CIV PRO PART 2

TEMPLATE ANSWERS

1) A request for admission seeks to obtain admissions from the adverse

party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or relevant
matters to enable a party to discover the evidence of the adverse side
and facilitate an amicable settlement of the case to expedite the trial
of the same. The key word is to expedite proceedings, hence, it should
seek to clarify vague allegations of the opposing party and should not
be a mere reiteration of allegations in the pleadings. (Republic v.
Datuin, G.R. No 224076, July 28, 2020)
2) As Duque v. Spouses Yu ruled, if the matters in a request for admission
have already been admitted or denied in previous pleadings by the
requested party, "the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny
them anew." In turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a
response to the request and, thereafter, assume or even demand the
application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26
3) The request for admission must be served on the party, not the
counsel. This is an exception to the general rule that notices shall be
served upon counsel and not upon the party. (Duque v. CA, G.R.
125383)
4) A Request for Admission Cannot be Served on the Prosecution Because
it is Answerable Only by an Adverse Party to Whom such Request was
Served XXX In criminal actions, however, the only parties are the
State/People of the Philippines. witnesses such as the private
complainant in criminal proceedings cannot be served with a request
for admission and compelled to answer such request. Besides,
witnesses in criminal proceedings may be called upon to testify during
the trial state and be subjected to the crucible of cross-examination
(People v. Ang)
5) Trade secrets may not be the subject of compulsory disclosure by
reason of their confidential and privileged character. (Air Philippines
Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc.)
6) in Security Bank vs. Court of Appeals, the Court stated the procedural
requisites for production and inspection of documents:
(a) The party must file a motion for the production or inspection of
documents or things, showing good cause therefor;
(b) Notice of the motion must be served to all other parties of the case;
 (c) The motion must designate the documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things which the
party wishes to be produced and inspected;
(d) Such documents, etc. are not privileged;
(e) Such documents, etc. constitute or contain evidence material to
any matter involved in the action; and
(f) Such documents, etc. are in the possession, custody or control of
the other party.
7) Sandiganbayan duly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for
production and inspection given that BDO was never impleaded as a
party in Civil Case No. 0035 Moreover, TMEE is no longer a party-
defendant. Thus, BDO and TMEE cannot be directed to produce
documents and records as they are no longer parties in the pending
action (J. Zalameda, Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No
180350, July 06, 2022).
8) In Lopez v. Liboro, we provided the circumstances in which additional
evidence may be allowed at the rebuttal stage, to wit: a) when it is
newly discovered; b) where it has been omitted through inadvertence
or mistake; or c) where the purpose of the evidence is to correct
evidence previously offered.
9) WHEN IS THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE
TRIAL? Where the answer of the defendant admitted the obligation
stated in the complaint, although special defenses were pleaded, the
plaintiff has every right to insist that it was for the defendant to come
forward with evidence to support his special defenses. [Yu v. Mapayo,]
10) The Rules do not distinguish between cases filed before the same
branch or judge and those that are pending in different branches or
before different judges of the same court, in order that consolidation
may be proper, as long as the cases involve the resolution of questions
of law or facts in common with each other. [Active Woods Products Co.
Inc. v. CA]
11) Where a case has been partially tried before one judge, the
consolidation of the same with another related case pending before
another judge who had no opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witness during trial makes the consolidation not mandatory. [PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan]
12) When it appears, however, that not all the material allegations of
the complaint were admitted in the answer, because some of them
were either denied or disputed, and the defendant has set up certain
special defenses which, if proven, would have the effect of nullifying
 plaintiff’s main cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot
be rendered (Philippine National Bank v. Aznar]
13) WHAT IS A GENUINE ISSUE? It is an issue of fact which calls for
the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious,
contrived, or false claim [Philippine Bank of Communications v. Go]
14) A valid summary judgment has the following requirements: "(l)
there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the
amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the motion for
summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
(BCDA v. Callangan)
15) The remedy for a summary judgment in the nature of a final
judgment is an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. As will be
discussed below, the discretionary review by way of a Rule 45 petition
is also available, albeit in extraordinary cases (BCDA v. Callangan)
16) In this case, it is clear that the letters dated July 2, 2020 and
August 14, 2020 do not constitute the judgment, final order or
resolution envisioned in Rule 45. These letters were not personally and
directly prepared by a judge. Instead, it was merely prepared by a clerk
of court and noted by Executive-Judge Padron-Rivera (Spouses Pineda
v. BDO Unibank)
17) mistake or negligence of counsel that results in the rendition of
an unfavorable judgment against the client binds the latter.
Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the foregoing rule such as:
[W]here the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives
the client of due process of law; or where the application of the
rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or
property; or where the interests of justice so requires and relief
ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of
the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence. In order to
apply the exceptions rather than the rule, the circumstances obtaining
in each case must be looked into.
18) For the court to grant a new trial on ground of newly discovered
evidence, the following requirements must be met:
(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;
(2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching;
and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted.
 If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been presented
during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, it cannot be
considered newly discovered [Kondo v. Civil Registrar General]
19) MNT and MR may only be availed of by a party to the proceeding.
[Alaban vs CA, G.R. No. 156021 (2005)]
20) When a motion for reconsideration is granted, the decision of the
court embodying such grant supersedes the original judgment or final
order. [Gotesco Properties v. International Exchange Bank]
21) As regards petitioner's failure to timely submit his appeal
memorandum before the RTC, Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the Rules of
Court explicitly states that failure of the appellant to file a
memorandum within 15 days from filing a notice of appeal shall be a
ground for the dismissal or such appeal. The issue on whether the filing
of a memorandum is mandatory or not has already been settled in
Enriquez v. Court of Appeals, viz. (Agbayani v. People)
22) Multiple appeals can be taken in special proceedings, in actions
for recovery of property with accounting, in actions for partition of
property with accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain
and foreclosure of mortgage. More than one appeal is allowed in the
same case to "enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that
a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be
final.” (BSP v. Bangko Filipino Savings)
23) It is settled that "an appeal from the RTC to the Court of Appeals
raising only questions of law shall be dismissed; and that an appeal
erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall be dismissed outright
(East West v. Cruz)
24) While it is not necessary that a notice of appeal and a record on
appeal be filed simultaneously, the rule is unequivocal that the notice
of appeal and record of appeals shall be filed within 30 days from
notice of the judgment of final order. [Brual v. Brual-Nazario]
25) Corollarily, the non-payment of docket fees is a ground to dismiss
the appeal. In Buenaflor v. Court ofAppeals, however, we qualified this
rule, and declared, first, that the failure to pay the appellate court
docket fee within the regleMEntary period warrants only discretionary
as opposed to automatic dismissal of the appeal; and second, that the
couRT shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets
of justice and fair play and with a great deal of circumspection
considering all attendant circumstances.
26) Failure to append the pleadings and material portions of the
record does not justify the outright dismissal of the petition. There is
 substantial compliance when the pleadings were attached to the MR
[Mendoza v. David, G.R. No. 147575 (2004)].
27) If it is a quasi-judicial agency such as the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission mentioned in Section 59 of the GPRA, a petition
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court may be filed with the CA. However,
if it is an ad hoc tribunal formed merely through the consent of the
parties, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court will not apply [Metro Iloilo Water
District v. Flo Water Resources]
28) commercial arbitration tribunals are not quasi-judicial agencies,
but "purely ad hoc bodies operating through contractual consent and
as they intend to serve private, proprietary interests." [Metro Iloilo
Water District v. Flo Water Resources]
29) The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals Division may be
appealed to the CTA en banc. The decisions of the Court of Tax
Appeals are no longer appealable to the Court of Appeals. The decision
of the CTA en banc may in turn be directly appealed to the Supreme
Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 on
questions of law (Section 11, RA No. 9282, March 30, 2004)
30) Decisions of the Ombudsman in Administrative Cases may be
appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. (See Gatchalian v.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018).
31) Section 1, Rule VII of the BSP Circular states that “[a]n appeal
from the Resolution of the Monetary Board may be taken to the Court
of Appeals within the period and in the manner provided under Rule 43
of the Revised Rules of Court.” [Begay v. Office of the Special
Investigation – BSP, et al.]
32) The remedy of a party aggrieved by the decision of the NLRC is
to file a MR and, if denied, file a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 within 60 days from notice of the decision. In observance of
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, this should be filed with the CA [St.
Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866 (1998)]. From the CA,
the remedy of the aggrieved party is a petition for review by certiorari
to the SC [Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders, G.R. No. 163431
(2013)].
33) Anent petitioner's failure to attach duplicate originals or certified
true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the DARAB, it
appears that petitioner immediately rectified this error when he filed
his Motion for Reconsideration with Attached Amended Petition for
Review. In line with Our ruling in Duremdes v. Jorilla, which applies
analogously herein, We find that this constitutes substantial
 compliance with Section 6(c), Rule 43 (J. Gaerlan, Caballes v. CA, G.R.
No. 263481, February 8, 2023)
34) In Victoriano v. Dominguez, We ruled that petitioner's failure to
indicate the date when the assailed decision was received is not fatal,
since the important date that must be alleged in the petition is the
date when the petitioner received the resolution denying his motion for
reconsideration
35) It is hornbook law that issues and arguments not presented
before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. An
issue that was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the
trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, for to do so would be
offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process (J.
Reyes, Hr., Republic v. Estate of Posadas III, G.R. No. 214310, February
24, 2020).
36) However, there are 10 recognized exceptional circumstances
wherein the Court admits and reviews questions of fact. These are
enumerated in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr. as follows: (1) When the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and
the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the
trial court: (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding
of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record
37) Furthermore, the "errors" which we may review in a petition for
review on certiorari are those of the CA, and not directly those of the
trial court or the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which
rendered the decision in the first instance. It is imperative that we
refrain from conducting further scrutiny of the findings of fact made by
trial courts, lest we convert this Court into a trier of facts. (J. Hernando,
Lopez v. Saludo, G.R. No. 233775, September 15, 2021).
38) The twin-period is mandatory, jurisdictional, and must be strictly
complied with, otherwise, the petition may be dismissed outright [PNB
v. Spouses Victor]
39) A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules
of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional
circumstances, where a party, without fault on his part, has
failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. The same
petition is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost
due to the party's own neglect in promptly availing of the same [Chico
v. Ciudadano]
40) Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the
judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner. [Ancheta v. Cambay]
41) when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of
the prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in
court. [Ancheta v. Cambay]
42) the petitioner must show absolute lack of jurisdiction, not
merely an abuse of jurisdiction discretion since these are two entirely
different concepts. Lack of jurisdiction means that the trial court should
not have taken cognizance of the complaint or petition because the law
does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. [MMDA v.
High Desert Stop Overs]
43) Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party
in litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the
defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent [Aromin v. Heirs
of Somis]
44) In Pinausukan, We held that a lawyer's neglect in keeping track
of the case and his failure to apprise his client of the developments of
the case do not constitute extrinsic fraud [Aromin v. Heirs of Somis]
45) Rule 47 extends only to a party in whose favor the remedies of
new trial, reconsideration, appeal, and petition for relief from judgment
are no longer available through no fault of said party. [Calubad vs
Aceron]
46) Finally, an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial
court. An action for annulment of judgment is an independent action
where the judgment or resolution sought to be annulled is rendered
 and is not an appeal of the judgment or resolution therein. [Calubad v.
Aceron]
47) Execution is a remedy afforded by law for the enforcement of a
judgment. It is a judicial writ issued to an officer authorizing and
requiring him to execute the judgment of the court. [Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila v. IAC]
48) As to the granting of execution pending appeal, the following are
the requisites:
(1) the prevailing party must file a motion with the court and serve
notice to the adverse party;
(2) a good reason must exist; and
(3) a special order stating the good reason is issued after hearing
[Harbour Centre Port Terminal v. Abella-Aquino]
49) since the life of a writ is only for five years, the winning party
must be able to enforce the same during said period xxx (J.
Zalamenda, Zabarte v. Puyat, G.R. No. 234636, February 13, 2023).
50) Since the enforcement of the Writ could not be completed within
its lifetime, petitioner should have, as a rule, filed a complaint for the
revival of judgment, in accordance with Section 6, Rule 39 [Zabarte v.
Puyat]
51) It is only when reconveyance is no longer feasible (e.g. passed
on to a buyer for value in good faith, dissipated, etc.) that the
judgment obligor should pay the judgment obligee the fair market
value of the property. [Raymundo v. Galen Realty and Mining Corp.,
G.R. No. 191594 (2013)]
52) As the Court stated in Montenegro v. Montenegro, the purpose of
Section 36 of Rule 39 is precisely to provide the judgment obligee a
remedy in case where the judgment obligor continues to fail to comply
with its obligation under the judgment (J. Zalamenda, Zabarte v. Puyat,
G.R. No. 234636, February 13, 2023).

SECOND EXAM DIGEST DOCTRINES

AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY INC (APRI) vs. MUNICIPALITY OF

PADRE GARCIA:

The general rule is that after a judgment has gained finality, it becomes the
ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. No court should interfere,
by injunction or otherwise, to restrain such execution. The rule, however,
admits of exceptions, such as the following:

(1) when facts and circumstances later transpire that would render execution
inequitable or unjust; or

(2) when there is a change in the situation of the parties that may warrant an
injunctive relief. In this case, after the finality of the RTC Decision, there were
no supervening events or changes in the situation of the parties that would
entail the injunction of the Writ of Execution.

RE: ADOPTION OF KAREN HERICO LICERIO, JOEL H. BORROMEO and

CARMEN H. BORROMEO

Doctrine of Immunity of Final Judgements; In Antonio Mendoza v Fil-Homes

Realty Development Corporation, 665 SCRA 628 (2012), the Supreme Court
(SC) discussed that “under the doctrine of finality of judgement or
immutability of judgement, a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect,
even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and
law.”

In the same case, however, this Court also pointed out the four (4)
exceptions to the doctrine on immutability of judgement, to wit:

(1) The correction of clerical errors;

(2) The so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any
party;

(3) Void judgements; and

(4) Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision

rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. (Emphasis supplied)

In the earlier case of Candelario et al v Canizares et al., 4 SCRA 738 (1962),

the Supreme Court (SC) enunciated that in cases when an event changed or
affected the rights of the parties, the court is allowed to (1) suspend the
execution of a final judgement, (2) admit evidence of new facts and
circumstances, and (3) grant relief warranted based on such new facts and
circumstances.
ROSARIO BERENGUER-LANDERS and PABLO BERENGUER vs. ATTY.
ISABEL E. FLORIN

Execution of Judgements; Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides for the
instances when execution may be had, namely: (1) after the decision or order
has become final and executory; (2) pending appeal, only upon good reasons
to be stated in a special order after due hearing; and (3) execution of
several, separate or partial judgments.

Perez v. Decilos

Third-party claimants, such as spouses Trinidad, have the following

cumulative remedies, they may:

(a) avail of "terceria" by serving on the levying officer an affidavit of their

title, and serving also a copy to the judgment creditor;

(b) file a case for damages against the bond issued by the judgment debtor
within 120 days from the date of the filing of the bond; and

(c) file "any proper action" to vindicate their claim to the property.

By the "terceria," Sec. 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that once a
third-party file an affidavit of his or her title or right to the possession of the
property levied upon, the sheriff is bound to release the property of the third-
party claimant unless the judgment creditor files a bond approved by the
court.

Chico v. Cuidadano

Petition for Annulment of judgement under Rule 47 cannot be availed of as a

substitute for remedy which was lost due to the party’s own neglect in
promptly availing the same

A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a

remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances, where a party,
without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies.

But the Judgment should still be Annulled for lack of jurisdiction.

Ciudadano was not impleaded as a respondent, even though she was a real
party in interest in the petition for issuance of title filed by Chico, and
summons was not served to her. She was not notified of the proceedings
against the land, which she currently occupies and over which she has a
claim of ownership. In fact, Ciudadano only discovered the action filed by
Chico when she received the November 3, 2016 Order of the RTC Branch 96
regarding the writ of possession pursuant to the assailed December 10, 2012
Decision and June 27, 2013 Amended Decision. Due to the lack of notice, the
trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ciudadano in the
petition for issuance of new title filed by Chico.

Sarol v. Sps. Diao

Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

Grounds for annulment. - The annulment may be based only on the grounds
of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have
been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.

Sarol is entitled to avail annulment of judgment under Rule 47 for lack of

jurisdiction.

In view of the failure to properly serve summons, Sarol could not have
learned of the instant case and had no other recourse but to file a petition
under the extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment provided in Rule
47 of the Rules of Court.

DHY Realty & Development Corporation v. CA

A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal. DHY
Realty failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a timely appeal under
Rule 45. The Court emphasized that Rule 65 requires proof of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which was not
demonstrated. Available remedies through appeal under Rule 43 or Rule 45
were bypassed without justification.

Dorelco Employees Union V. DORELCO

The appeal of a voluntary arbitrator's decision must comply with the

10-day period to move for reconsideration under Article 276 of the Labor
Code and the 15-day appeal period under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The
timelines ensure exhaustion of administrative remedies and judicial
efficiency.

Metro Iloilo Water District v. Flo Water Resources

The rules on production or inspection of documents under Rule 27 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure aim to ensure transparency and fairness in litigation
by enabling parties to access relevant documents or materials in the
possession of the opposing party, provided they demonstrate good cause
and relevance.

The Court held that Rule 27 permits the production or inspection of

documents if they are material and necessary to a party’s case. However,
MIWD’s request for document production was denied due to its failure to
demonstrate that the requested documents were both material and directly
related to its defenses against the arbitral award. The Court emphasized the
need for clarity and specificity in invoking Rule 27 to avoid fishing
expeditions that may delay proceedings.

The Court underscored the limited scope of judicial review in arbitration and
reiterated that procedural tools like Rule 27 should not be used to circumvent
or delay arbitration outcomes without clear and compelling reasons.

Deepak Kumar v. People of the Philippines

questions raised in a Rule 45 Petition must be of such substance as to

warrant consideration is to say that judicial review shall proceed "only when
there are special and important reasons." The use of the conjunctive "and"
vis-à-vis the adjectives "special" and "important" means that the reasons
invoked for review must be of distinctly significant consequence and value.

From Rule 45's provisions will be gleaned basic procedural standards which a
petitioner must satisfy if one's Rule 45 Petition is to be entertained:

(1) that the petition does not only exclusively raise questions of law, but also
that it distinctly sets forth those legal issues;

(2) that it be filed within 15 days of notice of the adverse ruling that impels
it;

(3) that docket and other lawful fees are paid;

(4) that proper service is made;

(5) that all matters that Section 4 specifies are indicated, stated, or
otherwise contained in it;

(6) that it is manifestly meritorious;

(7) that it is not prosecuted manifestly for delay; and

(8) that that the questions raised in it are of such substance as to warrant
consideration.

Failing in these, this Court is at liberty to deny outright or deny due course to
a Rule 45 Petition. Any such denial may be done without the need of any
further action, such as the filing of responsive pleadings or submission of
documents, the elevation of records, or the conduct of oral arguments.

The Linden Suites, Inc. v. Meridien Far East Properties, Inc.

It is settled that the court which rendered the judgment has supervisory
control over the execution of its judgment. It does not, however, give the
court the power to alter or amend a final and executory decision in the
absence of the recognized exceptions, namely:

(a) if there is a need to correct clerical errors which cause no prejudice to any
party,

(b) void judgments, and;

(c) if circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render
its execution unjust and inequitable.

Mario Magat, Sr.,et. al. v. Tantrade Corporation

Rule 42 allows 15 days to file petitions for review. Within the same period,
appellants are expressly permitted by the penultimate sentence of Rule 42,
Section 1 to file motions for extension. It is true that in seeking an extension,
rather than immediately filing a petition, appellants wager on the Court of
Appeals' favorable action. Still, it remains that they have 15 days to seek an
extension. They should not be faulted for maximizing the period that Rule 42
allows. In doing so, they are not "procrastinating" but are merely exercising a
legitimate option. If the Court of Appeals takes issue with the filing of
motions for extension a day before the end of the proper period, it should
advocate a revision of Rule 42 instead of faulting parties which act within the
bounds of this rule.

To legitimately seek an initial extension, petitioners had to file a proper

motion and to ensure that docket and lawful fees were paid and deposit for
costs was made before the expiration of the reglementary period. Save for
the Court of Appeals' assertion of procrastination, there is no intimation that
petitioners failed in any of these requirements. No other technical defect has
been attributed to petitioners' First Motion for Extension. They also timely
paid the docket and other fees, and deposited for costs. They did these
alongside the filing of their First Motion for Extension before the lapse of 15
days following their receipt of a copy of the Regional Trial Court April 18,
2011 Order on May 9, 2011.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ALFREDO R. DE

BORJA, Respondent.

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency

of evidence. It is a remedy available to the defendant, to the effect that the
evidence produced by the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law, whether true
or not, to make out a case or sustain an issue. The question in a demurrer to
evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his evidence in chief, had been able to
establish a prima facie case.

The question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his

evidence in chief, had been able to establish a prima facie case. In a
demurrer to evidence, however, it is premature to speak of "preponderance
of evidence" because it is filed prior to the defendant's presentation of
evidence; it is precisely the office of a demurrer to evidence to expeditiously
terminate the case without the need of the defendant's evidence.

ROBERTO C. EUSEBIO, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

RESPONDENT

Judgments of courts and quasi-judicial bodies are couched in mandatory

language. Compliance therewith is compulsory, especially when public
interest is at stake.

Yes. Judgments of courts and quasi-judicial bodies are couched in mandatory

language. Compliance therewith is compulsory, especially when public
interest is at stake. The authority of these rulings, however, is diminished by
the flagrant and stubborn refusal of party-litigants to comply with their
directives. The worst of these miscreants taunt judicial bodies and flout
procedural rules unabashed, prolonging litigation by opting to pay the fine
for contempt rather than fulfilling their legal obligation promptly, as here.

TAISEI SHIMIZU JOINT VENTURE, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON

AUDIT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FORMERLY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION),
RESPONDENTS.

Res judicata and immutability of final judgments are closely intertwined.

Jurisprudence teaches that the settled and firmly established rule is that a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This
immutability quality precludes the judgment modification, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.

The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional

errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set
by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all.
This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which no end to
litigations will take place. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle
must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication.
Any act that violates such principle must immediately be struck down.
Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined
in its operation to the judgments of courts but extends as well to those of all
other tribunals exercising adjudicatory powers. x x x

Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay and Emilio Cojuangco-Suntay, Jr. vs. Emilio

A.M. Suntay III and Nenita Taaedo

The Court gives credence to petitioners' claims that they were never served
copies of the First and Second Notices of Hearing, and that they never
received these. They evidently had no knowledge of the probate proceedings
and did not have the opportunity to contest Federico's Second Will and
protect their rights.

Federico's deliberate acts of filing the Second Probate Petition in La Trinidad,

omitting petitioners' addresses, and then failing to serve them with copies of
the notices of hearing, taken collectively, constitute extrinsic fraud. He kept
petitioners ignorant of his acts to disinherit them and prevented them from
having their day in court. It is therefore only just, proper, and equitable for
the Court to annul and set aside the RTC Decisions.

Cordero, et al. vs. Gutierrez Development Co., Inc.

Notably, the Court's ruling in Mauleon v. Porter is instructive on this matter:

Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory,
it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer
be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what
is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of
whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it
or by the highest Court of the land.

Resultantly, the implementation and execution of judgments that had

attained finality are already ministerial on the courts. Public policy also
dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory, and unappealable,
the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some
subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement
of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable
controversies with finality. Hence, once a judgment becomes final, the
prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, the
issuance of which is the trial court's ministerial duty.

Rita Quizon-Arciga and Relia Q. Arciga vs. Jaycee P. Baluyut

Extrinsic Fraud

Fraud is deemed extrinsic where a party has been prevented by his or her
opponent, through fraud or deception, from fully participating in the trial by
keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the
defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the
acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority
connives at his defeat.

Elizabeth Brual vs. Jorge Brual Contreras

While it is not necessary that a notice of appeal and a record on appeal be

filed simultaneously, the rule is unequivocal that the notice of appeal and
record of appeal shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or
final order.

Jonathan G. Monterde vs. Bayani H. Jacinto

It is well-settled that appeals from the decisions of the Ombudsman in

administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals
under the provisions of Rule 43. As held by the Court in Fabian vs. Desierto:

As a consequence of our ratiocination that Section 27 of Republic Act No.

6770 should be struck down as unconstitutional, and in line with the
regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the
Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43.

Leticia A. Ramirez vs. Felomino Elomina

Nature of the Right to Appeal: the right to appeal is neither a natural right
nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to
appeal.

Rule 36, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that a judgment or final
order shall become final unless a Motion for Reconsideration is timely filed, to
wit:

Section 2. Entry of Judgments and Final Orders. - If no appeal or motion for

new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules,
the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the
book of entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final
order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the
dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall be signed by the
clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or final order has become final
and executory.

Republic of the Philippines v. Susan Datuin, et al.

As Duque v. Spouses Yu ruled, if the matters in a request for admission have
already been admitted or denied in previous pleadings by the requested
party, “the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew.” In turn,
the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a response to the request
and, thereafter, assume or even demand the application of the implied
admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.

Bases Conversion & Development Authority (BCDA) v. Pedro

Callangan

A summary judgment that does not fully dispose of the case is a partial
summary judgment which is interlocutory in nature. In GSIS v. Philippine
Village Hotel, the Court sustained the CA in ruling that an appeal is not
available to a partial summary judgment. There, the trial court did not
resolve the issue on entitlement to damages and did not fully dispose of the
complaint for specific performance and damages. Thus, the judgment was
interlocutory and the Court of Appeals ruled that the proper remedy is a
certiorari petition under Rule 65.

Here, petitioner directly filed a Rule 45 petition raising only questions of law.
It is evident that the petitioner availed the wrong remedy. Respondents are
correct that they should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
since the partial summary judgment was interlocutory in nature. However, in
the interest of substantial justice, the Supreme Court excused the procedural
defect and relax the rules of procedure pro hac vice following various Court
rulings that the dismissal of cases purely on technical grounds is frowned
upon and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override,
substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very ends.

Philippine National Bank v. Merelo Aznar, et al.

The legal basis for rendering a judgment on the pleadings can be found in
Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court which states that “where an answer
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct
judgment on such pleading. x x x.”

Judgment on the pleadings is, therefore, based exclusively upon the

allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the annexes, if any,
without consideration of any evidence aliunde. However, when it appears
that not all the material allegations of the complaint were admitted in the
answer for some of them were either denied or disputed, and the defendant
has set up certain special defenses which, if proven, would have the effect of
nullifying plaintiff’s main cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot
be rendered.

Ortigas v. Court of Appeals

Annulment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy in equity that is strictly

construed and allowed only in exceptional circumstances due to its effect on
the finality of judgments. Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court specifies
the following grounds:

First, extrinsic fraud which refers to fraud external to the litigation process
that prevents a party from fully participating in the proceedings, such as
being deceived into not filing an action. Extrinsic fraud cannot be invoked if it
was or could have been addressed through a motion for new trial or a
petition for relief.

Second, lack of jurisdiction which occurs when the court lacked jurisdiction
over the subject matter, the nature of the action, or the parties.

Third, as held in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals and Pinausukan Seafood House

v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., denial of due process. A judgment rendered
without proper notice or an opportunity to be heard is void and subject to
annulment.

The Supreme Court ruled that under Rule 47, a petition for annulment of
judgment is a remedy available only when ordinary remedies, such as a
motion for reconsideration, appeal, new trial, or petition for relief, are no
longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The petitioners in this case
—the heirs of Jocelyn Ortigas—were never made parties to the trial court
proceedings. Thus, they could not have availed themselves of these
remedies.

San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. Spouses Fabie

The [Supreme] Court can conduct its own factual findings if there is
insufficient evidence or if the parties failed to substantiate their claims.
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; the function of the Court in petitions for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to
reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.
However, there are exceptions to this rule, including instances where:

(1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise, and

conjectures;

(2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken;

(3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on

misapprehension of facts; and

(5) the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are
contradicted by evidence on record.

Senho vs. Philippine Savings Bank

[A]ny remedy intended to frustrate, suspend, or enjoin the enforcement of a

final judgment must be granted with caution and upon a strict observance of
the requirements under existing laws and jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court held that Senho failed to file the required appellant’s
brief within the reglementary period, submitting instead an "Appeal
Memorandum," which is not recognized under Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules
of Court. Under Section 1(e), Rule 50, such failure constitutes a ground for
the dismissal of the appeal.

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK (NOW UNION BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE CO LEE AND ANGELA T. LEE

Rule 33 under the Rules of Court in Civil Procedure stating that there is lack
of cause of action shall not be used for granting dismissal cases since it will
render it as a scheme.

In cases that there is a slightest detail, it should be given priority, since the
essence of admissibility and determination of providence can be gauged.

Hence, the existence of a slightest doubt shall be also considered by the

court to not allow a demurrer of evidence. The demurrer of evidence shall
not be used for the grant of a dismissal of a case, if even the slightest
chance of questioning the credibility was raised.
ZENAIDA D. ROA vs. SPS ROBINSON K.

Rule 33 under the Rules of Court in Civil Procedure stating that there is a lack
of action is different from the grounds raised on failure to state a cause of
action. Since, the former latter can be done after the plaintiff rest its case
while the latter can only be raised on an initiatory pleading.

IRENE CONSTANTINO DATU vs. ALFREDO FABIAN DATU

Rule 45 under the Rules of Court in Civil Procedure defines the petition for
review on certiorari which shall be based on pure questions of law. Since
based on its appellate jurisdiction and additionally, the Supreme Court is not
a trier of facts especially if there was no existence of fraud. Hence, it shall
rule out only on the decisions made by the Court of Appeals.

However, it’s only under exception that reviewing of the truthfulness or

falsity or falsity of the allegations of the parties or an assessment of the
probative value of the evidence presented.

Carreon v. Aguillon and Lopez

At the onset, it bears to note that defective service of summons negates the
Court's jurisdiction and is thus recognized as a ground for an action for
annulment of judgment.

Mejia-Espinoza and Dellosa v. Cariño

Under the Rules, there are three requirements that must be satisfied before a
Rule 47 petition can prosper. First, the remedy is available only when the
petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the
petitioner. This means that a Rule 47 petition is a remedy of last resort-it is
not an alternative to the ordinary remedies under Rules 37, 38, 40, 41, 42,
43, and 45. Second, an action for annulment of judgment may be based only
on two grounds: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Third, the action must
be filed within the temporal window allowed by the Rules. If based on
extrinsic fraud, it must be filed within four years from the discovery of the
extrinsic fraud; if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is
barred by laches or estoppel. There is also a formal requisite that the petition
be verified, and must allege with particularity the facts and the law relied
upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

Suelo, Jr. v. MST Marine Services Phils. Inc.

In the recent case of Chin v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc.,19 (Chin) citing

Guagua National Colleges v. CA,20 (Guagua National Colleges) the Court
categorically declared that the correct period to appeal the decision or award
of the Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators to the CA via a Rule 43
petition for review is the fifteen (15)-day period set forth in Section 421
thereof reckoned from the notice or receipt of the VA's resolution on the
motion for reconsideration, and that the ten (10)-day period provided in
Article 276 of the Labor Code refers to the period within which an aggrieved
party may file said motion for reconsideration.

Moreover, under Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, upon proper motion
and the payment of the full amount of the docket fees before the expiration
of the reglementary period, the CA may grant an additional period of fifteen
(15) days only within which to file the petition for review, and no further
extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no
case shall it exceed fifteen (15) days.

AL-MASIYA OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. and ROSALINA

ABOY, petitioners, vs. HAZEL A. VIERNES, respondent.

In a petition for review on certiorari, the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) jurisdiction is

limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the
factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are
glaringly erroneous. The SC need not rule on each and every issue raised,
particularly if the issue will not vary the tenor of the SC’s ultimate ruling.

At times, the relaxation of the application of procedural rules have been,

resorted to, but only under exceptional circumstances. In this case, however,
the SC found no justification to warrant the application of any of the
exceptions.
Unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly
shown that the factual findings were reached arbitrarily or in utter disregard
of the evidence on record, they are binding upon the Court.

CASILDA D. TAN and/or C & L LENDING INVESTOR, petitioners, vs.

LUZVILLA B. DAGPIN, respondent.

It is settled that a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended, or

modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to
correct a perceived error in conclusions of fact and law and regardless of
what court renders it. More so when, as in this case, such final judgment had
already been executed and fully satisfied.

It is settled that a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended, or

modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to
correct a perceived error in conclusions of fact and law and regardless of
what court renders it.

DR. FE LASAM, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and HON.

PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 66, SAN
FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION, respondents.

As expressly provided under the Rules of Court, the 60-day period under
Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court should be reckoned from the time the
aggrieved party has knowledge of the judgment or order sought to be set
aside. In other words, for purposes of the 60-day period under Rule 38,
knowledge of the finality of the judgment or order is irrelevant.

Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for relief from
judgment must be filed within: (1) sixty (60) days from knowledge of the
judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside; and (2) six (6) months
from the entry of such judgment, order or other proceeding. These two (2)
periods must concur. Further, these periods could not be extended and could
never be interrupted.

LINO DOMILOS vs. SPOUSES JOHN AND DOROTHEA PASTOR, AND

JOSEPH PASTOR
The rule is that the court could issue a writ of execution by motion within five
(5) years from the finality of the decision. After the lapse of this period and
before the same is barred by the statute of limitations, the judgment may be
enforced by instituting an ordinary civil action. The reason is that after the
lapse of the five-year period, the judgment is reduced to a mere right of
action, which judgment must be enforced, as all other ordinary civil actions,
by the institution of the complaint in the regular form. Such action must be
filed within ten (10) years from the date the judgment became final.

Pineda et al vs Miranda et al

An action for revival of judgment is an action with the exclusive purpose of

enforcing a judgment which could no longer be enforced by a motion.

As provided under Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court in relation to

Article 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code:

Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. – A final and executory

judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the
date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the
statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived
judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date
of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of
limitations.

MRS. CONSOLACION V. TIÑA vs. STA. CLARA ESTATE, INC.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a

certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises
as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

ROGER MANZANO vs. LUZ DESPABILADERAS

The pre-trial order stating that the parties have agreed that Roger shall
submit an offer to stipulate showing an itemized list of construction materials
delivered to Luz together with the cost claimed and that Luz shall
comment/object thereto cannot preclude Roger, herein Petitioner, from
availing of Rule 26. Said Rule cannot be disregarded since it is a remedy
afforded any party after issues have been joined.
FRUEHAUF ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION vs.
TECHNOLOGY ELECTRONICS ASSEMBLY AND MANAGEMENT PACIFIC
CORPORATION

commercial arbitral tribunal does not exercise quasi-judicial powers since it is

not a creature of the law but an ad hoc tribunal or a creature of contract.

The Court determined that the correct remedy against RTC decisions
confirming, vacating, or modifying an arbitral award is through a petition for
review under Rule 19.12 of the Special ADR Rules, not an ordinary appeal via
notice of appeal which was what TEAM initially pursued. The Special ADR
Rules actually forecloses against other remedies outside of itself. Thus, a
losing party cannot assail an arbitral award through a petition for review
under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 because these
remedies are not specifically permitted in the Special ADR Rules.

LIGAYA ESGUERRA, et al vs. HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC.

Pursuant to Section 43 of Rule 39, in the examination of a person,

corporation, or other juridical entity who has the property of such judgment
obligor or is indebted to him (S37 R39), and such person, corporation, or
juridical entity denies the indebtedness, the court may only authorize the
judgment obligee to institute an action against such person or corporation
for the recovery of such interest or debt.

Nothing in the Rules gives the court the authority to order such person or
corporation to pay the judgment obligee and the court exceeds its
jurisdiction if it orders the person who denies the indebtedness to pay the
same.

STATE OF VALERIANO C. BUENO AND GENOVEVA I. BUENO,

REPRESENTED BY VALERIANO I. BUENO, JR. AND SUSAN I. BUENO,
PETITIONERS, VS. JUSTICE EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR., RESPONDENT.

RULING: No, it should not be given consideration. Res judicata literally means
"a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or
matter settled by judgment." It also refers to the "rule that a final judgment
or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of
the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters
determined in the former suit." It rests on the principle that parties should
not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that, when a
right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of
the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.

The doctrine of res judicata embraces two concepts. The first is bar by prior
judgment which is set forth in Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
The second is conclusiveness of judgment provided under Section 47(c) of
the same Rule.

POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION (PSALM) VS MAUNLAD HOMES, INC.

Notably, petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of its third-party claim
since it is not one of the parties in the action where the writ of execution was
issued, as the unlawful detainer case was between respondent and the NPC.
Also, the denial of the third-party claim is not appealable as provided under
the above-quoted Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court since the remedy
of a third party claimant is to file a separate and independent action to
vindicate his claim of ownership or right of possession of the levied
properties against the judgment creditor or the purchaser of the property at
the public auction sale. It is in this separate and independent action that the
issue of the third-party claimant's title to the levied properties can be
resolved with finality.

SPOUSES MARQUEZ vs. SPOUSES ALINDOG

The established rule that a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is

entitled to possession of the property, with the court's issuance of a writ of
possession is considered a ministerial duty.

However, an exception exists under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
stating that possession may not be awarded if a third party holds the
property adversely to the judgment obligor. The case at hand involves a
dispute between Sps. Marquez and Sps. Alindog over possession of a
foreclosed property. The court concludes that the issuance of a writ of
possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, who had consolidated their title, is a
ministerial act, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) gravely abused its
discretion by subsequently granting an injunctive relief to Sps. Alindog.

Calubad vs. Aceron

petitioner Calubad's resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment

under Rule 47 is unnecessary as the same extends only to a party in whose
favor the remedies of new trial, reconsideration, appeal, and petition for
relief from judgment are no longer available through no fault of said party. As
a non-party in Civil Case No. Q93-18011, petitioner Calubad could not bring
the action for annulment of judgment considering that the remedies of new
trial, reconsideration, appeal or setting the judgment aside through a petition
for relief are not available to him in the first instance

Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. v. Hon. Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino, et

al.

The Regional Trial Court has the discretion to allow execution pending appeal
if it still possesses jurisdiction and is presented with good reasons, as
stipulated in Rule 39, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court.

Good Reasons for Execution Pending Appeal: Includes but not limited to the
advanced age of the prevailing party, imminent danger of insolvency to the
defeated party, dilatory appeal intentions, and risks of fraudulent acts by the
losing party to defeat the ends of justice.

As to the granting of execution pending appeal, the following are the

requisites: (1) the prevailing party must file a motion with the court and
serve notice to the adverse party; (2) a good reason must exist; and (3) a
special order stating the good reason is issued after hearing

Trans Middle East (Phils.) Equities, Inc. vs. Sandiganbayan, Republic

Here, the documents and records sought to be produced are not in the
possession, custody, or control of the other party. The Sandiganbayan duly
exercised its discretion in denying the motion for production and inspection
given that BDO was never impleaded as a party in Civil Case No. 0035
Moreover, TMEE is no longer a party-defendant. Thus, BDO and TMEE cannot
be directed to produce documents and records as they are no longer parties
in the pending action.

EDNA S. KONDO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LUZVIMINDA

S. PINEDA, PETITIONER, V. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

The Court ruled that the Divorce Report was not a newly discovered
evidence. For the court to grant a new trial on ground of newly discovered
evidence, the following requirements must be met: (1) the evidence was
discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) it is
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the
evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if
admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been
presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, it cannot
be considered newly discovered.

The Court cited the cases of Republic vs. Manalo, Racho vs. Tanaka, Moraña
vs. Republic of the Philippines, and Garcia vs. Recio to note that it has time
and again granted liberality in cases involving the recognition of foreign
decrees to Filipinos in mixed marriages and free them from a marriage in
which they are the sole remaining party. In the aforementioned cases, the
Court has emphasized that procedural rules are designed to secure and not
override substantial justice, especially here where what is involved is a
matter affecting lives of families. The Court saw no reason why the same
treatment should not be applied in this case so it relaxed the procedural
rules and granted the petition for Edna to present evidence.

CONNIE L. SERVO, PETITIONER VS. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

The Supreme Court held that Section 9 of BP 129 vests concurrent

jurisdiction in the regional trial courts, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court over special civil actions and auxiliary writs and processes. The law
does not distinguish whether the issues involved are pure factual or legal
issues or mixed issues of fact and law for the purpose of determining which
of the courts should take cognizance of the case.
MICHAEL G. VALENCIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Valencia's
appeal solely on procedural grounds.

Rule 42, Section 3 of the Rules of Court clearly states the consequence of
noncompliance with the prescribed procedure: SECTION 3. Effect of failure to
comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any
of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other
lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the
contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

Although Valencia has shown that the Court of Appeals should have deemed
the docket fees paid based on the Certification dated February 8, 2019
issued by the Development Bank of the Philippines, the four other procedural
infirmities observed by the Court of Appeals remain unexplained and
unrectified. As such, Valencia's perfunctory invocation of "the interest of
justice" cannot prevail against his repeated noncompliance with procedural
rules.

ALFILER vs. SPOUSES CAYABYAB

A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court

rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified
petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

A special civil action for certiorari and an appeal are "mutually exclusive, not
alternative or successive."

The proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final

order, or resolution is an appeal.

CHAM TENG HUI AND JAMES L. CHAM VS. WILSON P. CHAM AND
BERNARD P. CHAM

When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to
be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of
summary judgment, that is when the facts are not in dispute, the court is
allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material
facts.

In relation thereto, the determination of who among the legal heirs are
entitled to share in the estate of the deceased constitute a substantial claim
regarding their respective rights to inherit, which should be decided in a full-
blown trial. Hence, summary judgment in such case would not be
appropriate.

Additionally, the Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a means to

simplify the trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the
assailed facts, considering as established those facts which are not in
dispute. The court then is instructed to issue an order, the partial summary
judgment, which would specify the disputed facts that have to be settled in
the course of trial.

RON ZABARTE VS. GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT

The rules for executing a final judgment are clear, if the prevailing party fails
to enforce the decision within five years, the judgment becomes a right of
action that must be enforced through a complaint in a regular court within
ten years from the time the judgment becomes final. This ensures that the
decision is enforced fairly and effectively.

Clearly the issuance of a writ of execution by the court during the five-year
period does not automatically give the winning party an extension of time to
execute the same; neither does it authorize the winning party the right to
enforce it sine die. The winning party must still observe the following time
frames: 1) the issuance of writ of execution and levy must transpire within
the five-year period for enforcement of judgment by motion; and 2)
properties levied upon by execution must be sold at public auction within the
period of 10 years during which the judgment can be enforced by action.

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, SEC. RAMON M. LOPEZ,

USEC. ROWEL S. BARBA AND LOUIS "BAROK" BIRAOGO,
RESPONDENTS.

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition due to PPC's failure
to comply with procedural requirements and refusal to submit necessary
documents. Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides that failure to
attach to the petition, among others, relevant documents or portions of the
records shall be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.

In Atillo v. Bombay, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition not only
because the supporting documents were insufficient but also because
petitioner inexplicably refused to even submit the required attachments. It
held that:

The phrase "of the pleadings and other material portions of the record" in
Section 2(d), Rule 42 is followed by the phrase "as would support the
allegations of the petition" clearly contemplates the exercise of discretion on
the part of the petitioner in the selection of documents that are deemed to
be relevant to the petition. However, while it is true that it is petitioner who
initially exercises the discretion in selecting the relevant supporting
documents that will be appended to the petition, it is the CA that will
ultimately determine if the supporting documents are sufficient to even
make out a prima facie case.

The CA has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion, to see to it that
the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory. The
practical aspect of this duty is to enable the CA to determine at the earliest
possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition. Moreover,
Section 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that if petitioner fails to
comply with the submission of "documents which should accompany the
petition", it "shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof". In this case,
the insufficiency of the supporting documents combined with the unjustified
refusal of petitioner to even attempt to substantially comply with the
attachment requirement justified the dismissal of her petition.

TEROCEL REALTY, INC. (NOW PECHATEN CORPORATION), PETITIONER

v LEONARDO MEMPIN, RESPONDENT.

A final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five (5)
years from entry of judgment. Execution by independent action is available
in cases where the five-year period had already expired. The action then
must be filed before it is barred by the statute of limitations which under the
Civil Code is ten (10) years from finality of judgment.

It is undisputed that although Terocel filed its first motion for execution in the
unlawful detainer case within the prescribed five-year period, it never
pursued the same and was therefore deemed to have abandoned it. When
Terocel filed its second motion for execution, twelve (12) years had already
elapsed from entry of judgment. Indubitably, the second motion was filed
seven (7) years beyond the five--year period. Hence, the second motion for
execution of judgment was filed beyond the prescription period.

SOLOMON SON, COMPLAINANT v ROLANDO C. LEYVA, SHERIFF IV,

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 74, ANTIPOLO CITY, RIZAL,
RESPONDENT.

Leyva violated the procedure outlined in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of

Court.

Failure to make a formal demand for payment of the monetary judgment

from BMC before proceeding with the levy itself violates Sec 9(a), Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court

Failure to levy on BMC's personal properties first before proceeding against

the subject real property violates Sec 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court

Excessive levying of BMC’s real property violates Sec 9(b) paragraph 2, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court

Colmenar v. Colmenar

A "question of law" exists when the doubt hinges on what the law is on a
certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand, there is a "question
of fact" when the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. The test for determining whether the supposed error was one
of "law" or "fact" is not the appellation given by the parties raising the same;
rather, it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is
one of fact. In other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts, the
question of whether the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a
question of law. If the question posed, however, requires a re-evaluation of
the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding
circumstances and their relationship to each other, the issue is factual.

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court - A party desiring to appeal

by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial
Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may
include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional
remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set
forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified
motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its
pendency.

As held in Daswani v. Banco de Oro, when only questions of law remain to

be addressed, a direct recourse to the Court under this remedy is the proper
mode of appeal.

People v. Sandiganbayan and Desembrana

Sections 1 and 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court read:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by

certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals,
the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or
other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a
verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an
application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies
and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The
petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in
the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.

Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion
duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees
and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty
(30) days only within which to file the petition.

The general rule is that orders granting motions to dismiss are subject to
appeal or petition for review for they belong to the category of "judgment,
final order or resolution" as they dispose of the subject matter in its entirety
or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be
done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. It
has been held that an order dismissing a case is a final order if no motion for
reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed.

Sanson v. Tapuz

The doctrine of res judicata, enshrined in Rule 39, Section 47 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, bars the relitigation of issues that have already been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. Res judicata applies when:
(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action is final; (2) the court rendering
the decision had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
judgment was on the merits; and (4) there is identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action.

The provision contemplates not only bar by prior judgment but also
conclusiveness of judgment Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan differentiated
the two (2) concepts, thus: The first aspect is the effect of a judgment as a
bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or
cause of action. In traditional terminology, this aspect is known as merger or
bar; in modern terminology, it is called claim preclusion.

REMEDIOS M. MASCARINAS VS. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.

In Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that

while petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from
notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration,
the period maybe extended subject to the court's sound discretion. For this
purpose, one should be able to provide a reasonable or meritorious
explanation for his or her failure to comply with the sixty-day period.

This notwithstanding, however, when strict application of the rules would

result in irreparable damage, if not grave injustice to a litigant, as in this
case, the Court is compelled to relax the rules in the higher interest of
substantial justice. The SC cited the case of De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,
viz

The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in
the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses
it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules,
shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts in rendering real
justice have always been, as they in fact ought to be, conscientiously guided
by the norm that when on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against
substantive rights, and not the other way around. Truly then, technicalities,
in the appropriate language of Justice Makalintal, "should give way to the
realities of the situation." x x x

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION AND NATIONAL POWER BOARDVS.

EMMA Y. BAYSIC AND NARCISA G. SANTIAGO

The SC held that although it is true that in cases of default judgments, the
remedy of the party declared in default is appeal but when that party
charges the trial court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction in declaring this party in default and eventually rendering
judgment against it, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court maybe availed of.

Also, in Martinez v. Republic of the Philippines citing Matute v. Court of

Appeals, the Court pronounced that a party who was improvidently declared
in default has the option to either perfect an appeal or interpose a petition
for certiorari seeking to nullify the order of default even before the
promulgation of a default judgment, or in the event that the latter has been
rendered, to have both court decrees – the order of default and the default
judgment – declared void.

CENTRAL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONVS.

SOLARRESOURCES, INC. AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE CITY
OF MANILA

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the
probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a case
involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what
the law provides on the given set of circumstances. On the other hand, a
question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and
their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual.
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION VS. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY
CORPORATION

The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules must be applied with
flexibility to promote substantial justice, especially when strict adherence to
procedural technicalities would result in the unjust dismissal of cases. In
cases involving rehabilitation proceedings, the Court stressed that Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court should be interpreted liberally, allowing petitions to be
treated in the interest of resolving disputes on their merits rather than on
procedural grounds. This principle extends to allowing the Court of Appeals
to treat petitions filed under Rule 43 as petitions for certiorari under Rule 65
when it serves the greater interest of justice.

GRAND PLANTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS. MAINE CITY PROPERTY

HOLDINGS CORP.

Summary judgment is an appropriate remedy when the pleadings, affidavits,

depositions, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. The absence of genuine issues requires clear and convincing evidence
that the case can be decided without a full trial.

Rule 35 of the Rules of Court is designed to facilitate the resolution of cases

where no factual controversy exists, allowing the court to render judgment
promptly. It is the responsibility of the party moving for summary judgment
to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Rule 34 pertains to judgment on the pleadings and is only appropriate when

the issues can be resolved solely on the pleadings without needing additional
evidence.

SPOUSES FLORES VS. SPOUSES ESTRELLADO

The Supreme Court granted the petition for annulment of judgment, finding
that the petitioners were denied due process of law. The Court emphasized
the following:

1. Grounds for Annulment of Judgment. Rule 47 limits annulment of

judgment to cases involving extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
However, under Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, denial of due process
serves as an additional ground for annulment. This occurs when a
 party is deprived of their constitutional right to counsel or their
substantive rights are violated by the gross negligence of their lawyer.
2. Violation of Due Process. The Court recognized that the petitioners
were systematically defrauded by their supposed lawyers. Disbarred or
suspended attorneys handled their case, forged signatures were used
in pleadings, and no genuine legal representation was provided.
Despite the appearance of representation on record, the petitioners
were effectively left without counsel, violating their right to be heard.
3. Consequences of Denial of Counsel. The Court held that the
constitutional right to counsel is absolute and applies to both civil and
criminal cases. Gross negligence or fraudulent acts by counsel that
deny the client effective representation constitute a denial of due
process, rendering the judgment null and void.
4. Annulment of Judgment. Given the egregious circumstances, including
the petitioners’ lack of knowledge of their counsel's disbarment and
the fraudulent handling of their case, the Court nullified the trial
court’s ruling. It emphasized that due process requires not only legal
representation but also competent and diligent assistance at every
stage of the proceedings.

Esperanza Gaoiran vs. CA

If a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of
another person, then the reconstituted title is void and the court that
rendered the decision had no jurisdiction, which would warrant the
annulment of judgment as provided under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either

lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject
matter of the claim. In case of absence, or lack, of jurisdiction, a court should
not take cognizance of the case. Thus, the prevailing rule is that where there
is want of jurisdiction over a subject matter, the judgment is rendered null
and void. A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights
are divested, from which no right can be obtained, which neither binds nor
bars any one, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing out
are void. It is not a decision in contemplation of law and, hence, it can never
become executory. It also follows that such a void judgment cannot
constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata.
Heirs of Teodoro Ribac vs. Narcisa Ribac-Putolan

Mistake or lack of foresight of a party's counsel on the ground that

petitioners were deprived of their day in court because their former counsel
only presented one witness, which ultimately led to a judgment against
them, cannot be a ground to reopen a case. If every shortcoming of counsel
would be considered a ground for new trial, this would render court
proceedings indefinite, tentative and subject to reopening at any time by the
mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.

It is settled that the negligence of a counsel binds the client as any act
performed by a counsel within the scope of their general or implied authority
is regarded as an act of their client. As such, a mistake or negligence of
counsel that results in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the
client binds the latter. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the foregoing
rule such as:

Where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due
process of law; or where the application of the rule will result in outright
deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or where the interests of justice
so requires and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by
reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence. In order to
apply the exceptions rather than the rule, the circumstances obtaining in
each case must be looked into. In cases where one of the exceptions is
present, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered
thereby.

Republic (DENR) vs. Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest

Programs Association, Inc. (TAFPA, Inc.)

In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction,

petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an
absolute lack of jurisdiction. Whether through inadvertence or negligence of
its deputized counsel or the OSG itself, the decision has already become final
and executory, and to conclude otherwise would run counter to the basic
principle of fair play. There would be no end to litigations if the parties who
have unsuccessfully availed themselves of any of the appropriate remedies
or lost them through their fault or inadvertence could have unfavorable
decisions annulled by simply bringing an action for annulment of judgment.
Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for
annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of
jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter
of the claim. It is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court should not
have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with
jurisdiction over the subject matter.

In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction,

petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an
absolute lack of jurisdiction. In the present case, the CA was correct when it
concluded that the action a quo is one for mandamus and, under Section 21
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, the Regional Trial Court
exercises original jurisdiction in the issuance of the writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which
may be enforced in any part of their regions. The court a quo after evaluating
the allegations in the initiatory pleading concluded that the action is one for
specific performance and proceeded to hear it as such. In doing so, the said
court retained jurisdiction. In this recourse, the DENR is no longer
questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC based on the above arguments.

GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER OF LAGUNA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ROSS

SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

The Supreme Court held yes. As it stands, Rule 45 contemplates only appeals
from final judgments and orders of lower courts, and does not include quasi-
judicial bodies or agencies. This differs from the former Rule 45 of the 1964
Rules of Court which made mention only of the CA, and had to be adopted in
statutes creating and providing for appeals from certain administrative or
quasi-judicial agencies whenever the purpose was to restrict the scope of the
appeal to questions of law.

In furtherance of the animating basis for the direct appeal of the CIAC awards
to this Court, CIAC awards may reasonably be considered as an exemption to
Rule 45's exclusive contemplation of lower courts. An interpretation
otherwise would create a scenario where a procedural limitation, which may
be hurdled, i.e., jurisdiction may be increased provided it complies with
Section 30, Article VI, operatively prevails over a substantive intendment to
the contrary provided by no less than the CIAC's very own charter. Given the
unique import of the CIAC's design as a specialized and expedient mode of
resolving construction disputes with persuasive finality, its substantive
design must be granted primacy over procedural rules that, as will be
discussed further, place no insurmountable obstacle before it.

JOY MART CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS, PHOENIX OMEGA DEVELOPMENT AND
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
respondents.

In petitioning the trial court to lift the writ of preliminary injunction which
they themselves had brought up to the Court of Appeals for review, Phoenix
and the LRTA engaged in forum-shopping. After the question of whether the
writ of preliminary injunction should be annulled or continued had been
elevated to the Court of Appeals for determination, the trial court lost
jurisdiction or authority to act on the same matter. By seeking from the trial
court an order lifting the writ of preliminary injunction, Phoenix and LRTA
sought to divest the Court of Appeals of its jurisdiction to review the writ.
They improperly tried to moot their own petition in the Court of Appeals — a
clear case of trifling with the proceedings in the appellate court or of
disrespect for said court.

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. ALEX M.

VALENCERINA, Respondent.

Second, section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman supersedes the discretion given to the CA in Section 12, Rule 43
of the Rules of Court when a decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative
case is appealed to the CA. The provision in the Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman that a decision is immediately executory is a
special rule that prevails over the provisions of the Rules of Court. Specialis
derogat generali. When two rules apply to a particular case, that which was
specially designed for the said case must prevail over the other.

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF CHARLES B. MITICH a.k.a. CHARLIE MITICH

AND JAMES L. KENNEDY, TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF
CHARLES B. MITICH a.k.a. CHARLIE MITICH, PETITIONERS, VS.
MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

Yes Mitich, et al. successfully established the authenticity of the Default

Judgment Under Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
a foreign judgment or final order against a person creates presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties involved, viz.:

Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. – The effect of a

judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction
to render the judgment or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment
or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
(b)In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or
final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

CANDY a.k.a. BABY/JILLIAN MURING FERRER, PETITIONER, VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that petitioners Candy and Nikki took different
routes before the Court. Candy filed a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt while Nikki filed a petition under
Rule 65, availing herself of the sixty-day reglementary period therefore. But
both modes are improper for the purpose of assailing the dispositions of the
Court of Appeals here.

In Arambullo v. People, the Court clarified that as a general rule, appeals in

criminal cases shall be brought to the Court via a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court except when the Court of
Appeals imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, in
which case, the appeal shall be made by a mere notice of appeal before the
Court of Appeals.

MMDA v. High Desert Stop Overs, Inc.

According to the appellate court, the petitioner must show absolute lack of
jurisdiction, not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion since these are
two entirely different concepts. Lack of jurisdiction means that the trial court
should not have taken cognizance of the complaint or petition because the
law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Aromin v. Heirs of Somis

Fraud is not extrinsic if the alleged fraudulent act was committed by

petitioner's own counsel. The fraud must emanate from the act of the
adverse party and must be of such nature as to deprive petitioner of its day
in court.

Ancheta v. Cambay

The remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is available only when

the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of
the petitioner.

This means that the remedy, although seen as "a last remedy," is not an
alternative to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal and petition for
relief. The petition must aver, therefore, that the petitioner failed to move for
a new trial, or to appeal, or to file a petition for relief without fault on his
part.

BRITANIA v. ENCARNACION

Section 36, Rule 39 speaks of the judgment obligor's property and income
only; not those belonging to third persons. For a judgment creditor or
purchaser at an execution sale acquires only whatever rights the judgment
obligor may have over the property at the time of levy. Thus, if the judgment
obligor has no right, title or interest over the levied property, there is nothing
for him or her to transfer.

MONTEHERMOSO v. BATUTO

In Spouses Aguilar v. The Manila Banking Corporation, the Court aptly held: It
is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every
litigation must come to an end. Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there
must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a
valid and final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an
unbridled license to come back for another try.

SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE

BAIS

Under the Rules of Court, there are three modes of appeal from RTC
decisions. The first mode is through an ordinary appeal before the CA under
Rule 41 where the decision assailed was rendered in the exercise of the RTC's
original jurisdiction. In ordinary appeals questions of fact or mixed questions
of fact and law may be raised. The second mode is through a petition for
review before the CA under Rule 42 where the decision assailed was
rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In petitions
for review, questions of fact, law, or mixed questions of fact and law may be
raised. The third mode is through an appeal by certiorari before this Court
under Rule 45 where only questions of law shall be raised.

HEIRS OF EUTIQUIO ELLIOT vs. DANILO CORCUERA

Unlike res judicata by prior judgment, there is only identity of parties and
subject matter in res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. Since there is
no identity of cause of action, the judgment in the first case is conclusive
only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined.
Thus, there is res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment when all
the following elements are present:

(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;

(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties;

(3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and

(4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties,
but not identity of causes of action.

SPOUSES MANGARON vs. HANNA VIA DESIGN

A demurrer to evidence is defined as an objection or exception by one of the

parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his
adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to
make out his case or sustain the issue.

MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN vs. MUNICIPALITY OF SUGPON

Procedural irregularities may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice,

especially in public interest cases such as municipal boundary disputes.
Additionally, the rigidity of procedural rules should give way to practicalities
and reasonable accommodations when procedural impossibilities arise, such
as the dissolution of a body meant to receive the notice of appeal. Certainly,
procedural technicalities must yield to considerations of public interest.

KENNETH C. DUREMDES, Petitioner v. CAROLINE G. JORILLA et.al,

Respondents

Section 1 Rule 38 of the Rules of Court provides that a Petition for Relief from
Judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a
decision or order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence. It is a remedy, equitable in character that is allowed only in
exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy.

When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a
motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and
he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail of the remedy
of petition for relief.

ERNESTO LORENZO, et.al., Petitioners v. FORTUNATA D. EUSTAQUIO

and CHILDREN, Respondents

Section 13 (a), Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, states that an appellant's brief
shall contain a subject index with a digest of the arguments and page
references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and
statutes cited with references to the pages they are cited. The absence
thereof warrants the dismissal, either motu proprio or upon motion of an
appellee, of the appeal pursuant to Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rule.
MEGA FISHING CORPORATION,Petitioner v. ESTATE OF FRANCISCO
FELIPE N. GONZALES,Respondent

The Court in several cases allowed the relaxation of the rigid rules of
procedure in order to serve substantial justice in considering (1.) matters of
life, liberty, honor or property; (2.) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances; (3.) the merits of the case; (4.) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favoured by the
suspension of the rules; (5.) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory; or (6.) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby.