SYLLABUS FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE1

Atty. Victor Y. Eleazar

PART I

III. Civil Procedure

A. Actions
1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions
2. Meaning of special civil actions
3. Meaning of criminal actions
4. Civil actions versus special proceedings
5. Personal actions and real actions

• Far East Bank v. Spouses Plaza, G.R. No. 154489, July 25, 2003

6. Local and transitory actions

7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem

● Lucas v. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011

● De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., G.R. No. 194751,
November 26, 2014

8. Payment of docket fees

• Ballatan v. Court of Appeals, March 2, 1999, 304 SCRA 34

• Heirs of the late Reinoso Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
116121, July 18, 2011, 654 SCRA 1
• Fedman Development Corp. v. Agcaoili, G.R. No. 165025,
August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 354
• Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corp. v.
Formaran, G.R. No. 175914, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 283
• GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010

• Rule 1, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law 1, pp. 367-409

B. Cause of action
1. Meaning of cause of action

• Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 157479, November

24, 2010

2. Right of action versus cause of action

1
Date of last revision: 21 January 2018
 3. Failure to state a cause of action
4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action

• Belle Corporation v. de Leon-Banks, G.R. No. 174669,

September 19, 2012
• Santos v. Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014
• Guillermo v. Philippine Information Agency, G.R. No. 223751,
March 15, 2017

5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects

• Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp. G.R. No. 167246,

July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 155
• Mallion v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, October 31, 2006
• Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015
• Damages in ejectment cases: Progressive Development Corp.
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637; Read Herrera’s Critque
on “damages and costs”; See Hualam Construction v. Court of
Appeals, 214 SCRA 612; Felisilda v. Villanueva, 139 SCRA 431;
Teraña v. de Sagun, 587 SCRA 60
• Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. v. Mayor Presbiterio, Jr.,
G.R. No. 174202, April 7, 2015, 755 SCRA 90

6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action

• Rule 2, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. I, pp. 410-503
• UCPB v. Beluso, 530 SCRA 567

C. Parties to civil actions

1. Real parties in interest; indispensable parties;
Representatives as parties; necessary parties;
indigent parties; alternative defendants

• Excellent Quality Apparel Inc. v. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc.,

G.R. No. 175048, February 10, 2009
• Stronghold Insurance Co. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 173297, March 6,
2013
• V-Gent Inc. v. Morning Star Travel and Tours, G.R. No. 186305,
July 22, 2015
• Navarro v. Escobido, November 27, 2009
• Arcelona v. CA – NB: Read case in the SCRA and take note of
the Errata: Arcelona v. CA, 280 SCRA 20
• Carandang v. De Guzman, November 29, 2006

2
 Personality to sue; Estate of a decedent

• Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. 63277, November 29,

1983, 126 SCRA 217
• Compare with: Ventura v. Militante, G.R. No. 63145, October 9,
1999 and Spouses Rodolfo Berot and Lilia Berot v. Siapno., G.R.
No. 188944, July 9, 2014
• Boston Equity Resources v. CA, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013
• Heirs of Paciano Labao v. Vand Der Kolk, G.R. No. 207266, June
25, 2014

• Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012

2. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties

• Sepulveda Jr. v. Pelaez, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 302

• Moldes v. Villanueva, 468 SCRA 697
• Limos v. Spouses Odones, G.R. No. 186979, August 11, 2010
• Pacana-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, G.R. No. 168979,
December 2, 2013
• China Banking Corp. v. Oliver, G.R. No. 135796, October 3,
2002, 390 SCRA 263

Indispensable party v. Necessary party

• Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156

SCRA 113

3. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

• Pantranco North Express v. Standard Insurance, 453 SCRA 482

4. Class suit

• Adm. Matter No. No. 88-1-646: Re Request of the Heirs of the

Passengers of Dona Paz to set aside the Order of Judge B.V.
Chingcuangco, promulgated on March 31, 1988, 159 SCRA 623

