REM1 (3-14)

1.

Title of the Case RULES 1-5 Relucio vs. Lopez

Facts   



2.

De Castrovs.CA





3.

Orquiolavs. CA

Sps. Lopez Married. Husband has paramour. Wife filed a petition for SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX of Conjugal partnership Properties, etc. Motion to Dismiss the petition was filed by the paramour (petitioner) on the ground that private respondent (wife) has no cause of action against her. Private respondent Francisco Artigo sued petitioners De Castro to collect the unpaid balance of his broker’s commission from the De Castros. Petitioners argued that the complaint must be dismissed for failing to implead as indispensable parties the other coowners of the two lots.

Issue 1.

2.

WON Respondent’s petition for appointment as sole administratrix of the conjugal property, accounting, etc. against her husband established a cause of action against petitioner; WON petitioner’s inclusion as party defendant is essential in the proceedings for a complete adjudication of the controversy.





NO. Respondent’s causes of action were all against her husband. The first cause of action is for judicial appointment arising from her marriage to Alberto Lopez. Petitioner is a complete stranger to this cause of action. No. Petitioner is not a real party in interest. She cannot also be an indispensable party/necessary party.

No. (meaning of indispensable parties; joinder of indispensable partiesbeingmandatory) WON the complaint merits dismissal for failure to implead other co-owners as indispensable parties.?

Rule on mandatory joinder of parties is not applicable in the present case. A contract of agency was constituted between Constante and Artigo. Whether Constante appointed Artigo as agent in his personal or representative capacity, or both, the De Castros cannot seek dismissal of the case for failure to implead the other co-owners as indispensable parties.

Pura Kalaw filed a complaint against Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly encroaching upon Lot 689. Deputy Sheriff directed petitioners through as alias writ of execution to remove the house they constructed on the land they were occupying.

Held

WON the alias writ of execution may be enforced against petitioners?

Where a case involves a sale of a p[arcel of land under the Torrens system, the applicable rule is that a person dealing with the registered property need not to go beyond the certificate of tile and he is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title. Petitioners are fully entitled to the legal protection of their lot by the Torrens system.

Petitioners in good faith, hence, parties in interest.

4.

China Banking Corp.vs.Oliver

Petitioners were not impleaded in the complaint filed in 1969, the writ of demolition in connection therewith cannot be enforced against them because to do so would amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. Oliver1 was granted a loan by petitioner which was secured by a REM. Oliver2 claiming that she is the real Mercedes Oliver filed an action for annulment of mortgage

1. 1.

WON the mortgagor (Oliver1) is an indispensable party?

No. (definition of indispensable party). It is true that Oliver1 stands to be a party in interest. However, he absence would not hamper the trial court in resolving the dispute between Oliver2 and petitioner.

and cancellation of title with damages against Chinabank.

2.

WON Sec 7 of Rule 3 applies in this case?

Chinabank moved to dismiss the case for lack of cause of action and non-joinder of indispensable party, the mortgagor (Oliver1). 2. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

Lotte Phil. Co. Inc. vs. Dela Cruz

Carabeo vs. Dingco Dela Cruz vs. Joaquin Navarro vs. Escobido

Pacific Consultants International Asia vs. Schonfeld

Petitioner is a domestic corporation. Respondents are those who were hired and assigned to the confectionery facility operated by private respondent. Maintenance and Janitorial Services entered into contract with petitioner to provide manpower for needed services to the latter.

Respondent Karen T. Go filed 2 complaints. for replevin and/or sum of money with damages against Navarro for the seizure of two (2) motor vehicles in Navarro’s possession. She alleged that, she, under the Trade name Kargo enterprises, entered into a contract of lease with option to purchase with Navarro. As consideration, Navarro issued checks. Some of it were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

WON 7J is an indispensable party and should have been impleaded in the petition before the CA?

The complaint shows that it was for annulment of mortgage due to petitioner’s negligence. Oliver2 can do in her complaint without necessarily impleading the mortgagor Oliver1. Hence, Oliver1 is not an indispensable party in the case filed by Oliver2. No. Instead, apply Sec. 11 Rule 3.

YES. (Definition of Indispensable party) 7J is an indispensable party. It is a party in interest because it will be affected by the outcome of the case. Respondents failed to include 7J in their petition for certiorari in the CA. No final ruling can be had without impleading 7J, whose inclusion is necessary for the effective and complete resolution of the case in order to accord all parties with due process and fair play.

Navarro alleged as a special affirmative defense that the two complaints stated no cause of action, since Karen Go was not a party to the Lease Agreements with Option to Purchase. According to Navarro, a complaint which failed to state a cause of action could not be converted into one with a cause of action by mere amendment or supplemental pleading

The SC went further and explained that Karen Go may file the action as the real party in interest base on the Family Code. “Under this ruling, either of the spouses Go may bring an action against Navarro to recover possession of the Kargo Enterprises-leased vehicles which they co-own. This conclusion is consistent with Article 124 of the Family Code, supporting as it does the position that either spouse may act on behalf of the conjugal partnership, so long as they do not dispose of or encumber the property in question without the other spouse’s consent.” On this basis, we hold that since Glenn Go is not strictly an indispensable party in the action to recover possession of the leased vehicles, he only needs to be impleaded as a pro-forma party to the suit, based on Section 4, Rule 4. Non-joinder of indispensable parties not ground to dismiss action.

Respondent was a Canadian citizen. He was offered employment by Pacicon Philippines, Inc. (PPI), a domestic corporation which is a subsidiary Pacific Consultants International of

Yes. The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is that while they are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the

WON Karen Go is the real party in interest?

Japan (PCIJ). In a letter of employment to respondent, sent by PCIJs president he was offered a post in the Philippines with PPI.

WON the venue was properly laid?

“any conflict that may arise between the employee and company which cannot be settled amicably shall be by written submission to Court of Arbitration in London.

10. Biaco vs. Countryside Rural Bank

Respondent’s employment was terminated. Hence, he filed a complaint against petitioner and Henrichsen before the Labor Arbiter. Spouses Biaco acquired several loans from PCRB secured by a mortgage of certain property in favor of the bank. They failed to pay the load, hence, a complaint for foreclosure against the spouses.

WON the judgment of the trial court should be annulled?

Summons were issued by the trial judge and were served to Ernesto at the latter’s office. No summons was served to Teresa.

Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them. In the present case, no restrictive words were stated in the contract.

YES. Teresa’s constitutional right to due process is superior over the procedural matters involved. Her right to due process was violated when she was not served summons. Defect in the service of summons. Explanation why they resorted to substituted service. Seizure of personal properties is personam. No jurisdiction.

PCRB argued that the proceedings ia quasi in rem and that the presence of Teresa is not required because the trial court was able to acquire jurisdiction over the res.

11. Bautista vs. Unangst

Hamilton Salak rented a car from GAB Rent-ACar owned by Benjamin Bautista. The lease was for 3 consecutive days, P1000 per day. However, Salak failed to return the car after 3 days prompting petitioner to file a complaint against him. Salak and his common-law wife were arrested. Salak and Unangst expressed their willingness to pay but were short on cash. Unangst proposed to sell a certain property to Bautista. Unangst failer to repurchase. A complaint was again filed against them. RTC rendered a decision. Respondent failed to

WON the CA committed grave error in finding that the respondent perfected an appeal via Petition for Relief to be able to appeal judgment even when the proper docket fees were paid beyond the period prescribed?

NO. Failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees was due to a justifiable reason. While payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket fee within the period is mandatory and jurisdictional, the strict application of the jurisdictional nature of the above rule on payment of appellate court docket fee may be mitigated under exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice.

interpose a timely appeal. Appeal was filed within the prescriptive period, but proper docket fees were belatedly paid.

1.

RULES 6-9 Alma Jose vs. Javellana

Margarita Alma Jose and Ramon Javellana entered in a deed of conditional sale of two parcels of land. Priscilla did not comply with the undertaking to cause the registration of the properties under the Torrens System, and instead began to improve the properties by dumping filling materials therein with the intention of converting the parcels of land into a residential/industrial subdivision.

NO.

WON Javellana is guilty of forum shopping?

Javellana filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC. Pending the appeal, Javellana filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. Priscilla contends Javellana to be guilty of forum shopping. 2.

Medado vs. Heirs of Antonio Consuing

Petitioner and respondent (as represented by Soledad Consuing) executed Deeds of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage for the former’s acquisition from the latter of the property in Cadiz City. Subsequently to the sale, estate of Consing offered the subject lots tothye government via DAR’s Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) program.

WON the CA correctly admitted the petition for certiorari filed before it, notwithstanding alleged deficiencies in its verification and certification against forum shopping? WON the CA correctly held that the rule against forum shopping was violated by filing of the complaint for injunction during the pendency of the action for rescission and damages?

