1) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH
DIVISION), JOSE L. AFRICA (substituted by his heirs), MANUEL H. NIETO, JR.,
FERDINAND E. MARCOS (substituted by his heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND
R. MARCOS, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted by
his heirs), respondents. < G.R. No. 152375.December 13, 2011.*>

Remedial Law; Distinction between a Final Judgment or Order and an

Interlocutory Order.Case law has conveniently demarcated the line
between a final judgment or order and an interlocutory one on the basis of
the disposition made. A judgment or order is considered final if the order
disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular
stage of the same action; in such case, the remedy available to an aggrieved
party is appeal. If the order or resolution, however, merely resolves incidental
matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the
case, the order is interlocutory and the aggrieved partys remedy is a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65.

For a petition for certiorari to prosper, Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
requires among others that neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available to the aggrieved
party; Exception. As a matter of exception, the writ of certiorari may issue
notwithstanding the existence of an available alternative remedy, if such
remedy is inadequate or insufficient in relieving the aggrieved party of the
injurious effects of the order complained of.

Without clear showing that its action was a capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment affecting its exercise of jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayans
erroneous legal conclusion was only an error of judgment or at best an abuse
of discretion but not a grave one.

Depositions are not meant as substitute for the actual testimony in open
court of a party or witness.A deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery
whose primary function is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of
disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and affording an
adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial.

Section 47, Rule 130 explicitly requires inter alia, for the admissibility of a
former testimony or deposition that the adverse party must have had an
opportunity to cross-examine the witness or the deponent in the prior
proceeding.

Requisites for the admission of a testimony or deposition given at a former

case or proceeding.Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court lays down the
following requisites for the admission of a testimony or deposition given at a

former case or proceeding. 1. The testimony or deposition of a witness

deceased or otherwise unable to testify; 2. The testimony was given in a
former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative; 3. Involving the same
parties; 4. Relating to the same matter; 5. The adverse party having had the
opportunity to cross-examine him.

The phrase unable to testify appearing in both Rule 23 and Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court refers to a physical inability to appear at the witness stand and
to give a testimony; Where the deposition is taken not for discovery
purposes, but to accommodate the deponent, then the deposition should be
rejected in evidence. The witness himself, if available, must be produced in
court as if he were testifying de novo since his testimony given at the former
trial is mere hearsay.

2) SPOUSES EULOGIA MANILA and RAMON MANILA, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES

EDERLINDA GALLARDO-MANZO and DANIEL MANZO, respondents. < G.R. No.
163602.September 7, 2011.*>

Actions; Judgments; Annulment of Judgments; A petition for annulment of

judgments or final orders of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be
availed of where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault
of the petitioner. It is a remedy granted only under exceptional
circumstances and such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a
partys own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other
appropriate remedies. The only grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 47 are
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Same; Same; Same; The erroneous grant of relief by the Regional Trial Court
on appeal is but an exercise of jurisdiction by said courtthe ground for
annulment of the decision is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court
should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not
vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter; The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding the appeal when, instead
of simply dismissing the complaint and awarding any counterclaim for costs
due to the defendants, it ordered the lessors to execute a deed of absolute
sale in favor of the lessees, on the basis of its own interpretation of the
Contract of Lease which granted petitioners the option to buy the leased
premises within a certain period and for a fixed price

Same; Same; Laches; Doctrine of Stale Demands; The principle of laches or

stale demands ordains that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence
could or should have been done earliernegligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable timewarrants a presumption that the party

entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it.On the

timeliness of the petition for annulment of judgment filed with the CA, Section
3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for annulment of
judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its
discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or
estoppel. The principle of laches or stale demands ordains that the failure
or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined
to assert it. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or
staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its
particular circumstances. [Manila vs. Gallardo-Manzo, 657 SCRA 20(2011)]