5. Suits against entities without juridical personality

6. Effect of death of party litigant

• Yadno v. Anchales, G.R. No. 174582, October 11, 2012

• Carandang v. de Guzman
• Heirs of Paciano Yabao v. Vander Kolk
3
 • Melgar v. Buenviaje, G.R. No. L-55750, November 8, 1989
• Carabeo v. Dingco, G.R. No. 190823, April 4, 2011, 647 SCRA
200

7. Indigent party

• Algura v. LGU of City of Naga, October 30, 2006

• Rule 3, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 504-611

8. Transferee pendente lite

● Medrano v. de Vera, G.R. No. 165770, August 9, 2010

D. Venue

1. Venue versus jurisdiction

2. Venue of real actions

• Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, G.R. No. L-58287, August 19,

1982
• Union Bank of the Philippines v. Maunlad Homes Inc., G.R. No.
190071, August 15, 2012
• Saraza v. Francisco, G.R. No. 198718, November 27, 2013

3. Venue of personal actions

• Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154096, August

22, 2008
• Garces v. CA, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA504
• Mangila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125027, August 12, 2002
• Latorre v. Latorre, G.R. No. 183926, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA
88

• General Milling Corp. v. Uytengsu, 494 SCRA 241

• Saraza v. Francisco, G.R. No. 198718, November 27, 2013

• Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corp. v. Goldstar Elevators

Phils., 473 SCRA 705
• Golden Arches Development Corp. v. St. Francis Square
Holding Inc., 640 SCRA 227

• See Rule on Venue in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, A.M. No. 02-11-11-

SC and A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC
4
 4. Venue of actions against non-residents

• Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012

5. When the rules on venue do not apply

• Gumabon v. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001

• Briones v. CA, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015
• Ley Construction v. Sedano, G.R. No. 222711, August 23, 2017

6. Effects of stipulations on venue

• Unimasters Conglomeration Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 119657,

February 7, 1997
• Briones v. CA, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015

7. Doctrine of forum non-conveniens

• Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Sherman, G.R. No.

72494, August 11, 1989
• Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Citibank, N.A. and Bank
of America S.T. & N.A., G.R. 170290, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA
191

• Rule 4, Rules of Court

• Read Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 612-651

E. Uniformity of Rules

• Rule 5, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 652-671
• Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
• Revised Rule on Small Claims Court

F. Pleadings
1. Kinds of pleadings
a) Complaint
b) Answer
(i) Negative defenses
(ii) Negative pregnant
(iii) Affirmative defenses
c) Counterclaims
(i) Compulsory counterclaim
(ii) Permissive counterclaim
5
 (iii)Effect on the counterclaim when the
complaint is dismissed
d) Cross-claims
e) Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints
f) Complaint-in-intervention
g) Reply

WE START WITH 3RD PARTY COMPLAINT

• Rule 6, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law 1, pp. 672-711
• Answer Ex Abudanti Cautela? See Rosete v. Lim, G.R. No.
136051, June 8, 2006
• Filing fees for compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims: See
Korea Technologies Co. Inc. v. Judge Lerma, G.R. No. 143581,
January 7, 2008
• Spouses Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159746, July 18,
2012
• Bungcayao Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and
Development Corp., G.R. No. 170483, April 19, 2010
• Firaza Sr. v. Ugay, G.R. No. 165838, April 3, 2013
• Banco de Oro v. Court of Appeals, 468 SCRA 166
• GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010
• Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Rolando Ogsos, Sr., G.R. No. 221062,
October 5, 2016
• Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc. v. Paras, G.R. No. 161909,
April 25, 2012
• Remedy over: Samala v. Judge Victor, 170 SCRA 453; CDCP v.
Cuenca, 466 SCRA 714
• Paramount Life & General Insurance v. Castro, G.R. No. 195728,
April 19, 2016
• Intervention: Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Spouses de
Guzman, G.R. No. 182136-37, August 29, 2008; Republic v. CA,
G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013

2. Pleadings allowed in small claim cases and cases

covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure

3. Parts of a pleading
a) Caption
b) Signature and address
c) Verification and certification against forum
shopping
(i) Requirements of a corporation executing
the verification/certification of non-
6
 forum shopping
d) Effect of the signature of counsel in a pleading

• Rule 7, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 712-760
• See Sec. 8, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
• See Sec. 5 (a), A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC
• Vda. de Formoso v. PNB, June 1, 2011
• Bank of Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, October 6, 2010
• Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001
• Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo v. Soliman, G.R. No. 178952, April 10,
2013
• Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193415, April
18, 2012
• Petition for Relief from Judgment: Norris v. Parentela Jr.,
February 27, 2003; Compare: Argana v. Republic, G.R. No.
147227, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 184
• Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession: Green Asia
Construction and Development Corp. v. CA, 508 SCRA 79;
Parents-Teachers Association of St. Matthew Christian
Academy v. Metro Bank, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010; de
Guzman v. Chico, G.R. No. 195445, December 7, 2016
• What constitutes forum shopping: Brown-Araneta v. Araneta,
G.R. No. 190814, October 9, 2013; Clark Development Corp. v.
Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corp., G.R. No. 150986, March
2, 2007
• Heirs of Andres Naya v. Naya, G.R. No. 215759, November 28,
2016

4. Allegations in a pleading
a) Manner of making allegations -STATE WITH
PARTICULARITY
(i) Condition precedent
(ii) Fraud, mistake, malice, intent,
knowledge and other condition of the
mind, judgments, official documents or
acts
b) Pleading an actionable document
c) Specific denials
(i) Effect of failure to make specific denials
(ii) When a specific denial requires an oath

• Rule 8, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 761-793
• Tumpag v. Tumpag, G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014
7
 • Santos v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 183034, March 12, 2014
• Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas v. Limbaco, G.R. No. 175291, July 27,
2011
• Heirs of Andres Naya v. Naya, G.R. No. 215759, November 28,
2016
• Fernando Medical Enterprises Inc. v. Wesleyan University Phils.
Inc., G.R. No. 207970, January 20, 2016
• Go Tong Electrical Supply v. BPI Family Savings Bank, G.R. No.
187487, June 29, 2015

5. Effect of failure to plead

a) Failure to plead defenses and objections:
COURT SHALL DISMISS CASE WHEN:
1. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT
MATTER
2. THERE IS AN ACTION PENDING BETWEEN
TE SAME PARTIES FOR THE SAME CAUSE
3. ACTION IS BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT OR
BY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
FOR SUMMARY PROCEDURE:
1. LACK OF JURISDICTION
2. FAILURE TO OBTAIN BARANGAY CERTIFICATION
..OR ON ANY GROUND APPARENT THEREFROM
b) Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim
and cross-claim

6. Default

a) When a declaration of default is proper -

FAILURE FOR DEFENDANT TO GIVE ANSWER
WITHIN PERIOD
b) Effect of an order of default – DEFENDANT
CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDING
ANYMORE OR ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND THE
COURT CAN RENDER JUDGEMENT BASED ON THE
EVIDENCES PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED
TO THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
c) Relief from an order of default
VERIFIED MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT
LINA RULE: ENUMERATED POSSIBLE REMEDIES AVAILABEL
TO A PARTY DECLARED IN DEFAULT (THESES REMEDIES DO
NOT APPLY IN ALL CASES, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE
SITUATION, THIS IS MERELY A LIST)
EX. IN DE PEDRO V ROMASAN, DID NOT RECEIVE SUMMONS,
FILED A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, NOT RECOGNIZED BY
8
COURT BECAUSE THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THEIR PERSON AND IN THE FIRST PLACE,
THERE WAS NEVER A TRIAL
ACCDG TO SIR: WHAT YOU FILE IS A MOTION TO DISMISS
MAGFFILE KA BA NG MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT AS
A REMEDY? – NO KASI IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR NO
JURISDICTION ARGUMENT/POSITION

a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment,
file a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to
answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he has a
meritorious defense; (Sec. 3, Rule 18)
b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default,
but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial
under Section 1 (a) of Rule 37;
c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and
executory, he may file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and
d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the
evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been
presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41) (YOU ONLY LOSE YOUR STANDING, NOT THE
RIGHT TO APPEAL)

GOAL IS TO REINSTATE YOUR STANDING. BUT BEAR IN MIND THAT EVEN

IF YOU LOSE STANDING, YOU ARE STILL ENTITLED TO NOTICE

A motion to order of default, no matter how you call it, it should follow 3 requirements
1. Verification
2. Detailed particularities of the case (Pa---
3. Affidavit of merit – good and bad defense
Other requirements:
-should be set for hearing with notice to the other parties
To convince the court that you have a valid meritoriouos defense to allow you

1. You were declared in default, can you appeal from the

judgement in default? Yes
2. You lost your standing in court, does that affect your right to
appeal? No.
3. What is affected? Only your participation not your right to
appeal
When you appla you are only limited to questioning judgement
contrary to law, contrary to , excessive award.

ON appeal, can you present your evidence? NO, you only assail
judgement based on the records.

Plaintiff, judgement by default, can plaintiff still lose? Yes.

ON appeal, can plaintiff still lose casse on appeal? – Yes

9
How do you prove that there was no answer? Look at the records. If
there is no answer then no records are there

d) Effect of a partial default

e) Extent of relief
f) Actions where default are not allowed
Q:
CAN COURT MOTU PROPRIO DECLARE A PARTY IN DEFAULT?
-UNDER REGULAR RULES, IT CANNOT. BUT UNDER THE
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, IN CASE OF NON FILING
OF ANSWER WITHIN THE 10 DAY PERIOD, THE COURT CAN
MOTU PROPRIO DECLARE A PARTY IN DEFAULT

Do you declare other party in default? -YES. Except that you annot
present evidence ex parte

Limited award -
In default under Rule 9, the judgment shall not exceed the amount or
be different in kind from that prayed for. Liquidated damages are not
to be awarded.

When court awards ex parte, can court award more? Limited award pa din. It doesn’t
really matter
Summary procedures: no party can be declared in default bec court can render judgement
right away

• Rule 9, Rules of Court

• Rule 11, Rules of Court
• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 794-823
• Read: Herrera Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 857-863
• Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. v. Valbueco, Inc., G.R. No. 179594,
September 11, 2013
• Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, March 21, 2006
• Lina v. CA, 135 SCRA 637
• Lui Enterprises v. Zuellig Pharma Corp., G.R. No. 193494,
March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 88
• Arquero v. CA, G.R. No. 168053, September 21, 2011, 658 SCRA
70
• Manuel v. Ong, G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014
• Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. v. Tansipek, G.R. No. 181235, July 22,
2009
• Bitte v. Jonas, G.R. No. 212256, December 9, 2015
• Munoz v Olivares , November 9, 2014
• Sec. 8 (2), Special Rule of Procedure on Declaration of Absolute
10
 Nullity of Void Marriage
• Sec. 5 (b) and (c), Special Rule of Procedure in Legal Separation

7. Filing and service of pleadings

a) Payment of docket fees
b) Filing versus service of pleadings
c) Periods of filing of pleadings
d) Manner of filing
e) Modes of service
(i) Personal service
(ii) Service by mail
(iii) Substituted service
(iv) Service of judgments, final orders or
resolutions
(v) Priorities in modes of service and filing
(vi) When service is deemed complete
(vii) Proof of filing and service

● Alimboboyog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163655, June 16,

2006

f) Notice of lis pendens

• Rule 13, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 873-915
• Gagoomal v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 1092813, January 18, 2012, 663
SCRA 444
• Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank v. Felonia, G.R. No.
189477, February 26, 2014
• J. Casim Construction Supplies, Inc. v. Registrar of Deeds of Las
Piñas, G.R. No. 168655, July 2, 2010, 662 SCRA 715

8. Amendment
a) Amendment as a matter of right
b) Amendments by leave of court
c) Formal amendment
d) Amendments to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence
e) Different from supplemental pleadings f) 1

• Rule 10, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 824-856
• Read Regalado and Riano on issue on amendment in case of
jurisdictional issues on the original pleading
• Swagman Hotels and Travel Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 455 SCRA
11
 175
• Siasoco v. CA, G.R. No. 132753, February 15, 1999
• Citystate Savings Bank v. Aguinaldo G.R. No. 200018, April 6,
2015
• Dela Cruz v. Concepcion, October 11, 2012
• Dayao v. Shell Company, G.R. No. L-32475, April 30, 1980
• Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013
• Ong Peng v. Custodio, 1 SCRA 780 and Pan Asiatic Travel
Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-62781, August 19, 1988

START HEREEE!!!!
G. Summons
1. Nature and purpose of summons in relation to
actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem
2. Voluntary appearance
3. Personal service

● Sec. 128, Corporation Code

● Sec. 190, Insurance Code; now Sec. 196 of PD 612 as amended
by 10607
● Sec. 76, General Banking Law of 2000, R.A. No. 8791
● Onstott v. Upper Tagpos Neighborhood Association, G.R. No.
221047, September 14, 2016
● Sansio Philippines Inc. v. Mogol Jr., G.R. No. 177007, July 14,
2009

4. Substituted service
5. Constructive service (by publication)
a) Service upon a defendant where his identity is
unknown or where his whereabouts are
unknown
b) Service upon residents temporarily outside
the Philippines
6. Extra-territorial service, when allowed
7. Service upon prisoners and minors
8. Proof of service

• Rule 14, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 916-985
• Atiko Trans Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co. Ltd. v.
Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc., G.R. No. 167545,
August 17, 2011
• De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp. G.R. No. 194751,
November 26, 2014
• NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Ltd. v. Lepanto Consolidated
12
 Mining Co., G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 328
• A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC
• Samartino v. Raon, July 3, 2002
• Manotoc v. CA, 499 SCRA 21
• Pascual v. Pascual, December 4, 2009
• Yuk Ling Ong v. Co., G.R. No. 206653, February 25, 2015
• Chu v. Mach Asia Trading Corp. G.R. No. 184333, April 1, 2013
• Ang v. Chinatrust, G.R. No. 200693, April 18, 2016
• Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A. v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 202505,
September 6, 2017
• Mason v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144662, October 13, 2003,
413 SCRA)
• Green Star Express Inc. v. Nissin-Universal Robina Corp. G.R.
No. 181517, July 6, 2015
• National Petroleum Gas Inc. v. Rizal Commercial Banking
Corp., G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015, 766 SCRA 653
• Republic v. Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011, 657
SCRA 621
• Ong v. Co, 752 SCRA 42 (2015)
• Licaros v licaros april 29, 2003

H. Motions
1. Motions in general
a) Definition of a motion
b) Motions versus pleadings
c) Contents and form of motions
d) Notice of hearing and hearing of motions
e) Omnibus motion rule
f) Litigated and ex parte motions
g) Pro-forma motions

• Rule 15, Rules of Court

• Read: Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 986-1003
• De los Reyes v. Ramnani, G.R. No. 169135, June 18, 2010
• Ramos v. Teves, A.M. No. P-12-3061, June 27, 2012; see Pojas v.
Gozo-Dadole, 192 SCRA 575
• Victory Liner Inc. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007
• Palileo v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193650, October
8, 2014, 738 SCRA 1
• Acampado v. Cosmilla, G.R. No. 198531, September 28, 2015

2. Motions for bill of particulars

a) Purpose and when applied for
b) Actions of the court
c) Compliance with the order and effect of
13
 noncompliance
d) Effect on the period to file a responsive
pleading

• Rule 12, Rules of Court

• Read Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 1, pp. 864-872

oooOOOooo

14