CIVIL PROCEDURE - PRE MIDTERMS ASSIGNED CASES
1. Alonso vs. Villamor, G.R. No. L-2352, July 16, 1910
Case: Real party in interest is not the name that appears as plaintiff
The error in this case is purely technical. To take advantage of it for other purposes than
to cure it, does not appeal to a fair sense of justice. Its presentation as fatal to the plaintiff's
case smacks of skill rather than right. A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which
one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position,
entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party
fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly
trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that
justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's
thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper o􏰁ce as an aid to justice and becomes its
great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There
should be no vested rights in technicalities. No litigant should be permitted to challenge
a record of a court of these Islands for defect of form when his substantial rights have not
been prejudiced thereby.
● Sec. 503 Code of Civil Procedure - prohibits the reversal of any judgment on
merely formal or technical grounds or for such error as has not prejudiced the rights
of the excepting party. Under these provisions of law, this court has the power to
amend by substituting the name of the real party in interest.
● Sec 110 Code of Civil Procedure - courts are authorized and directed to allow a
party of amend any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action, in
furtherance of justice and upon such terms, if any, as may be proper
● Sec 114 Code of Civil Procedure - every action must be prosecuted in the name
of the real party in interest.
TAKE NOTE: General rule remains to be that rules of procedure must be observed and
that relaxation thereof is only the exception.
2. Cu-Unjieng vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139596, January 24, 2004
Case: Failure of appellant to pay docket & other law fee on time.
● Right to appeal is merely statutory and a party seeking to avail of that right must
comply with the statute or rules.
● Payment of the docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both
mandatory and jurisdictional, noncompliance with which is fatal to an appeal.
For, to stress, appeal is not a matter of right, but a mere statutory privilege.
● Time and again, this Court has consistently held that full payment of docket fees
within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without
such payment, the appeal is not perfected and the appellate court does not
acquire jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, thereby rendering the decision sought
to be appealed final and executory.
○ An ordinary appeal from a decision or final order of the RTC to the CA
must be made within fifteen (15) days from notice. And within this period, the full
amountof the appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid to the
clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from.
○ Section 4, Rule 41 (Failure of the appellant to pay docket and other law
fee) Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of
court which rendered the judgement or final order appealed from , the full
amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of
said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original
record or record on appeal.
■ nonpayment of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees
within the reglementary period as provided under Section 4, Rule 41, supra,
is a ground for the dismissal of an appeal under Section 1 (c) of Rule 50.
3. David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105294, February 26, 1997
Case: Easement of Right of Way, non-compliance with the requisites.
The appeal of petitioner is based on equity which has been aptly described as "justice
outside legality." However, equity is applied only in the absence of, and never against,
statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. There are rigorous standards to be complied
with by owners of the dominant estate before they may be granted with easement of
right of way. These standards must be strictly complied with because easement is a
burden on the property of another. Before such inconvenience may be imposed by the
Court, applicants must prove that they deserve judicial intervention on the basis of law,
and certainly not when their isolation is caused by their own acts.
4. Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005
Case: Filed an appeal beyond 15 days and it was time barred.
FRESH PERIOD RULE. — The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all courts.
It has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal or even establish new rules for a more
simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases.
● "Fresh period rule" shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the
Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review
from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from
quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by
certiorari to the Supreme Court.
○ To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical
to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal
in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
○ The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be
counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion
for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.
Notwithstanding the provision of Sec. 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, SC said that the
filing of such MR would have the effect of giving the movant a fresh period of 15 days to
file a notice of appeal which will be reckoned from the time of receiving the order
denying his motion for consideration.
Note: You only invoke the exceptional cases if the circumstances really warrant. Equity is
applicable only in the absence of and never against the law.
5. Regulus vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016
Case: Notary public failed to affix his seal in Certiorari. Regulus said it’s defective. The rule
is that courts should not be unduly strict on procedural lapses that do not really impair
the proper administration of justice. The higher objective of procedural rules is to ensure
that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. Litigations should, as much as
possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Every party-litigant must be
afforded ample opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from
the unacceptable plea of technicalities.
● Equity Jurisdiction - Aims to provide complete justice in cases where a court of
law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case
because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation.
The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust
enrichment and to ensure restitution.
6. Sumbilla vs. Matrix, G.R. No. 197582, June 29, 2015
Case: Violation of BP 129. Petition to change the fine for each count of violation. The
immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule. 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. After all, procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment
of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the
demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter.