In their comment on the petition, Spouses Medado questioned, amonth other matters, the authority of SOLEDAD to SIGN the PETITIONER’s Certification of NON-FORUM SHOPPING on behalf of her co-petitioners. 3.

COA vs. Paler

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE

WON Atty. Arturo Tiu has the authority to file the petition and sign verification and certification of non-forum shopping on behalf of the commission chairman?

Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the Special Civil Action of Certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause or supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Clearly, it does not appear when different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought. a. YES. The requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping in the CA Petition were substantially complied with, following settled jurisprudence. Soledad signed the Certification against Forum Shopping by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. The acts of soledad were necessary to protect, sue, defend and adopt whatever action necessary and proper in relation to their rights over the subject properties. b. YES. There was forum shopping when spouses Medado instituted Civil Case for Injunction notwithstanding the pendency of Civil Case for Rescission of contract and damages. Recite the elements of Litis Pendentia. NO!!!! Petitioner in this case is a govt entity created by the constitution and headed by its chairman. There was no need for the chairman himself to sign the verification. Its representative, lawyer or any person who personally know the truth of the facts alleged in the Petition could sign the verification.

However, the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping has an established rule that “it must be executed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by the counsel.” In this case, Atty.Tiu failed to show that he was specifically authorized by the Chairman on his behalf. There is nothing on record to prove such authority. Atty. Tiu did not bother to controvert Paler’s allegation of his lack of authority. This renders the petiion dismissible. 4.

Benguet Exploration Inc. vs. CA Benguet Chartered the Vessel of Seawoood shipping

NO.

WON the establishment of the genuineness and due execution of the documents presented was enough to warrant reversal of the decision?

Authenticity and due execution constitutes only 4 things: (1) that the document was signed; (2) that the document complied with all the formalities under the laws; (3) that when the document was signed, it was in the original form without any alteration; and (4) that the document was delivered. When the law makes use of the phrase, “genuineness and due execution”, it means nothing more than that the instrument is not spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face from the one executed. There was disparity in the actual weight of the copper concentrates ;transported to Poro Point and located on the vessel.

5.

Asiana Const. & Dev’t Corp. vs. CA

Materials bought used for Becthel’s project. Becthel did not pay ACDC. Hence, ACDC also failed to pay Monark Enterprise (MEC).

WON The 3rd party complaint was proper?

No. A prerequisite to the exercise of such right is that some substantive basis for a third-party claim be found to exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity, subrogation, contribution or other substantive right. The bringing of a third-party defendant is proper if he would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant or both for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant, although the third-party defendant’s liability arises out of another transaction. The defendant may implead another as third-party defendant (a) on an allegation of liability of the latter to the defendant for

contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief; (b) on the ground of direct liability of the third-party defendant to the plaintiff; or (c) the liability of the thirdparty defendant to both the plaintiff and the defendant. There must be a causal connection between the claim of the plaintiff in his complaint and a claim for contribution, indemnity or other relief of the defendant against the third-party defendant. There must be a common liability for the contribution. There is no causal connection between the claim of the respondent for the rental and the balance of the purchase price of the equipment and parts sold and leased to the petitioner, and the failure of Becthel to pay the balance of its account to the petitioner after the completion of the project in Quezon.

6.

BDO vs. Tansipek

7.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

WON respondent Tansipek was in default?

YES. Respondent’s remedy against the Order of Default was erroneous from the very beginning. Respondent should have filed a motion to lift order of default, and not a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Section 3(b) Rule 9 of the ROC. Negative pregnant Rule

8.

Caneland Sugar Corp. vs.Alon

WON the CA erred in finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not enjoining the extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties subject of this case.

No. Petitioner doesnot dispute its loan obligation with respondent. Petitioner’s bone of contention before the RTC is that the promissory notes are silent as to whether they were covered by the Mortgage Trust Indenture and Mortgage participation on its property. It does not categorically deny that these promissory notes are covered by the security documents. DEFINITION OF NEGATIVE PREGNANT.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Rules 10-14 Lisam Enterprises vs. BDO Tiu vs.PBC Remington Industrial vs. CA Valmonte vs. CA Millenium Industrial vs. Tan Villarosa vs.Benito Ramos vs. Ramos BPI vs. Sps.Santiago

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Santos vs. PNOC Teh vs. CA Mason vs. CA Jose vs. Boyon Manotoc vs.CA Domagasvs. Jensen Dole vs. Quilala Chu vs. Mach Asia Macasaet vs. Co., Jr. AM No. 11-3-6-SC