CASE NUMBER : 1

CASE TITLE: Lim v Lazaro

Doctrine:
Writ of preliminary attachment subsists until judgment is satisfied.
It is an ancillary remedy applied not for its own sake but to enable
the attaching party to realize upon the relief sought and expected
to be granted in the main or principal action; it is a measure
auxiliary or incidental to the main action.
CASE NUMBER : 2
CASE TITLE: Ligon v RTC of Makati
Doctrine:
Attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the
particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The
attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached
property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very
dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. The lien continues
until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the
judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment
discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law.
CASE NUMBER : 3
CASE TITLE: Torres v Satsatin
Doctrine:
The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three
stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application;
second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order
granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented.
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the
implementation of the writ commences, the court must have

acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such

jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any
manner against the defendant.
CASE NUMBER : 4
CASE TITLE: Manguila vs Court of Appeals
Doctrine and Rationale:
For implementation for the writ of attachment to commence, the
court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for
without such jurisdiction, the court has no power to act in any
authority against the defendant.
The court may acquire jurisdiction over the person through proper
and valid service of summons or other coercive process or his
voluntary submission to courts authority. Section 14 of the RC
provides that whereabouts of unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be
effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Lastly, parties may agree in writing on the venue on which an
action should be brought. However, mere stipulation, unless
exclusive, does not preclude parties from bringing case in other
venues. As a general rule, venue for personal actions is where the
defendant resides or may be found, or where plaintiff resides, at
the election of the plaintiff.
CASE NUMBER : 5
CASE TITLE : Vicente Chuidan vs Sandiganbayan GR No. 139941
dated January 19, 2011
Doctrine and Rationale:
Remedies of the defendant whose property or assets has been
attached under the RC are: 1) Rule 57 Section 12 file a counter
bond; 2) Rule 57 Section 13 which is to quash the attachment on

the ground that it was irregularly or improvidently issued. The

ground must be in relation to issuance of the writ of attachments.
The defendant is not allowed to file a motion to dissolve the writ
on preliminary attachment which would result to trial on merits of
action.

CASE NUMBER : 6
CASE TITLE: Teresita Idolor vs Court of Appeals GR No. 141853
dated February 7, 2001
Doctrine:
Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting
substantive rights and interests. The essential requisites must be
present: 1) There must be a right in esse or the existence of a
right to be protected; 2) the act against which the injunction is to
directed is a violation of such right.
If the right of redemption has already expired, the party seeking
injunction no longer has sufficient interest or title in the property
sought to be protected. A party seeking injunction who has
insufficient title or interest to sustain it, and no claim to be
ultimate relief sought, shows no equity.
CASE NUMBER: 7
CASE TITLE: GUSTILO V. REAL
Doctrine:
Before an injunctive relief be issued, it is essential that the
following requisites be present:
1. There must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be
protected
2. The act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of
such right

The onus probandi is on the movant to show that there exists a

right to be protected which is directly threatened by the act
sought to be enjoined. Further, there must be a showing that the
invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is
an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a
serious damage.
Here, the above are not present because the complainant had
been duly proclaimed as the winning candidate for punong brgy.
He is entitled to all the rights.
CASE NUMBER: 8
CASE TITLE: LAGROSAS V. BRISTOL-MYERS
Doctrine:
The injunction bond is intended to protect against loss or damage
by reason of the injunction only.
It is is not a security for the judgment award by the labor arbiter.
CASE NUMBER: 9
CASE TITLE: JENOSA V. DELARIARTE
Doctrine:
Injunction is the strong arm of equity, petitioners must come to
court with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of
equity are:
1. He who seeks equity must do equity
2. He who comes into equity is must come with clean hands.
CASE NUMBER: 10
CASE TITLE: Solid Builders, Inc v. China Banking Corporation
Doctrine:

Foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is not an irreparable

damage that will merit for the debtor-mortgagor the extraordinary
provisional remedy of Preliminiary Injunction
Rationale:
All is not lost for defaulting mortgagors whose properties were
foreclosed. The respondents will not be deprived outrightly of
their property, under the right of redemption. Moreover, in
extrajudicial foreclosures, mortgagors have the right to receive
any surplus in the selling price
CASE NUMBER: 11
CASE TITLE: Plaza v. Lustiva
Doctrine:
A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear
showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the
pendency of the principal action.
Rationale:
When the complainants right or title is doubtful or disputed, he
does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of
an injunctive relief is not proper
CASE NUMBER: 12
CASE TITLE:Office of the Ombudsman v. De Chavez
Doctrine:
Penalty of dismissal from the service meted on government
employees or officials is immediately executory.
Rationale:

