Villasis Blogs

JUSTICE PERALTA DECISIONS

FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: The Supreme Court has long adhered
to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and
circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.
This deference to the trial courts appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of
witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness
meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is
especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the
appellate court (PENTECOSTES, JR. VS. PEOPLE [2010], PERALTA, J.).
EQUIPOISE RULE: Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise, or there
is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of
proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then
the evidence does not suffice to produce a conviction.
The equipoise rule has been generally applied when the parties have already
concluded the presentation of their respective evidence (PEOPLE VS. HON. GABO
[2010], PERALTA, J).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence
necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence.
Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court is explicit, to wit: Sec. 5. Substantial
evidence. In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may
be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.
Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required
in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted
by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs (OMBUDSMAN VS.
ZALDARRIAGA [2010], PERALTA, J).
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: It is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a
case must prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required
by law. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case
by preponderance of evidence, or that evidence that is of greater weight or is more
convincing than that which is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth;
rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more believable than that of the
other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other (REYES
VS. CENTURY CANNING CORP. [2010], PERALTA, J.).
The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general
circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature
of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of

Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential
oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to
other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not
for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the
requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the
opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.
While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and
notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the
notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all
possible interested parties. Such failure was likewise excused where the interested
parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; when there is no actual or
presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or when a party is
inadvertently left out.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation
or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial
alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court is mandated. If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or
changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action
wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented,
the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which
might be detrimental and far reaching. (REPUBLIC vs. DR. UY [2013], PERALTA, J).
Preliminary mandatory injunction should only be granted "in cases of extreme
urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative
inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and
unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury
being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather
to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties,
recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new
relation."
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person
to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a
particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory
injunction.
To justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, it must be
shown that: (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such right has been
violated and the invasion by the other party is material and substantial; and (3)
there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is
merely contingent and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the
alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a
matter of law. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).

AMENDMENTS: Under Section 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, an amended

complaint supersedes an original one. As a consequence, the original complaint is
deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record. (Figuracion vs. Libi,
G.R. No. 155688, November 28, 2007) In the present case, the Amended Complaint
is, thus, treated as an entirely new complaint. As such, respondents had every right
to move for the dismissal of the said Amended Complaint. Were it not for the filing
of the said Motion, respondents would not have been able to file a petition for
certiorari before the CA which, in turn, rendered the presently assailed judgment in
their favor. (MERCADO VS. SPS. ESPINA [2012], PERALTA, J.)
LACHES SHOULD BE CLEARLY PRESENT FOR THE SIBONGHANOY DOCTRINE TO
APPLY BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED INTIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY IS MERELY
AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. (Vda. De Herrera vs. Bernardo [2011]
PERALTA, J.).
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FIULING
OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI: Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari.
Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or
perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual
circumstances of the case. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined
exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo
has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have
been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those
raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity
for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of
the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is
perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be
useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme
urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the
proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the
proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object;
and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i)
where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
(TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION [2010], PERALTA, J).
TRUST:
A TRUST IS THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE PERSON HAVING AN
EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY AND ANOTHER PERSON OWNING THE LEGAL
TITLE TO SUCH PROPERTY, THE EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP OF THE FORMER ENTITLING
HIM TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN DUTIES AND THE EXERCISE OF CERTAIN
POWERS BY THE LATTER. Trusts are either express or implied. Express or direct
trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or
deed, or will, or by oral declaration in words evincing an intention to create a trust.
Implied trusts also called trusts by operation of law, indirect trusts and
involuntary trusts arise by legal implication based on the presumed intention of
the parties or on equitable principles independent of the particular intention of the
parties. They are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the
nature of the transaction as matters of intent or, independently of the particular

intention of the parties, as being inferred from the transaction by operation of law
basically by reason of equity. (ESTATE OF CABACUNGAN VS. LAIGO [2011], PERALTA,
J.)
EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING BY THE ATTORNEYIN-FACT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PARTIES MUST
PERSONALLY SIGN THE SAME: (MONASTERIO-PE VS. TONG, PERALTA, J.).
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The writ of injunction should never issue when an action
for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very
foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable
injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the
multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these
conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.
It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to
prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial, and
demonstrable. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).
THE RTC CLEARLY EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT ENTERTAINED THE JOINT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE
AT LARGE.
IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE JOINT MOTION AS A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS SOLELY FILED BY ACCUSED who was present during
the promulgation. (PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a
ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. (Dabuco vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 133775, January 20, 2000)
A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential
elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these
elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground
of failure to state a cause of action. (Mercado vs. Sps. Espina [2012], PERALTA, J.)
The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No.
6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the
Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands
placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under
the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement. Thus, in
determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors:
(1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its
nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax
declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and

economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the
government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing institution on the said land, if any. (Land Bank vs.
Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).
The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No.
6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the
Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands
placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under
the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement. Thus, in
determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors:
(1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its
nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax
declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the
government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing institution on the said land, if any. (Land Bank vs.
Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).
Petition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case: In
People v. Hernandez, the Court held that delay resulting from extraordinary
remedies against interlocutory orders must be read in harmony with Section 7,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that the [p]etition [under Rule 65]
shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public
respondent from further proceeding in the case. The trial court was then correct
and acting well within its discretion when it refused to grant petitioners' motions for
postponement mainly because of the pendency of their petition for transfer of
venue (MARI & PEOPLE VS. HON. GONZALES [2011], PERALTA, J).
The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules.
If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary
review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused
against double jeopardy would be violated. (VILLAREAL VS. ALIGA, 2014, PERALTA,
J.)
WHEN A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, RULE 17 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, THERE IS NO NEED TO STATE IN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING IN A SUBSEQUENT RE-FILED COMPLAINT THE FACT OF THE PRIOR FILING
AND DISMISSAL OF THE FORMER COMPLAINT. (BENEDICTO VS. LACSON [2010],
PERALTA, J.).
IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE GRANT OF DEMURRER IS TANTAMOUNT TO AN ACQUITTAL
AND THE DISMISSAL ORDER MAY NOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE THIS WOULD PLACE
THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL ORDER IS NOT
SUBJECT TO APPEAL, IT IS STILL REVIEWABLE BUT ONLY THROUGH CERTIORARI
UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT. (PEOPLE VS. ATIENZA, 2012, PERALTA, J.).

FORUM-SHOPPING CAN BE COMMITTED IN THREE WAYS:

(1) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for
dismissal is litis pendentia);
(2) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for
dismissal is res judicata); and
(3) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different
prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judicata). (BORRA vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J.)
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER: It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over
the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is not
affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a
motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely
upon the whims of the defendant. (MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM VS.
CULLEN [2013], PERALTA, J.)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the following
essential requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material
and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3)
that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage. In the present case, the right of respondents cannot be said to be clear
and unmistakable, because the prevailing jurisprudence is that the penalty of
dismissal from the service meted on government employees or officials is
immediately executory in accordance with the valid rule of execution pending
appeal uniformly observed in administrative disciplinary cases. (OMBUDSMAN vs.
DE CHAVEZ [2013], PERALTA, J).
THE SUPREME COURT NOW HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE RULES
CONCERNING PLEADING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN ALL COURTS. (GSIS VS.
HEIRS OF CABALLERO [2010], PERALTA, J.).
IN DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF THIS RIGHT, THE
FACTORS TO CONSIDER AND BALANCE ARE THE FOLLOWING: (A) DURATION OF THE
DELAY; (B) REASON THEREFOR; (C) ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT OR FAILURE TO
ASSERT IT; AND (D) PREJUDICE CAUSED BY SUCH DELAY. (MARI VS. GONZALES, 2011
PERALTA, J.)
MOTION TO DISCHARGE A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT: UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE
CONTRACT AND THE VERACITY OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALLEGATION OF FRAUD,
PERTAIN TO THE MERITS OF THE MAIN ACTION. HENCE, THESE ISSUES ARE NOT TO
BE TAKEN UP IN RESOLVING THE MOTION TO DISCHARGE, LEST WE RUN THE RISK
OF DECIDING OR PREJUDGING THE MAIN CASE AND FORCE A TRIAL ON THE MERITS
AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS (THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN
VS. HON. DUMDUM, JR., [2010], PERALTA, J).
INSTANCES WHEN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IS REQUIRED BY LAW: Section 14(2),
Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be
absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at
arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever

necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence,

unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or
representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and
cannot be waived (PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).
Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a criminal case is
denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial,
without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to
quash
The above general rule, however admits of several exceptions, one of which
is when the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to quash, acts without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or
prohibition lies. (JAVIER VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 2009, PERALTA, J.).
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION OVER ORDERS, DIRECTIVES AND
DECISIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY
CASES ONLY. (OMBUDSMAN VS. VENTURA, 2009, PERALTA, J.)
QUASHAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT: IN VIEW OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE
INFORMATION FOR ROBBERY, THE QUASHAL OF THE SUBJECT SEARCH WARRANTS
AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS
PROBABLE CAUSE WARRANTING THE ISSUANCE BY THE RTC OF THE SAID SEARCH
WARRANTS FOR RESPONDENTS ALLEGED ACTS OF ROBBERY HAS BEEN RENDERED
MOOT AND ACADEMIC. (TAN vs. SY TIONG GUE, 2010, PERALTA, J.).
PLAIN VIEW: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a
position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and
may be introduced in evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the
following requisites concur:
(a)
the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular
area;
(b)

the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;

(c)
it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may
be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly
be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such
lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the
accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
(MICLAT VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).

IN SEARCHES INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST, THE ARREST MUST PRECEDE THE

SEARCH; GENERALLY, THE PROCESS CANNOT BE REVERSED.
Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the
outset of the search. (SY VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION STATES THAT A SEARCH AND CONSEQUENT SEIZURE
MUST BE CARRIED OUT WITH A JUDICIAL WARRANT; OTHERWISE, IT BECOMES
UNREASONABLE AND ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED THEREFROM SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING. (SY VS. PEOPLE, 2011,
PERALTA, J.).
COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT BEFORE
POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY CARRY OUT A BUY-BUST OPERATION.
A BUY-BUST OPERATION IS NOT INVALIDATED BY MERE NON-COORDINATION
WITH THE PDEA. (PEOPLE VS. MANTALABA [2011], PERALTA, J.).
GENERALLY, A CRIMINAL CASE HAS TWO ASPECTS, THE CIVIL AND THE CRIMINAL:
The civil aspect is borne of the principle that every person criminally liable is also
civilly liable. The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the
accused is the defendant, is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 111,
Sec. 1(a)). The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid
multiplicity of suits. Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the offense, the
offended party benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded
to him. But, when the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the
ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since liability under such an
action can be determined based on mere preponderance of evidence. The offended
party may peel off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied
dismissal of his claim for civil liability. The purpose of a criminal action, in its purest
sense, is to determine the penal liability of the accused for having outraged the
state with his crime and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it. In this sense, the
parties to the action are the People of the Philippines and the accused. The offended
party is regarded merely as a witness for the state. Also in this wise, only the state,
through its appellate counsel, the OSG, has the sole right and authority to institute
proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court. (BURGOS VS. CA, G.R. NO.
169711)
FORECLOSURE AND WRIT OF POSSESSION:
It is settled that questions regarding the validity of a mortgage or its foreclosure as
well as the sale of the property covered by the mortgage cannot be raised as
ground to deny the issuance of a writ of possession. Any such questions must be
determined in a subsequent proceeding (Philippine National Bank v. Sanao
Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 287) as in fact,

herein respondents commenced an action for Annulment of Certificate of Sale,

Promissory Note and Deed of Mortgage. x x x x Since respondents failed to redeem
the mortgage within the reglementary period, entitlement to the writ of possession
becomes a matter of right and the issuance thereof is merely a ministerial function
(F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, G.R. No. 78714, November
21 1990, 191 SCRA 516, 523).
The judge to whom an application for a writ of possession is filed need not
look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. Until the
foreclosure sale is annulled, the issuance of the writ of possession is ministerial
(Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29,
2005, 465 SCRA 287). In fact, even during the period of redemption, the purchaser
is entitled as of right to a writ of possession provided a bond is posted to indemnify
the debtor in case the foreclosure sale is shown to have been conducted without
complying with the requirements of the law. More so when, as in the pres ent case,
the redemption period has expired and ownership is vested in the purchaser. x x x
The defaulting mortgagor is not without any expedient remedy, however. For under
Section 8 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, it can file with the court which
issues the writ of possession a petition for cancellation of the writ within 30 days
after the purchaser-mortgagee was given possession. IN FINE, it would be a
grievous error for QC-RTC, Branch 77 to deny petitioners motion for the issuance of
a writ of possession (PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK VS. JAMES NG, ET AL. G.R.
NO.187556, MAY 5, 2010, FIRST DIVISION, CARPIO MORALES, J.).
CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE:
LIABILITIES OF THE DECEASED ARISING FROM QUASI-CONTRACTS SHOULD BE
FILED AS CLAIMS IN THE SETTLEMENT OF HIS ESTATE, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5,
RULE 86 OF THE RULES OF COURT. x x x x We read with approval the CAs use of the
statutory construction principle of lex specialis derogat generali, leading to the
conclusion that the specific provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court
should prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of
Court; the settlement of the estate of deceased persons (where claims against the
deceased should be filed) is primarily governed by the rules on special proceedings,
while the rules provided for ordinary claims, including Section 11, Rule 6 of the
Rules of Court, merely apply suppletorily. (METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY
VS. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 170498, JANUARY 9, 2013,
BRION, J.)
DIRECT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE TITLE:
The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or
enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when,
in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless
made as an incident thereof (ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO
PAMPANGA VS. FERNANDO SORIANO JR., ET AL., G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST 17,
2011,VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
RES JUDICATA:

For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the following requisites
must be present: (1) the judgment or order 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 first case must be a
judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second action,
identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. As to the fourth element, it
is important to note that the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: first, bar by
prior judgment which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules of Court
and second, conclusiveness of judgment which is provided in Section 47 (c) of the
same Rule. There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where
the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there
is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is
identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity
of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters
actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely
involved therein. On the other hand, under the doctrine of conclusiveness of
judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot
again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit
may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is
not required but merely identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. SIA, G.R.
NO. 165836, FEBRUARY 18, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, QUISUMBING, J.).
INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE APPEALED:
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;
2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution
inequitable or unjust;
3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;
4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the
court;
5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for
interpretation thereof; or
6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is
defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment
debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority.
(GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION VS. GENERAL
MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ, J.).

THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF

APPEALS, ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL:
The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3)
when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
(4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, 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) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked

certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
record (FILIPINAS FIBER SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs. WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET
AL., G.R. No. 152033, MARCH 16, 2011, PERALTA, J.)

NON-PERALTA DECISIONS
THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE
FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE:
To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong remedy.
Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general rule, to wit: 1) when
public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; 2) when the broader
interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null and void; 4) when
the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; 5)
when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure; or 6) in other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are
present in the instant case; hence, we apply the general rule. Respondent not
having availed himself of the proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case
against petitioners, the dismissal has become final and executory. (SANTOS VS.
ORDA, G.R. NO. 189402, MAY 6, 2010, NACHURA, J.).
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
The RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. Clearly, the amount involved P13, 300.00
assessed value of the subject property as declared by respondents, is immaterial for
purposes of the RTCs appellate jurisdiction. All cases decided by the MTC are
generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved. (SEC. 22 OF
B.P. 129; FEDERICA M. SERRANO VS. SPOUSES ANSELMO AND CARMELITA
GUTIERREZ, G.R. NO. 162366, NOVEMBER 10, 2006, TINGA, J.)
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FILING
OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1)
where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2)
where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in
the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of
the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner
was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief
by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which

the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one
purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of
law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG VS. SUBIC BAY
DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. NO. 162575, DECEMBER 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI REMEDIES UNDER RULES 45 AND 65 OF THE
RULES OF COURT:
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is
a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not similar to a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e.,
regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to
the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation
of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil
action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein
provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost
remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. (SANTIAGO CUA, JR., ET.
AL. VS. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN ET. AL., G.R. NO. 181455-56, DECEMBER 4, 2009,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).
WAYS OF COMMITTING FORUM SHOPPING:
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based
on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not
having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2)
filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res
judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with
different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judicata). x x x If the forum shopping is not considered
willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on
the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping
is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be
dismissed with prejudice. (CHUA VS. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. NO.
182311, AUGUST 19, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).
ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY:
An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by the
estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a
creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or
contingent. (Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6,
2007, Rodolfo San Luis vs. Felicidad Sagalongos, G.R. No. 134029, February 6, 2007,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).
AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF:

It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the
trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages
of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case. When made in the same case
in which it is offered, no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be
contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or
when no such admission was made. The admission becomes conclusive on him,
and all proofs submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be
ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not. (Republic of
the Philippine vs. Estate of Hans Menzi, G.R. No. I83446, November 13, 2012, Perez,
J.)
WRITING OR DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVEN AS PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL RECORD OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRTY:
As held in Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, (2001), divorce obtained abroad is
proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the
judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an
official body or tribunal of a foreign country. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132,
on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official
record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof
attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not
kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued
by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by
the seal of his office. (Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Louella A. Catalan-Lee,
G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012, Sereno, J.).
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:
New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent
the failure of justice. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the
previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of
rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking into consideration the
evidence to be presented during the second trial. Consequently, a motion for new
trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a
final order. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a
judgment and the judgment is not yet final. (NEMIA CASTRO VS. ROSALYN
GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, G.R. NO. 192737, APRIL 25, 2012, MENDOZA, J.).