Remedial Law Review Assignment on Judgments

1. Foreign Judgment must be proved as fact under the rules of evidence. Give
Case Digest

Medina vs Koike, G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016

FACTS:
Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla (Doreen), a Filipino citizen, and respondent
Michiyuki Koike (Michiyuki), a Japanese national, were married on June 14, 2005 in
Quezon City, Philippines.Their union bore two children, Masato Koike, who was born on
January 23, 2006, and Fuka Koike who was born on April 4, 2007.
On June 14, 2012, Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of Japan, filed for
divorcebefore the Mayor of Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. They were
divorced on even date as appearing in the Divorce Certificate and the same was duly
recorded in the Official Family Register of Michiyuki Koike.
Seeking to have the said Divorce Certificate annotated on her Certificate of
Marriage on file with the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, Doreen filed on February
7, 2013 a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to
remarry pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code before the
RTC.
In a Decision dated July 31, 2014, the RTC denied Doreen's petition, ruling that
in an action for recognition of foreign divorce decree pursuant to Article 26 of the Family
Code, the foreign divorce decree and" the national law of the alien recognizing his or
her capacity to obtain a divorce must be proven
The RTC ruled that while the divorce documents presented by Doreen were
successfully proven to be public or official records of Japan, she nonetheless fell short
of proving the national law of her husband, particularly the existence of the law on
divorce. The RTC observed that the "The Civil Code of Japan 2000" and "The Civil
Code of Japan 2009," presented were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in
Japan, and that the testimony of Doreen’s relative to the applicable provisions found
therein and its effect on the matrimonial relations was insufficient since she was not
presented as a qualified expert witness nor was shown to have, at the very least, a
working knowledge of the laws of Japan, particularly those on family relations and
divorce. Since no expert witness on the subject matter was presented and considering
further that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign judgments and law.
Doreen's motion for reconsiderationwas denied in a Resolutiondated November
28, 2014
ISSUES:
Whether or not the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign
divorce.
RULING:
At the outset, it bears stressing that Philippine law does not provide for absolute
divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. However, Article 26 of the Family Code -
which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a
foreigner - allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the
divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
The provision reads: “The law confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the
effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to
determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.”
This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven
as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national
law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.
Both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who
obtained the divorce must be proven.Since our courts do not take judicial notice of
foreign laws and judgment, our law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree
and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact.
Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and
Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are
essentially factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the
RTC, the issue raised in the instant appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond
the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review.
The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts, whose findings
on these matters are received with respect and are in fact binding subject to certain
exceptions. In this regard, it is settled that appeals taken from judgments or final orders
rendered by RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction raising questions of fact or
mixed questions of fact and law should be brought to the Court of Appeals (CA)
It bears to stress that procedural rules were intended to ensure proper
administration of law and justice. 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. A deviation from its rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime
objective, for after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of
the courts.