Government employee or officials dismissal, therefore lacks the

requisite that the right is clear and unmistakable, thus, the writ
cannot be issued

CASE NUMBER: 13
CASE TITLE: Larrobis Jr. vs. Phil Veterans Bank
Doctrine:
While the respondent bank was banned from pursuing its business
and was placed under receivership, foreclosure should not be
considered included in the acts prohibited whenever banks are
prohibited from doing business during receivership and
liquidation proceedings.
Rationale:
This is consistent with the purpose of receivership proceedings,
i.e., to receive collectibles and preserve the assets of the bank in
substitution of its former management and prevent the
dissipation of its assets o the detriment of the creditors of the
bank.
CASE NUMBER: 14
CASE TITLE: Tantano vs Espina- Caboverded
Doctrine:

Alleged need for income to defray ones medical expenses and

support is not a valid justification for the appointment of a
receiver.
Rationale:
Such is not found in Section 1 of Rule 59 of the Rules of Court,
which prescribes specific grounds or reasons for granting
receivership.
Doctrine:
There must be a clear showing that disputed properties are in
danger of being lost or materially impaired.

Rationale:
Placing properties under receivership is the most convenient and
feasible means to preserve, administer, or dispose of them. But
when theres no grave and immediate loss or irremediable
damage, receivership is not proper.
CASE NUMBER: 15
CASE TITLE: Koruga vs. Arcenas
Doctrine:
The Monetary Board and not the RTC, exercises exclusive
jurisdiction over proceedings for receivership of banks.
Rationale:
It is crystal clear in Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act that
the appointment of a receiver under this Section shall be vested
exclusively with the Monetary Board. The term exclusively
connotes that only the Monetary Board can resolve the issue of
whether a bank is to be placed under receivership and upon an
affirmative finding, it also has authority to appoint a receiver.

CASE NUMBER : 16
CASE TITLE: Orosa v CA
Doctrine:
The trial court erred when it ordered private respondent to return
the subject car or its equivalent considering that petitioner had
not yet fully paid the purchase price. To sustain the trial court's
decision would amount to unjust enrichment. The Court of
Appeals was correct when it instead ordered private respondent
to return, not the car itself, but only the amount equivalent to
installments actually paid with interest.

CASE NUMBER: 17
CASE TITLE: Smart v Astorga
Doctrine:
Replevin is outside the competence of a labor tribunal and labor
arbiter. Smart's demand for payment of the market value of the
car or the return of rhe car in alternative is not a labor, but a civil
dispute.
CASE NUMBER: 18
CASE TITLE: Hao v Andres
Doctrine:
There are well-defined steps with regard to implementation of a
writ of replevin. The property seized must not be delivered
immediately to the plaintiff and the sheriff must maintain custody
of the property for at least 5 days.
CASE NUMBER : 19

CASE TITLE: NAVARRO VS ESCOBIDO

Doctrine:
In suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in
interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and
relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any
kind of action, for the recovery of co-owned properties. Therefore,
only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit
for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable
party thereto.
For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to
file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the
Rules. We see nothing in these provisions which requires the
applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the
property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus,
prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ
of replevin.
CASE NUMBER : 20
CASE TITLE: AGNER VS BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK
Doctrine:
As there was no seizure that transpired, it cannot be said that
petitioners were deprived of the use and enjoyment of the
mortgaged vehicle or that respondent pursued, commenced or
concluded its actual foreclosure. The trial court, therefore,
rightfully granted the alternative prayer for sum of money, which
is equivalent to the remedy of "exacting fulfillment of the
obligation." Certainly, there is no double recovery or unjust
enrichment to speak of.
CASE NUMBER : 21
CASE TITLE:DE ASIS VS CA
Doctrine:

The right to support being founded upon the need of the recipient
to maintain his existence, he is not entitled to renounce or
transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary
giving up of life itself. The right to life cannot be renounced;
hence, support, which is the means to attain the former, cannot
be renounced.
Furthermore, future support cannot be the subject of a
compromise. It appears that the former dismissal was predicated
upon a compromise.Acknowledgment, affecting as it does the civil
status of persons and future support, cannot be the subject of
compromise. (pars. 1 & 4, Art. 2035, Civil Code). Hence, the first
dismissal cannot have force and effect and can not bar the filing
of another action, asking for the same relief against the same
defendant.(emphasis supplied)
Conformably, notwithstanding the dismissal of Civil Case 88-935
and the lower courts pronouncement that such dismissal was with
prejudice, the second action for support may still prosper.

CASE NUMBER: 22
CASE TITLE: People vs Manahan
Doctrine:
The rule is that if the rapist is a married man, he cannot be
compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime, should there be
any, as his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate
CASE NUMBER: 23
CASE TITLE: Lim vs Lim
Doctrine:

Parents and their legitimate children are obliged to mutually

support one another and this obligation extends down to the
legitimate grandchildren and great grandchildren.
CASE NUMBER: 24
CASE TITLE: Gotardo vs Buling
Doctrine:
One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate, through
the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment, an admission of filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned, or the open and continuous possession of the status of
a legitimate or illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by
the Rules of Court and special laws
CASE NUMBER: 25
CASE TITLE: LIM LUA vs LUA
Doctrine:
The amount of support may be reduced or increased
proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the
necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the
person obliged to support.
Those given voluntarily cannot be deducted determining total
support arrears.
Rationale:
it is but fair and just that he give a monthly support for the
sustenance and basic necessities of petitioner and his children.
This would imply that any amount respondent seeks to be
credited as monthly support should only cover those incurred for
sustenance and household expenses.
CASE NUMBER: 26
CASE TITLE: WACK WACK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB vs WON
Doctrine:

An interpleader is a compulsory counter claim. (R9 S2)

Application for interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack
upon the final judgment in the said civil case.
Rationale:
A successful litigant cannot later be impleaded by his defeated
adversary in an interpleader suit and compelled to prove his claim
anew against other adverse claimants, as that would in effect be
a collateral attack upon the judgment.
CASE NUMBER: 27
CASE TITLE: ETERNAL GARDENS vs. IAC
Doctrine:
The essence of an interpleader, aside from the disavowal of
interest in the property in litigation on the part of the petitioner, is
the deposit of the property or funds in controversy with the court.

CASE NUMBER: 28
CASE TITLE: Pasricha Vs Don Luiz
Doctrine:
An action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not
know to whom payment of rentals should be made due to
conflicting claims on the property.
CASE NUMBER: 29
CASE TITLE: Bank of Commerce vs Planters Development Bank
Doctrine:

Interpleader is a form of counter-claim/cross claim, thus the same

may be iniated through answer instead of original complaint.

CASE NUMBER: 30
CASE TITLE: Almeda vs Bathala
Doctrine:
Declaratory relief will not lie when the document or contract
subject thereof was already violated.
Declaratory relief may prosper notwithstanding the pendency of
the ejectment/recission case before the trial court.

CASE NUMBER: 31
CASE TITLE: Rep vs. Obrecido

Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one

party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid
divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino
spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? [YES]

Doctrines:

A petition to apply a judgment of divorce to the status of the

husband is an issue ripe for judicial determination.
Claims regarding the status of Citizens such as judgment
pertaining to them rendered by foreign court may be a ground for
a petition for declaratory relief.
The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there
must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be
between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) that the party
seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4)
that the issue is ripe for judicial determination.

CASE NUMBER: 32
CASE TITLE: Malana Vs. Tappa

Doctrine:

An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person

interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written
instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an
executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought
under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination
of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial
declaration of the parties rights or duties thereunder.
Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to
the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no
longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court
has no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its

subject has already been infringed or transgressed before the

institution of the action

CASE NUMBER: 33
CASE TITLE: Chavez vs judicial bar and council

Doctrine:

Being a nominee for a government position or even as a taxpayer,

is sufficient locus standi for an action for declaratory relief.
Chavez who was a nominee to the position of Chief Justice, who
petitioned the court for declaratory relief which also enjoined
Congress from allowing two members of congress to sit in the
judicial bar and council as representatives thereof.

His initial locus standi as a taxpayer, citizen and previous

nominee as Chief Justice was just.
The JBC likewise screens andnominates other members of the
Judiciary. Albeit heavily publicized in this regard, the JBCs duty is
not at all limited to the nominations for the highest magistrate in
the land.

CASE NUMBER: 37
CASE TITLE: Ampil v. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 192685/G.R. No.
199115)

Doctrine:

The Ombudsman has "full discretion," based on the attendant

facts and circumstances, to determine the existence of probable
cause or the lack thereof.

However, on several occasions, we have interfered with the

Ombudsmans discretion in determining probable cause:
(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

(b) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to

avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
(c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
(d) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority;
(e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation;
(f) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(i) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance.
Rationale:

The Court has consistently hewed to the policy of noninterference with the Ombudsmans exercise of its constitutionally
mandated powers.

CASE NUMBER: 38
CASE TITLE: A.L. Ang Network Inc. v. Mondejar (G.R. No. 200804)

Doctrine:

The proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other

proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does not
preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Rationale:
The Court considers the final nature of small claims cases where
the remedy of appeal not allowed.

CASE NUMBER: 39
CASE TITLE: Maglalang v. PAGCOR (G.R. No. 190566)

Doctrine:

The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and

not alternative or successive.
Rationale:

One cannot file petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
where appeal is available, even if the ground availed of is grave
abuse of discretion. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule
65 lies only when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

CASE NUMBER: 40
CASE TITLE: PEOPLE v. CASTANEDA
Doctrine:
While a judgment of acquittal may be assailed in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, it must be shown that there was grave
abuse of discretion amounting to laack or in excess of jurisdiction
or a denial of due process. In this case, a perusal of the
challenged resolutions of the CTA DOES NOT disclose any
indication of grave abuse of discretion on its part or denial of due
process.

CASE NUMBER: 41
CASE TITLE: UP BOARD OF REGENTS v. LIGOT TELAN
Doctrine:
Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear
and certain right on the part of petitioner being required. It is of
no avail against an official or government agency whose duty
requires the exercise of discretion or judgment.
For, by virtue of the writ, the Universitys exercise of academic
freedom was curtailed.

CASE NUMBER: 42
CASE TITLE: TUAZON v. RD OF CALOOCAN
Doctrine:
The decree reveals that Mr. Marcos exercised an obviously judicial
function. He made a determination of facts, and applied the law to
those facts, declaring what the legal rights of the parties were in
the premises. These acts essentially constitute a judicial function
or an exercise of jurisdiction which is the power and authority
to hear or try and decide or determine a cause.
These acts may thus be properly struck down by the writ of
certiorari, because done by an officer in the performance of what
in essence is a judicial function, if it be shown that the acts were
done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion.
CASE NUMBER: 49
CASE TITLE: Funa vs. Manila Economic and Cultural Office
Doctrine:

The MECO Is Not a Government Instrumentality; It Is a Sui Generis

Entity.
Rationale:
In order to qualify as a GOCC, a corporation must also, if not more
importantly, be owned by the government.
CASE NUMBER: 50
CASE TITLE: Mendoza vs. Allas
Doctrine:
Quo warranto is never directed to an office as such, but always
against the person, to determine whether he is constitutionally
and legally authorized to perform any act, or exercise any
function of the office to which he lays claim.
Rationale:
A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent's
successor in office, even though such successor may trace his
title to the same source.

CASE NUMBER: 51
CASE TITLE: Calleja vs. Panday
Doctrine:
Quo warranto only applies to public office.
Rationale:
Rule 66 of the 1997 rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to quo
warranto cases against persons who usurp an office in a private
corporation.

CASE NUMBER : 55
CASE TITLE: City of Manila vs. Serrano
Doctrine:
Expropriation proceedings consist of two (2) stages: first,
condemnation pf the property after it is determined that is
acquisition will be for a public purpose or public use and, second,
the determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking
of the private property to be made by the court with the
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners.

CASE NUMBER : 56
CASE TITLE: NAPOCOR vs. CA
Doctrine:
The appointment of commissioners to ascertain jut compensation
for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in
expropriation cases. A hearing before the commissioners is
indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence in the issue
of just compensation.
Rationale: The power of eminent domain Is an extraordinary
power, courts must be wield with circumspection and out most
regard with procedural requirements.
CASE NUMBER: 57
CASE TITLE: Republic vs. Andaya
Doctrine:
Republic is liable for just compensation because in enforcing the
legal easement of right of way, the remaining area would be
rendered unusable and uninhabitable
Rationale:

taking, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, occurs

not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses
the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also
when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of
the value of his property.
CASE NUMBER: 58
CASE TITLE: Asia's Emerging Dragon v.s. DOTC
2 precedent cases in connection with NAIA 3:
1. Agan v. PIATCO (null and void)
2. Republic v. Guingoyon (same decision)Propriety of PIATCO in
entering the contractAED- wants to replace PIATCO, bidders in
the construction of NAIA 3 (government property)
Rationale:
(Dealt more on issues of mandamus)
Doctrine:
A deposit of 100% market value of Infrastructure projects of the
government pursuant to RA 8974, is required before LGU can
take possession of property expropriated. This is an exception to
Rule 67, regarding 15% deposit before LGU can take possession
of property expropriated

CASE NUMBER: 59
CASE TITLE: Abad vs. Fil-Homes Realty
Rationale:
In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State
expropriates private property for public use upon payment of just
compensation. A socialized housing project falls within the ambit

of public use as it is in furtherance of the constitutional provisions

on social justice.
Doctrine:
Filing of Expropriation Proceedings shall suspend
ejectment
proeedings (which are summary in nature) over the property in
question for maximum period of one year.
(To avail himself of the benefits of the suspension, the tenants
shall pay to the landowner the current rents as they become due
or deposit the same with the court where the action for ejectment
has been instituted.)

CASE NUMBER: 60
CASE TITLE: NPC v.s. YCLA Sugar Dev't Corp.
Rationale:
A commissioners report of land prices is considered as evidence
in the determination of the amount of just compensation. Thus, it
becomes imperative that the such report
be supported by
pertinent documents, which impelled the commissioners to arrive
at the recommended amount for the condemned properties, to
aid the court in its determination of the amount of just
compensation. Otherwise, it becomes hearsay and should thus
not be considered by the court.
Doctrine:
Just compensation cannot be arrived at arbitrarily; several factors
must be considered but before these factors can be considered
and given weight, the same must be supported by documentary
evidence.
CASE NUMBER: 61
CASE TITLE: Ramirez v manila banking corporation

Doctrine:
Unless the parties stipulate, personal notice to the mortgagor in
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary because
Section 3 of Act No. 3135 only requires the posting of the notice
of sale in three public places and the publication of that notice in
a newspaper of general circulation.
CASE NUMBER: 62
CASE TITLE: Marquez v Alindog
Doctrine:
The possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a
purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party is
actually holding the property by adverse title or right.
The ministerial issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the
purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, however, admits of
an exception. Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pertinently
provides that the possession of the mortgaged property may be
awarded to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure unless a
third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or
right.
CASE NUMBER: 63
CASE TITLE: Lzk Holdings v Planters Development Bank
Doctrine:
The purchaser in foreclosure sale may take possession of the
property even before the expiration of the redemption period by
filing an ex parte motion for such purpose and upon posting of the
necessary bond.
LZK Holdings can no longer question Planter Banks right to a writ
of possession over the subject property because the doctrine of
conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of such particular
issue. The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex

parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought

for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court
to any person adverse of interest.No hearing is required prior to
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
possession.
CASE NUMBER 66.
CASE TITLE: Figuracion vs figuracion

Doctrine:
Defenses not pleaded in the answer may not be raised for the first
time on appeal. Fortifying the rule, the Court had repeatedly
emphasized that defenses not pleaded in the answer may not be
raised for the first time on appeal. When a party deliberately
adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory
in the court below, he will not be permitted to change the same
on appeal, because to permit him to do so would be unfair to the
adverse party.

The Court had likewise, innumerous times, affirmed that points of

law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention
of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be,
considered by a reviewing court, a these cannot be raised for the
first time at such late stage. Basic considerations of due process
underlie this rule. It would be unfair to the adverse party who
would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to
the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it
at the time of the hearing before the trial court.
However, the Supreme Court also ruled that a party may change
his theory on appeal when the factual bases thereof would not
require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party
in order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new
theory.

Partition not proper when there is an issue as to expenses

chargeable to estate such as expenses for last illness and funeral
of decedent. No accounting procedure in partition proceedings.
CASE NUMBER: 67
CASE
TITLE:

Balus

vs

balus

Doctrine:

The purpose of partition is to put an end to the common tenancy

of the land or co-ownership. It seeks a severance of the individual
interest of each joint owner vesting in each a sole estate in
specific property and giving to each one the right to enjoy his
estate without supervision or interference from the other.
CASE NUMBER 68.
CASE TITLE: Feliciano vs Canoza

Doctrine:
A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some
of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is
fraudulent and vicious. An action to set it aside on the ground of
fraud could be instituted, however, such action must be brought
within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud.