwin held a white shirt. Forthwith, Jesus and Alfredo ran
away while Edwin went home. Rowena asked for help to bring OPINION RULE
Wilfredo to the hospital. However, Wilfredo did not reach the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO2 ALBERT
hospital alive and was pronounced dead on arrival. The two ABRIOL, MACARIO ASTELLERO, and JANUARIO DOSDOS,
accused-appellants pointed to Jesus as the sole culprit, accused-appellants, G.R. No. 123137. October 17, 2001
proclaimed their innocence and professed to being at the scene Appellants PO2 Albert Abriol of the Philippine National Police
of the crime only because of their curiosity for what had (PNP), Macario Astellero, Januario Dosdos, and PNP P/Chief
occurred. On appeal, Edwin and Alfredo found no reprieve. The Inspector Gaudioso Navales were charged with murder allegedly
Court of Appeals did not deviate from the RTC’s ruling and committed against Alejandro Flores alias Alex and violation of
affirmed in toto its finding of guilt. Presidential Decree No. 1866 on Illegal Possession of Firearms.
The incident happened in the intersection of P. del Rosario St.
Whether the accused are guilty of murder - YES. Both lower and Jones Avenue, Cebu City when one Romeo Sta. Cruz, a radio
courts, however, found the testimony of Rachel credible: This news reporter aboard his jeep, around ABS-CBN Compound
Court finds the testimony of Rachel clear and convincing. The heard a couple of gunshots and saw a man shouting for help. He
testimony flows from a person who was present in the place also saw a red “Jiffy” which made a U-turn and stopped at beside
where the killing occurred. They are replete with details the fallen figure of a man and a tall, thin man alighted and fired
sufficient to shift the burden of evidence to appellants. We have several shots at the prostrate figure. The Jiffy sped away but was
no reason to doubt Rachel’s credibility. Her candid account of accosted still by the police patrol cars and arrested the persons
the incident, standing alone, clearly established the inside the Jiffy who were now the accused. When arraigned, all
components of the crime of murder. Appellants’ defense of the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. Since the
denial, not sufficiently proven, cannot overcome the conclusions indictments arose from the same incident, the cases were jointly
drawn from said evidence. We find no cogent reason to deviate tried. The prosecution presented SPO4 Lemuel Caser, ballistician
from the findings and conclusions of the trial court. Rachel’s of the PNP Crime Laboratory to establish the gun caliber used
testimony was delivered in a firm, candid, and straightforward that wounded and killed the victim. However, the defense
manner. There is no showing that Rachel wavered from the presented Dr. Jesus Cerna, medico-legal officer of the Cebu City
basic facts of her testimony, even when she was subjected to a PNP Command to testify on the caliber of the firearms which
rigorous examination. We find no error in the lower courts’ might have caused the gunshot wounds. The latter also opined
disposal of the issue. We have scrutinized the testimony of lone that with respect to the grazing wounds found on the victim’s
eyewitness, Rachel. Throughout her testimony, in her direct, body, it was impossible to determine the caliber of the firearm
cross and re-direct and re-cross examinations, she candidly used. Trial court convicted the accused.
recounted the events surrounding the killing of her father.
As the lower courts have done, we accord full faith and Whether or not the prosecution’s expert witness is qualified to
credence to Rachel’s testimony. She was young and testify as such capacity - Yes. An expert witness is "one who
unschooled, but her narration of the incident was categorical, belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject matter
without wavering. It has no markings of a concocted story, of the inquiry relates and who possesses special knowledge on
impressed upon her by other people. We cannot take Rachel’s questions on which he proposes to express an opinion." There
testimony lightly simply because she was a mere child when she is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or
witnessed the incident and when she gave her testimony in knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an
court. There is no showing that her mental maturity rendered expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be present:
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 203
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 (1) training and education; presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing and more than
(2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that
and gave rise to a spurious contract. In the case at bar, the
(3) presentation of authorities or standards upon which his presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations
opinion is based. The question of whether a witness is properly of forgery and fraud. a notarial document is evidence of the facts
qualified to give an expert opinion on ballistics rests with the in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in its
discretion of the trial court. We agree with the trial court that favor the presumption of regularity. The authenticity and due
P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert. He is a licensed execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale must therefore be
criminologist, trained at the Ballistics Command and upheld.
Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime
Laboratory in Camp Crame, and in the National Bureau of BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO Y BULAWAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
Investigation. He had previously testified as an expert witness THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013
in at least twenty-seven (27) murder and homicide cases all Petitioner Bobby “Abel” Avelino y Bulawan, together with
over the country. An expert witness need not present Ricardo Tolentino, Alias Sonny Muslim, Farouk Musa a.k.a. Boy
comparative microphotographs of test bullets and cartridges to Muslim, Alias Bubut Tuwad, Alias Angkol, Alias Mon, Renato
support his findings. Examination under a comparison Meneses a.k.a. Nato, Benjamin Elbona a.k.a. Toto Mata, and
microscope showing that the test bullet and the evidence bullet Dominic Apan a.k.a. Domeng Bakukang, was charged with
both came from the same gun is sufficient. murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila with the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident
LAURA and ERIBERTO BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF premeditation. Upon arraignment, petitioner and his co-accused
APPEALS and FERNANDO MORELOS, respondents. G.R. No. Renato Meneses, Benjamin Elbona, and Farouk Musa entered a
158015. August 11, 2004. plea of not guilty. The other accused remain at-large. At the trial,
The dispute involves a parcel of land situated in Sampaloc Manila the prosecution presented eight witnesses: Delia Hispano, the
which was previously owned by late Cesar Marcelos, the uncle wife of the victim; Diana Espinosa; Alfredo Manalangsang
of petitioner Laura. During Cesar’s lifetime, he sold the land in (Manalangsang); Mary Ann Cañada (Cañada); Renato Sosas; Dr.
favor of Laura. , as evidenced by a "Deed of Absolute Sale" Romeo T. Salen; P/Insp. Mario Prado; and National Bureau of
notarized by Luis M. de Guzman. Accordingly, Transfer Investigation (NBI) agent Rizaldi Jaymalin. Denying the
Certificate of Title No. 254843 was issued in the name of accusation, the defense presented as evidence the testimonies
petitioner Laura. Respondent Fernando Morelos, claiming to be of petitioner, PO2 Anthony P. Galang, Adonis T. Bantiling and
the illegitimate child of Cesar Morelos with Angelina Lim-Gue, Scene of the Crime Operative (SOCO) PSI Lito D. Cabamongan
instituted a complaint for the declaration of nullity of sale and (Cabamongan). Petitioner advanced the defense of denial and
title with damages. At the trial, he presented testimonies of alibi. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond
expert witnesses who claimed that the signature of Cesar reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery,
Morelos on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. For
appearing on his Residence Certificate were not his. The RTC failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
ruled in favor of Laura and held that the Deed of Sale was valid. doubt, accused Farouk Musa, Benjamin Elbona, and Renato
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the judgment of the Meneses were acquitted of the crime charged. The CA, in its
RTC. Hence, this petition. assailed decision, denied petitioner’s appeal and upheld the RTC
decision. Aggrieved, petitioner now seeks to reverse his
Whether or not the testimonies of expert witnesses are conviction, arguing that the CA erred in relying on the
conclusive to be a strong basis to nullify a duly executed and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Manalangsang and
notarized deed of absolute sale – No. Cañada and disregarding the inconsistencies between the
Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the statements of Manalangsang and the findings of the medico-
genuineness of handwriting may be proved in the following legal and SOCO PSI Cabamongan as to the position of the
manner: (1) by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting gunman. He also reiterated his defense of denial and alibi.
of such person because he has seen the person write; or he has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has WON the evidences of the prosecution is sufficient to warrant
acted or been charged; (2) by a comparison, made by the witness conviction? YES, The allegations of petitioner cannot exculpate
or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the him from criminal liability. Manalangsang unequivocally
party, against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be identified the petitioner as the gunman. Manalangsang was
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. forgery cannot be able to identify the petitioner because the latter revealed his
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing face when he pulled down the bonnet he was wearing, thereby
evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. exposing his eyes, nose, mouth, and chin. The identification
a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony made by Manalangsang was likewise sufficiently corroborated
of handwriting experts. Although such testimony may be by the testimony of Cañada, that she saw the petitioner, with
useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the whom she was familiar, drive away in Hispano’s owner-type
issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny; he jeep, wearing a green jacket and black bonnet rolled up to his
cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert. forehead. Further, as can be gleaned from the excerpt below,
the petitioner’s defense that Manalangsang’s testimony
Whether or not the deed of absolute sale is valid – Yes, a duly contradicts with the medical findings, and should then be
notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of disregarded, must fail. Petitioner claims that Manalangsang’s
authenticity and due execution as well as the full faith and statements that Hispano was shot in a downward direction
credence attached to a public instrument. To overturn this legal conflict with the findings of the medico-legal that the trajectory
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 204
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 of the bullets is in an upward direction. The CA was also correct that he cannot be convicted of rape since the victim’s mental
in not giving credence to the opinion of SOCO PSI Cabamongan age was not proven. He argues that under Art. 335(2) of the
as regards the position of the gunman when the latter shot Revised Penal Code, an essential element for the prosecution for
Hispano. Cabamongan asserted that the gunman was on board rape of a mental retardate is a psychiatric evaluation of the
the owner-type jeep when Hispano was shot, which is opposed complainant’s mental age to determine if her mental age is
to Manalangsang’s testimony. However, case records reveal that under twelve. He further claims that only in cases where the
Cabamongan was presented as an ordinary witness. Hence, his retardation is apparent due to the presence of physical
opinion regarding the location of the gunman in relation to the deformities symptomatic of mental retardation can the mental
place where the empty shells were found is immaterial. Expert evaluation be waived.
evidence is admissible only if: (a) the matter to be testified to
is one that requires expertise, and (b) the witness has been Whether or not the testimony of the mother as to the sanity of
qualified as an expert. In this case, counsel for the petitioner her daughter is admissible - Yes. Rule 130, Section 50 of the
failed to make the necessary qualification upon presenting Revised Rules on Evidence provides: Opinion of Ordinary
Cabamongan during trial. Jurisprudence further provides that witnesses. -- The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is
minor inconsistencies in immaterial details do not destroy the given may be received in evidence regarding ---
probative value of the testimony of a witness regarding the (a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate
very act of the accused. The case of Madali v. People elucidates knowledge;
thus: Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its (b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
incapacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident, (c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a acquainted.
witness hardly weaken their probative value. It is well settled The mother of an offended party in a case of rape, though not a
that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental condition of
testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and
the very act of accused-appellants. As long as the testimonies of what her attainments are, is competent to testify on the
the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, matter. It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his
minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of a person,
Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe
integrity of a prosecution witness. Thus, the positive the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in
identification of the petitioner as the gunman by question. Generally, it is required that the witness details the
Manalangsang, as corroborated by Cañada, must stand. factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion before he
Indeed, it has been consistently held by this Court that in can testify as to what it is. As the Supreme Court of Vermont
criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is said: “A non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the sanity
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose or insanity of another, when based upon conversations or
conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because dealings which he has had with such person, or upon his
the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses appearance, or upon any fact bearing upon his mental condition,
on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. with the witness’ own knowledge and observation, he having
Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked first testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or
substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would other observed facts, as the basis for his opinion.
change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the
trial court’s appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of CHARACTER EVIDENCE
witnesses, especially since Manalangsang and Cañada’s PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAFAEL DIOPITA y GUZMAN,
testimony meets the test of credibility. The Court also notes that G.R. No. 130601. December 4, 2000
other than his claim of denial, petitioner failed to show how the Dominga Pikit-pikit was on her way home from work when
prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. suddenly a man appeared from behind, looped his arm around
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EMILIANO DURANAN, a.k.a. her neck and warned her not to shout or else she would die. The
Kalbo, G.R. Nos. 134074-75. January 16, 2001 man dragged her through the banana plantation towards the
This is a rape case of one named by court as AAA (Mania Lozada) cornfields. Dominga got a good look at the man, who turned out
filed against Emiliano Duranan alias “Kalbo”. Complainant was to be Rafael Diopita, as he sat on her thighs and proceeded to
25 years old and considered to be retarded and finished only up divest her of her belongings. Thereafter, Diopita announced his
to Grade VI, unemployed and simply helped in the household desire to have carnal knowledge of Dominga. After having his
chores for her family while Kalbo was a tenant in the apartment way with her, Diopita threatened Dominga not to tell anyone
rented by the family of AAA. Upon arraignment, accused- about the incident or else he would shoot her. Dominga was able
appellant pleaded not guilty to each charge of rape against him, to report the incident to the police and gave the description of
whereupon he was tried. The prosecution presented three the suspect and his possible whereabouts. A colored
witnesses, namely, complainant AAA, complainants mother BBB, white/yellow, size 10 slipper was found in the scene of the crime.
and the attending medico-legal officer at Camp Crame, Dr. In a police line-up, Dominga readily pointed to Diopita which was
Rosalina O. Cosidon. Accused-appellant filed a demurrer to the further bolstered by the fact that when the police had him try
evidence, but the trial court denied it. The defense thereafter the slipper, it easily fitted him. In his defense, Diopita posed the
presented its witnesses, namely, accused-appellant Emiliano alibi that he was at an informal Bible session of the Jehovah’s
Duranan, accused-appellants alleged roommates, Rico Bariquit Witnesses at the time of the crime. The trial court convicted
and Carlito Catubig, and his wife Carlita Duranan. The trial court Diopita stating that alibi is a weak form of defense. Among
rendered a decision finding the accused-appellant guilty of two Diopita’s arguments is that it was impossible for him to have
counts of rape. Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends committed the crime charged since he is a person of good moral
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 205
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 character, holding as he does the position of “Ministerial information available to him. Chan claimed that it would be
Servant” in the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that physically impossible for any human being like him to stand
he is a godly man, a righteous person, a responsible family man long hours in front of the ATM facility just to withdraw funds.
and a good Christian who preaches the word of God. He contested the debiting of his account, stating that the
debiting had affected his business and had caused him to suffer
Whether or not the testimonies of the accused of his good moral great humiliation after the dishonor of his sufficiently-funded
character is sufficient to acquit him of his charges. checks by FEBTC. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of FEBTC.