2. Summary Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings and distinction. Give Case

Digest
Olivarez Realty Corporation vs Castillo, G.R. No. 196251 July 9, 2014
FACTS:
Benjamin Castillo was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Laurel,
Batangas, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19972. The Philippine
Tourism Authorityallegedly claimed ownership of the same parcel of land based on
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18493.
On April 5, 2000, Castillo and Olivarez Realty Corporation, represented by Dr.
Pablo R. Olivarez, entered into a contract of conditional sale over the property. Under
the deed of conditional sale, Castillo agreed to sell his property to Olivarez Realty
Corporation for P19,080,490.00 and Olivarez Realty Corporation assumes the
responsibility of taking necessary legal action thru Court to have the claim/title TCT T-
18493 of Philippine Tourism Authority over the above-described property be nullified
and voided with the full assistance of Castillo.
On September 2, 2004, Castillo filed a complaint for action for rescission against
Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez with the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan
City, Batangas. Castillo alleged that Dr. Olivarez convinced him into selling his property
to Olivarez Realty Corporation on the representation that the corporation shall be
responsible in clearing the property of the tenants and in paying them disturbance
compensation. However, the corporation only paid 2,500,000.00 of the purchase
priceand failed to comply the terms of the conditional sale. Despite demand, Olivarez
Realty Corporation refused to fully pay the purchase price.
In their answer, Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez admitted that the
corporation only paid P2,500,000.00 of the purchase price. In their defense, defendants
alleged that Castillo failed to "fully assist" the corporation in filing an action against the
Philippine Tourism Authority. Neither did Castillo clear the property of the tenants within
six months from the signing of the deed of conditional sale.
On March 8, 2006, Castillo filed a motion for summary judgment and/or judgment
on the pleadings. He argued that Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez
"substantially admitted the material allegations of his complaint." Should judgment on
the pleadings be improper, Castillo argued that summary judgment may still be
rendered as there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.
The trial court found that Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez’s answer
"substantially admitted the material allegations of Castillo’s complaint and did not raise
any genuine issue as to any material fact." Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez
appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Is summary judgment rendered the Regional Trial Court correct?
RULING:
The summary judgment is correct. An issue of material fact exists if the answer
or responsive pleading filed specifically denies the material allegations of fact set forth
in the complaint or pleading. If the issue of fact "requires the presentation of evidence, it
is a genuine issue of fact." However, if the issue "could be resolved judiciously by plain
resort" to the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other papers on file, the issue of fact
raised is sham, and the trial court may resolve the action through summary judgment.
A summary judgment is usually distinguished from a judgment on the
pleadings. Under Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, trial may likewise
be dispensed with and a case decided through judgment on the pleadings if the
answer filed fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations
of the claimant’s pleading.
Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer filed fails to tender
any issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations in the complaint. On the
other hand, in a summary judgment, the answer filed tenders issues as specific
denials and affirmative defenses are pleaded, but the issues raised are sham,
fictitious, or otherwise not genuine.
In this case, Olivarez Realty Corporation admitted that it did not fully pay the
purchase price as agreed upon in the deed of conditional sale. As to why it withheld
payments from Castillo, it set up the following affirmative defenses: First, Castillo did
not file a case to void the Philippine Tourism Authority’s title to the property; second,
Castillo did not clear the land of the tenants; third, Castillo allegedly sold the property to
a third person, and the subsequent sale is currently being litigated beforea Quezon City
court.
Considering that Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez’s answer tendered
an issue, Castillo properly availed himself of a motion for summary judgment. However,
the issues tendered by Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez’s answer are not
genuine issues of material fact. These are issues that can be resolved judiciously by
plain resort to the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other papers on file; otherwise,
these issues are sham, fictitious, or patently unsubstantial.
Castillo’s alleged failure to "fully assist" the corporation in filing the case is not a
defense. As the trial court said, "how can Castillo assist the corporation when the latter
did not filethe action in the first place?"
Neither can Olivarez Realty Corporation argue that it refused to fully pay the
purchase price due to the Philippine Tourism Authority’s adverse claim on the property.
The corporation knew of this adverse claim when it entered into a contract of conditional
sale. It even obligated itself under the deed of conditional sale to sue the Philippine
TourismAuthority. This defense, therefore, is sham.
 As demonstrated, there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case. These
are issues that can be resolved judiciously by plain resort to the pleadings, affidavits,
depositions, and other papers on file. As the trial court found, Olivarez Realty
Corporation illegally withheld payments of the purchase price. The trial court did not err
in rendering summary judgment.

3. No Summary Judgment on Damages. Give Digest

Warner Barnes vs Luzon Surety, G.R. No. L-6637. September 30, 1954

FACTS:

On September 17, 1952, the plaintiffs, Warner, Barnes and Co., Ltd., filed a
complaint in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against the defendant,
Luzon Surety Co., Inc., of the recovery of the sum of P6,000, plus the costs and P1,500
for attorney's fees. The basis of the complaint was a bond in the sum of P6,000 filed by
Agueda Gonzaga as administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Agueda Gonzaga on or
about January 6, 1951, in Special Proceedings No. 452 of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental.

The defendant filed an answer setting up the special defenses that the complaint
did not state a cause of action; that its maximum liability under the surety bond is
P6,000; that if it were not for the untimely death of the judicial administratrix, she would
have been able to fully comply with her duties and obligations; that the administratrix, up
to her death, had not yet been authorized by the court in Special Proceedings No. 452
to pay plaintiff's claim; that the defendant's liability had been extinguished; that
damages or attorney's fees cannot be recovered under the surety bond.

On January 6, 1953, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging
that "the special defenses relied upon by the defendant in her Answer raise only
questions of law, and the plaintiff believes that said defendant cannot produce counter-
affidavits that would raise any 'genuine issues as to any material facts.

The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental rendered on January 17, 1953,
a summary judgment sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P6,000,
P900 for attorney's fees, plus the costs. From this judgment the defendant appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the award of damages in a summary judgment is proper?

RULING:
 In its sixth assignment of error, the lower court is alleged to have erred in
sentencing the appellant to pay attorney's fees in the sum of P900, in excess of the limit
of its bond. This contention is tenable. Under section 3 of Rule 36 of the Rules of
Court, a summary judgment may be rendered upon proper motion except as to
the amount of damages.