● {Sec 2 Rule 1 Rules of Court} SEC. 2. Construction. — These rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
Substantial justice demands that we suspend our Rules in this case. "It is always within the
power of the court to suspend its own [R]ules or except a particular case from its
operation, whenever the purposes of justice require. . . . Indeed, when there is a strong
showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the
Rules, this Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice."
Suspending the Rules is justified "where there exist strong compelling reasons, such as
serving the ends of justice and preventing a miscarriage thereof." After all, the Court's
"primordial and most important duty is to render justice . . . ."
TAKE NOTE: You only invoke the exceptional cases if the circumstances really warrant.
Equity is applicable only in the absence of and never against the law.
7. Republic vs. Estipular, 336 SCRA 333
Case: Failure to post the notice in both main entrance of provincial and municipal
building as required by Sec. 13 of RA 26 Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Certificate of
Title The purposes of the stringent and mandatory character of the legal requirements of
publication, posting and mailing are to safeguard against spurious and unfounded land
ownership claims, to apprise all interested parties of the existence of such action, and to
give them enough time to intervene in the proceeding.
Requirements - MANDATORY & STRICT COMPLIANCE Sec 13. RA 26
a. Publication of notice of hearing in the Official Gazette
b. Posting of the said notice at the main entrance of both provincial and municipal
building
8. Atlas Developer & Steel Industries, Inc. vs. Sarmiento Enterprises, 184 SCRA 153
Case: Venue of action may be fixed by agreement of the parties Although it provides
that the City Court of Manila shall have "jurisdiction" over a legal action arising from the
contract, the parties must have intended to fix the venue only, for jurisdiction over an
action is conferred by law, and may not be changed by mere agreement of the parties
Sections 19 and 33 of B.P. 129, provide:
● "Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, estate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate,
or amount of the demand does not exceed twenty thousand pesos
exclusive of interest and costs but inclusive of damages of whatever kind,
the amount of which must be specifically alleged.
● Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction: "(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest
and costs or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to more than
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000)."
● Sec. 1-b, Rule 4, Rules of Court The venue of an action in the inferior court is "the
place specified by the parties by means of a written agreement, whenever the
court shall have jurisdiction to try the action by reason of its nature or the amount
involved"
9. Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968
Case: Party questioned the jurisdiction of the court after failing to attain affirmative relief.
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction. The question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject
matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party
is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and
conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice cannot be
tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.
● “Undesirable Practice” - Court frowned upon the 'undesirable practice' of
appellants submitting their case for decision and then accepting the judgment, if
favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.
TAKE NOTE: But about a month prior to the filing of the complaint, more specifically on
June 7, 1948, the Judiciary Act of 1948 took effect, depriving the Court of First Instance of
original jurisdiction over cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, is not more than
P2,000.00 (Secs. 44[c] and 86[b], R.A. No. 296.).
10. Balibago Faith Baptist Church, Inc. vs. Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist Church, Inc.
G.R. No. 191527, August 22, 2016
Case: Jurisdiction of the court over specific cases. Court's jurisdiction may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred
by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to
render judgment on the action. Indeed, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no
judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All
acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void.
TAKE NOTE:
● General rule, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and it is to
be determined on the basis of what appears in the complaint or it has to be
determined on the basis of the allegations, not on the basis of the caption of the
complaint.
● The complaint must specifically allege the facts constituting unlawful detainer or
forcible entry if the complaint filed was for unlawful detainer, or forcible entry,
respectively. It cannot be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of
the case by one of the parties, jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the
defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for
reconsideration.
11. De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 10
Case: Jurisdiction of MTC, McTC, MTC - BP 129 (6)
GEN RULE: The general rule is that what determines the nature of the action and the court
that has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint. These cannot be
made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the
defendant.
EXP: That while the allegations in the complaint make out the case for forcible entry,
where tenancy is averred by way of defense and is proved to be the real issue, the case
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
● Other exceptions: Agricultural Tenancy, Allegations are vague, weak & iffy.
➔ Section 19, of Chapter II of B.P. No. 129 on Regional Trial Courts provides: Section
19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Two (2) kinds of action to recover possession of real property which fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC are: (1) the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of
possession (accion publiciana) when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year
or when the action was filed more than one (1) year from date of the last demand
received by the lessee or defendant; and (2) an action for the recovery of ownership
(accion reivindicatoria) which includes the recovery of possession.
These actions are governed by the regular rules of procedure and adjudication takes a
longer period than the summary ejectment suit.