Remedial Law Review 2

I. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rules 57-61)

A. Preliminary Attachment (R-57)

1. Grounds (S-1) – Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases:

a. In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;

b. an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;

c. In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;

d. In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;

e. In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or

f. In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication.

2. Requirements (S-3) –

Section 3. Affidavit and bond required. — An order of attachment shall be granted only when it appears by the affidavit of the applicant, or of some other person who personally knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof, that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due to the applicant, or the value of the property the possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The affidavit, and the bond required by the next succeeding section, must be duly filed with the court before the order issues.

Section 4. Condition of applicant’s bond. — The party applying for the order must thereafter give a bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance of the writ, conditioned that the latter will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto.

3. Manner of Attaching (S-5)

Section 5. Manner of attaching property. — The sheriff enforcing the writ shall without delay and with all reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, only so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs. No levy on attachment pursuant to the writ issued under section 2 hereof shall be enforced unless it is preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order and writ of attachment, on the defendant within the Philippines. The requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a non-resident of the Philippines, or the action is one in rem or quasi in rem.

4. Discharge of Attachment (S-5,12,13)

Section 5. xxx unless the former makes a deposit with the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs.

Section 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counter-bond. — After a writ of attachment has been enforced, the party whose property has been attached, or the person appearing on his behalf, may move for the discharge of the attachment wholly or in part on the security given. The court shall, after due notice and hearing, order the discharge of the attachment if the movant makes a cash deposit, or files a counter-bond executed to the attaching party with the clerk of the court where the application is made, in an amount equal to that fixed by the court in the order of attachment, exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought to be discharged with respect to a particular property, the counter-bond shall be equal to the value of that property as determined by the court. In either case, the cash deposit or the counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action. A notice of the deposit shall forthwith be served on the attaching party. Upon the discharge of an attachment in accordance with the provisions of this section, the property attached, or the proceeds of any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party making the deposit or giving the counter-bond, or to the person appearing on his behalf, the deposit or counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the property so released. Should such counter-bond for any reason be found to be or become insufficient, and the party furnishing the same fail to file an additional counter-bond, the attaching party may apply for a new order of attachment.

Section 13. Discharge of attachment on other grounds. — The party whose property has been ordered attached may file a motion with the court in which he action is pending, before or after levy or even after the release of the attached property, for an order to set aside or discharge the attachment on the ground that the same was improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient. If the attachment is excessive, the discharge shall be limited to the excess. If the motion be made on affidavits on the part of the movant but not otherwise, the attaching party may oppose the motion by counter-affidavits or other evidence in addition to that on which the attachment was made. After due notice and hearing, the court shall order the setting aside or the corresponding discharge of the attachment if it appears that it was improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient, or that the attachment is excessive, and the defect is not cured forthwith.

5. Third Party Claim (S-14)

Section 14. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. — If the property attached is claimed by any person other than the party against whom attachment had been issued or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the attached property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party, the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property under attachment, unless the attaching party or his agent, on demand of the sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied upon. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be decided by the court issuing the writ of attachment. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.

The sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of such property to any such third-party claimant, if such bond shall be filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property, or prevent the attaching party from claiming damages against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, in the same or a separate action.

When the writ of attachment is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff is sued for damages as a result of the attachment, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General, and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of the funds to be appropriated for the purpose.

6. Claim for damages (S-20)

Section 20. Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment. — An application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case.

If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment was issued he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an application in the appellate court, with notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety or sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial court.

Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against whom the attachment was issued from recovering in the same action the damages awarded to him from any property of the attaching party not exempt from execution should the bond or deposit given by the latter be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award.

Cases: (Click on the Title for Case Digest or the GR Number for Full Text)