There being no proof regarding the amount of attorney's fees claimed by the
plaintiff, no judgment thereon may be rendered herein. It is, however, argued by the
counsel for appellee that said fees are in pursuance of article 2208 of the Civil Code,
providing that attorney's fees cannot be recovered except "where the defendant acted in
gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and
demandable claim"; and it alleged in the complaint that the appellant had so acted in
this case. While the provision cited authorizes the collection of attorney's fees under the
situation contemplated herein, it does not dispense with the effect of section 3 of Rule
36.

4. What is Demurrer to Evidence? How is it different form Demurrer to Evidence in

Criminal cases?

A Demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant after the

plaintiff had rested his case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 33) Demurrer to Evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119)
Litigated motion Litigated motion
Founded on the ground that the plaintiff Founded on the ground of insufficiency of
has shown no right to relief evidence
Filed after the plaintiff has completed the Filed after the prosecution rests its case
presentation of evidence
Quantum of evidence is preponderance Quantum of evidence is proof beyond
of evidence reasonable doubt
Once granted, the final order is Once granted, the accused is acquitted;
appealable demurrer is not appealable
If denied, the defendant may present If denied: with leave of court, accused is
evidence allowed to present evidence; without leave
of court, accused loses the right to present
evidence
If reversed on appeal, defendant loses (no appeal since appeal would violate the
the right to present evidence accused’s right againt double jeopardy)
No period requirement Non-extendible periods of 5 days (motion for
leave to file, and opposition) and 10 days
(filing, and opposition)

5. What is Immutability of Judgment, support answer with SC ruling

 Under the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment, 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, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of
the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down (FGU
Insurance Corp. vs. RTC of Makati City Br. 66, 659 Phil. 117 [2011])

6. What is Law of the Case? Support answer with SC ruling.

The term law of the case has been held to mean that “whatever is once
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same
parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general
principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to
be the facts of the case before the court. As a general rule, a decision on a prior appeal
of the same case is held to be the law of the case whether that question is right or
wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a rehearing.”
The doctrine applies when “(1) a question is passed upon by an appellate court, and (2)
the appellate court remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings; the
lower court and even the appellate courts on subsequent appeal of the case are, thus,
bound by how such question had been previously settled.” This must be so for reasons
of practicality and the orderly adjudication of cases. The doctrine of the law of the case
is “necessary to enable an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and
efficiently, which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it,
were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal.” It
is “founded on the policy of ending litigation.” The need for “judicial orderliness and
economy require such stability in the final judgments of courts or tribunals of competent
jurisdiction” (Heirs of Timbol, Jr. vs. Philippine National Bank, GR No. 207408,
04/10/2016)

7. What is Stare Decisis (Judge Made Law)

The time-honored principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which literally
means "to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established," to
settle the issue of whether Banco Filipino can recover the properties subject of the void
trust agreement. The rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same
issue where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by
parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent
court. Thus, the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 137533 regarding the nullity of the trust
agreement--the very same agreement which Banco Filipino seeks to enforce in the
proceedings a quo--applies with full force to the present case. Consequently, Banco
Filipino's action for reconveyance of the Sta. Cruz property based on the void trust
agreement cannot prosper and must be dismissed for lack of cause of action. (Tala
Realty Services Corp. vs. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, GR No.
181369, 06/22/2016).

8. What is Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment? Give Example.

 Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment or Order. It is an order of the court requiring a
retroactive re-dating of an order, judgment or document filing be entered or recorded in
a judgment (2014 Bar). The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a
new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of newe rights, but is one
placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been previously rendered,
to make it speak the truth, so as to make judicial errors, such as to render a judgment
which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously render,
nor to supply non-action by the court, however erroneous the judgtment may have been
(Filipinas FaroilProcessisng vs. Dejapa, GR No. 167332, 02/07/2011)

9. What is Several Judgement? What is Separate Judgment? Distinguish.

Several Judgment is a judgment rendered by a court against one or more

defendants, but not against all, leaving the action to proceed against the other (Sec. 4,
Rule 36)

Separate Judgment on the other hand is when more than one claim for relief is
presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination of the issues
material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the transaction or
occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim, may render a separate judgment
disposing of such claim. The judgment shall terminate the action with respect to the
claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the remaining claims. In case a
separate judgment is rendered the court by order may stay its enforcement until the
rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as
may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment
is rendered.other (Sec. 5, Rule 36)

10. What is the Constitutional requirement in the rendition of Judgment in relation

to Section 1 Rule 36 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be:

1.) in writing;
2.) personally and directly prepared by the judge;
3.) stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based;
4.) signed by him; and
5.) filed with the clerk of the court.