Civil Procedure Cases

What determines jurisdiction of courts over civil cases?
 1. Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC

 2. Racaza vs. Gozum.
 3. Reyes vs. Solemar
 4. MERALCO vs. ERB, 485 SCRA 19
Where is the venue of real and personal actions (Sections 1 &2, Rule 4)?
 5. United Overseas Bank v. Rosemoore Mining, March 12, 2007
Parties to civil action/ Lack of legal capacity to sue v. lack of personality to sue –
 6. Evangelista v. Santiago, 457 SCRA 744
 7. Domingo v. Carague, 456 SCRA 450
What is interpleader?
 8. Domingo v. Scheer, 421 SCRA 468
 9. Uy v. CA, 494 SCRA 535
 10. Alfelor v. Halasan, March 31, 2006
 11. Perez v. CA, Jan. 27, 2006
 12. Hinog v. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460
 13. Dela Cruz v. Joaquin, July 28, 2005
 14. Limbanan v. Acosta, June 30, 2008
Notes on Certificate of Non – Forum Shopping –

 15. Ao-as v. CA, 491 SCRA 353
 16. PAL v. FASAP, Jan. 24, 2006
 17. International Construction v. Feb Leasing, April 22, 2005
 18. Sps. Arquiza vs. CA
 19. AsaphilCons’n vs. Tuason508 SCRA 583
 20. Saludo Jr. vs. Am. Express Int’l, Inc.
 21. Solmayor vs. Arroyo 486 SCRA 326
 22. Citibank N.A. vs. Sabeniano
 23. Yu vs. PCIB
 24. Carpio v. Rural Bank, May 4, 2006
 25. Korea Exchange v. Hon. Gonzales, April 15, 2005
Judicial courtesy in relation to non-FS –

 26. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, June 26, 2006
Voluntary appearance
 27. Robinson v. Miralles, Dec. 12, 2006
 28. Miranda v. Tuliao, March 31, 2006
 28. Cezar v. Ricafort-Bautista, Oct. 31, 2006
DISMISSALS AND DEFAULTS/ Actions / cases where default is not allowed

 29. O.B. Jovenir v. Macamir Realty, March 28, 2006
 30. Cruz v. CA, Feb. 13, 2006
 31. CA v. Alvarez, Dec. 3, 2006
 32. Pinga v. Santiago, June 30, 2000
 33. Perkin Elmer v. Dakila Trading, Aug. 14, 2007
 34. Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, March 21, 2006
 35. Martinez v. Republic, Oct. 30, 2006
MODES OF DISCOVERY
Concept and Purpose –
 36. Ong v. Mazo, 431 SCRA 56
 37. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212, 200
 38. Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, Aug. 28, 2007
Determination of application –
 39. Lañada v. CA, 375 SCRA 543
Modes of Discovery –
 40. Fortune Corp. v. CA, 229 SCRA 355
Deposition: Definition –
 41. Ayala Land v. Tagle, Aug. 11, 2005
 42. Hyatt Industrial v. Ley Construction, March 10, 2006
Deposition –
Deposition pending action (Rule 23)- Before MTC and RTC/ With Leave of Court/
Without leave of Court/ Scope of Examination/ When and How depositions are
conducted/ Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions
 43. Cariaga v. CA, June 6, 2001

 44. Veran v. CA, 157 SCRA 438
 45. Dulay v. Dulay, Nov. 11, 2005
 46. Hanil Dev. V. CA, July 30, 2001
 47. American Airlines v. CA, March 9, 2000
 48. Sales v. Sabino Dec. 9, 2005
 49. Bembo v. CA, 250 SCRA 404
 50. Cathay Pacific v. Spouses Fuentebella, Dec. 15, 2005
 51. Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha, April 27, 2007
Deposition before action or pending appeal- Perpetuation of testimony – objective

is to perpetuate the testimony of a witness for use in the future/ Who may file the
petition/ Formal and jurisdictional requisites/ Contents of the petition/ Notice and
service/ Depositions pending appeal are taken with the view to their being used in the
event of further proceedings in the court of origin or the appellate court.
 52. Locsin v. Sandiganbayan, Aug. 9, 2007
 53. Gerochi v. Dept. of Energy, April 5, 2005
Admission by adverse party (Rule 26): Request for admission – Purpose and scope/
Procedure/ Implied admission –/ Effect and Remedy
 54. Briboneria v. CA, 216 SCRA 607
 55. Duque v. CA, July 2, 2002
 56. Po v. CA, 164 SCRA 668
 57. DBP v. CA, Sept. 20, 2005
 58. Bay View v. Ker & Co., 116 SCRA 327
Production and inspection of documents or things (Rule 27) – As distinguished with

subpoena ducestecum
 59. Solidbank (MetroBank) v. Gateway, April 30, 2008
 60. Security Bank v. CA, Jan. 25, 2000
Consequences of refusal to make discovery(Rule 29) – Sanctions
 61. Spouses Zepeda v. China Banking, Oct. 9, 2006
 62. Lañada v. CA, G.R. No. 102390, Feb. 1, 2002
 63. Nestle Phil. V. CA, G.R. No. 102404, Feb. 1, 2002
PRE – TRIAL- Nature and purpose –

 64. Anson Trade Center v. Pacific Banking, March 17, 2009
Cases on Pre–Trial –
 65. Teresita Monzon v. Spouses James and Maria, Sept. 17, 2008
 66. Frisco F. San Juan v. The Sandiganbayan, August 6, 2008
 67. RN Development v. A.I.I. System, June 26, 2008
 68. J.R. Daan v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan March 28, 2008
 69. Estanislao v. Alviola v. Judge Henry, Feb. 29, 2008
 70. LCK Industries v. Planters, 538 SCRA 634
 71. Mercury Drug v. Rep. Surety and Insur. Co., 538 SCRA 464
 72. Republic v. Ildefonso Oleta, 530 SCRA 534
 73. Dr. Emmanuel Vera v. Ernesto F. Rigor, 529 SCRA 729
 74. Vivian Y. Locsin v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, 529 SCRA 572
 75. Heirs of Vicente Reyes v. The Hon. CA 519 SCRA 250
 76. People v. Nicolas Guzman, 513 SCRA 156
 77. Malayan Insur. V. Ipil International 500 SCRA 371
 78. Crisostomo Alcaraz v. CA, 497 SCRA 75
 79. Advance Textile v. Willy C. Tan, 464 SCRA 431
 80. EleuterioOlave v. TeoduloMistas, 444 SCRA 625
 81. Jonathan Landoil v. Spouses Suharto Mangudadatu, 436 SCRA 559
 82. United Coconut v. Miguel Magpayo, 429 SCRA 669
 83. Procopio Villanueva v. CA, 427 SCRA 439
 84. Sixto m. Bayas v. The Sandiganbayan 391 SCRA 415
 85. Spouses Mondedo v. CA, January 18, 1996
 86. Silvestre Tiu v. Daniel Middleton, July 19, 1999
 87. Air Philippines v. International Bus. Aviation, Sept. 9, 2004
TRIAL- Order of Trial / Trial Incidents / Subpoena / Demurrer to Evidence –

 88. In Republic vs. Tuvera
 89. In Manila Banking Corp. vs. Univ. of Baguio
 90. Swagman Hotels v. CA, April 8, 2005
 91. Republic v. Tuvera, Feb. 16, 2007
 92. The Manila Banking Corp. v. UB, Feb. 21, 2007
JUDGMENTS
Judgment on the pleadings –
 93. Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Oct. 23, 2006
Summary Judgment –
 94. Ontimare v. Elep, Jan. 20, 2006
 95. Asian Construction v. PCIB, April 25, 2006
 96. Pineda v. Guevara, Feb. 14, 2007
Absence of verification may be a cause for dismissal.
 97. Fabian v. Desierto, Sept. 16, 1998
 98. Perez v. Ombudsman, May 27, 2004
On Annulment of Judgment –
 99. Grande vs. UP
 100. People vs. Bitanga
“In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates
showing / when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was
received/ when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed, and/
when the notice of denial thereof was received.”
 101. Santander Cons’n vs. Villanueva, Nov. 30, 2004
CASES ON APPELLATE REVIEW (continuation of topic XIX) –

 102. Pilipinas Shell v. Gobonseng, July 21, 2006
 103. Tagabi v. Tangue, july 27, 2006
 104. Villanueva v. CA, July 20, 2006
 105. Jaramillo v. CA, G.R. No. 122317July 14, 2005
 106. Madriaga v. CA, G.R. No. 142001
 107. Santander Construction v. Villanueva, Nov. 20, 2004
 108. Remulla v. Manlongat, Nov. 11, 2004
 109. KLR Fruits v. WSR Fruits, Nov. 23, 2007
 110. Cucueco v. CA, Oct. 25, 2004
 111. Neypes v. CA, Sept. 14, 2005
 112. Santos v. People, Aug, 26, 2008
 113. Fil-Estate Properties v. Hon. Homena-Valencia, Oct. 15, 2007
 114. Jabaluyas vs. Japson, 142 SCRA 2008
 115. Tolentino vs. Natanauan, Nov. 20, 2003
 116. Republic vs. Luriz
 117. Asian Construction vs. Tulabot
 119. In Provost vs. CA and Encarnacion vs. Amigo
 120. Ross Rica vs. Ong, Aug. 16, 2005
 121. Escueta vs. Lim, Jan. 24, 2007
 122. Provost v. CA, June 26, 2006
 123. Encarnacion v. Amigo, Sept. 15, 2006
 124. Serrano v. Gutierrez, November 10, 2006
ENFORCEMENT / EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS / FINAL ORDERS

Rules on execution –
 125. Balajonda vs. COMELEC
 126. DBP vs. Spouses Gatal
 127. Dagooc vs. Erlina
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65) – Differences
 128. Springfield Dev. Corp. vs. Presiding RTC Judge
 129. Holy Spirit Homeowners Assoc. vs. Defensor
 130. Henares Jr. Vs. LTFRB
Quo Warranto (Rule 66) –

 131. Calleja vs. Panday
Expropriation –
 132. Republic vs. Guingoyon
 133. Masikip vs. City of Pasig
Foreclosure of Mortgage
 134. PNB vs. Sanao
 135. Selegna Management vs. UCPB
 136. Sps. Arquiza vs. CA
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer –

 137. Dumo vs. Espinas, Jan. 25, 2006
 138. Roberts v. Papio, Feb. 9, 2007
Kinds of Actions to Recover Possession of Real Property – Accioninterdictal (FE and

UD)/ Accionpubliciana/ Accionreivindicatoria Cases –
 139. Atuel vs. Valdez, July 10, 2003
 140. Aliabo vs. Carampatan, March 16, 2001
 141. Hilario vs. Salvador, April 29, 2005
 142. BarangayPiapi vs. Talip, 469 SCRA 409
 143. Laresman vs. Abellana, 442 SCRA 156
 144. Valdez vs. CA, May 4, 2006:
 145. Santos vs. Sps. Ayon, May 6, 2005:
 146. Racaza vs. Gozum, June 8, 2006:
 147. Benedicto vs. CA, Oct. 19, 2005:

Civil Procedure Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What determines jurisdiction of courts over civil cases?

 1. Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC

 5. United Overseas Bank v. Rosemoore Mining, March 12, 2007

Notes on Certificate of Non – Forum Shopping –

Judicial courtesy in relation to non-FS –

DISMISSALS AND DEFAULTS/ Actions / cases where default is not allowed

 43. Cariaga v. CA, June 6, 2001

Deposition before action or pending appeal- Perpetuation of testimony – objective

Production and inspection of documents or things (Rule 27) – As distinguished with

PRE – TRIAL- Nature and purpose –

TRIAL- Order of Trial / Trial Incidents / Subpoena / Demurrer to Evidence –

CASES ON APPELLATE REVIEW (continuation of topic XIX) –

ENFORCEMENT / EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS / FINAL ORDERS

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Quo Warranto (Rule 66) –

Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer –

Kinds of Actions to Recover Possession of Real Property – Accioninterdictal (FE and

You might also like