1. Alfredo C. Lim, Jr. vs. Spouses Lazaro, – GR. No. 185734, July 3, 2013
   1. exception to the general rule – While the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length of time within which an attachment lien shall continue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by law.
2. Ligon RTC of Makati Branch 56 – G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014
   1. exception to the general rule – Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner’s debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law. Thus, a prior registration of an attachment lien creates a preference, such that when an attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the attachment takes the property subject to the said attachment. As provided under PD 1529, said registration operates as a form of constructive notice to all persons.
3. Anita Mangila vs. Court of Appeals – R. No. 125027, August 12, 2002
   1. Three stages in the Preliminary Attachment. – 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 manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.
4. Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan – R. No. 139941, January 19, 2001– discharging the writ thru sections 12 and 13
   1. To reiterate, there are only two ways of quashing a writ of attachment: (a) by filing a counterbond immediately; or (b) by moving to quash on the ground of improper and irregular issuance. These grounds for the dissolution of an attachment are fixed in Rule 57 of the Rules of Court and the power of the Court to dissolve an attachment is circumscribed by the grounds specified therein. Petitioner’s motion to lift attachment failed to demonstrate any infirmity or defect in the issuance of the writ of attachment;
5. Alejandro Ng Wee vs. Manuel Tankiansee – R. No. 171124, February 13, 2008 – affidavit must clearly show the fraud
   1. For a writ of attachment to issue under this rule, the applicant must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor’s mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with his obligation. The applicant must then be able to demonstrate that the debtor has intended to defraud the creditor.
6. Torres vs. Satsatin – R. No. 166759, November 25, 2009 – requirements for attachment bond
   1. Every bond should be accompanied by a clearance from the Supreme Court showing that the company concerned is qualified to transact business which is valid only for thirty (30) days from the date of its issuance.
7. Luzon Development Bank vs. Krishman – R. No. 203530, April 13, 2015 – deposits refer to cash and cannot be replaced
   1. Deposits in a Counter-bond to discharge the Writ of Attachment is refer to cash and cannot be replaced. It is evidently clear that once the writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy of the petitioners in lifting the same is through a cash deposit or the filing of the counter-bond. Thus, the Court holds that petitioner’s argument that it has the option to deposit real property instead of depositing cash or filing a counter-bond to discharge the attachment or stay the implementation thereof is unmeritorious.
8. Northern Luzon Island vs. Garcia, – G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015 – appeal from the principal includes the provisional remedy
   1. Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence apart from the main suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Being merely ancillary to a principal proceeding, the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the purpose of the writ can no longer be justified.
9. Watercraft Venture vs. Wolfe – G.R. No. 181721, September 9, 2015 – affidavit must clearly show the fraud
   1. Fraudulent intent is not a physical entity, but a condition of the mind beyond the reach of the senses, usually kept secret, very unlikely to be confessed, and therefore, can only be proved by unguarded expressions, conduct and circumstances. Thus, the applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor’s mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with his obligation. The particulars of such circumstances necessarily include the time, persons, places and specific acts of fraud committed. An affidavit which does not contain concrete and specific grounds is inadequate to sustain the issuance of such writ. In fact, mere general averments render the writ defective and the court that ordered its issuance acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
10. Phil-Air Conditioning Center V. RCJ Lines And Rolando Abadilla, Jr., – R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015 – counterbonds stand in place of the attached property; Distinguish bonds from counterbonds
    1. 1. Attachment Bond – That bond is executed to the adverse party conditioned that the applicant of the Writ of Attachment will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto.” Hence, until that determination is made, as to the applicant’s entitlement to the attachment, his bond must stand and cannot be withdrawn.
       2. Counterbond – The filing of a counter-bond to discharge the attachment applies when there has already been a seizure of property by the sheriff and all that is entailed is the presentation of a motion to the proper court, seeking approval of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the value of the property seized and the lifting of the attachment on the basis thereof. The counter-bond stands in place of the property so released

B. Preliminary Injunction (R-58)

1. What are the amendments to the rule on preliminary injunction through A.M. 07-7-12, December 2007.
   1. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. xxx The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition within six (6) months from the issuance of the writ.
   2. Definition, Classes – Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. — A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
      1. A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.
      2. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
   3. Grounds; TRO Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
      1. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually;
      2. That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
      3. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
   4. Requirements – Section 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. — A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when:
      1. The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and
      2. Unless exempted by the court the applicant files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.
      3. When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines.
      4. However, where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.
      5. The application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return of service and/or the records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall be transmitted immediately.
   5. Damages – Section 8. Judgment to include damages against party and sureties. — At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.

Cases:

1. Idolor CA, – G.R. No. 141853, February 7, 2001
   1. Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interests. Before an injunction can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: 1) there must be aright in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; 2) the act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right. Hence the existence of a right violated, is a prerequisite to the granting of an injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Failure to establish either the existence of a clear and positive right which should be judicially protected through the writ of injunction or that the defendant has committed or has attempted to commit any act which has endangered or tends to endanger the existence of said right, is a sufficient ground for denying the injunction. The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial power to issue the writ is that the court may thereby prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated. It is to be resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation.
2. Gustilo Real, – A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250, February 28, 2001
   1. Before an injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: (1) there must be aright in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such right. The onus probandi is on movant to show that there exists a right to be protected, which is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Further, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious damage.
3. Lagrosas Bristo-Myers – G.R. No. 168637, September 12, 2008 – what is the nature of an injunction bond
   1. The injunction bond is intended as a security for damages in case it is finally decided that the injunction ought not to have been granted. Its principal purpose is to protect the enjoined party against loss or damage by reason of the injunction, and the bond is usually conditioned accordingly.
4. Jenosa Delariarte – G.R. No. 172138, September 8, 2010 – go to court only with clean hands
   1. Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.
5. Solid Builders Inc. vs. China Bank, R. No. 179665, April 3, 2013
   1. in junction is the strong arm of equity;- Preliminary injunction At times referred to as the “Strong Arm of Equity,” we have consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction. It should only be extended in cases of great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages; “in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant’s favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation.”
   2. no injunction in foreclosure of mortgage – The En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, Re: Procedure in Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgages, further stacks the odds against SBI and MFII. It specifically limiting the instances, and citing the conditions, when a writ against foreclosure of a mortgage may be issued, to wit:
6. Knights of Rizal DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 18, 2017 – what is the Torre de Manila project all about? – why injunction improper? mandamus?
   1. As we have time and again held, courts generally hesitate to review discretionary decisions or actions of administrative agencies in the absence of proof that such decisions or actions were arrived at with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
7. Novecio Lim – G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015 – forcible entry case. Plaintiff is not required conclusive proof
   1. In a prayer for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff is not required to submit conclusive and complete evidence. He is only required to show that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint. In this case, the petitioners have adequately shown their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. First, the relief demanded consists in restraining the execution of the RTC decision ordering their ejectment from the disputed land. Second, their ejectment from the land from which they derive their source of livelihood would work injustice to the petitioners. Finally, the execution of the RTC decision is probably in violation of the rights of the petitioners, tending to render the MTC judgment dismissing the forcible entry cases ineffectual.
8. Cayabyab Dimson – G.R. No. 223862, July 10, 2017 – poultry operations may be enjoined thru TRO
9. Republic Cortez – GR. No. 197472, September 7, 2015 – land of the public domain is beyond injunction
10. AMA Land, Inc. vs. Wack-Wack Residents’ Assoc., Inc. – R. No. 202342, July 19, 2017 – (requisites for Injunction)
11. Roldan Barrios – G.R. No. 214803, APRIL 23, 2018 – (concurrent jurisdiction of Injunction)
12. Investment Two Inc. vs. Mendoza, – A.M. No. RTJ-18-2538, November 21, 2018
13. National Construction Corporation vs. Hon. Jesus B. Mupas – A.M. No. RTJ-20-2593, November 10, 2020 – What cases/subject matters proscribe injunctive relief?

C. Receivership (R-59)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Power of receiver (S-6)
4. Termination and Compensation (S-8)

Cases:
1. Larrobis, Jr. vs. Phil Veterans Bank, 440 SCRA
2. Chavez vs. CA, 610 SCRA
3. Koruga vs. Arcenas, 590 SCRA, on jurisdiction
4. Tantano vs. Espina-Caboverde, 702 SCRA – 7/29/13
5. Hiteroza vs. Cruzada, 794 SCRA 511 (2016)
6. Banco Filipino vs. BSP, 864 SCRA 32, June 4, 2018

D. Replevin (R-60)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Third Party Claim (S-7)
4. Judgment and Damages (S-9,10)

Cases:

1. Orosa vs. CA, 329 SCRA
2. Smart Communiations vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA
3. Hao vs. Andres, 555 SCRA
4. Navarro vs. Escobido, 606 SCRA
5. Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, 697 SCRA, 6/3/13

E. Support (R-61), relate to Articles 194-208 of Civil Code
1. Application for Support Pendente Lite (S-1)
2. Comment, Hearing, Order (S-2,3,4)
3. Enforcement of Order (S-5)
4. Restitution (S-7)
Cases:
1. De Asis vs. CA, 303 SCRA
2. People vs. Manahan, 315 SCRA
3. Lim vs. Lim, 604 SCRA
4. Gotardo vs. Buling, 678 SCRA
5. Republic vs. Yahon, 726 SCRA 438
6. Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem, 744 SCRA516
7. Lim-Lua vs. Lua, 697 SCRA
8. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA 560
9. Abella vs. Cabanero, 836 SCRA 453 (2017)

II. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (Rules 62-71)

A. Interpleader (R-62)
1. What is an action in Interpleader (S-1)
2. Requisites (S-1)
3. Procedure (S-2 to 7) Cases:
1. Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Won, 70 SCRA
2. Eternal Gardens vs. IAC, 165 SCRA
3. Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA
4. Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 681 SCRA
5. Belo Medical Group, Inc. vs.Jose L. Santos and Victoria G. Belo, 838 SCRA 142, Aug. 30, 2017

B. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (R-63)
1. Nature; Kinds (S-1)
2. Parties (S-2)
3. Conversion into ordinary action (S-6) Cases:
1. Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Ind.,542 SCRA
2. De Borja vs. Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda ng L, M at V., 823 SCRA 550 (2017)
3. Malana vs. Tappa, 600 SCRA
4. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA
5. Sabitsana vs.Muertegui, 703 SCRA (8/5/13)
6. Dept of Finance vs. De la Cruz, Jr., 768 SCRA 73
7. Erice vs. Sison, 846 SCRA (2017)
8. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Standard Insurance Co. Inc., 885 SCRA 69, Nov. 7, 2018

C. Review of Judgments and Final Orders of the COMELEC and COA (R64)
– The distinctive nature and procedure of this special civil action Case: Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. COMELEC
705 SCRA 340, September 10, 2013

D. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (R-65)

1. Certiorari (S-1)
a. grounds
b. requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects Cases:
1. Ampil vs. Ombudsman, 703 SCRA, 7/31/13
2. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA, 1/28/14
3. Maglalang vs. PAGCOR, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
4. People vs. Castaneda, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
5. UP Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Teylan, 227 SCRA

6. Tuazon vs. RD of Caloocan, 157 SCRA
7. GSIS vs. CA, 867 SCRA (2018)
8. Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan SCRA, 868 SCRA (2018)

2. Prohibition (S-2)
a. grounds
b. requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects Cases:
1. Vivas vs. Monetary Board of BSP, 703 SCRA 8/7/13
2. Corales vs. Republic, 703 SCRA, 8/27/13
3. Javier vs. Gonzales, 815 SCRA (2017)
4. Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service Commission, 819 SCRA 482 (2017)
3. Mandamus (S-3)
a. grounds
b. requisites
c. procedure; parties and effects
d. damages Cases:
1. Hipos, Sr. vs. Bay, 581 SCRA 3/17/09
2. Sanchez vs. Lastimosa, 534 SCRA, 9/25/07
3. Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, 517 SCRA, 3/7/07
4. Laygo vs. Mun. Mayor of Solano, N.V., 814 SCRA (2017)
5. Cudia vs. Superintendent of PMA, February 24, 2015
6. Villanueva vs. JBC, 755 SCRA 182
– read J. Brion’s concurring opinion on expanded jurisdiction

E. Quo Warranto (R-66)
1. Parties (S-1 to 6)
2. Period (S-8)
3. Limitation (S-11)
4. Judgment for Cost (S-12)
Read for class discussion: Republic vs. Sereno, May 11, 2018, 863 SCRA 1; read Dissents of Justices Carpio, Del Castillo, Caguioa and Leonen (legal abomination) Cases:
1. Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA
2. Calleja vs. Panday, 483 SCRA
3. Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 621 SCRA
4. Aratea vs. COMELEC, 683 SCRA
5. De Castro vs. Carlos, 696 SCRA, 4/16/13
6. Velasco vs. Belmonte, 779 SCRA 81 (1/12/16)

F. Expropriation (R-67)
1. The right of Eminent Domain

-Constitutional provision: “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation”
– RA 7160: The Local Govt. Code, Sec. 19
2. Who may expropriate
3. Two stages in expropriation: determination
of public use
just compensation

1. City of Manila vs. Serrano, 359 SCRA
2. National Power Corp. vs. CA, 436 SCRA
3. Republic vs. Andaya, 524 SCRA
4. Asia’s Emerging Dragon vs. DOTC, 552 SCRA
5. Abad vs. Fil-homes Realty, 636 SCRA
6. NPC vs. YCLA Sugar Dev. Corp., 712 SCRA 550
7. Limkaichong vs. LBP, 799 SCRA 139 (8/2/16)
8. LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)

G. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (R-68)
1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Judgment (S-2)
3. Sale of foreclosed property (S-3)
– Equity of Redemption vs. Right of Redemption
4. Deficiency Judgment (S-6)
Read the law on extra-judicial foreclosure: RA 3135, 4118 Cases:
1. Ramirez vs. Manila Banking Corp., 712 SCRA, 12/2013
2. Marquez vs. Alindog, 714 SCRA, 1/2014
3. Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff, 436 SCRA
4. LZK Holdings vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 714 SCRA, 1/2014
5. Goldenway Merchandising Corp. vs. Equitable PCI Bank, 693 SCRA, March 13, 2013
6. Solid Builders vs. CBC, 695 SCRA (also on injunction)
7. Robles vs. Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75
8. MBTC vs. CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc., 760 SCRA 59
9. Roldan vs. Barrios, 862 SCRA 318, April 23, 2018
10. PDBank vs. Lubiya Agro Ind. Corp, 885 SCRA 470 Nov. 14, 2018 (Re: RA 3135)

H. Partition (R-69)
1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Order (S-2)
3. Stages of Partition:
4. Rule of Commissioners (S-3 to 7)

5. The Judgment (S-11)
Cases:
1. Balus vs. Balus, 610 SCRA
2. Feliciano vs. Canosa, 629 SCRA
3. Mangahas vs. Brobio, 634 SCRA
4. Vda. De Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla, 690 SCRA
5. Agarrado vs. Librando-Agarrado, 864 SCRA 582, June 6, 2018
– jurisdiction depends on the asssessed value of the land

I. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (R-70)
1. Parties (S-1)
2. Procedure: Summary (S-3 to 15)
3. Judgment (S-17)
4. Immediate Execution (S-19 vs S-21)
– preliminary injunction (S-20)
5. Appeals

Cases:

1. Prov. of Cam. Sur vs. Bodega Glassware, 821 SCRA (2017)
2. Santiago vs. Northbay Knitting, Inc., 842 SCRA (2017)
3. Regalado vs. De la Rama vda. De dela Pena, 848 SCRA (2017)
4. Ferrer vs. Rabaca, 632 SCRA
5. CGR Corp. vs. Treyes, 522 SCRA 765
6. Zacarias vs. Anacay, 736 SCRA 508, 9/24/14
7. Supapo vs. De Jesus, 756 SCRA 211, 4/20/15
9. De Guzman-Fuerte vs. Estomo, 862 SCRA (2018)
10. Iglesia de Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Phil. Inc. Vs. De la Cruz, 862 SCRA (2018)

11. Emma Buenviaje Nabo v. Felix C. Buenviaje
G.R. No. 224906, Oct. 7, 2020 (On tolerance)
J. Contempt (R-71)
1. Kinds: direct (S-1); indirect (S-3)
2. Procedure (S-4 to 9)
3. Judgment and Review (S-11)

Cases:

1. Yasay vs. Recto, 313 SCRA
2. Sison vs. Caoibes, Jr., 429 SCRA 258
3. Espanol vs. Formoso, 525 SCRA
4. Marantan vs. Diokno, 716 SCRA 164, 2/2014
5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez, 717 SCRA
6. Tormis vs. Paredes, 749 SCRA 505, Feb. 4, 2015
7. Oca vs. Custodio, 832 SCRA (2017)
8. Causing vs. De la Rosa, 857 SCRA (2017)

9. Sps. Bayani & Myrna Partoza vs. Lilian Montano & Amelia olomon, 866 SCRA 35 (2018)

III. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rules 72 to 109)

A. Settlement of Estate
1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (R-73)
2. Kinds of settlement
a. Extrajudicial (1) By Agreement
(2) By self-adjudication
b. Judicial
(1) Summary (R-74)
(2) By Petition (R-75 to 90)
a. Intestate
b. Testate
(3) By partition (R-69)
3. The Administrator or Executor
(a) Special vs Regular (R-80)
(b) Bonds (R-81)
(c) Powers and Duties (R-84)
(d) Accountability (R-85)
4. Claims Against the Estate (R-86)
5. Actions by and against Executor and Administrator (R-87)
6. Distribution and Partition (R-90) Cases:
1. San Luis vs. San Luis, 514 SCRA, February 2007
2. Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belen, 702 SCRA, 7/31/13
3. Agtarap vs. Agtarap, 651 SCRA, June 2011
4. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, 683 SCRA, October 2012
5. Lee vs. RTC of Q.C., 423 SCRA, February 2004
6. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs. Edmond Ruiz, 252 SCRA, January 1996
7. Unionbank vs. Santibanez, 452 SCRA, February 2005 (R-86)
8. Heirs of Maglasang vs. MBC, 706 SCRA 235
9. Pilapil vs. Heirs of M. Briones, 514 SCRA, February 2007
10. Sabidong vs. Solas, 699 SCRA, June 2013
11. Aranas vs. Mercado, 713 SCRA
12. Silverio Sr. vs. Silverio Jr., 733 SCRA 183, (8/13/14)
13. Butiong vs. Plazo, 765 SCRA 227
14. Leriou vs. Longa, October 8, 2018
15. Migdonio Racca et Al. vs. Maria Lolita Echague, January 20, 2021

B. Escheats (R-91)
1. Definition
2. Historical background and legal basis
3. Actions for Revisions (S-5) Cases:

1. Alvarico vs Sola, 382 SCRA
2. Maltos vs. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo, 770 SCRA 397
3. Narcise vs. Valbueco, Inc. 831 SCRA 319, July 2017
4. Republic vs. Heirs of Menardo Cabrera, 884 SCRA (2017)

C. Guardians and Guardianship (R-92 to 97) as amended by A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003

1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (S-92)
2. Appointment, kinds, Qualifications (S-93)
3. Requirement (S-94)
4. Power and Duties (S-96)
5. Termination (S-97) Cases:
1. Goyena vs. Ledesma Gustilo, Jan. 13, 2003
2. Caniza vs. CA, Feb. 24, 1997
3. Neri vs. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy, 683 SCRA
4. Oropesa vs. Oropesa, 671 SCRA (4/2012)
5. Abad vs. Biazon, 687 SCRA (12/2012)

D. Trustees (R-98)
1. Parties
2. Kinds/Classes Cases:
1. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. vs. Alcantara, 664 SCRA
2. Land Bank of the Phil. vs. Perez, 672 SCRA

E. Adoption and Custody of Minors (R-99-100)
1. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA 8552)
2. Inter Country Adoption Act of 1995 (RA 8043)
3. Rule of Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC dated July 31, 2002, effective Aug. 22, 2002)
a. Who may adopt (S-4)
b. Who may be adopted ( S-5)
c. Venue and Jurisdiction S.20)
NOTE: R.A. 116421 – An Act Strengthening Alternative Child Care By Providing for an Administrative Process of Domestic Adoption, Reorganizing for the Purpose the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB) into the National Authority for Child Care (NACC), amending for the purpose RA 8043, RA 11222, RA 10165, Repealing RA No. 8552 and RA 9523…

Cases:

1. Cang vs CA – 296 SCRA 128
2. Vda de Jacob vs CA – 312 SCRA 772
3. Republic of the Phil. Vs Hon. Jose R. Hernandez- 253 SCRA 509

4. Republic vs CA – 255 SCRA 99
5. Reyes vs. Mauricio, 636 SCRA
6. In the Matter of Stephanie Nathy Astorga-Garcia, 454 SCRA
7. Petition for Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim, 588 SCRA 98 (2007)
8. Nery vs. Sampana, 734 SCRA
9. Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA
10. Bartolome vs. SSS, 740 SCRA
11. Re: Adoption of Karen Herico Licerio, 886 SCRA 318, Nov. 21, 2018
– On immutability of judgments; exceptions

F. Habeas Corpuz (R-102)
4. Definition and Nature or Scope (S-1)
5. Requisites for Application (S-3)
6. Disallowance or Discharge of Writ (S-4)
7. Preliminary citation vs writ (S-6)
8. The return: when evidence; when plea (S-10,12,13) Cases:
1. Ilusorio vs Bildner, 332 SCRA 169
2. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan- 396 SCRA 443
3. Lacson vs. Perez, 357 SCRA 756
4. Sangca vs. City Prosecutor of Cebu, 524 SCRA 610
5. Mangila vs. Pangilinan, 701 SCRA 355
6. Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera, July 28, 2014
7. Datukan Malang Salibo vs. The Warden, 755 SCRA 296
8. Padilla vs. Congress of the Phil., 832 SCRA (July 2017)
-0n suspension of privilege during martial law
9. Osorio vs. Navera, 856 SCRA 435, February 267, 2018
– civil vs. military courts; kidnapping is under the RPC triable by civil courts

H. Change of Name vs. Correction/Cancellation of Entries, as amended R.A. 9048 and 10172 (Rule 103 vs. Rule 108; 10172 refers only to day and month of birth, not year of birth, nationality, age and status)
1. Venue vs Jurisdiction
2. Contents of Petition/Grounds
3. Hearing
4. Judgment
5. R.A. 9048 and its Implementing Rules Cases:
1. Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of Q.C. – May 9, 2002
2. Republic vs. Kho – 526 SCRA
3. Petition for Change on Name of Julian Lim Carulasan Wang – 454 SCRA
4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. – 607 SCRA (2009)
5. Republic vs. Silverio – 537 SCRA

6. Republic vs. Cagandahan –565 SCRA
7. Republic vs. Uy – 703 SCRA (August 12, 2013)
8. Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay, June 26, 2013
9. People vs, Merlinda Olaybar, February 10, 2014
10. Onde vs. CR of Las Pinas, 734 SCRA, Sept. 2014
11. Almojuela vs. Republic, 801 SCRA 399
12. Gan vs. Republic, 803 SCRA 204
13. Chua vs. Republic, 845 SCRA 407, Nov. 2017
14. Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III vs. CA, November 11, 2020
G.R. No. 216425

I. Prerogative Writs

A. Writ of Amparo Cases:
1. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA
2. Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Asso., 554 SCRA
3. Castillo vs. Cruz, 605 SCRA
4. Razon vs. Tagitis, 606 SCRA
5. Roxas vs. GMA, 630 SCRA
6. Burgos vs. Esperon, 715 SCRA, February 2014
7. Republic vs. Cayanan, 844 SCRA 183 (2017)
8. Gadian vs. Librado, 841 SCRA (2017)
– Amparo Writ is both preventive and curative
9. Lucena vs. Ilago, G.R. No. 252120, Sept. 15, 2020

B. Writ of Habeas Data Cases:
1. Caram vs. Segui, August 5, 2014
2. Vivares et Al. vs. St. Therese College, Sept. 29, 2014
3. Meralco vs. Lim, 632 SCRA
4. Lee vs. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59

C. Writ of Kalikasan Cases:
1. Dolot vs. Paje, 703 SCRA (continuing Mandamus).
2. Paje vs. Casino, 749 SCRA 39 (Writ of Kalikasan)
3. Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102
4. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes et Al., 756 SCRA 513, April 21, 2015
5. West Tower Condominium vs. Phil. Ind. Corp., 758 SCRA
6. Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission, 819 SCRA 543 March 7, 2017

IV. E V I D E N C E (Rules 128-133)
(As amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC effective May 1, 2020)*

A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
(Rule 128, Sections 1-4: General Provisions)

1. Definition/Meaning and Scope of E.
2. Kinds and Classifications of E.
3. Axioms of Admissibility
a. Relevancy
b. Competency
c. Authenticity
d. Offer
4. Kinds of admissibility
a. conditional
b. multiple
c. curative

Cases:

1. Ong Chia vs. Republic, 328 SCRA
– on naturalization
2. Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA
– on privacy of communication & correspondence
3. People vs. Yatar, 428 SCRA
– on the right against self-incrimination (DNA)
4. Tating vs. Marcella, 519 SCRA
– on admissibility, weight and sufficiency of evidence

5. People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA
– multiple admissibility
6. SCC Chemicals Corp. vs. CA, 353 SCRA
– curative admissibility (hearsay evidence admissible when not objected)
Sec. 3 inserted the words “the Constitution” * B. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
(Rule 129, Sections 1-4))

1. Judicial Notice
a. mandatory and discretionary
b. when to take judicial notice
2. Judicial Admissions

when is there judicial admissions

Cases:
1. LBP vs. Banal, 434 SCRA
– contents of the records of other cases
2. People vs. Kulais, 292 SCRA
– of testimonies in other cases
3. Laureano vs. CA, 324 SCRA
– admissibility of foreign laws
4. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, 700 SCRA
– admissibility of foreign laws/official records
5. People vs. Baharan, 639 SCRA
– admissibility of extrajudicial confession/plea of guilty
6. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 662 SCRA
– exception to admissibility of testimonies in other cases
7. Ligtas vs. People, 767 SCRA 1
– admissibility of decisions and records in other cases
8. Juan vs. Juan, 837 SCRA, Aug. 24, 2017
– website article is not of judicial notice

Amended Sections 1, 3 and 4 by inserting certain words *

C. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY (Rule 130, Sections 1-54)

1. Object/Real Evidence (Section 1) Cases:
1. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA
-how to establish paternity and filiation
2. People vs. Mercury de la Curz, 802 SCRA, Sept. 7, 2016
3. People vs. Manuel De la Rosa, Dec. 13, 2017
4. People vs. Lazaro, 886 SCRA,Nov. 21, 2018
5. People vs. Emmanuel Oliva, January 7, 2019
– on chain of custody rule
6. People vs. John Orcullo y Susa, July 8, 2019

2. Documentary Evidence (Sections 2-10) Cases:
1. St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. vs. LWV Const. Corp. 847 SCRA
2. People vs. Vibar, 858 SCRA
– on admissibility of private documents

a. The Best Evidence Rule, NOW Original Document Rule Cases:

1. MCMP Const. vs. Monark, Nove. 10, 2014
2. Loon vs. Power Master, Inc., 712 SCRA
3. Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, 714 SCRA
4. Republic vs. Mupas, 769 SCRA
5. Robinol vs. Bassig, 845 SCRA

b. Secondary Evidence

c. Parole Evidence
Cases:
1. Leoveras vs. Valdez, 652 SCRA
2. Paras vs. Kimwa Const., 755 SCRA
3. PNB vs. Pasimio, 769 SCRA
4. Mancol vs. DBP, 846 SCRA
Amendments are found in Sections 2, 3, 3(b), 3(c), 4 (a)(b)(c), 7 {9 is now 10}

d. Electronic Evidence
– A.M. 01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence
– R.A. 8792, E-Commerce Law Cases:
1. Heirs of Sabanpan vs. Comorposa, 408 SCRA
2. Torres vs. PAGCOR, 661 SCRA
3. Ang vs. Republic,618 SCRA
4. People vs. Enojas
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera, June 4, 2014
6. Bartolome vs. Maranan, 740 SCRA
7. BBB vs. AAA, 750 SCRA
8. Astorga & Repol Law Offices vs. Villanueva, 751 SCRA

Section 4 of Rule 130 incorporated Electronic Evidence rule Sections 11-20 remain: Interpretation of Documents

3. Testimonial Evidence (Sections 21-54)

a. Qualifications: “one who can perceive and perceiving can make known his perception”
i. ability to observe/perceive
ii. ability to recall/remember iii. ability to relate/communicate

b. Disqualifications:
Case: Marcos vs. Heirs of Andres Navarro, 700 SCRA
Note: mental incapacity or immaturity in Section 21 has been deleted. Is it no longer a disqualification?

Case: People vs. Golimlim, 427 SCRA
People vs. Golidan, 850 SCRA 579, Jan.2018
i. marital disqualification (Sec. 23)
Cases:
1 Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA.
2. People vs. Castaneda, 88 SCRA ii. privileged communication (Sec. 24) Cases:
1. Chan vs. Chan, 702 SCRA
2. Lacurom vs. Jacoba, 484 SCRA
3. Samala vs. Valencia, 514 SCRA
4. Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera,725 SCRA

Cases:

iii. death or insanity/dead man’s statute (Section 39)

1. Razon vs. CA, 207 SCRA
2. Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA
3. Bordalba vs. CA, 374 SCRA

Discuss Executive Privilege under the doctrines laid down in Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (488 SCRA) and Neri vs. Senate Committees (435 SCRA)

c. Testimonial Privilege
i. Parental and filial privilege (Section 25)
ii. Privilege relating to trade secrets (Section 26)

d. Admission of a Party (Section 27)
– by third parties (S-29)
– by partners (S-30)
– by conspirators (S-31)
– by privies (S-32) – by silence (S-33) Cases:
1. Constantino vs. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr. 706 SCRA
2. Cambe vs. Ombudsman, 812 SCRA Dec. 6, 2016
3. Ocampo vs. Ocampo, 830 SCRA

e. Offer of Compromise (Section 28)

f. Confessions (Section 34)
– judicial vs. extra-judicial
Cases:
a. People vs. Dacanay, 807 SCRA, (2016)
b. People vs. Opiniano, 832 (2017)
c. Cruz vs. People, 846 SCRA

g. Previous Conduct (Section 35) Cases:
1. People vs. Santos, 221 SCRA 715
2. People vs. Nardo, 353 SCRA 339
3. RP vs. Heirs of Alejaga, Sr., 393 SCRA 361

h. Hearsay Evidence Rule (Sections 37-49) Cases: Patula vs. People, 669 SCRA
People vs. Aguirre, 845 (independently relevant statement)
i. Exceptions:
i. Dying Declaration: Pp vs. Calinawan, 817 SCRA 424 ii.
Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind iii.
Declaration against interest: Pp vs. Bernal, 274 SCRA iv
Declaration about pedigree: Tizon vs. CA, 276 SCRA
v. Family Reputation or tradition: Jison vs. CA, 286 SCRA
vi. Common reputation vii. Res gestae: Pp vs. Dimapilit, 836 SCRA;Pp vs. Mercado,
883 SCRA, Oct. 2018
viii. Records of regularly conducted business activity
(formerly, entries in the course of business)
Phil. Airlines vs Ramos, 207 SCRA 461 ix. Entries in Official Records: Pp vs. Corpuz, 856 SCRA 610;
Sabili vs. COMELEC, 670 SCRA; Cercado-Siga, 752 SCRA
x. Commercial lists: Meralco vs. Quisumbing, 336 SCRA
xi. Learned treatises xii. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding: Pp vs.
Ortiz-Miyako, 279 SCRA; Go vs. People, 677 SCRA
xiii. Child Witness Rule: People vs. Ibanez, 706 SCRA
People vs. Esugon, 759
xiv. Residual exception (Section 50)

j. Opinion Rule Sections 51-53)
i. Expert Witness: Lavarez vs. Guevarra, 822 SCRA 130
Avelino vs. People, 701 SCRA
ii. Ordinary Witness: Pp vs. Duranan, 349 SCRA

k. Character Evidence (Section 54)
People vs. Deopita, 436 SCRA 794

D. BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS (Rule 131, Sections 1-6)

1. Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence Case: FEBTC vs. Chante, 707 SCRA

2. Presumptions
a. Conclusive presumptions
i. Ibaan Rural bank vs. CA, 321 SCRA ii. Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an, 401 SCRA
iii. University of Mindanao vs. PSP, 778 SCRA (1/11/16)
b. Disputable presumptions
i. Rosaroso vs. Soria, 699 SCRA
ii. Heirs of Trazona vs. Heirs of Canada, 712 SCRA iii.Uy vs. Lacsamana, 767
SCRA iv. Diaz vs. People, 776 SCRA 43

– suppression of testimony: People vs. Padrigone, 382 SCRA
Metrobank vs. CA, 333 SCRA
– official duty: De los Santos vs. COA, 703 SCRA; Pp vs. Barte, 819 SCRA People vs. Candidia, 707 SCRA
– cohabitation: People vs. Edualino, 271 SCRA

– survivorship; absence

3. Legitimacy or Illegitimacy (Section 4)

4. Presumptions in civil actions/criminal actions (Sections 5 & 6)

E. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (Rule 132, Sections 1-40)

1. Examination of Witnesses (Sections 1-18)
– Order of Presentation of Evidence. People vs Fabre, 385 SCRA
– Leading and Misleading Questions. People vs. Perez, 397 SCRA
– Impeachment. People vs. Castellano, 400 SCRA
– Reference to Memorandum
– Present Memory Revived, People vs. Plasencia, 249 SCRA
– Past Recollection Recorded, Canque vs. CA, 305 SCRA

Note: Former Section 14 transposed to Section 54 of 130

2. Authentication and Proof of Documents (Sections 19-33)

– Classes of Documents
– Public Documents
Cases: 1. Iwasawa vs. Gangan, 705 SCRA
2. Asian Terminals vs. Philam Insurance, 702 SCRA – Private Documents
– Offer of Evidence. Aludos vs. Suerte, 673 SCRA; Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Francia, Jr., 661 SCRA

(What is the Apostille Convention?)

3. Offer and Objection (Sections 34-40)
-Tender of Excluded Evidence
Fortune Tabacco Corp. vs. Com of Int. Rev.,761 SCRA 173 Amoquis vs. Ballado, 878 SCRA, Aug. 20, 2018

F. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (Rule 133, Sections 1-8)

The Hierarchy of Evidence:

i. Overwhelming Evidence

ii. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt. “ That degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind” 1. People vs. Caliso – 659 SCRA
2. People vs. Patentes – 716 SCRA
3. People vs. Arcenal – 821 SCRA 549
4. People vs. Alboka – 856 SCRA 252

iii. Clear and Convincing
1. Supreme Court vs. Delgado – 658 SCRA
2. Govt of Hongkong Special Adm. Region Vs. Olalia, Jr. – 521 SCRA
3. People vs. Fontanilla – 664 SCRA
4. People vs. Cabiles, 827 SCRA

iv. Preponderance of Evidence

1. PCIB vs. Balmaceda – 658 SCRA
2. De la Llana vs. Biong – 711 SCRAi
3..Canlao vs. People – 659 SCRA (equipoise doctrine)

v. Substantial Evidence

1. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Reyes – 658 SCRA
2. Ramos vs. BPI Family Savings Bank – 711 SCRA

vi. Prima facie evidence

1. Lucas vs. Lucas – 650 SCRA
2. Estate of Marcos vs. Republic – 814 SCRA 600
3. Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller – 815 SCRA 285

vii. Probable Cause
1. PNB vs. Tria – 671 SCRA
2. Del Castillo vs. People – 664 SCRA

viii. Iota of Evidence (circumstantial)
1. People vs. Anticamara – 651 SCRA
2. People vs. Deocampo 666 SCRA
3. Celedonio vs. People, 761 SCRA 363
4. Bacerra vs. People, 828 SCRA 525