No. The SC affirmed his conviction; the guilt of accused- Chan appealed. The CA promulgated the assailed decision,
appellant has been established by the evidence beyond reversing the RTC’s judgment. FEBTC moved for reconsideration,
reasonable doubt. The fact that accused-appellant is endowed but the CA denied its motion.
with such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that
he is innocent of the crime charged. Similarly, his having Did FEBTC discharge its burden of proof? NO. The CA ruled that
attained the position of "Ministerial Servant" in his faith is no FEBTC did not because – “After a review of the records of this
guarantee against any sexual perversion and plunderous case, we find the totality of evidence submitted by FEBTC
proclivity on his part. Indeed, religiosity is not always an insufficient to establish the crucial facts that would justify a
emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who judgment in its favor. To our mind, the fact that Chan’s account
succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not number and ATM card number were the ones used for the
entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good withdrawals, by itself, is not sufficient to support the conclusion
moral character and exemplary conduct. The affirmance or that he should be deemed to have made the withdrawals.” In
reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue of his answer, he denied using the card to withdraw funds from his
whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his account on the dates in question, and averred that the
guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the evidence of withdrawals had been an "inside job." His denial effectively
the crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, traversed FEBTC’s claim of his direct and personal liability for the
the evidence of good moral character of accused-appellant is withdrawals, that it would lose the case unless it competently
unavailing. In light of this positive and direct evidence of and sufficiently established that he had personally made the
accused-appellants culpability, the trial court correctly discarded withdrawals himself, or that he had caused the withdrawals. In
his defense of alibi. It is an elementary rule that alibi cannot other words, it carried the burden of proof. Burden of proof is
prevail over the clear and positive identification of the accused a term that refers to two separate and quite different concepts,
as the very person who committed the crime. Moreover, in namely: (a) the risk of non-persuasion, or the burden of
order to justify an acquittal based on this defense, the accused persuasion, or simply persuasion burden; and (b) the duty of
must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (a) he was producing evidence, or the burden of going forward with the
in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; evidence, or simply the production burden or the burden of
and, (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of evidence. In its first concept, it is the duty to establish the truth
the crime at the time it was committed. This, accused-appellant of a given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence
miserably failed to do. as the law demands in the case at which the issue arises. In its
other concept, it is the duty of producing evidence at the
BURDEN OF PROOF VS. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in order to make
FAR EAST BANK TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. ROBERTO MAR or meet a prima facie case. Generally speaking, burden of proof
CHANTE, a.k.a. ROBERT MAR G. CHAN, Respondents. G.R. No. in its second concept passes from party to party as the case
170598 October 9, 2013 progresses, while in its first concept it rests throughout upon the
Chan, was a current account depositor of petitioner FEBTC at its party asserting the affirmative of the issue. The party who
Ongpin Branch (Current Account No. 5012-00340-3). FEBTC alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because
issued to him Far East Card No. 05-01120-5-0 with July 1993 as mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it. Verily, the party
the expiry date. Civil Case No. 92-61706 sprang from the who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. In civil cases, the
complaint brought by petitioner FEBTC on July 1, 1992 in the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no
RTC, to recover from Chan the principal sum of P770,488.30 evidence is given on either side. This is because our system frees
representing the unpaid balance of the amount fraudulently the trier of facts from the responsibility of investigating and
withdrawn from Chan’s Current Account No. 5012-00340-3 with presenting the facts and arguments, placing that responsibility
the use of Far East Card No. 05-01120-5-0. FEBTC alleged that at entirely upon the respective parties. The burden of proof, which
the time of the ATM withdrawal transactions, there was an error may either be on the plaintiff or the defendant, is on the
in its computer system known as "system bug" whose nature plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the
had allowed Chan to successfully withdraw funds in excess of complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court; or on
his current credit balance of P198,511.70; and that Chan had the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential
taken advantage of the system bug to do the withdrawal allegations but raises an affirmative defense or defenses, that,
transactions. On his part, Chan denied liability. Although if proved, would exculpate him from liability. Section 1, Rule
admitting his physical possession of Far East Card No. 05-01120- 133 of the Rules of Court sets the quantum of evidence for civil
5-0 on May 4 and May 5, 1992, he denied making the ATM actions, and delineates how preponderance of evidence is
withdrawals totalling P967,000.00, and instead insisted that he determined. As the rule indicates, preponderant evidence
had been actually home at the time of the withdrawals. He refers to evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing,
alluded to a possible "inside job" as the cause of the supposed than the evidence offered in opposition to it. It is proof that
withdrawals, citing a newspaper report to the effect that an leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested
employee of FEBTC’s had admitted having debited accounts of fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Being the plaintiff,
its depositors by using his knowledge of computers as well as FEBTC must rely on the strength of its own evidence instead of
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 206
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 upon the weakness of Chan’s evidence. Its burden of proof thus years, petitioner is estopped from asserting that the period for
required it to preponderantly demonstrate that his ATM card redemption was only one year and that the period had already
had been used to make the withdrawals, and that he had used lapsed. Estoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts,
the ATM card and PIN by himself or by another person to make representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he
the fraudulent withdrawals. Otherwise, it could not recover ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable
from him any funds supposedly improperly withdrawn from the negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and
ATM account. We remind that as a banking institution, FEBTC such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he
had the duty and responsibility to ensure the safety of the will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the
funds it held in trust for its depositors. It could not avoid the existence of such facts.
duty or evade the responsibility because it alone should bear SPOUSES REYNALDO ALCARAZ and ESMERALDA ALCARAZ vs.
the price for the fraud resulting from the system bug on PEDRO M. TANGGA-AN, MENAS R. TANGGA-AN, VIRGINIA III
account of its exclusive control of its computer system. YVETTE R. TANGGA-AN, CECIL T. VILLAFLOR, HERMES R.
TANGGA-AN, VENUS R. TANGGA-AN, JUPITER R. TANGGA-AN,
PRESUMPTIONS YVONNE T. FRI, VIVIEN R. TANGGA-AN and HON. JUDGE P.
IBAAN RURAL BANK INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MR. BURGOS and THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 128568. April 9,
and MRS. RAMON TARNATE, G.R. No. 123817. December 17, 2003
1999 On October 4, 1994, respondents Pedro Tangga-an, Menas
Spouses Cesar and Leonila Reyes were the owners of three (3) Tangga-an, Virginia III Yvette Tangga-an, Cecil Villaflor, Hermes
lots mortgaged to Ibaan Rural Bank, Inc. On June 11, 1976, with Tangga-an, Venus Tangga-an, Jupiter Tangga-an, Yvonne Fri and
the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, the spouses as Vivien Tangga-an filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, with
sellers, and Mr. and Mrs. Ramon Tarnate [herein private damages, against petitioner spouses Reynaldo Alcaraz and
respondents] as buyers, entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale Esmeralda Alcaraz over a residential building without including
with Assumption of Mortgage of the lots in question. Private the lot which such building stood. The lessor here is the late
respondents failed to pay the loan and the bank extra-judicially Virginia Tangga-an who was the spouse of herein respondent
foreclosed on the mortgaged lots. The Provincial Sheriff Pedro Tangga-an pertaining to a residential building located at
conducted a public auction of the lots and awarded the lots to Premier Street, Hipodromo, Cebu City while the lessee was
the bank, the sole bidder. On December 13, 1978, the Provincial herein petitioner. The lease contract was limited to the use and
Sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale which was registered on occupancy of said building exclusive of the lot because said lot
October 16, 1979. The certificate stated that the redemption was owned by the National Housing Authority (NHA). Under
period expires two (2) years from the registration of the sale. No such contract, the Spouses were bound to pay rents for 5 years
notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure was given to the private but was reneged of such obligation. Hence, respondent sought
respondents. On September 23, 1981, private respondents to repossess the premises. However, petitioner alleged that on
offered to redeem the foreclosed lots and tendered the July 23, 1993, they stopped paying rents to herein respondent
redemption amount of P77,737.45. However, petitioner Bank but instead to the new owners of such lot who were Virgilio and
refused the redemption on the ground that it had consolidated Angelita. In ruling in favor of the respondents, the MTC held that
its titles over the lots. The Provincial Sheriff also denied the the petitioner spouses clearly violated the contract of lease due
redemption on the ground that private respondents did not to non-payment of rent. They failed to show that the subject
appear on the title to be the owners of the lots. Private house belonged to Virgilio alone. On the other hand, the
respondents filed a complaint to compel the bank to allow their respondents proved that, after the death of Virgilia, they
redemption of the foreclosed lots. They alleged that the extra- registered said house in the name of their trustees, co-
judicial foreclosure was null and void for lack of valid notice and respondents Hermes Tangga-an and his wife. On appeal, the RTC
demand upon them. They further argued that they were entitled affirmed the decision of the MTC. The Court of Appeals denied
to redeem the foreclosed lots because they offered to redeem the petition for review and affirming the judgments of the courts
and tendered the redemption price before October 16, 1981, the a quo.
deadline of the 2-year redemption period. After trial on the
merits, the lower court ruled in favor of herein private Whether or not the petitioner was correct in arguing that with
respondents and against the petitioner. On appeal, the Court of the change of ownership of such leased premises, there was
Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the lower already an automatic cancellation of their lease contract. No.
court. There is no need, however, to disturb and analyze the
applicability of this well-entrenched principle because the
Whether or not the right to redeem had already prescribed. No. petitioner spouses are estopped from raising the same. Both
When petitioner received a copy of the Certificate of Sale parties knew that their contract pertained only to the lease of
registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lipa City, it the house, without including the land. Section 2, Rule 131 of the
had actual and constructive knowledge of the certificate and its Rules of Court provides as a conclusive presumption that: Sec.
contents. For two years, it did not object to the two-year 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances of
redemption period provided in the certificate. Thus, it could be conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has, by his own
said that petitioner consented to the two-year redemption declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
period especially since it had time to object and did not. When another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
circumstances imply a duty to speak on the part of the person belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
for whom an obligation is proposed, his silence can be declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it; xxx xxx
construed as consent. By its silence and inaction, petitioner xxx After recognizing the validity of the lease contract for two
misled private respondents to believe that they had two years years, the petitioner spouses are barred from alleging the
within which to redeem the mortgage. After the lapse of two automatic cancellation of the contract on the ground that the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 207
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 respondents lost ownership of the house after Virgilio acquired sold to him is in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad
title over the lot. The SC also held that the petitioner spouses faith. Where, as in this case, the land sold is in the possession of
rescinded the contract of lease without judicial approval. Due to a person other than the vendor, the purchaser is required to go
the change in ownership of the land, the petitioner spouses beyond the certificate of title to make inquiries concerning the
decided to unilaterally cancel the contract because Virgilio rights of the actual possessor. Failure to do so would make him
supposedly became the new owner of the house after acquiring a purchaser in bad faith. Meridian Realty failed to exercise the
title to the lot. They alleged that there was no reason anymore due diligence required by law of purchasers in acquiring a piece
to perform their obligations as lessees because the lessor had of land in the possession of person or persons other than the
ceased to be the owner of the house. But there is nothing in seller.
their lease contract that allows the parties to extrajudicially The trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence as
rescind the same in case of violation of the terms thereof. well as to observe the demeanor of witnesses who testify in the
Extrajudicial rescission of a contract is not possible without an case.
express stipulation to that effect. What the petitioner spouses
should have done was to file a special civil action for HEIRS OF CIPRIANO TRAZONA, vs. HEIRS OF DIONISIO CANADA,
interpleader for the claimants to litigate their claims and to G.R. No. 175874 December 11, 2013
deposit the rentals in court. Petitioners are heirs of Cipriano Trazona (Cipriano), who owned
an untitled parcel of land referred to as Lot No. 5053-H. In 1949,
HOSPICIO D. ROSAROSO, ANTONIO D. ROSAROSO, MANUEL D. Dionisio bought the adjacent parcel of land from Pilar Diaz. It
ROSAROSO, ALGERICA D. ROSAROSO, and CLEOFE R. LABINDAO, was later found that he had encroached on a small portion of Lot
Petitioners, vs. LUCILA LABORTE SORIA, SPOUSES HAM No. 5053-H. In 1956, the latter gave Dionisio permission to
SOLUTAN and **LAILA SOLUTAN, and MERIDIAN REALTY temporarily build a house on said portion, where it still stands.
CORPORATION, Respondents. G.R. No. 194846 June 19, No action for ejectment was filed against Dionisio during the
2013 lifetime of Cipriano. The present controversy arose in 1997.
Spouses Luis and Honorata acquired several real properties in Petitioners went to the Office of the Municipal Assessor to
Cebu City. The couple had 9 children. Honorata died. Later on, secure a copy of Tax Declaration No. 07764, as they intended to
Luis married Lourdes. A complaint for Declaration of Nullity of sell Lot No. 5053-H. To their surprise, they were informed that
Documents with Damages was filed by Luis, as one of the Tax Declaration No. 07764 had been cancelled and, in lieu
plaintiffs, against his daughter (Lucila), granddaughter (Laila), thereof, Tax Declaration No. 23959 was issued on 24 June 1996
and Meridian Corporation. Due to Luis untimely death, an in the name of Dionisio. Apparently, respondents had caused the
amended complaint was filed with the 2nd spouse Lourdes, one issuance of Tax Declaration No. 23959 by submitting a Deed of
of the daughter (Laila) & his husband (Ham) as defendants. In Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956 supposedly executed by
the amended complaint, it was alleged that the disputed lot was Cipriano in favor of Dionisio. That sale involved a portion of Lot
sold to the other children (Rosaroso) – first sale. But despite the No. 5053-H. Petitioners summoned respondents before the
said first sale, Lucila and Laila still sold the disputed lot to Lupon Tagapamayapa, but the conciliation was not successful.
Meridian – 2nd sale. The RTC ruled in favor of the other children On 28 July 1997, petitioners filed a Complaint against
(Rosaroso). On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents for quieting of title, annulment of deed of sale,
2nd wife, et al. hence this petition. cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959, recovery of
possession and ownership, damages, and payment of attorney’s
What sale is valid, the 1st or 2nd sale? The first sale. Under Section fees. Petitioners alleged therein that the Deed of Absolute Sale
3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the following are disputable dated 27 June 1956 was a forgery. Respondents, in their Answer,
presumptions: (1) private transactions have been fair and alleged that the assailed deed was a genuine document and
regular; (2) the ordinary course of business has been followed; asked for the payment of moral and exemplary damages, and
and (3) there was sufficient consideration for a contract. These attorney’s fees, as counterclaims. The RTC ruled in favour of the
presumptions operate against an adversary who has not petitioners. The CA issued a Decision reversing that of the RTC.
introduced proof to rebut them. They create the necessity of
presenting evidence to rebut the prima facie case they created, Whether petitioners were not able to overturn the presumption
and which, if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered, of regularity of the assailed deed. NO. Petitioners presented
will prevail. The burden of proof remains where it is but, by the clear and convincing evidence that the assailed deed is a
presumption, the one who has that burden is relieved for the forgery. We sustain the findings of the RTC. As will be shown
time being from introducing evidence in support of the below, the assailed deed is a forgery. Assuming it were genuine,
averment, because the presumption stands in the place of petitioners have a right to the rest of the property not covered
evidence unless rebutted. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by by the purported sale. If the procedure for the issuance of tax
evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court. declarations was followed – if care had been observed to make
When a piece of land is in the actual possession of persons other sure that all papers were in order and understood – this
than the seller, the buyer must be wary and should investigate irregularity would not have taken place. It is true that notarized
the rights of those in possession. Without making such inquiry, documents are accorded evidentiary weight as regards their due
one cannot claim that he is a buyer in good faith. When a man execution. Nevertheless, while notarized documents enjoy the
proposes to buy or deal with realty, his duty is to read the public presumption of regularity, this presumption is disputable. They
manuscript, that is, to look and see who is there upon it and can be contradicted by evidence that is clear, convincing, and
what his rights are. A want of caution and diligence, which an more than merely preponderant. Here, contrary to the
honest man of ordinary prudence is accustomed to exercise in conclusion of the CA, we find clear and convincing evidence that
making purchases, is in contemplation of law, a want of good is enough to overturn the presumption of regularity of the
faith. The buyer who has failed to know or discover that the land assailed deed. First, the document examiner determined that
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 208
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 the signature of Cipriano in the assailed deed had been forged. Appellant assails the procedural irregularities committed by the
In concluding that the signature of Cipriano in the assailed deed prosecution and by the trial court. He claims that the
was a forgery, the document examiner found that there were prosecution suppressed evidence by not presenting Rowena,
"significant differences in letter formation, construction and the victim, when the latter should have had her sane moments.
other individual handwriting characteristics" between the As a consequence, the trial court deprived appellant of the
assailed and the standard signatures of Cipriano. Second, the opportunity to cross-examine her when she allegedly declared
RTC did not just rely on expert testimony in ruling that the before the Chief of Police of Buhi that it was only appellant who
signature was forged. It likewise supported its finding that the raped her which declaration became the basis for the latter’s
signature was forged through independent observation: Finally, conviction.
a scrutiny of the signature on the questioned deed of sale
compared to the eleven (11) signatures on the ten (10) standard Whether or not the non-presentation of Rowena in the witness
documents there exists a glaring difference in the letter stand deprives the accused of right to cross-examine which is
formation of capital letters "C" in Cipriano and "T" in Trazona. suppression of testimony against them. No. The non-
Third, the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 April presentation of Rowena on the witness stand cannot be
1953 brings into question the regularity of the assailed deed. considered as suppression of evidence. Under Rule 131, Section
This deed was never disputed by respondents at any stage of the 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that “evidence willfully
proceedings, and was in fact admitted by them in their suppressed would be adverse if produced” does not apply if (a)
Comments to Plaintiffs’ Additional Formal Offer of Exhibits. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the
Fourth, Cipriano had cultivated the property and paid taxes suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or
thereon since the time he acquired it from the government, cumulative; and (d) the suppression is an exercise of a
and even after its purported sale to Dionisio, until his death. privilege. Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this
Petitioners continued paying the taxes thereon even after case. First, the defense had the opportunity to subpoena
Cipriano had died. Respondents started paying taxes on the Rowena even if the prosecution did not present her as a witness.
property only after Tax Declaration No. 23959 was issued in Instead, the defense failed to call her to the witness stand.
Dionisio’s name in 1997. It would be absurd for petitioners to Second, Rowena was certified to be suffering from “Acute
pay taxes on a property they do not own. Psychotic Depressive Condition” and thus “cannot stand judicial
Fifth, as admitted by Gorgonio himself, petitioners were the proceedings yet.” The non-presentation, therefore, of Rowena
ones enjoying the fruits of the property from 1960 until the was not willful. Third, in any case, while Rowena was the victim,
present controversy. Again, it is incongruous for petitioners to Nimfa was also present and in fact witnessed the violation
enjoy the fruits if respondents owned the property. Sixth, as committed on her sister.
the RTC noted, there was an irregularity regarding the place of
issuance of Cipriano’s residence certificate indicated in the METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs.
assailed deed, as compared with the residence certificates of the COURT OF APPEALS and G.T.P. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
other persons indicated on the same page of the notarial respondents. (Official Duty) G.R. No. 122899. June 8, 2000
register. Finally, when the record management analyst from the The subject property is a parcel of land in Diliman, Quezon City
Bureau of Archives presented the assailed deed, the paper was originally owned by businessman Tomas Chia. Saddled with
noted to be white, while its supposed contemporaries in the debts and business reverses, Mr. Chia offered the subject
bunch from where it was taken had turned yellow with age. property for sale to private respondent G.T.P. Development
Further, when the analyst was asked the question of when- the Corporation with assumption of the mortgage indebtedness in
assailed deed was received by the Bureau of Archives, she favor of petitioner METROBANK secured by the subject
answered that it was forwarded to them only on 28 September property. The deed of sale and the memorandum of agreement
1987 by RTC Region 7, Notarial Division. Clearly, the evidence between Mr. Chia and respondent GTP were eventually
adduced fully supports the position of petitioners that the executed and signed. Twelve days later, Atty. Atienza went to
assailed deed of sale is forged and that they are the owners of METROBANK Quiapo Branch and paid P116,416.71 for which
the property. Having been forced to litigate in order to protect METROBANK issued an official receipt acknowledging payment.
their interest therein, the award of attorney's fees and litigation This notwithstanding, petitioner METROBANK refused to release
expenses to them is in order. the real estate mortgage on the subject property despite
repeated requests from Atty. Atienza, thus prompting
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO PADRIGONE a.k.a. respondent GTP to file an action for specific performance against
ROBERTO SAN MIGUEL, G.R. No. 137664. May 9, 2002 petitioner METROBANK and Mr. Chia. After trial, judgment was
Roberto Padrigone a.k.a. Roberto San Miguel, Michael San rendered by the regional trial granted the reliefs prayed for by
Antonio, Jocel Ibaneta and Abelardo Triumpante were charged respondent GTP as plaintiff. On appeal, respondent Court of
with rape committed against Rowena Contridas. All the accused, Appeals rendered a Decision reversing the trial court's decision.
including appellant Roberto Padrigone, interposed the defense GTP filed before respondent Court of Appeals a "motion for
of denial and alibi. The trial court gave credence to the reconsideration with alternative prayer to require
prosecution evidence and rendered a decision convicting the METROBANK to furnish appellee of the alleged unpaid balance
accused ROBERTO PADRIGONE a.k.a. ROBERTO SAN MIGUEL, of Mr. Chia." Respondent Court of Appeals took a second hard
GUILTY of the crime of Rape, under Article 335 of the Revised look at the evidence on hand and seriously considered
Penal Code (as amended by Section 11, R.A. 7659) while the METROBANK's refusal to specify any unpaid debt secured by the
other accused JOCEL IBANITA, MICHAEL SAN ANTONIO and subject property, in concluding anew that "the present case for
ABELARDO TRIUMPANTE are ACQUITTED. On appeal, the specific performance is well-grounded, absent indubitable
appellant contends that the prosecution evidence was showing that the aforesaid amount of P116,416.71 paid by
insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. appellee on September 16, 1980 did not suffice to pay in full the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 209
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 mortgage debt assumed under the Deed of Absolute Sale, with ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONERS, G.R. No.
assumption of mortgage, it inked with the late Tomas Chia. 198457, August 13, 2013
There is therefore merit in its motion for reconsideration at Sometime in October 2001, then Congressman Antonio V.
bench." Petitioner METROBANK now filed its motion for Cuenco of the Second District of Cebu City entered into a
reconsideration but was denied. Memorandum of Agreement with the Vicente Sotto Memorial
Medical Center, represented by Dr. Alquizalas, Medical Center
Whether or not the real estate mortgage should be discharged. Chief, appropriating to the hospital the amount of P1,500,000.00
Yes. Petitioner METROBANK is estopped from refusing the from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to cover
discharge of the real estate mortgage on the claim that the the medical assistance of indigent patients under the Tony N'
subject property still secures "other unliquidated past due Tommy (TNT) Health Program (TNT Program). In line with this,
loans." In Maneclang vs. Baun, this Court enumerated the Ma. Isabel Cuenco, Project Director of the TNT Program, wrote
requisites for estoppel by conduct to operate, to wit: petitioner Nelanie Antoni (Antoni), Pharmacist V of VSMMC,
"1.....there must have been a representation or concealment of requesting the latter to purchase needed medicines not
material facts; available at the hospital pharmacy from Sacred Heart Pharmacy
"2.....the representation must have been with knowledge of the or Dell Pharmacy which were supposedly accredited suppliers of
facts; the Department of Health. The said request was approved.
"3.....the party to whom it was made must have been ignorant Several years after the enforcement of the MOA, allegations of
of the truth of the matter; and forgery and falsification of prescriptions and referrals for the
"4.....it must have been with the intention that the other party availment of medicines under the TNT Program surfaced. On
would act upon it. December 14, 2004, petitioner Delos Santos, who succeeded Dr.
Respondent GTP, thru Atty. Atienza, requested from Alquizalas, created a fact-finding committee to investigate the
METROBANK that he be furnished a copy of the full matter. Within the same month, Beatriz M. Booc, State Auditor
indebtedness secured by the real estate mortgage. In response IV came up with her own review of the account for drugs and
thereto, petitioner METROBANK issued a statement of account medicines charged to the PDAF of Cuenco. She furnished Delos
as of September 15, 1980 which amount was immediately Santos the results of her review as contained in Audit
settled and paid the next day amounting to P116, 416.71. Observation Memoranda. Meanwhile, the fact-finding
Petitioner METROBANK is thus barred from taking a stand committee created by Delos Santos submitted its Report
inconsistent with its representation upon which respondent essentially affirming the “unseen and unnoticeable”
GTP, as an innocent third person to the real mortgage irregularities attendant to the availment of the TNT Program.
agreement, placed exclusive reliance. Just as decisive is Consequently, a special audit team, led by Team Leader Atty.
petitioner METROBANK's failure to bring before respondent Federico E. Dinapo, Jr., State Auditor V, was formed pursuant to
Court of Appeals the current statement evidencing what it Legal and Adjudication Office Orders to conduct a special audit
claims as "other unliquidated past due loans" at the scheduled investigation with respect to the findings of Booc and her team.
hearing of 8 March 1995. It was a golden opportunity, so to Subsequently, or on September 8, 2008, the SAT Team
speak, lost for petitioner METROBANK to defend its non-release Supervisor, Boado, issued an order disallowing the amount of
of the real estate mortgage. Thus, the following P3,386,697.10 for the payment of drugs and medicines for anti-
pronouncements of this Court in Manila Bay Club Corporation rabies with falsified prescription and documents, and holding
vs. Court of Appeals et. al, speaking thru Mr. Justice Ricardo petitioners, together with other VSMMC officials, solidarily
Francisco, find rightful application, viz.- "It is a well-settled rule liable therefor. Aggrieved, petitioners filed their respective
that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which appeals before the CoA which were denied maintaining their
imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power to solidary liability. The Motion for Reconsideration of the
produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow foregoing decision was further denied. Hence, the instant
the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he petition.
refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that
the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and Whether or not the CoA committed grave abuse of discretion in
support the case of his adversary. x x x" "No rule of law is better holding petitioners solidarily liable for the disallowed amount of
settled than that a party having it in his power to prove a fact, if P3,386,697.10 - NO. Jurisprudence holds that, absent any
it exists, which, if proved, would benefit him, his failure to prove showing of bad faith and malice, there is a presumption of
it must be taken as conclusive that the fact does not exist." regularity in the performance of official duties. However, this
"Where facts are in evidence affording legitimate inferences presumption must fail in the presence of an explicit rule that was
going to establish the ultimate fact that the evidence is designed violated. For instance, in Reyna v. CoA60, the Court affirmed the
to prove, and the party to be affected by the proof, with an liability of the public officers therein, notwithstanding their
opportunity to do so, fails to deny or explain them, they may well proffered claims of good faith, since their actions violated an
be taken as admitted with all the effect of the inferences explicit rule in the Landbank of the Philippines’ Manual on
afforded. x x x" "The ordinary rule is that one who has Lending Operations. In similar regard, the Court, in Casal v. CoA
knowledge peculiarly within his own control, and refuses to (Casal), sustained the liability of certain officers of the National
divulge it, cannot complain if the court puts the most Museum who again, notwithstanding their good faith
unfavorable construction upon his silence, and infers that a participated in approving and authorizing the incentive award
disclosure would have shown the fact to be as claimed by the granted to its officials and employees in violation of
opposing party." Administrative Order Nos. 268 and 29 which prohibit the grant
of productivity incentive benefits or other allowances of similar
FILOMENA G. DELOS SANTOS, JOSEFA A. BACALTOS, NELANIE A. nature unless authorized by the Office of the President. In Casal,
ANTONI, AND MAUREEN A. BIEN, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION it was held that, even if the grant of the incentive award was not
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 210
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 for a dishonest purpose, the patent disregard of the issuances of witnesses’ Trayvilla and Bagsican. Appellant likewise argued
the President and the directives of the CoA amounts to gross against her conviction by the trial court despite the fact that the
negligence, making the [“approving officers”] liable for the identity of the illegal drugs allegedly seized was not proven with
refund [of the disallowed incentive award]. Just as the foregoing moral certainty due to the broken chain of custody of evidence.
public officers in Reyna and Casal were not able to dispute their The People, through the OSG countered that the inconsistencies
respective violations of the applicable rules in those cases, the of the prosecution’s witnesses did not touch on material points.
Court finds that the petitioners herein have equally failed to Hence, they can be disregarded for they failed to affect the
make a case justifying their non-observance of existing credibility of the evidence as a whole. The alleged
auditing rules and regulations, and of their duties under the inconsistencies failed to diminish the fact that the accused-
MOA. Evidently, petitioners’ neglect to properly monitor the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto at the departure area
disbursement of Cuenco's PDAF facilitated the validation and of the domestic airport transporting shabu. The defenses of
eventual payment of 133 falsified prescriptions and fictitious frame-up and alibi cannot stand against the positive testimonies
claims for anti-rabies vaccines supplied by both the VSMMC and of the witnesses absent any showing that they were impelled
Dell Pharmacy, despite the patent irregularities borne out by the with any improper motive to implicate her of the offense
referral slips and prescriptions related thereto. Had there been charged. Finally, the OSG posited that the integrity of evidence
an internal control system installed by petitioners, the is presumed to be preserved unless there is any showing of bad
irregularities would have been exposed, and the hospital faith, and accused-appellant failed to overcome this
would have been prevented from processing falsified claims presumption. In its decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the
and unlawfully disbursing funds from the said PDAF. Verily, trial court.
petitioners cannot escape liability for failing to monitor the
procedures implemented by the TNT Office on the ground that Whether the RTC gravely erred in convicting the accused-
Cuenco always reminded them that it was his money. Neither appellant of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure
may deviations, from the usual procedure at the hospital, such to establish the chain of custody of the alleged confiscated drug
as the admitted bypassing of the VSMMC social worker in the - NO. In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act,
qualification of the indigent-beneficiaries, be justified as “a credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the
welcome relief to the already overworked and undermanned prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers
section of the hospital.” All told, petitioners’ acts and/or who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular
omissions as detailed in the assailed CoA issuances and as manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case,
aforedescribed reasonably figure into the finding that they failed the prosecution witnesses were unable to show ill-motive for
to faithfully discharge their respective duties and to exercise the the police to impute the crime against Cadidia. Trayvilla was
required diligence which resulted to the irregular disbursements doing her regular duty as an airport frisker when she handled
from Cuenco’s PDAF. In this light, their liability pursuant to the accused who entered the x-ray machine of the departure
Sections 10473 and 10574 of the Auditing Code, as well as area. There was no pre-determined notice to particularly search
Section 16 of the 2009 Rules and Regulations on Settlement of the accused especially in her private area. The unusual thickness
Accounts, as prescribed in CoA Circular No. 2009-006, must of the buttocks of the accused upon frisking prompted Trayvilla
perforce be upheld. to notify her supervisor SPO3 Appang of the incident. The
subsequent search of the accused would only show that the two
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA. G.R. No. female friskers were just doing their usual task when they
191263 October 16, 2013 found the illegal drugs inside accused’s underwear. This is
Cadidia was arrested at the airport and information was filed bolstered by the fact that the accused on the one hand and the
against her for violation of RA 9165. The prosecution presented two friskers on the other were unfamiliar to each other. Neither
Trayvilla, that while performing her duty as a female frisker could they harbour any ill-will against each other. The allegation
assigned at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I in Pasay City, of frame-up and denial of the accused cannot prevail over the
she frisked the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the departure positive testimonies of three prosecution witnesses who
area and she noticed something unusual and thick in the area of corroborated on circumstances surrounding the apprehension.
Cadidia’s buttocks. Upon inquiry, Cadidia answered that it was Further, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is
only her sanitary napkin which caused the unusual thickness. addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose
Not convinced with Cadidia’s explanation, Trayvilla and her conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because
female co-employee Bagsican brought the accused to the the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses
comfort room inside the domestic airport to check. When she on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.
and Bagsican asked Cadidia to remove her underwear, they Applying the foregoing, we affirm the findings of the lower court
discovered that inside were two sachets of shabu. The two in the appreciation of facts and credibility of the witnesses. The
sachets of shabu were turned over to their supervisor SPO3 accused harps on the alleged broken chain of custody of the
Appang. The second prosecution witness, Bagsican, confiscated drugs. She casts doubt on the identity of the drugs
corroborated the testimony of Trayvilla. Finally, the prosecution allegedly taken from her and the one presented in open court to
presented domestic airport Police Supervisor SPO3 Appang who prove her guilt. She also questions the lack of physical inventory
testified that he turned over the two plastic sachets and sanitary of the confiscated items at the crime scene, the absence of
napkin to the Intelligence and Investigation Office of the 2nd photographs taken on the alleged illegal drugs and the failure
RASO, Domestic International Airport. Upon arraignment, to mark the seized items upon confiscation. The duty of seeing
Cadidia entered a plea of "not guilty." The trial court found the to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is
accused-appellant guilty as charged. On appeal, the accused- discharged when the arresting law enforcer ensures that the
appellant, contended that the trial court gravely erred when it chain of custody is unbroken. In Mallillin v. People, the
failed to consider the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution requirements to establish chain of custody were laid down by
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 211
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 this Court. First, testimony about every link in the chain, from that no rape occurred because no medical examination was
the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered conducted to confirm the presence of spermatozoa in her
into evidence. Second, witnesses should describe the private parts. The Court has repeatedly held that a medical
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in examination of the victim is not a prerequisite in prosecutions
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not for rape. A person accused of rape can be convicted solely on
in the chain to have possession of the item. The prosecution in the testimony of the victim provided the testimony is credible,
this case was able to prove, through the testimonies of its natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human
witnesses, that the integrity of the seized item was preserved nature and the course of things. After a careful and thorough
every step of the process. The SC also held that airport frisking is study of the records of the case, the Court is convinced that the
an authorized form of search and seizure. As held in similar cases constitutional presumption of accused-appellant's innocence
of People v Johnson and People v Canton, the Supreme Court has been overcome by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
affirmed the conviction or the accused Leila Reyes Johnson and
Susan Canton for violation of drugs law when they were found PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
to be in hiding in their body illegal drug, the Court in both cases PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE,
explained the rationale for the validity of airport frisking thus: G.R. No. 146697. July 23, 2002
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause Leonardo Fabre was charged with rape before Regional Trial
by exposure or their persons or property to the public in a Court, Br. VI, of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, because of raping
manner reflecting a lack or subjective expectation of privacy, his own daughter Marilou Fabre. Accused pleaded not guilty to
which expectation society is prepared to recognize as the crime charged. At the trial, the prosecution presented the
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security testimony of Marilou, that of Adela Fabre, her mother and the
procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking wife of the accused, and that of Dr. Reinerio Jalalon, the doctor
and terrorism has come increased security at the nation’s who examined Marilou, along with the medico-legal certificate
airports. Passengers attempting to hoard an aircraft routinely issued by Dr. Jalalon, the sworn statement of Adela, and the
pass through metal detectors: their carry-on baggage as well as criminal complaint signed by both Marilou and Adela. The
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should defense, during its turn in the presentation of evidence,
these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, countered with the testimony of the accused himself. It also
physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects called Adela Fabre back to the witness [Link] trial court
are upon airport frisking. gave credence to the evidence given by the prosecution,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS EDUALINO, G.R. No. particularly to the narration of the young complainant,
119072. April 11, 1997 expressing a quote from an observation once made by this
Accused Jesus Edualino was charged with rape allegedly Tribunal in one of its decision that even when consumed with
committed against AAA, 22 yrs old married woman with child. revenge, it (would) take a certain amount of psychological
The incident happened in Mambalot, Brooke’s Point, Palawan depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which (could)
when AAA and her mother went on a dance. When AAA was put her own father for the rest of his remaining life in jail and
already drunk, Edualino took advantage of the same and had drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame. RTC
carnal knowledge with her. However, the defense had a Convicted the accused. The case was elevated to SC on
different version in such a way that Edualino established the automatic review. The accused averred that THE TRIAL COURT
indecency, and other negative attributes of AAA to show that GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO ACCUSED
such rape was with her consent and through her fault, being APPELLANTS DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL. His defense argues,
allegedly under the influence of marijuana. Trial court convicted rather desperately, that the testimony of appellant should
Edualino. The conviction of accused-appellant is elevated to the acquire added strength for the failure of the prosecution to
Supreme Court on automatic review. Accused-appellant raises conduct cross-examination on him and to present any rebuttal
the issue of the character of complainant AAA. It is argued that evidence. The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of
a responsible and decent married woman, who was then three the party against whom the witness is called. The purpose of
(3) months pregnant, would not be out at two (2) o'clock in the cross-examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the
morning getting drunk much less would a decent Filipina ask a statements of a witness made on direct examination. The party
man to accompany her to drink beer. It is contended that against whom the witness testifies may deem any further
complainant merely concocted the charge of rape to save her examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
marriage since her husband had found out that she was using theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what
drugs and drinking alcohol and even made a spectacle of herself would be believed is the perception of the court thereon.
when she tried to seduce accused-appellant on 11 May 1994 Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the
while she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because he
is not cross-examined by the other party.
Whether or not the testimony of the accused has probative
value - No. At the outset of this discussion, it should be pointed Whether or not the contention of the accused is tenable. No.
out that the moral character of a rape victim is immaterial in The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party
the prosecution and conviction of the accused. The Court has against whom the witness is called. The purpose of cross-
ruled that prostitutes can be the victims of rape. In the present examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements
case, even if accused-appellant's allegations that the victim was of a witness made on direct examination. The party against
drunk and under the influence of drugs and that she (the victim) whom the witness testifies may deem any further examination
cannot be considered a decent and responsible married woman, unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence theretofore
were true, said circumstances will not per se preclude a finding adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what would be
that she was raped. Accused-appellant cannot successfully argue believed is the perception of the court thereon. Certainly, the
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 212
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 trial court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a him. Appellant bewails that the identification was not done with
witness on direct examination merely because he is not cross- the usual police line-up.
examined by the other party. The alibi of appellant itself would
not appear to be deserving of serious consideration. His account Whether or not the trial court is correct in propounding leading
that at the time of the alleged rape he was working at a coconut questions to the victim in open court which is a departure from
plantation, just about one kilometer away from the place of the usual question and answer in regular courts. Yes. As a rule,
the crime, hardly would amount to much. Nor would the leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide
testimony of Adela Fabre, his wife, merit any better regard. At for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years as it
first, she testified that on the day of the rape incident, she had is usually difficult for such child to state facts without
left their house at four o'clock in the afternoon. Later, however, prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to
she changed her story by saying that she had left the house in coax the truth out of their reluctant lips. In the case at bar, the
the morning and returned only at ten o'clock that same morning, trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to Mayia
staying home the whole day thereafter. In any event, in order as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall
that alibi might prosper, it would not be enough for an accused of events difficult, if not uncertain. As explained in People v.
to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was Rodito Dagamos: "The trend in procedural law is to give wide
committed; he would have to demonstrate likewise that he latitude to the courts in exercising control over the questioning
could not have been physically present at the place of the crime of a child witness. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on
or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on December
Clearly, in the instant case, it was not at all impossible nor even 15, 2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the
improbable for appellant to have been at the crime scene. Upon truth, (2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form
the other hand, the evidently candid and straightforward appropriate to the developmental level of the child, (3) to
testimony of Marilou should be more than enough to rebut the protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment,
claim of innocence made by appellant. and (4) avoid waste of time. Leading questions in all stages of
examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS PEREZ y SEBUNGA, G.R. interests of justice." The Court has repeatedly stated that it is
No. 142556. February 5, 2003 highly inconceivable for a child of tender age, inexperienced in
On January 22, 1997, the Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor the ways of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration,
of Zambales filed an Information charging appellant with the undergo a medical examination of her private part, subject
crime of rape penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal herself to public trial, and tarnish her family’s honor and
Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. reputation, unless she was motivated by a strong desire to seek
7610. Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel de justice for the wrong committed against her. Mayias simple,
officio Atty. Genaro N. Montefalcon, pleaded not guilty to the positive and straightforward recounting on the witness stand
offense charged. Thereafter, trial ensued. The prosecution of her harrowing experience lends credence to her accusation.
presented the following witnesses: the victim, Mayia Ponseca; Her tender age belies any allegation that her accusation was a
the victims mother, Hermie Ponseca; the victims father, Osias mere invention impelled by some ill-motive. As the Court has
Ponseca; Virginia Espejo Giron; and Dr. Editha dela Cruz Divino. stressed in numerous cases, when a woman or a child victim says
On the other hand, the defense presented appellant and his that she has been raped, she in effect says all that is necessary
employer, Bartolome Tolentino. Appellant denied raping Mayia. to show that rape was indeed committed.
Appellant testified that on the date of the alleged rape incident,
he was working at a fishpond at Macarang, Zambales. He heard THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JAIME
of the rape of a young girl from his manager, Bartolome CASTILLANO, SR. alias Talino, RONALD CASTILLANO alias Nono
Tolentino. On cross-examination, appellant testified that his and JAIME CASTILLANO, JR. alias Junjun, RONALD CASTILLANO
nickname is not Johnny but Jessie. He testified that on January alias Nono and JAIME CASTILLANO, JR. alias Junjun, G.R. No.
17, 1997, at around 12 oclock noon, he left the fishpond and 139412. April 2, 2003
walked home to Barangay Alwa which was about thirty meters This is a murder case of one Diosdado Volante filed against Jaime
from the fishpond. The defense formally offered the testimony Castillano Jr. and Sr., and Ronald Castillano. The altercation of
of witness Tolentino to prove that appellant was employed as the parties to this incident begun when Diosdado did not
caretaker of Tolentinos fishpond for almost two years before the consent and even asked herein Jaime Castillano Sr. from the
alleged rape incident. Appellant was purportedly of good moral latter’s indiscriminate firing of his gun. Diosdado was a farmer in
character while employed as a fishpond caretaker. The a barangay in Camarines Sur in a farmland just meters away from
prosecution admitted the offer of testimony. Hence, the trial the farmland of Jaime Castillano Sr. The animosity even
court dispensed with the testimony of Tolentino in open court. worsened and deepened which led to the alleged plan of killing
The Trial Court convicted the appellant. The case was elevated Diosdado by the father and two sons, all surnamed Castillano.
to SC on automatic review. Appellant contends that his Such plan was realized on that fateful night of July 8, 1996.
identification in open court by Mayia was highly irregular. However, upon the attempt of the accused to flew, they were
Appellant points out that the prosecutor had already identified accosted during a check point in that place with their bags with
him as the man wearing an orange t-shirt when the prosecutor them. Just to save them all from being imprisoned, Ronald,
asked Mayia to identify her alleged rapist. Appellant stresses solely admitted to have killed Diosdado but alleged self-
that when Mayia identified him in open court, she referred to defense. Trial court convicted Ronald and Jaime Jr. while
him as a man named Johnny and did not give any description or exonerating Jaime Sr. On appeal, appellant Jaime Jr. avers that
any identifying mark. Moreover, appellant claims he was alone the testimony of Luz Volante was inconsistent with her
in the cell when Mayia identified him after the police arrested testimony during preliminary investigation in the trial court and
her sworn statement before the police investigators.
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 213
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 appeal, the accused appellants attacked the credibility of the
Whether or not Luz’s testimony in open court can be prosecutions witness, Francisca Espina because is a perjured
impeached by her own testimony during preliminary witness who has an axe to grind against him because his dog had
investigation – No, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts once bitten Francisca's child and because of her alleged
that the credibility of the testimony of Luz, the prosecution’s inconsistencies, faults the trial court for allowing the witness to
principal witness, cannot be impeached via her testimony glance at the notes written on her palm while testifying. He also
during the preliminary examination before the municipal trial argues that his alibi, being corroborated, should have been given
court nor by her sworn statement given to the police weight.
investigators for the reason that the transcripts and sworn
statement were neither marked and offered in evidence by the Whether or not the use of use of memory aids during an
appellants nor admitted in evidence by the trial court. examination of a witness is allowed - Yes. The use of memory
Moreover, the appellants did not confront Luz with her aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether
testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states:
statement to the police investigators. Luz was not, therefore, Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — A witness
accorded a chance to explain the purported inconsistencies, as may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by
mandated by Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction
Evidence which reads: How witness is impeached by evidence of at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter,
inconsistent statement. - Before a witness can be impeached by or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and
evidence that he has made at other times statements he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but
inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must in such case the writing or record must be produced and may
be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses,
places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence.
he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or record,
If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is
witness before any question is put to him concerning them. The able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the
Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General. Before the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received
credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can with caution. Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on
be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior statements the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the exercise
which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross- of that discretion has not been abused; the witness herself has
examiner must lay the predicate or the foundation for explained that she merely wanted to be accurate on dates and
impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to the witness like details. Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca's
being cross-examined. The witness must be given a chance to appearing to be "jittery" on the witness stand. Nervousness and
recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency between anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case
his two statements and state the circumstances under which of those who are called to testify for the first time. The real
they were made. In this case, the appellants never confronted concern, in fact, should be when they show no such emotions.
Luz with her testimony during the preliminary examination and
her sworn statement. She was not afforded any chance to ROSELLA D. CANQUE vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SOCOR
explain any discrepancies between her present testimony and CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, G.R. No. 96202. April 13, 1999
her testimony during the preliminary examination and her Rosario Canque is a contractor doing business under the name
sworn statement. The appellants did not even mark and offer RDC Construction. Canque had contracts with the government
in evidence the said transcript and sworn statement for the and in relation to the projects, she entered into two contracts
specific purpose of impeaching her credibility and her present with Socor Construction Corporation for supplying as well as
testimony. Unless so marked and offered in evidence and applying certain materials in the construction sites. When Socor
accepted by the trial court, said transcript and sworn Construction billed Canque, it amounted to a total of
statement cannot be considered by the court. P299,717.75 which included interest. Canque refused to pay the
amount, claiming that Socor Construction failed to submit the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO PLASENCIA y delivery receipts showing the actual weight in metric tons of
DESAMPARADO alias "Tonying," ROBERTO DESCARTIN y the items and the acceptance thereof of the government. This
PASICARAN alias "Ruby" and JOELITO (JULITO), DESCARTIN y led to a complaint being filed with RTC of Cebu for recovery the
PASICARAN, G.R. No. 90198 November 7, 1995 amount stated. During trial, Socor Construction presented its
Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito (Julito) Vice President, Sofia Sanchez and its bookkeeper Dolores Aday
Descartin were accused of robbery with homicide in information while Canque’s evidence consisted only of her own testimony.
allegedly committed against Herminio Mansueto. When The trial court ruled in favor of Socor Construction, ordering
arraigned, all the accused entered a plea of "not guilty" to the Canque to pay the amount. The CA affirmed. Canque contests
charge; whereupon, trial commenced. The main defense the admissibility of the said Book of Collectible Accounts (Exhibit
interposed is one of alibi. The Regional Trial Court did not give K). On its part, Socor Construction said that that although the
credence to the defense of alibi. It convicted the three accused entries cannot be considered an exception to the hearsay rule,
of murder (punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal they may be admitted under Rule 132, Section 10 of the Rules of
Code), instead of robbery with homicide, explaining that the Court
term "homicide" was used in the information in its generic
sense. Finding conspiracy, the trial court ruled that the killing Whether or not the Books of Collectible Accounts referred into
was qualified by both treachery and abuse of superior strength by the private respondent in refreshing the memory of the
with the latter, however, being absorbed by the former. On witness is admissible in evidence - No. It should be noted,
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 214
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 however, that Exh. K is not really being presented for another respondent as null and void on the ground that their marriage
purpose. Private respondent’s counsel offered it for the purpose is a bigamous one, based on Article 35(4) in relation to Article
of showing the amount of petitioner’s indebtedness. He said: 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines. During trial, aside from
Exhibit “K,” your Honor - faithful reproduction of page (17) of the his testimony, petitioner also offered the following pieces of
book on Collectible Accounts of the plaintiff, reflecting the documentary evidence issued by the National Statistics Office
principal indebtedness of defendant in the amount of Two (NSO): (1) Certificate of Marriage between petitioner and private
hundred ninety-nine thousand seven hundred seventeen pesos respondent marked as Exhibit "A" to prove the fact of marriage
and seventy-five centavos (P299,717.75) and reflecting as well between the parties on November 28, 2002; (2) Certificate of
the accumulated interest of three percent (3%) monthly Marriage between private respondent and Raymond Maglonzo
compounded such that as of December 11, 1987, the amount Arambulo marked as Exhibit "B" to prove the fact of marriage
collectible from the defendant by the plaintiff is Six hundred between the parties on June 20, 1994; (3) Certificate of Death of
sixteen thousand four hundred thirty-five pesos and seventy- Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo marked as Exhibits "C" and "C-1"
two centavos (P616,435.72); This is also the purpose for which to prove the fact of the latter’s death on July 14, 2009; and (4)
its admission is sought as a memorandum to refresh the memory Certification from the NSO to the effect that there are two
of Dolores Aday as a witness. In other words, it is the nature of entries of marriage recorded by the office pertaining to private
the evidence that is changed, not the purpose for which it is respondent marked as Exhibit "D" to prove that private
offered. Be that as it may, considered as a memorandum, Exh. K respondent in fact contracted two marriages, the first one was
does not itself constitute evidence. As explained in Borromeo v. to a Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo on June 20, 1994, and
Court of Appeals: second, to petitioner on November 28, 2002. The prosecutor
Under the above provision (Rule 132, §10), the memorandum appearing on behalf of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute admitted the authenticity and due execution of the above
evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple documentary exhibits during pre-trial. RTC rendered the
reason that the witness has just the same to testify on the basis assailed decision. It ruled that there was insufficient evidence
of refreshed memory. In other words, where the witness has to prove private respondent’s prior existing valid marriage to
testified independently of or after his testimony has been another man. It held that while petitioner offered the certificate
refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such of marriage of private respondent to Arambulo, it was only
memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. It is petitioner who testified about said marriage. The RTC ruled
self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any that petitioner’s testimony is unreliable because he has no
written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more personal knowledge of private respondent’s prior marriage nor
credible just because he supports his open-court declaration of Arambulo’s death which makes him a complete stranger to
with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare the marriage certificate between private respondent and
them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate Arambulo and the latter’s death certificate. It further ruled that
of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even petitioner’s testimony about the NSO certification is likewise
where this requirement has been satisfied, the express unreliable since he is a stranger to the preparation of said
injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be document. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the
received with caution, if only because it is not very difficult to same was denied by the RTC.
conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly
true when the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise Whether the testimony of the NSO records custodian certifying
from the admission of such evidence . . . . As the entries in the authenticity and due execution of the public documents
question (Exh. K) were not made based on personal issued by said office was necessary before they could be
knowledge, they could only corroborate Dolores Aday’s accorded evidentiary weight – No??? There is no question that
testimony that she made the entries as she received the bills. the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are all public
documents. As provided in the Civil Code: ART. 410. The books
YASUO IWASAWA, PETITIONER, vs. FELISA CUSTODIO GANGAN1 making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto
(A.K.A FELISA GANGAN ARAMBULO, AND FELISA GANGAN shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie
IWASAWA) AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PASAY CITY, evidence of the facts therein contained. As public documents,
G.R. No. 204169 September 11, 2013 they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of
Petitioner, a Japanese national, met private respondent their due execution and genuineness. Thus, the RTC erred when
sometime in 2002 in one of his visits to the Philippines. Private it disregarded said documents on the sole ground that the
respondent introduced herself as "single" and "has never petitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO who
married before." Since then, the two became close to each issued them to testify on their authenticity and due execution
other. Later that year, petitioner came back to the Philippines since proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore
and married private respondent on November 28, 2002 in Pasay necessary. Moreover, not only are said documents admissible,
City. After the wedding, the couple resided in Japan. In July 2009, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they
petitioner noticed his wife become depressed. Suspecting that constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. And
something might have happened in the Philippines, he in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain unrebutted
confronted his wife about it. To his shock, private respondent since neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor
confessed to him that she received news that her previous presented evidence to the contrary. As correctly pointed out by
husband passed away. Petitioner sought to confirm the truth of the OSG, the documentary exhibits taken together concretely
his wife’s confession and discovered that indeed, she was establish the nullity of the marriage of petitioner to private
married to one Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo and that their respondent on the ground that their marriage is bigamous. The
marriage took place on June 20, 1994. This prompted petitioner marriage of petitioner Yasuo Iwasawa and private respondent
to file a petition for the declaration of his marriage to private Felisa Custodio Gangan is declared NULL and VOID
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 215
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 authenticity of the actionable document have not been
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when
INC. (now Chartis Philippines Insurance, Inc.), Respondent. G.R. the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been
No. 181163 July 24, 2013 admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as
Nichimen Corporation shipped to Universal Motors Corporation genuine. Indubitably, Marine Certificate No. 708-8006717-4 and
(Universal Motors) 219 packages containing 120 units of brand the Subrogation Receipt are private documents which Philam
new Nissan Pickup Truck Double Cab 4x2 model, without engine, and the consignee, respectively, issue in the pursuit of their
tires and batteries, on board the vessel S/S "Calayan Iris" from business. Since none of the exceptions to the requirement of
Japan to Manila. The shipment, which had a declared value of authentication of a private document obtains in these cases,
US$81,368 or P29,400,000, was insured with Philam against all said documents may not be admitted in evidence for Philam
risks under Marine Policy No. 708-8006717-4. The carrying without being properly authenticated.
vessel arrived at the port of Manila on April 20, 1995, and when LOMISES ALUDOS, deceased, substituted by FLORA ALUDOS vs.
the shipment was unloaded by the staff of ATI, it was found that JOHNNY M. SUERTE, G.R. No. 165285 June 18, 2012
the package marked as 03-245-42K/1 was in bad order. The Turn Sometime in January 1969, Lomises acquired from the Baguio
Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes dated April 21, 1995 identified City Government the right to occupy two stalls in the Hangar
two packages, labeled 03-245-42K/1 and 03/237/7CK/2, as Market in Baguio City. Lomises entered into an agreement with
being dented and broken. Universal Motors filed a formal claim respondent Johnny M. Suerte for the transfer of all
for damages in the amount of P643,963.84 against Westwind, improvements and rights over the two market stalls. Johnny
ATI and R.F. Revilla Customs Brokerage, Inc. When Universal gave a down payment of P45,000.00 to Lomises, who
Motors’ demands remained unheeded, it sought reparation acknowledged receipt of the amount in a document executed
from and was compensated in the sum of P633,957.15 by on the same date as the agreement:
Philam. Accordingly, Universal Motors issued a Subrogation Through a letter, Johnny protested the return of his money, and
Receipt dated November 15, 1995 in favor of Philam. On January insisted on the continuation and enforcement of his agreement
18, 1996, Philam, as subrogee of Universal Motors, filed a with Lomises. When Lomises refused Johnny’s protest, Johnny
Complaint for damages against Westwind, ATI and R.F. Revilla filed a complaint against Lomises before the Regional Trial Court,
Customs Brokerage, Inc. before the RTC of Makati City, Branch for specific performance with damages. consent of the Baguio
148. On September 24, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment in City Government to the agreement. The RTC found that Lomises
favor of Philam and ordered Westwind and ATI to pay Philam, was a mere lessee of the market stalls, and the Baguio City
jointly and severally, the sum of P633,957.15 with interest at the Government was the owner-lessor of the stalls. Under Article
rate of 12% per annum, P158,989.28 by way of attorney’s fees 1649 of the Civil Code, "the lessee cannot assign the lease
and expenses of litigation. On appeal, the CA affirmed with without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to
modification the ruling of the RTC. All the parties moved for the contrary." As the permit issued to Lomises did not contain
reconsideration, but their motions were denied in a Resolution any provision that the lease of the market stalls could further be
dated January 11, 2008. Thus, they each filed a petition for assigned, and in the absence of the consent of the Baguio City
review on certiorari which were consolidated together by this Government to the agreement, the RTC declared the agreement
Court considering that all three petitions assail the same CA between Lomises and Johnny null and void. Lomises appealed
decision and resolution and involve the same parties the RTC decision to the CA, arguing that the real agreement
between the parties was merely one of loan, and not of sale. CA
Whether the Marine Certificate No. 708-8006717-4 and the rejected Lomises’ claim that the true agreement was one of loan.
Subrogation Receipt are private documents - YES. The nature of The CA found that there were two agreements entered into
documents as either public or private determines how the between Johnny and Lomises: one was for the assignment of
documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public leasehold rights and the other was for the sale of the
documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the improvements on the market stalls. The CA agreed with the RTC
Rules of Court, are self-authenticating and require no further that the assignment of the leasehold rights was void for lack of
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In consent of the lessor, the Baguio City Government. The sale of
contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed or the improvements, however, was valid because these were
instrument executed by a private person without the Lomises’ private properties. For this reason, the CA remanded
intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by the case to the RTC to determine the value of the improvements
which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. on the two market stalls, existing at the time of the execution of
Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, the agreement. Lomises now appeals the CA rulings through the
or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document present petition for review on certiorari.
requires authentication in the manner prescribed under
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules: SEC. 20. Proof of private Whether or not the lease contract between Baguio City
document. – Before any private document offered as authentic Government and Lomises is valid - NO. The CA has already
is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must rejected the evidentiary value of the lease contract between the
be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document Baguio City Government and Lomises, as it was not formally
executed or written; or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the offered in evidence before the RTC; in fact, the CA admonished
signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private Lomises’ lawyer, Atty. Lockey, for making it appear that it was
document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to part of the records of the case. Under Section 34, Rule 132 of
be. The requirement of authentication of a private document the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which
is excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the has not been formally offered. "The offer of evidence is
document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings
Rule 132 of the Rules; (b) when the genuineness and of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 216
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court contrary to its content and that they made a violation of the
in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such parol evidence rule do not hold water. It is basic in the rule of
document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper evidence that objection to evidence must be made after the
barren of probative weight." Although the contract was evidence is formally offered. In case of documentary evidence,
referred to in Lomises’ answer to Johnny’s complaint and offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the
marked as Exhibit "2" in his pre-trial brief, a copy of it was never offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the
attached. In fact, a copy of the May 1, 1985 lease contract evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any
"surfaced" only after Lomises filed a motion for reconsideration other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be
of the CA decision. What was formally offered was the 1969 made.
permit, which only stated that Lomises was permitted to occupy As to oral evidence, objection thereto must likewise be raised
a stall in the Baguio City market and nothing else. In other words, at the earliest possible time, that is, after the objectionable
no evidence was presented and formally offered showing that question is asked or after the answer is given if the
any and all improvements in the market stalls shall be owned objectionable issue becomes apparent only after the answer
by the Baguio City Government. was given.

WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. AMOS P. FRANCIA, Whether all the documents attached by Wincorp to its pleadings
JR., CECILIA ZAMORA, BENJAMIN FRANCIA, and PEARLBANK cannot be given any weight or evidentiary value for the sole
SECURITIES, INC. G.R. No. 194128 December 7, 2011 reason that these documents were not formally offered as
Respondents Francias filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of evidence in the trial court – (Yes?) It bears stressing too that all
Money and Damages arising from their investments against the documents attached by Wincorp to its pleadings before the
petitioner Westmont Investment Corporation Wincorp and CA cannot be given any weight or evidentiary value for the sole
respondent Pearlbank Securities Inc. Pearlbank before the RTC. reason that, as correctly observed by the CA, these documents
Wincorp and Pearlbank filed their separate motions to dismiss. were not formally offered as evidence in the trial court. To
Both motions were anchored on the ground that the complaint consider them now would deny the other parties the right to
of the Francias failed to state a cause of action. The RTC issued examine and rebut them. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of
an order dismissing the motions to dismiss of Wincorp and Court provides: Section 34. Offer of evidence —The court shall
Pearlbank for lack of merit. Wincorp then filed its Answer, while consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
Pearlbank filed its Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
(against Wincorp). The case was set for pre-trial but before pre- "The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the
trial conference could be held, Wincorp filed its Motion to court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and
Dismiss Crossclaim of Pearlbank to which the latter filed an strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and
opposition. The RTC denied Wincorp’s motion to dismiss until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or
crossclaim. The pre-trial conference was later conducted after purposes for which such document is offered, the same is
the parties had filed their respective pre-trial briefs. The RTC merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight." The Court
rendered a decision in favor of the Francias and held Wincorp cannot, likewise, disturb the findings of the RTC and the CA as to
solely liable to them. Wincorp interposed an appeal with the CA. the evidence presented by the Francias. It is elementary that
The CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC. The CA objection to evidence must be made after evidence is formally
explained: A formal offer is necessary because judges are offered. It appears that Wincorp was given ample opportunity
mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only to file its Comment/Objection to the formal offer of evidence
and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. of the Francias but it chose not to file any.
Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or
purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DELFIN
evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates CALISO, G.R. No. 183830 October 19, 2011
review as the appellate court will not be required to review Caliso was arraigned and tried for rape with homicide, but the
documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. Evidence Regional Trial Court (RTC), in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte found
not formally offered during the trial cannot be used for or him guilty of murder for the killing of AAA, a mentally-retarded
against a party litigant. Neither may it be taken into account on 16-year old girl, and sentenced him to death. The appeal of the
appeal. The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial conviction was brought automatically to the Court. On June 28,
matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable 2005, the Court transferred the records to the Court of Appeals
period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. (CA) for intermediate review pursuant to the ruling in People v.
Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered shall be Mateo. On October 26, 2007, the CA, although affirming the
excluded and rejected. Presiding therefrom, the very glaring conviction, reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua and
conclusion is that all the documents attached in the motion for modified the civil awards. Now, Caliso is before us in a final bid
reconsideration of the decision of the trial court and all the to overturn his conviction. In his defense, Caliso denied the
documents attached in the defendant-appellant’s brief filed by accusation and interposed an alibi, insisting that on the day of
defendant-appellant Wincorp cannot be given any probative the killing, he plowed the rice field of Alac Yangyang from 7:00
weight or credit for the sole reason that the said documents am until 4:00 pm. Yangyang corroborated Caliso’s alibi, recalling
were not formally offered as evidence in the trial court because that Caliso had plowed his rice field from 8 am to 4 pm of June
to consider them at this stage will deny the other parties the 5, 1997. The RTC found that rape could not be complexed with
right to rebut them. The arguments of defendant-appellant the killing of AAA because the old-healed hymenal lacerations of
Wincorp that the plaintiffs-appellees made an erroneous offer AAA and the fact that the victim’s underwear had been
of evidence as the documents were offered to prove what is irregularly placed could not establish the commission of carnal
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 217
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 knowledge; that the examining physician also found no physical finding of guilt. If resort to circumstantial evidence would not be
signs of rape on the body of AAA; and that as to the killing of allowed to prove identity of the accused on the absence of direct
AAA, the identification by Amegable that the man she had seen evidence, then felons would go free and the community would
submerging AAA in the murky river was no other than Caliso be denied proper protection. Amegable’s recollection of the
himself was reliable. perpetrator wearing short pants bearing the number "11" did
Nevertheless, the RTC did not take into consideration the not enhance the reliability of her identification of Caliso. For
testimony of Bering on Caliso’s extrajudicial admission of the one, such pants were not one-of-a-kind apparel, but generic.
ownership of the short pants because the pants were not Also, they were not offered in evidence. Yet, even if they had
presented as evidence and because the police officers involved been admitted in evidence, it remained doubtful that they
did not testify about the pants in court. As stated, the CA could have been linked to Caliso without proof of his
affirmed Caliso’s conviction for murder based on the same ownership or possession of them in the moments before the
ratiocinations the RTC had rendered. The CA also relied on the crime was perpetrated. Nor did the lack of bad faith or ill motive
identification by Amegable of Caliso, despite his back being on the part of Amegable to impute the killing to Caliso guarantee
turned towards her during the commission of the crime the reliability and accuracy of her identification of him. The
dearth of competent additional evidence that eliminated the
Whether Amegable’s identification of Caliso as the man who possibility of any human error in Amegable’s identification of
killed AAA at noon of July 5, 1997 was positive and reliable – Caliso rendered her lack of bad faith or ill motive irrelevant and
No?! In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, immaterial, for even the most sincere person could easily be
like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond mistaken about her impressions of persons involved in startling
reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the Prosecution is occurrences such as the crime committed against AAA. It is
not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, neither fair nor judicious, therefore, to have the lack of bad faith
for even if the commission of the crime can be established, or ill motive on the part of Amegable raise her identification to
there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the the level of moral certainty. In the absence of proof beyond
criminal beyond reasonable doubt. reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the accused’s
When is identification of the perpetrator of a crime positive and constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary
reliable enough for establishing his guilt beyond reasonable is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal,
doubt? The identification of a malefactor, to be positive and though his innocence may be doubted. The constitutional
sufficient for conviction, does not always require direct evidence presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of
from an eyewitness; otherwise, no conviction will be possible in primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must
crimes where there are no eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy rest not on the weakness of the defense he put up but on the
circumstantial evidence can equally confirm the identification strength of the evidence for the Prosecution.
and overcome the constitutionally presumed innocence of the
accused. Thus, the Court has distinguished two types of positive PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIMON PATENTES y ZAMORA,
identification in People v. Gallarde, to wit: (a) that by direct G.R. No. 190178 February 12, 2014
evidence, through an eyewitness to the very commission of the The peculiar nature of rape is that conviction or acquittal
act; and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the depends almost entirely upon the word of the private
accused is last seen with the victim immediately before or after complainant because it is essentially committed in relative
the crime. The Court said: Positive identification pertains isolation or even in secrecy, and it is usually only the victim who
essentially to proof of identity and not per se to that of being an can testify of the unconsented coitus. Thus, the long standing
eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated,
two types of positive identification. A witness may identify a she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has
suspect or accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator of the indeed been committed. Since the participants are usually the
crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the only witnesses in crimes of this nature and the accused's
crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be conviction or acquittal virtually depends on the private
instances where, although a witness may not have actually seen complainant's testimony, it must be received with utmost
the very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to caution. It is then incumbent upon the trial court to be very
positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a scrupulous in ascertaining the credibility of the victim's
crime as for instance when the latter is the person or one of the testimony. Judges must free themselves of the natural tendency
persons last seen with the victim immediately before and right to be overprotective of every woman claiming to have been
after the commission of the crime. This is the second type of sexually abused and demanding punishment for the abuser.
positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial While they ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation
evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of the rape victim goes through as she demands justice, judges
evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render
reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author justice according to law.
of the crime to the exclusion of all others. If the actual
eyewitnesses are the only ones allowed to possibly positively The present case involves eight (8) sets of Information for
identify a suspect or accused to the exclusion of others, then Forcible Abduction with Rape filed by private complainant
nobody can ever be convicted unless there is an eyewitness, ("AAA") against appellant, Felimon Patentes. AAA boarded a bus
because it is basic and elementary that there can be no for Bansalan, Davao City, to visit and bring medicines to her sick
conviction until and unless an accused is positively identified. grandmother. While seated at the rear portion of the bus,
Such a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is settled that appellant suddenly sat next to her. It was the second time AAA
direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only met appellant. After a brief conversation, appellant suddenly
matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and showed her his bolo, covered by a red scabbard tucked in his
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 218
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 right side while he held a red steel pipe with Arabic markings, the evidence brought forth in trial falls short of the quantum of
which he used to threaten to kill AAA should AAA disobey him. proof to support a conviction.
Appellant then accompanied AAA to her grandmother’s place
and returned to Davao City proper by bus. Appellant then Supreme Court vs. Delgado – 658 SCRA
brought AAA to his house in Hacienda Heights, Davao City, Rosendo Delgado was charged with murder and contends that
where his parents, sister, brother-in-law, nephews and nieces the victim was the unlawful aggressor.
live. Upon entering the house, appellant dragged AAA to a Whether or not the evidence presented would absolve the
room upstairs and tied her to a sewing machine. Appellant then accused with the crime of murder. - No, "A person who seeks
started to smoke something, which he also forced AAA to justification for his act must prove by clear and convincing
inhale, causing AAA to feel light, weak and dizzy. This evidence the presence of the necessary justifying circumstance
prevented AAA from fighting back as appellant removed AAA’s for having admitted wounding or killing his adversary, and he
clothes. Doffed of his own clothes, appellant mounted her and is criminally liable unless he is able to satisfy the Court that he
inserted his penis into her vagina. The rape was repeated acted in legitimate self-defense." The appellant contends that
several times. On 13 December 1998, to free herself from her the entry point of Wound No. 1 was in the abdomen or stomach
predicament, AAA convinced appellant that she will marry him. thus making the three wounds inflicted on the deceased
Appellant agreed. Appellant’s mother accompanied AAA to the possible. However, this contention is not supported by any proof
latter’s house to discuss the marital plans with AAA’s family. or explanation and is, in fact, contradictory to the post-mortem
Surprised by the marital plans, AAA’s mother asked for a private examination report issued by an independent third party, the
moment with AAA. In their conversation, AAA confessed how sanitary inspector among whose main functions is the
appellant forcibly took her to his house on 5 December 1998 performance of autopsies on cadavers of deceased persons. The
and raped her for more than a week. AAA’s mother then appellant's claim of self-defense is further negated by other
accompanied AAA to report her ordeal to the police, where AAA circumstances such as the absence of any major injury on his
was examined by a doctor, Dr. Samuel Cruz, the City Health body as against three severe wounds, any one of which would
Officer of Davao City. Dr. Cruz testified that he examined AAA. In have been fatal, suffered by the victim. According to the
his report, he noted the following observations about AAA: (1) appellant, the victim was in a superior position to inflict harm.
contusion on the breast caused by a kiss mark; (2) hymen was Moreover, the appellant failed to tell the police authorities that
intact and can readily admit a normal-sized erect male penis he killed the victim in self-defense. His defense theory is
without sustaining any injury; and (3) vaginal canal was obviously an afterthought.
negative for spermatozoa. Dr. Cruz also added that he cannot
tell whether it was AAA’s first sexual intercourse as the vagina GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
was not injured but had healed lacerations. After trial, the REGION, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice,
lower court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Petitioner, vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN
one (1) count of Forcible Abduction with Rape and seven (7) ANTONIO MUÑOZ, G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007
counts of Rape. Aggrieved, appellant elevated the case to the Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong
Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the decision of Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an
the trial court with modification as to accused’s civil liability. The advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the
appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court on the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also
matter of credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. A faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud,
thorough reading of the transcript shows that AAA’s testimony penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. On August 23, 1997
bears the earmarks of truth and credibility." Hence, this appeal. and October 25, 1999, warrants of arrest were issued against
him. Petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed
Whether there was proof beyond reasonable doubt – No, A with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of private
conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof respondent, raffled off to Branch 10, presided by Judge Ricardo
beyond reasonable doubt, which means a moral certainty that Bernardo, Jr. For his part, private respondent filed, in the same
the accused is guilty; the burden of proof rests upon the case,- a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. After
prosecution. In the case at bar, the prosecution has failed to hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the
discharge its burden of establishing with moral certainty the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting
truthfulness of the charge that appellant had carnal knowledge bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high
of AAA against her will using threats, force or intimidation. The "flight risk." Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further
testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should hearing Civil Case No. 99-95733. It was then raffled off to Branch
not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can 8 presided by respondent judge. On October 30, 2001, private
easily be concocted. Courts should be wary of giving undue respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order
credibility to a claim of rape, especially where the sole evidence denying his application for bail. This was granted by respondent
comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated judge allowing private respondent to post bail. On December 21,
and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to 2001, petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above
conflicting interpretations. While judges ought to be cognizant Order, but it was denied by respondent judge in his Order dated
of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as April 10, 2002. Hence, the instant petition.
she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that their
responsibility is to render justice based on the law. The Whether or not the bail should be granted despite the fact that
numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of private there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing
complainant have created reasonable doubt in Our mind. In that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right being
view of the foregoing considerations, the presumption of limited solely to criminal proceedings, Yes, Obviously, an
innocence in favor of appellant must be upheld considering that extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 219
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be nicely, the latter had continued hitting him with his fists, striking
subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and him with straight blows; that Olais, a karate expert, had also
forced to transfer to the demanding state following the kicked him with both his legs; that he had thus been forced to
proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step defend himself by picking up a stone which he had hit the
in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the victim’s head. The RTC in rejected Fontanilla’s plea of self-
detention should be reasonable. Records show that private defense noted that he did not suffer any injury despite his claim
respondent was arrested on September 23, 1999, and remained that the victim had mauled him; that Fontanilla did not receive
incarcerated until December 20, 2001, when the trial court any treatment, and no medical certificate attested to any injury
ordered his admission to bail. In other words, he had been he might have suffered, having been immediately released
detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted from the hospital; that Fontanilla’s failure to give any
of any crime. By any standard, such an extended period of statement at the time he surrendered to the police was
detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to inconsistent with his plea of self-defense.
liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged deprivation of liberty
which prompted the extradition court to grant him bail. While Whether or not there is self-defense in the instant case – No, In
our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an order for self-defense to be appreciated, he had to prove by
extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a)
her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable
the Constitution. The time-honored principle of pacta sunt necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c)
servanda demands that the Philippines honor its obligations lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong defending himself. By invoking self-defense, however,
Special Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these Fontanilla admitted inflicting the fatal injuries that caused the
obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the death of Olais. It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution
purpose of extradition. However, it does not necessarily mean for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal
that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by
should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying
and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability. Having thus
not only by our Constitution, but also by international admitted being the author of the death of the victim, Fontanilla
conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We should not, came to bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance
therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, to the satisfaction of the court, and he would be held criminally
provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily liable unless he established self-defense by sufficient and
met. An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard satisfactory proof. He should discharge the burden by relying on
of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the the strength of his own evidence, because the Prosecution’s
proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the evidence, even if weak, would not be disbelieved in view of his
standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. admission of the killing. Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt
While administrative in character, the standard of substantial beyond reasonable doubt remained with the State until the end
evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply of the proceedings. Fontanilla did not discharge his burden. A
given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the review of the records reveals that, one, Olais did not commit
prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his unlawful aggression against Fontanilla, and, two, Fontanilla’s
Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief act of hitting the victim’s head with a stone, causing the mortal
Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which injury, was not proportional to, and constituted an
he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in unreasonable response to the victim’s fistic attack and kicks.
granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this
standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. ANTONIO
but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential B. BALMACEDA and ROLANDO N. RAMOS, G.R. No. 158143
extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that September 21, 2011
he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and PCIB filed an action for recovery of sum of money with damages
processes of the extradition court. In this case, there is no before the RTC against Antonio Balmaceda, the Branch Manager
showing that private respondent presented evidence to show of its Sta. Cruz, Manila branch. In its complaint, PCIB alleged that
that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case should be between 1991 and 1993, Balmaceda, by taking advantage of his
remanded to the trial court to determine whether private position as branch manager, fraudulently obtained and
respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and encashed 31 Manager’s checks in the total amount of
convincing evidence." P10,782,150.00. On February 28, 1994, PCIB moved to be
allowed to file an amended complaint to implead Rolando
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus ALFONSO FONTANILLA y Ramos as one of the recipients of a portion of the proceeds from
OBALDO, G.R. No. 177743 January 25, 2012 Balmaceda’s alleged fraud. PCIB also increased the number of
Alfonso Fontanilla was charged of murder for allegedly strucking fraudulently obtained and encashed Manager’s checks to 34, in
Olias in the head with a piece of wood called Bellang causing the the total amount of P11,937,150.00. The RTC granted this
latter fell facedown to the ground, but Fontanilla hit him again motion. Since Balmaceda did not file an Answer, he was
in the head with a piece of stone. As a result, the victim died. declared in default. On the other hand, Ramos filed an Answer
Fontanilla claimed self-defense alleging that on the night of the denying any knowledge of Balmaceda’s scheme. According to
incident, he had been standing on the road near his house when Ramos, he is a reputable businessman engaged in the business
Olais, wielding a nightstick and appearing to be drunk, had boxed of buying and selling fighting cocks, and Balmaceda was one of
him in the stomach; that although he had then talked to Olais his clients. Ramos admitted receiving money from Balmaceda
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 220
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 as payment for the fighting cocks that he sold to Balmaceda, City. His sister, Dra. dela Llana, was seated at the front passenger
but maintained that he had no knowledge of the source of seat while a certain Calimlim was at the backseat. Juan stopped
Balmaceda’s money. The RTC issued a decision in favor of PCIB. the car across the Veterans Memorial Hospital when the signal
On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint against Ramos, light turned red. A few seconds after the car halted, a dump
holding that no sufficient evidence existed to prove that Ramos truck containing gravel and sand suddenly rammed the car’s rear
colluded with Balmaceda in the latter’s fraudulent end, violently pushing the car forward. Due to the impact, the
manipulations. car’s rear end collapsed and its rear windshield was shattered.
Glass splinters flew, puncturing Dra. dela Llana. Apart from
Whether or not there is evidence to hold that respondent these minor wounds, Dra. dela Llana did not appear to have
Ramos acted in complicity with respondent Balcameda - None. suffered from any other visible physical injuries. The traffic
From the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, we investigation report dated March 30, 2000 identified the truck
find it beyond question that Balmaceda, by taking advantage of driver as Joel Primero. It stated that Joel was recklessly
his position as branch manager of PCIB’s Sta. Cruz, Manila imprudent in driving the truck. Joel later revealed that his
branch, was able to apply for and obtain Manager’s checks employer was respondent Rebecca Biong, doing business under
drawn against the bank account of one of PCIB’s clients. The the name and style of "Pongkay Trading" and was engaged in a
unsettled question is whether Ramos, who received a portion gravel and sand business. In the first week of May 2000, Dra.
of the money that Balmaceda took from PCIB, should also be dela Llana began to feel mild to moderate pain on the left side
held liable for the return of this money to the Bank. PCIB insists of her neck and shoulder. Such incapacitated Dra. dela Llana
that it presented sufficient evidence to establish that Ramos from the practice of her profession since June 2000 despite the
colluded with Balmaceda in the scheme to fraudulently secure surgery. Dra. dela Llana,, demanded from Rebecca
Manager’s checks and to misappropriate their proceeds. Since compensation for her injuries, but Rebecca refused to pay.
Ramos’ defense – anchored on mere denial of any participation Thus, on May 8, 2001, Dra. dela Llana sued Rebecca for damages
in Balmaceda’s wrongdoing – is an intrinsically weak defense, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC). She alleged
it was error for the CA to exonerate Ramos from any liability. that she lost the mobility of her arm as a result of the vehicular
In civil cases, the party carrying the burden of proof must accident and claimed P150,000.00 for her medical expenses (as
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence of the filing of the complaint) and an average monthly income
which, to the court, is more worthy of belief than the evidence of P30,000.00 since June 2000. She further prayed for actual,
offered in opposition. This Court, in Encinas v. National moral, and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees. In
Bookstore, Inc., defined "preponderance of evidence" in the defense, Rebecca maintained that Dra. dela Llana had no cause
following manner: "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, of action against her as no reasonable relation existed between
credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and the vehicular accident and Dra. dela Llana’s injury. She pointed
is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater out that Dra. dela Llana’s illness became manifest one month
weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible and one week from the date of the vehicular accident. As a
evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the counterclaim, she demanded the payment of attorney’s fees and
last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence costs of the suit. At the trial, Dra. dela Llana presented herself
which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than as an ordinary witness and Joel as a hostile witness.
that which is offered in opposition thereto. Thus, PCIB, as Dra. dela Llana reiterated that she lost the mobility of her arm
plaintiff, had to prove, by preponderance of evidence, its because of the vehicular accident. To prove her claim, she
positive assertion that Ramos conspired with Balmaceda in identified and authenticated a medical certificate dated
perpetrating the latter’s scheme to defraud the Bank. On its November 20, 2000 issued by Dr. Milla. The medical certificate
face, all that PCIB’s evidence proves is that Balmaceda used stated that Dra. dela Llana suffered from a whiplash injury. It
Ramos’ name as a payee when he filled up the application forms also chronicled her clinical history and physical examinations.
for the Manager’s checks. But, as the CA correctly observed, the The RTC ruled in favor of Dra. dela Llana and held that the
mere fact that Balmaceda made Ramos the payee on some of proximate cause of Dra. dela Llana’s whiplash injury to be Joel’s
the Manager’s checks is not enough basis to conclude that reckless driving. The CA reversed the RTC ruling
Ramos was complicit in Balmaceda’s fraud; a number of other
people were made payees on the other Manager’s checks yet Whether Joel’s reckless driving is the proximate cause of Dra.
PCIB never alleged them to be liable, nor did the Bank adduce dela Llana’s whiplash injury? No, Dra. dela Llana failed to
any other evidence pointing to Ramos’ participation that would establish her case by preponderance of evidence. Article 2176 of
justify his separate treatment from the others. Also, while the Civil Code provides that "[w]hoever by act or omission
Ramos is Balmaceda’s brother-in-law, their relationship is not causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
sufficient, by itself, to render Ramos liable, absent concrete obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
proof of his actual participation in the fraudulent scheme. there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
Moreover, the evidence on record clearly shows that Balmaceda is a quasi-delict." Under this provision, the elements necessary
acted on his own when he applied for the Manager’s checks to establish a quasi-delict case are: (1) damages to the plaintiff;
against the bank account of one of PCIB’s clients, as well as when (2) negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant or by some
he encashed the fraudulently acquired Manager’s checks. person for whose acts the defendant must respond, was guilty;
and (3) the connection of cause and effect between such
DRA, LEILA A DELA LLANO vs. REBECCA BIONG, doing business negligence and the damages.
under the name and style of Pongkay Trading, G.R. No. 182356 Based on these requisites, Dra. dela Llana must first establish
December 4, 2013 by preponderance of evidence the three elements of quasi-
On March 30, 2000, at around 11:00 p.m., Juan dela Llana was delict before we determine Rebecca’s liability as Joel’s
driving a 1997 Toyota Corolla car along North Avenue, Quezon employer. She should show the chain of causation between
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 221
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Joel’s reckless driving and her whiplash injury. Only after she has equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and
laid this foundation can the presumption - that Rebecca did not circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
and supervision of Joel - arise. Once negligence, the damages other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not
and the proximate causation are established, this Court can then fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce
proceed with the application and the interpretation of the fifth a conviction. Such is not the situation in this case because the
paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Under Article 2176 prosecution was able to prove by adequate evidence that
of the Civil Code, in relation with the fifth paragraph of Article Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds under his
2180, "an action predicated on an employee’s act or omission custody and control upon demand, specifically for the
may be instituted against the employer who is held liable for the P21,045,570.64 illegally withdrawn from the said funds. In the
negligent act or omission committed by his employee." The crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is
rationale for these graduated levels of analyses is that it is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public
essentially the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand
creates the vinculum juris in extra-contractual obligations. In therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain
civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation
it. He who alleges has the burden of proving his allegation by by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.
preponderance of evidence or greater weight of credible
evidence. The reason for this rule is that bare allegations, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs ANTONIO T. REYES, G.R. No.
unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In 170512 October 5, 2011
short, mere allegations are not evidence. Petitioner adjudged Reyes guilty of grave misconduct after
In the present case, the burden of proving the proximate finding that Reyes, being then the Head of Office of the LTO in
causation between Joel’s negligence and Dra. dela Llana’s Mambajao, Camiguin, illegally exacted money from Acero in
whiplash injury rests on Dra. dela Llana. She must establish by exchange for the issuance of a driver’s license to the latter,
preponderance of evidence that Joel’s negligence, in its natural notwithstanding that Acero did not pass the requisite written
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient examination therefor.
intervening cause, produced her whiplash injury, and without
which her whiplash injury would not have occurred. Notably, Whether the charge of grave misconduct against Reyes was
Dra. dela Llana anchors her claim mainly on three pieces of sufficiently proven by substantial evidence – Yes?
evidence: (1) the pictures of her damaged car, (2) the medical Indeed, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 mandates that the
certificate dated November 20, 2000, and (3) her testimonial findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive
evidence. However, none of these pieces of evidence show the when supported by substantial evidence. In administrative and
causal relation between the vehicular accident and the whiplash quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is
injury. In other words, Dra. dela Llana, during trial, did not necessary to establish the case for or against a party.
adduce the factum probans or the evidentiary facts by which Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.
the factum probandum or the ultimate fact can be established. It is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
Thus, the CA erred in even considering this documentary might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other
evidence in its resolution of the case. It is a basic rule that minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
evidence which has not been admitted cannot be validly
considered by the courts in arriving at their judgments. XAVIER C. RAMOS vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK INC. and/or
However, even if we consider the medical certificate in the ALFONSO L. SALCEDO, JR., G.R. No. 203186 December 4, 2013
disposition of this case, the medical certificate has no probative Ramos was employed by BPI Family in 1995 and eventually
value for being hearsay. It is a basic rule that evidence, whether became its Vice-President for Dealer Network Marketing/Auto
oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based Loans Division. During his tenure, a client named Trezita B.
on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge Acosta entered into and obtained several auto and real estate
of another person who is not on the witness stand. In the loans from BPI Family which were duly approved and promptly
present case, Dra. dela Llana’s medical opinion cannot be given paid. Acosta purportedly secured another auto loan from BPI
probative value for the reason that she was not presented as an Family in the amount of P3,097,392.00 for the purchase of a
expert witness. As an ordinary witness, she was not competent Toyota Prado vehicle (subject loan) which had remained unpaid.
to testify on the nature, and the cause and effects of whiplash As it turned out, Acosta did not authorize nor personally apply
injury. In sum, Dra. dela Llana miserably failed to establish her for the subject loan, rendering the transaction fraudulent. As a
cause by preponderance of evidence. While we commiserate consequence, BPI Family lost P2,294,080.00, which amount
with her, our solemn duty to independently and impartially was divided between Ramos and his three (3) other
assess the merits of the case binds us to rule against Dra. dela subordinates, with Ramos shouldering the proportionate
Llana’s favor. Her claim, unsupported by preponderance of amount of P546,000.00. The foregoing amount was
evidence, is merely a bare assertion and has no leg to stand on. subsequently deducted from Ramos’ benefits which accrued
upon his retirement on May 1, 2006. In relation thereto, he
ZACARIA A. CANDAO, ABAS A. CANDAO AND ISRAEL B. HARON, executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim agreeing to release
petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND the bank from any claim or liability with respect to, inter alia, his
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents. G.R. Nos. 186659-710. separation pay or retirement benefits. Claiming that the
October 19, 2011. deductions made by BPI Family were illegal, Ramos filed a
Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact complaint for underpayment of retirement benefits and non-
is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence payment of overtime and holiday pay and premium pay against
preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The BPI Family and/or its President at that time, Alfonso L. Salcedo,
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 222
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 Jr., before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The supervision over its divisions," yielding as it did to the demands
Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Ramos’s complaint, ruling that the of industry competition, it is but reasonable that solely bears
deduction made on his retirement benefits was "legal and even the loss of its own shortcomings.
reasonable" since Ramos was negligent in running his
department. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA holding that JESSE U. LUCAS vs. JESUS S. LUCAS, G.R. No. 190710 June 6, 2011
the deduction complained of was "illegal and unreasonable". Petitioner, Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Filiation with
BPI Family filed an MR – DENIED; hence, it filed a petition for a Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before the
certiorari before the CA. Pending resolution thereof, Ramos Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse alleged that he is the son of his
submitted a manifestation that he had caused the execution of mother Elsie who got acquainted with respondent, Jesus S.
the NLRC decision and the sum amounting to P600,000.00 was Lucas in Manila. Jesus learned of this and he filed a Special
released in satisfaction of his claim. The CA affirmed the finding Appearance and Comment manifesting that the petition was
of negligence on the part of Ramos, holding that Ramos was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served
remiss in his duty as head of Dealer Network Marketing/Auto on him. Meanwhile, Jesse filed a Very Urgent Motion to Try and
Loans Division in failing to determine the true identity of the Hear the Case which the RTC found to be sufficient in form and
person who availed of the auto loan under the name "Trezita hence set the case for hearing. Jesus filed a Motion for
Acosta". However, it also attributed negligence on the part of Reconsideration arguing that DNA testing cannot be had on the
BPI Family since it sanctioned the practice of issuing the PO and basis of a mere allegation pointing to him as Jesse’s father.
ATD prior to the approval of the credit committee. Thus, finding Acting on Jesus’ Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed
BPI Family’s negligence to be concurrent with Ramos. Ramos the case and held that Jesse failed to establish compliance with
moved for reconsideration – DENIED. Hence, this petition. the four procedural aspects for a paternity action enumerated
in the case of Herrera v. Alba namely, a prima facie case,
WON the deduction made from Ramos’s retirement benefits are affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical
illegal and unreasonable – Yes, The requirement that the NLRC’s resemblance between the putative father and the child. This
findings should be supported by substantial evidence is clearly prompted Jesse to file a Motion for Reconsideration which the
expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which RTC granted. A new hearing was scheduled where the RTC held
provides that "in cases filed before administrative or quasi- that ruling on the grounds relied upon by Jesse for filing the
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is instant petition is premature considering that a full-blown trial
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant has not yet taken place. Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate which was denied by the RTC. He then filed a petition for
to justify a conclusion." Applying the foregoing considerations, certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled in favour
the Court finds the CA to have erred in attributing grave abuse of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed to show that the four
of discretion on the part of the NLRC in finding that the significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met
deduction made from Ramos’s retirement benefits was and held that DNA testing should not be allowed when the
improper. Two (2) reasons impel the foregoing conclusion: petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case.
First, as correctly observed by the NLRC, BPI Family was not able
to substantially prove its imputation of negligence against Whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can
Ramos. Well-settled is the rule that the burden of proof rests issue a DNA testing order – Yes, but it is not yet time to discuss
upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. In this the lack of a prima facie case vis-à-vis the motion for DNA testing
case, BPI Family failed to establish that the duty to confirm and since no evidence has, as yet, been presented by petitioner.
validate information in credit applications and determine credit Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the Regional Trial Court and
worthiness of prospective loan applicants rests with the Dealer the Court of Appeals. The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there
Network Marketing Department, which is the department under are four significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity
the supervision of Ramos. Quite the contrary, records show that case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood
these responsibilities lie with the bank’s Credit Services and misapplied in this case. A party is confronted by these so-
Department, namely its Credit Evaluation Section and Loans called procedural aspects during trial, when the parties have
Review and Documentation Section, of which Ramos was not presented their respective evidence. They are matters of
part of. Second, as similarly observed by the NLRC, Ramos evidence that cannot be determined at this initial stage of the
merely followed standing company practice when he issued the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation has
PO and ATD without prior approval from the bank’s Credit been filed. The CA’s observation that petitioner failed to
Services Department. The report further noted that the practice establish a prima facie case is herefore misplaced. A prima facie
has been adopted due in part to the stiff competition with other case is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations
banks and lending institutions. Resultantly, in 2005 alone, in the initiatory pleading. Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence
approximately 111 car loan applications were released ahead merely provides for conditions that are aimed to safeguard the
of the approval of the credit evaluation section. Based on the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. It states that the
foregoing, it is readily apparent that Ramos’s action of issuing appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on
the PO and ATD ahead of the approval of the credit committee application of any person, who has a legal interest in the matter
was actually conformant to regular company practice which in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due
BPI Family itself sanctioned. As such, Ramos cannot be said to hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the
have been negligent on his duties. To this end, it is well to note following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the
that in loan transactions, banks are mandated to ensure that case;(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected
their client wholly comply with all the documentary to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously
requirements in relation to the approval and release of loan subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require
applications. As BPI Family "uncharacteristically relaxed confirmation for good reasons; (c) The DNA testing uses a
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 223
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 scientifically valid technique; (d) The DNA testing has the Circle on April 26, 2004 and was annotated with "ok for payment
scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant per confirmation and approval of PNB MWSS" by Tria on the
to the proper resolution of the case; and (e) The existence of dorsal portion of the check. Veniegas also attempted to retrieve
other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially the files for the transaction but discovered that the duplicate
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule copies were all missing. Pulida notified Veniegas that MWSS did
shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court not apply for the issuance of the manager’s check payable to
order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement Atty. Reyes and there was no Rodrigo A. Reyes included in IBP’s
agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced. This does membership roster. PNB conducted its own investigation and, at
not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as its conclusion, sought to hold Tria liable for qualified theft.
a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are Following a preliminary investigation, the Assistant City
established. In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA Prosecutor issued a Resolution recommending dismissal of the
testing order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the charge for Qualified Theft against respondent Amelio C. Tria
applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a due to lack of evidence and probable cause. PNB moved for
prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or reconsideration but was denied. Undaunted, PNB filed a petition
“good cause” for the holding of the test. In these states, a court for review with the DOJ and prayed for the reversal of the August
order for blood testing is considered a “search,” which, under 15, 2006 and April 13, 2007 Resolutions issued by the Office of
their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which was, however,
probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a dismissed. PNB sought recourse before the CA. The CA decided
prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil in favor of Tria.
actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable cause. Courts in
various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of Whether there is probable cause to hold Tria and Atty.
procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have Reyes/John Doe for trial in the crime of qualified theft - YES.
almost universally found that a preliminary showing must be While discretionary authority to determine probable cause in a
made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient ground for the
blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a filing of an information rests with the executive branch, such
preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for authority is far from absolute. It may be subject to review when
compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that it has been clearly used with grave abuse of discretion. And
there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained indeed, grave abuse of discretion attended the decision to drop
hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the charges against Tria as there was more than probable cause
the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show to proceed against him for qualified theft. It must be
cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine emphasized at the outset that what is necessary for the filing
whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie of a criminal information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt
case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing. that the person accused is guilty of the acts imputed on him,
The same condition precedent should be applied in our but only that there is probable cause to believe that he is guilty
jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere of the crime charged. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a
harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for criminal information, are such facts as are sufficient to
DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.” committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is
the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. AMELIO TRIA and JOHN DOE, the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
G.R. No. 193250 April 25, 2012 knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty
MWSS opened C/A No. 244-850099-6 with PNB-MWSS and of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted. A finding of
made an initial deposit of PhP 6,714,621.13 on October 10, 2001. probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that,
On April 16, 2003, C/A 244-850099-6 became dormant with a more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was
balance of PhP 5,397,154.07. In the meantime, Tria requested a committed by the accused. The acts of Tria and the relevant
listing of the dormant accounts of PNB-MWSS. PNB-MWSS circumstances that led to the encashment of the check provide
received a letter-request from MWSS instructing the deduction more than sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause to
of PhP 5,200,000 (plus charges) from C/A 244-850099-6 and the file an information against him and John Doe/Atty. Reyes for
issuance of the corresponding manager’s check in the same qualified theft. In fact, it is easy to infer from the factual milieu
amount payable to a certain "Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes." The letter- of the instant case the existence of all the elements necessary
request was purportedly signed and approved by the duly for the prosecution of the crime of qualified theft.
authorized signatories of MWSS. Hence, C/A 244-850099-6 was
re-activated in light of the letter-request. Manager’s Check was, RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
thus, prepared and issued in the name of Atty. Reyes for PhP 185128, 30 January 2012
5,200,000. On November 1, 2004, Tria retired as PNB-MWSS’ Police Officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon went to
Manager under PNB’s regular retirement plan. On February 2, serve a search warrant from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to
2005, Zaida Pulida, the MWSS employee in charge of C/A No. Petitioner Ruben Del Castillo in search of illegal drugs. Upon
244-850099-6, inquired about the account’s outstanding arrival, somebody shouted “raid” which prompted the police
balance. She inquired about a debit entry dated April 22, 2004 officers to immediately disembark from the jeep they were
to C/A No. 244-850099-6 in the amount of PhP 5,200,000. riding and go directly to Del Castillo’s house and cordoned it off.
Veniegas verified that PhP 5,200,000 was indeed debited and Police men found nothing incriminating in Del Castillo’s
was encashed using Manager’s Check No. 1165848 in favor of residence, but one of the barangay tanods was able to
Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes, negotiated and encashed at the PNB- confiscate from the hut several articles including four (4) plastic
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 224
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. An constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and
Information was filed before RTC against Del Castillo, charging seizure.
him with violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 (The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). During the arraignment, Del PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA y
Castillo pleaded not guilty. The RTC found Del Castillo guilty CABILLO and FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ a.k.a. LANDO
beyond reasonable of the charge against him in the CALAGUAS, G.R. No. 178771 June 8, 2011
information. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision. Lando, Al, Dick Tañedo, Roberto Tañedo, Marvin Lim, Necitas
Del Castillo appealed his case to the CA, insisting that there was Ordeñiza-Tañedo, and Fred Doe are charged with the crimes of
a violation of his constitutional guaranty against unreasonable Murder and of Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention in two
searches and seizure. On the contrary, the Office of the Solicitor separate Informations. When arraigned of the aforementioned
General argued that the constitutional guaranty against crimes, Lando, Al and Cita all pleaded not guilty, while Dick, Bet,
unreasonable searches and seizure is applicable only against Marvin and Fred Doe remained at-large. Thereafter, a joint trial
government authorities. Hence, assuming that the items seized ensued. At about 3:00 in the early morning of May 7, 2002, while
were found in another place not designated in the search AAA and the victim Abad Sulpacio were sleeping inside the
warrant, the same items should still be admissible as evidence house of the Estrella family in Barangay Carmen, Rosales,
because the one who discovered them was a barangay tanod Pangasinan several persons entered to rob the place. Inside the
who is a private individual. house, she saw and recognized the accused Lando Calaguas and
Dick Tañedo, and heard the latter uttering "somebody will die".
Whether or not there is probable cause – Yes?, Probable cause Bringing her outside the house, Lando pushed her into the Revo
for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances where she saw inside Abad Sulpacio who was blindfolded and
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to with his hands tied. Inside the Revo, she recognized the accused
believe that an offense has been committed and that the Dick Tañedo, Lando Calaguas, Marvin Lim, Roberto Tañedo,
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place Alberto Anticamara and Fred. The last time that she saw Abad
sought to be searched. A finding of probable cause needs only Sulpacio was when he was dragged out from the vehicle by
to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime Lando, Fred, Marvin and Al upon reaching Sitio Rosalia. At that,
has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. time Dick Tañedo stayed with her in the vehicle. Thereafter,
Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires when Fred returned to the vehicle, she heard him uttered:
less than evidence which would justify conviction. The judge, in "Make a decision now. Abad has already four (4) bullets in his
determining probable cause, is to consider the totality of the body, and the one left is for this girl." The RTC of Rosales,
circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid Pangasinan, Branch 53, rendered its Decision finding Accused
formula, and must employ a flexible, totality of the Nicetas "Cita" Tañedo acquitted of the crime charged for
circumstances standard. The existence depends to a large insufficiency of evidence; Accused Fernando Calaguas
degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the Fernandez (alyas Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (alyas
examination. This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb Al Camara) are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
the factual findings of the judge which led to the issuance of as principal, of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery; the
the search warrant. A magistrate's determination of probable penalty of DEATH is hereby imposed upon the two (2) accused
cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (Lando Calaguas) and Alberto
deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was Anticamara (Al Camara). The CA rendered a Decision affirming
substantial basis for that determination. Substantial basis the decision of the RTC.
means that the questions of the examining judge brought out
such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably Whether the RTC gravely erred in rendering a verdict of
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been conviction despite the fact that the guilt was not proven beyond
committed, and the objects in connection with the offense reasonable doubt - NO. The trial court found that although there
sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. A was no direct eyewitness in the killing of Sulpacio in the early
review of the records shows that in the present case, a morning of May 7, 2002 at Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San
substantial basis exists. Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan, the prosecution adduced
sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish with moral
Whether or not there was a violation of Del Castillo’s right certainty the identities and guilt of the perpetrators of the
against unreasonable searches and seizure – YES, It must be crime. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral
remembered that the warrant issued must particularly describe facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main
the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in fact may be inferred according to reason and common
order for it to be valid. A designation or description that points experience. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain
out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the
constitutional requirement of definiteness. In the present case, combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a
the search warrant specifically designates or describes the conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction
residence of the petitioner as the place to be searched. based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the
Incidentally, the items were seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a
hut, 20 meters away from the residence of the Del Castillo. The fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
confiscated items, having been found in a place other than the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. In this case, the
one described in the search warrant, can be considered as circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, when
fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the presentation of analyzed and taken together, lead to the inescapable conclusion
which as an evidence is a violation of Del Castillo’s that the appellants are responsible for the death of Sulpacio. In
MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 225
From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial
 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 OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARITESS ALOLOD, EFREN
DEOCAMPO, ELMER DEOCAMPO and EDWIN DEOCAMPO EFREN
DEOCAMPO, G.R. No. 185212 February 15, 2012
This case is about when circumstantial evidence may be
considered sufficient to support a finding of guilt in a murder
case. A number of accused are charged with murder.

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that

accused Efren was responsible for the murder of the Alolod
couple based on circumstantial evidence. The rule of evidence
that applies when no witness saw the commission of the crime
provides: SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. –
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. Here, those
circumstances abound.
Efren had always been banned from the old couple’s house
because they strongly disapproved his relationship with
Maritess, their adopted daughter so he had no business
being around that house.
The old couple were enjoying good health before the
evening of May 27, 1998.
On May 28 they were suddenly gone from the house,
meaning that they were killed on the night of May 27 or
early morning of May 28.
On the night of May 27 the security guard at Salaman
Institute saw Efren and Edwin standing on the school side of
the fence next to the old couple’s house. They even tried to
conceal themselves in the school toilet. The next day, the
guard discovered that the fence wire had been cut.
At about 2:00 a.m. of May 28 a neighbor heard the sound of
a woman sobbing and what seemed like the butchering of a
pig.
At break of dawn, a witness saw Efren in the Alolod kitchen.
From then on Efren and his brothers frequented the old
couple’s house, with Efren wearing the old man’s watch.
Maritess definitely lied about her adoptive parents going to
Cotabato City and subsequently to Davao City for medical
treatment when people started looking for them. They were
of course buried in the garden.
A witness heard Efren instructing Maritess to plant more
camote on a pile of red soil beside the house.
The bodies of the old couple were found underneath those
plants.

MAPC VITO NOTES in REMEDIAL LAW 2/AY 2017-2018 Page 226

From the Discussions of Atty. Brondial