Civil Procedure

Case Finals Reviewer

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

#01 Hasegawa vs. Kitamura
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is
fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether the
application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties.
In this case, only the first phase is at issue-jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, however, has various aspects. For a
court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must have jurisdiction over the plaintiff
or the petitioner, over the defendant or the respondent, over the subject matter, over the issues of the
case and, in cases involving property, over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation. In
assailing the trial court's jurisdiction herein, petitioners are actually referring to subject matter
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which
establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law.

#02 Sta. Ana vs. Carpo

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which
jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform
cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) more specifically, in the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with
(1) quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and (2) jurisdiction over
all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Simply put, agrarian disputes, as defined by law and settled in jurisprudence, are within the
primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB, while issues of retention and
non-coverage of a land under agrarian reform, among others, are within the domain of the DAR Secretary.

Supreme Court
#03 Lazatin vs. Desierto
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things
which are established) is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides, thus:
ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of
the legal system of the Philippines.
It was further explained in Fermin v. People as follows:
The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country
to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a
judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare
decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it
should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.
1 |MKAG: im not liable.

The doctrine has assumed such value in our judicial system that the Court has ruled that [a]bandonment
thereof must be based only on strong and compelling reasons, otherwise, the becoming virtue of
predictability which is expected from this Court would be immeasurably affected and the public's
confidence in the stability of the solemn pronouncements diminished.

Regional Trial Courts

#04 Bokingo vs. Court of Appeals
It is axiomatic that the nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the same is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the
plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to some or all of the claims asserted therein. The caption of the complaint is not determinative of the
nature of the action. Nor does the jurisdiction of the court depend upon the answer of the defendant or
agreement of the parties, or to the waiver or acquiescence of the parties.
It is well to note that the Court had the occasion to explain that in determining whether an action is one
the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action, or
remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will depend on the amount
of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the action
is one where the subject of litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable
exclusively by Regional Trial Courts.
As gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief sought by the respondents in their complaint is for the
court a quo to issue an injunction against petitioner Bokingo and his representatives to permanently
enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject land, and not to recover the possession of the
subject land.

Family Courts
#05 Yu vs. Yu
Judgment on the issue of custody in the nullity of marriage case before the Pasig RTC, regardless of which
party would prevail, would constitute res judicata on the habeas corpus case before the Pasay RTC since
the former has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
Since the ground invoked in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC is
respondents alleged psychological incapacity to perform her essential marital obligations as provided in
Article 36 of the Family Code, the evidence to support this cause of action necessarily involves evidence
of respondents fitness to take custody of Bianca. Thus, the elements of litis pendentia, to wit: a) identity
of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; b) identity of rights asserted
and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and c) the identity in the two cases
should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other, are present.
By petitioners filing of the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC he automatically
submitted the issue of the custody of Bianca as an incident thereof. After the appellate court subsequently
dismissed the habeas corpus case, there was no need for petitioner to replead his prayer for custody for,

2 |MKAG: im not liable.

as above-quoted provisions of the Family Code provide, the custody issue in a declaration of nullity case
is deemed pleaded.

Rule 2 Cause of Action

#06 Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation
To have a cause of action for damages against the petitioner, respondent must allege that it suffered a
particular or special injury on account of the non-performance by petitioner of the public duty.
A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant
violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
Under Article 32 of the Civil Code, the liability of the public officer may accrue even if he/she acted in good
faith, as long as there is a violation of constitutional rights. Under the aforecited article, it is not necessary
that the public officer acted with malice or bad faith. To be liable, it is enough that there was a violation
of the constitutional rights of petitioners, even on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the
performance of duties.

Rule 3 Parties to Civil Actions

#07 De Galicia vs. Mercado
This Court sustains the dismissal of the subject complaint for its failure to implead an indispensable party.
Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an indispensable party is a party-in-interest
without whom there can be no final determination of an action. The interests of such indispensable party
in the subject matter of the suit and the relief are so bound with those of the other parties that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. As a rule, an indispensable partys interest
in the subject matter is such that a complete and efficient determination of the equities and rights of the
parties is not possible if he is not joined.

Rule 5 Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts

#08 Soriente vs. Estate of the Late Arsenio E. Concepcion

3 |MKAG: im not liable.

Rule 6 Kinds of Pleading

#09 Reillo vs. San Jose
Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are issues
generated by the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue
at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue. The answer would fail to
tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said
material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or
omitting to deal with them at all.
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. It may either be
permissive or compulsory. It is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with
the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. A permissive counterclaim is essentially an independent
claim that may be filed separately in another case.
A counterclaim is compulsory when its object arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction
or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing partys claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Unlike
permissive counterclaims, compulsory counterclaims should be set up in the same action; otherwise, they
would be barred forever.

Rule 7 Parts of Pleading

#10 Valmonte vs. Alcala
Generally, a pleading is not required to be verified unless required by law or by the Rules of Court.
Verification, when required, is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations of a pleading are true
and correct; are not speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good faith. To achieve this
purpose, the verification of a pleading is made through an affidavit or sworn statement confirming that
the affiant has read the pleading whose allegations are true and correct of the affiants personal knowledge
or based on authentic records.
We should not lose sight of the reality that pleadings are prepared and signed by the counsel at the
instructions of the client; the latter merely provides the supporting facts of the pleading and, as needed,
verifies that the allegations are true and correct. In short, the pleading and the verification are prepared
separately and a variance in their dates is a matter that may satisfactorily be explained. To demand the
litigants to read the very same document that is to be filed before the courts is too rigorous a requirement;
what the Rules require is for a party to read the contents of a pleading without any specific requirement
on the form or manner in which the reading is to be done.

Rule 10 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

#11 Bautista vs. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc.
SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any
time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after
it is served.
The above provision clearly shows that before the filing of any responsive pleading, a party has the
absolute right to amend his pleading, regardless of whether a new cause of action or change in theory is
4 |MKAG: im not liable.

introduced. Since a motion to dismiss is not the responsive pleading contemplated by the Rule, a plaintiff
may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered dismissed, provided that
the order of dismissal is not final.

Rule 14 Summons
#12 Guanzon vs. Arradaza
Summons is the writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such
writ is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person. As a rule, summons should
be personally served on the defendant. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a
reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to.
Substituted service is valid service expressly authorized by the Rules. It is allowed when the defendant
cannot be served personally within a reasonable time, in which event, service may be effected by leaving
copies of the summons at defendants dwelling house or residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or at his office or regular place of business with some competent person
in charge thereof. It is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendants regular place of business
be specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is enough that he appears to be in charge.

Rule 15 Motions
#13 Sarmiento vs Zaratan
As a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the
motion and principles of natural justice demand that his right be not affected without an opportunity to
be heard. The three-day notice required by law is intended not for the benefit of the movant but to avoid
surprises upon the adverse party and to give the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the
motion. Principles of natural justice demand that the right of a party should not be affected without giving
it an opportunity to be heard.
The test is the presence of the opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and
meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based. Considering the circumstances of
the present case, we believe that procedural due process was substantially complied with.
As a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the
motion and principles of natural justice demand that his rights be not affected without an opportunity to
be heard. It has been said that ex parte motions are frequently permissible in procedural matters, and
also in situations and under circumstances of emergency; and an exception to a rule requiring notice is
sometimes made where notice or the resulting delay might tend to defeat the objective of the motion.

Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss

#14 Rural Bank of Calinog (Iloilo), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant
violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

5 |MKAG: im not liable.

In determining whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, it must
be borne in mind that the complaint does not have to establish or allege the facts proving the existence
of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case. If the
allegations in a complaint can furnish a sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the
same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants. To
sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief
does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.
Moreover, a defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is regarded
as having hypothetically admitted all the averments thereof.

Rule 17 Dismissal of Actions

#15 Dael vs. Beltran
As to the propriety of dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, it is mandatory that the trial court issue an order confirming such dismissal and, unless
otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice and could be accomplished by the
plaintiff through mere notice of dismissal, and not through motion subject to approval by the court.
Dismissal is ipso facto upon notice, and without prejudice unless otherwise stated in the notice. The trial
court has no choice but to consider the complaint as dismissed, since the plaintiff may opt for such
dismissal as a matter of right, regardless of the ground.
Respondents argue that the Motion to Dismiss they filed precedes the Notice of Dismissal filed by
petitioner and hence, the trial court correctly gave it precedence and ruled based on the motion.
This argument is erroneous. Section 1 of Rule 17 does not encompass a Motion to Dismiss. The provision
specifically provides that a plaintiff may file a notice of dismissal before service of the answer or a motion
for summary judgment. Thus, upon the filing of the Notice of Dismissal by the plaintiff, the Motion to
Dismiss filed by respondents became moot and academic and the trial court should have dismissed the
case without prejudice based on the Notice of Dismissal filed by the petitioner.

Rule 30 Trial
#16 Calo vs. Tan
The absence of a party during trial constitutes waiver of his right to present evidence and cross-examine
the opponents witnesses is firmly supported by jurisprudence. Although a defendant who answered the
complaint but fails to appear at the scheduled trial cannot be declared in default, the trial, however, may
proceed without his presence. And if the absence of a party during the hearing was due to his own fault,
he cannot later on complain that he was deprived of his day in court.
The absence of petitioners and their counsel at the aforesaid hearings cannot be justified by their belief
that the trial court would first require respondent spouses to comment to or oppose the motions before
resolving them.

Rule 34 Judgment on the Pleadings

#17 Mongao vs. Pryce Properties Corporation
Judgment on the pleadings is governed by Section 1, Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Where
an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's
6 |MKAG: im not liable.

pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. The answer would
fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not comply with the requirements for a specific denial set out
in Section 10 of Rule 8 (Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings); and it would admit the material
allegations of the adverse party's pleadings not only where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof
but also if it omits to deal with them at all.
Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the complaint in the manner
indicated by said Section 10 of Rule 8, and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter
which, while admitting the material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff) in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 6, a
judgment on the pleadings would naturally not be proper.

Rule 35 Summary Judgments

#18 Philippine Countryside Rural Bank (Liloan, Cebu) vs. Toring
When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a
party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute,
the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. Conversely,
where the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper and the movant is not
allowed to obtain immediate relief.
A genuine issue is such issue of fact which requires presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived, or false claim.
Section 3 of Rule 35 provides two requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no
genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the
motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Since summary judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits, depositions,
pleadings, or admission of the parties, the party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of
demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issues of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint
is patently not substantial as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.

Rule 37 New Trial or Reconsideration

#19 Balanoba vs. Madriaga
Provision states: No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
order. Plainly, this statement means that any party -- whether the winning or the losing litigant -- is
prohibited from filing a second motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, winning litigants may also move
for reconsideration of a part or parts of a decision or a final order. In the event that the motion is denied,
an attempt at a second motion for reconsideration would be prohibited under the afore-quoted provision.
What is proscribed under Section 5 of Rule 37 is a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or
final order. The filing of successive motions is certainly not the case here. The decision of the trial court
was already final and executory; yet, respondent has obtained only a partial execution of his money
judgment. It was precisely to effect a full execution that he filed on August 9, 2000, a Motion for Issuance
of a Notice of Garnishment. The series of Motions for Reconsideration he subsequently filed referred to
matters attendant to a complete execution of the Decision in his favor. Those Motions were not for the
reconsideration of the final judgment.
7 |MKAG: im not liable.

Rule 45 Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

#20 Agote vs. Lorenzo
For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any one of them. And the distinction is well-known: there is a
question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of
the facts alleged.
Considering that judgments of regional trial courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction are to be
elevated to the Court of Appeals in cases when appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions of
fact and law, while appeals from judgments of the [same courts] in the exercise of their original jurisdiction
must be brought directly to the Supreme Court in cases where the appellant raises only questions of law,
petitioner should have appealed the trial courts ruling to this Court by way of a petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, pursuant to Rule
41, Section 2 (c) of the same Rules.
By reason, then, of the availability to petitioner of the remedy of a petition for review under Rule 45, his
right to resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was effectively foreclosed, precisely because one
of the requirements for the availment of the latter remedy is that there should be no appeal, or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the remedies of appeal and certiorari being
mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.

Rule 57 Preliminary Attachment

#21 Metro, Inc. vs. Laras Gifts and Decors, Inc.
To sustain an attachment on this ground (Fraud), it must be shown that the debtor in contracting the debt
or incurring the obligation intended to defraud the creditor. The fraud must relate to the execution of the
agreement and must have been the reason which induced the other party into giving consent which he
would not have otherwise given. To constitute a ground for attachment in Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court, fraud should be committed upon contracting the obligation sued upon. A debt is
fraudulently contracted if at the time of contracting it the debtor has a preconceived plan or intention not
to pay, as it is in this case.
The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the
alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtors mere non-payment of the
debt or failure to comply with his obligation.
Since the writ of preliminary attachment was properly issued, the only way it can be dissolved is by filing
a counter-bond in accordance with Section 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
The rule that when the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time the applicants
cause of action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or dissolved is by a counter-bond is applicable in
this case. It is clear that in respondents amended complaint of fraud is not only alleged as a ground for
the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment, but it is also the core of respondents complaint.

8 |MKAG: im not liable.

Rule 65 Certiorari
#22 Cervantes vs. Court of Appeals
As held in Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, the plain and adequate remedy referred
to in the foregoing Rule (Section 1, Rule 65) is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order or
Resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for
certiorari, subject to certain exceptions, to wit:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon
by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action
is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by
the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.
It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of
right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari
must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the
Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration
is necessary or not. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner
must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which petitioner failed to do.

#23 New Ever Marketing, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The petition is based on a misapprehension of procedural rules. It bears stressing that when petitioner,
on October 13, 1999, received a copy of the CA Resolution dated September 24, 1999 denying its motion
for reconsideration, it had fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof within which to file a petition for review
on certiorari under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Section 2 thereof also allows petitioner
to file, within the 15-day period, a motion for extension of time of thirty (30) days within which to file such
petition. This is because the CA Resolution dated March 16, 1999 which outrightly dismissed its petition
for non-compliance with the procedural rules, and the Resolution dated September 24, 1999, which
denied its motion for reconsideration, partake of the nature of a final disposition of the case. Hence, the
appropriate remedy to this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. In this case, petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration which the CA
correctly denied for being a prohibited motion. The filing of a prohibited motion did not interrupt the
running of the 15-day reglementary period within which petitioner should have filed the petition under
Rule 45.
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should, therefore, be dismissed for being the wrong remedy. The
rule is that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is not, and cannot be, a substitute for a lost

9 |MKAG: im not liable.

remedy of appeal, especially if the loss is occasioned by the petitioners own neglect or error in the choice
of remedies.

#24 Concepcion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

The requirement of personality or interest is sanctioned no less by Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution
which provides that a decision, order, or ruling of a constitutional commission may be brought to this
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. This
requirement is repeated in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which applies to petitions for certiorari
under Rule 64 of decisions, orders or rulings of the constitutional commissions pursuant to Section 2, Rule
64. Section 1, Rule 65 essentially provides that a person aggrieved by any act of a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction may file a petition for certiorari.
An aggrieved party under Section 1, Rule 65 is one who was a party to the original proceedings that gave
rise to the original action for certiorari under Rule 65.
The petition for certiorari under Rule 65, however, is not available to any person who feels injured by the
decision of a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The person aggrieved
under Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil action of certiorari pertains only to one who
was a party in the proceedings before the court a quo.

Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

#25 Acaylar, Jr. vs. Harayo

10 | M K A G : i m n o t l i a b l e .