Padre vs Badillo - real vs personal actions to determine venue
Facts: Civil Case filed for Ownership and Recovery of Possession with Damages – in favor with Badillo – Filed in RTC of
Samar. Badillo filed another civil case for those occupying their property including Nilo Padre (on of the Heirs) – which was
declared default for failure to file an Answer. – Filed in MTC in Samar. Petitioner move for reconsideration contending
that the action for revival of judgment is a real action thus be filed on the RTC. MTC held that this is one of personal action
as it is not for ownership and possession.
Issue: Whether the action is real or personal. Whether MTC have jurisdiction.
Ruling: The court held that whether the case filed by the respondents real or personal is irrelevant. Determining whether
an action is real or personal is for the purpose only of determining venue. In the case at bar, the question raised concerns
jurisdiction, not venue.
If should be an ejectment case – filed within 1 yr – MTC have exclusive original jurisdiction
It is filed as accion publiciana – instituted within 10 years – to determine the better right of possession – MTC only have
jurisdiction if the assessed value does not exceed 20 thousand.
Frias vs Alcayde – action in personam, in rem, quasi in rem
Facts: The parties entered into a contract of lease. The respondent failed to perform any of his contractual obligation and
accumulated 24 months arrears. Petitioner prompted to file a complaint of Unlawful Detainer in MTC – court ruled on
favor of the petitioner. The respondent filed a motion for annulment of judgment In RTC – also averred that the MTC does
not bind him since MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over his person
Ruling: An action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and
is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific
property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. Its purpose is to
impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this
character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him.
The following are some of the examples of actions in personam: action for collection of sum of money and damages; action
for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; action for specific performance; action to enforce a foreign judgment in a complaint
for a breach of contract.
Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world. The phrase, "against the thing,"
to describe in rem actions is a metaphor. It is not the "thing" that is the party to an in rem action; only legal or natural
persons may be parties even in in rem actions. The following are some of the examples of actions in rem: petitions directed
against the "thing" itself or the res which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, correction of entries
in the birth certificate; or annulment of marriage; nullity of marriage; petition to establish illegitimate filiation; registration
of land under the Torrens system; and forfeiture proceedings.
In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions
in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person. Thus, a petition for annulment
of Judgment is one in personam. It is neither an action in rem nor an action quasi in rem.
Biaco vs Philippine - actins in personam, in rem, quasi in rem
Facts: Ernesto, petitioner’s husband acquired several loans with the bank and as a security executed a real estate mortgage
covering a parcel of land, which the spouses have signed. The husband failed to settle the said loans thus prompted the
bank to file a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage after several demands failed. Ernesto received the summons but for
unknown reasons, he failed to file an answer. Hence, the spouses Biaco were declared in default upon motion of the
respondent bank. Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial Court decision contending that extrinsic fraud
prevented her from participating in the judicial foreclosure proceedings. Her motion for reconsideration having been
denied, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, 4 asserting that even if the action is quasi in rem, personal service
of summons is essential in order to afford her due process.
Ruling: In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and
decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite
to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court with
jurisdiction over the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person
of petitioner is not required, it being sufficient that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Paper Industries vs Samson - real action defined, examples
Facts: Petitionerfiled with the respondent a complaint for injunction and damages against the private respondent alleging
that the latter have unlawfully encroached upon and have engaged in spurious logging operation on its timber concession
located at Surigao del Sur. Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that venue was improperly laid,
their contention being that the action was personal and therefore, should have been filed either in the places of residence
of the parties. The respondent Court dismissed the complaint.
Ruling: The contention has no merit. A personal action is one that is founded on privity of contract. The facts of the case
as borne out by the record reveal that no contract is here involved. From a reading of the Complaint petitioner is interested
primarily in recovering its rights to the concession over the land, to have defendants Samson and Barrera vacate the same,
to desist from further encroaching on their concession rights and to stop their illegal logging operations in the concession
areas. Clearly, therefore, the action is real and in accordance with the Rules of Court, Section 2, Rule 4, the same must be
brought in the locality where the land is situated.
"Section 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance. — (A) Real Actions. — Actions affecting title to, or for recovery of
possession or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property shall be commenced and
tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies."
Siasoco vs CA - specific performance is a personal action
Facts: Private respondent Iglesia ni Cristo filed civil suit for specific performance and damages against petitioners Mario
Siasoco, et al. and Carissa Homes and Development & Properties, Inc. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
of improper venue and lack of capacity to sue.
Ruling: The RTC had jurisdiction because the original Complaint involved specific performance with damages. this Court
ruled that a complaint for "specific performance with damages" is a personal action and may be filed in the proper court
where any of the parties reside.
Lucas vs Lucas - action in rem vs action in personam
Facts: Petitioner filed a petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation with a Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA
Testing before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse alleged that he is the son of his mother Elsie who got acquainted with
respondent, Jesus S. Lucas in Manila. The case was brought up to the CA where CA ruled in favour of Jesus, it noted that
Jesse failed to show that the four significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met and held that DNA
testing should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case.
Ruling: An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against
the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject
that person’s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition directed against the “thing” itself or
the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries
in the birth certificate, is an action in rem. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction
over the res. The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in rem where the RTC have jurisdiction.
GSIS vs Villaviza - rules apply in suppletory character
Facts: Petitioners primarily question the probative value accorded to respondents’ letters of explanation in response to
the memorandum of the GSIS-IU Manager. The respondents never filed their answers to the formal charges. The
petitioners argue that there being no answers, the allegations in the formal charges that they filed should have been
deemed admitted pursuant to Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which provides: Allegations not specifically denied
deemed admitted. According to the petitioners, this rule is applicable to the case at bench pursuant to Rule 1, Section 4
of the Rules of Court: except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Ruling: The Court does not subscribe to the argument of the petitioners. It is true that Section 4 of the Rules of Court
provides that the rules can be applied in a “suppletory character.” Suppletory is defined as “supplying deficiencies.”It
means that the provisions in the Rules of Court will be made to apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable
rule. There is, however, no such deficiency as the rules of the GSIS are explicit in case of failure to file the required answer.
What is clearly stated there is that GSIS may “render judgment as may be warranted by the facts and evidence submitted
by the prosecution.
Anama vs PS Bank - liberal construction of rules
Facts: The Petitioner Anama and the Respondent PSB entered into a "Contract to Buy," on installment basis, the real
property owned by PSB. However, Anama defaulted in paying his obligations thus, PSB rescinded the said contract and
title to the property. Subsequently, the property was sold by PSB to the Co Spouses who, after paying the purchase price
in full, caused the registration of the same in their names and were, thus, issued TCT. Anama filed before the Respondent
Court a complaint for declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, cancellation of transfer certificate of title, and specific
performance with damages against PSB, the Co Spouses, and the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila, District II. The case
was dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the Co Spouses moved for execution, which was granted by the Court. Not satisfied with
the CA's unfavorable disposition, petitioner filed this petition praying for the reversal.
Ruling: The motion for execution of the Spouses Co is such kind of motion. It cannot be denied that the judgment sought
to be executed in this case had already become final and executory. As such, the Spouses Co have every right to the
issuance of a writ of execution and the RTC has the ministerial duty to enforce the same as provided in Section 1 and
Section 2 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
The three-day notice rule is not absolute. A liberal construction of the procedural rules is proper where the lapse in the
literal observance of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived the court of its
authority. Indeed, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the Rules should be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of
procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and courts must avoid their strict and rigid application
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Through such notice,
the adverse party is given time to study and answer the arguments in the motion.
Sumbilla vs Matrix - liberal construction of rules; inherent power of SC to suspend rules or exempt from operation of
rules
Facts: In payment of her loan, petitioner issued six checks which bounced for being drawn from a closed account. Each of
the six checks has a face value of P6,667. The MTC found petitioner guilty and sentenced her to pay a fine equivalent to
80,000. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC. Petitioner acknowledged the procedural lapse
she had committed and the finality of the decision, but she is now asking the Court for the relaxation of the procedural
rules so that the alleged erroneous penalty imposed by the MeTC can be modified to make it in accord with existing law
and jurisprudence.
Ruling: Notwithstanding the doctrine of the immutability of judgments wherein a decision that has acquired finality
becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified, the Court has the power and prerogative to suspend
its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. If a stringent application of the
rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, final and executory judgments were reversed when the interest of
substantial justice is at stake and where special and compelling reasons called for such actions.
General Rule: Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments – once a decision acquired finality, it becomes immutable and
unalterable.
Exception: If substantial justice requires the exemption of a case from the doctrine of immutability of judgments.
Labao vs Flores - exceptions to strict observance of rules
Facts: Petitioner issued a memorandum requiring all security guards to submit their updated personal data files, security
guard professional license, and other pertinent documents. When respondents failed to comply with the petitioner’s
directive, despite several notices to do so, the petitioner relieved them. Respondents filed individual complaints with
Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal dismissal and money claims, claiming they were constructively dismissed when they were not
given new assignments for a period of over 6 months, despite their repeated requests. The LA ruled in favor of the
petitioner. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision. Counsel for the respondents appealed with the Court of Appeals
(CA) outside the reglementary period, yet the ruling was in favor of respondents. CA considered the respondents’ petition
as timely filed and also opined that disregarding any procedural lapses best served substantial justice.
Ruling: Late filing should not be allowed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would
violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case. Procedural rules do not exist for the
convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our
judicial system. While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied,
indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of
judicial business. The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with.
Cebu vs DBP - grounds for relaxation of the rules in case of immutability of judgment
Facts: The spouses Rudy and Elizabeth Robles entered into a mortgage contract with DBP to secure a loan from the said
bank. Rudy Robles executed a contract of lease in favor of petitioner Cebu Bionic, whereby the lease is on a month-tomonth basis. DBP acquired the property in the foreclosure sale. DBP subsequently sent a letter to Bonifacio Sia, the
husband of petitioner Lydia Sia who was then President of Cebu Bionic, notifying the latter of DBP’s acquisition of the
property. Then, respondents To Chip, Yap and Balila purchased subject properties. Despite notice, Cebu Bionic still paid
monthly rentals to DBP. The respondent To Chip wrote a letter to the counsel of Cebu Bionic, insisting that they urgently
needed the subject properties to pursue their business plans. He also reiterated their demand for Cebu Bionic to vacate
the premises. Petitioners sought the rescission of the contract of sale between DBP and respondents To Chip, Yap and
Balila.
Ruling: the appellate court's Decision would have ordinarily attained finality for failure of respondents to seasonably file
their Motion for Reconsideration thereon. However, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the higher interest of
substantial justice will be better served if respondents' procedural lapse will be excused. This Court has relaxed this rule
in order to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special
or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence
of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
Pascual vs Lim - rules not relaxed; unexplained failure to comply with rules
Facts: Petitioner is a tenant on the parcel of land owned by one Deato. Petitioner filed a petition to be recognized as a
tenant of the property. While the case is pending, Deato sold the property to respondent Lim. After being recognized as a
tenant the petitioner filed a petition against the private respondents and the Registrar of Deeds praying for the issuance
of an order directing Spouses Lim to accept the amount of P10million which she undertook to tender, declare the property
redeemed and cancel the TCT. CA dismissed the petition for review due to grounds of failure to comply some
requirements.
Ruling: Absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules
appears to be an afterthought, hence, cannot be granted. The CA saw no compelling need meriting the relaxation of the
rules. Neither did the Court see any. The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally
construed. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a satisfactory and persuasive
explanation. It is the duty of every member of the bar to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek exceptions
should they fail to observe these rules and rationalize their omission by harking on liberal construction.
Asian vs Bautista - rules not relaxed; wanton disregard of the rules or delay; prejudice substantial rights
Facts: The respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner for breach of contract and damages, decision was rendered
in favor of the respondents. Motion of reconsideration was denied, hence petitioner appealed. The court directed the
petitioner to file his brief within 45 days from the notice thereof, however, failed to comply. Thus, the respondents filed
a Manifestation and Motion for dismissal for its failure to file its brief. Petitioner now filed a petition for review averring
that the late filing of its brief did not cause material injury or prejudice to the respondents and the issues raised by it in its
brief require an examination of the evidence on record.
Ruling: Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in
prejudice to a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive
of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. The right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who
seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
More so, as in this case, where petitioner not only neglected to file its brief within the stipulated time but also failed to
seek an extension of time for a cogent ground before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.