Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

1. HEIRS OF MARCELINO DORONIO VS. HEIRS OF FORTUNATO DORONIO G.R. NO.

169454

A probate court, in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction, is the best forum to ventilate and
adjudge the issue of impairment of legitime as well as other related matters involving the
settlement of estate.[40]

An action for reconveyance with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to
settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of property made by
the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding. Special proceedings require
the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.[41]

As explained by the Court in Natcher v. Court of Appeals:[42]

Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines civil action and special
proceedings, in this wise:
x x x a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.

A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions, subject to specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
xxxx

c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right


or a particular fact.

As could be gleaned from the foregoing, there lies a marked distinction between an action
and a special proceeding. An action is a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice
in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying legal
remedies according to definite established rules. The term "special proceeding" may be
defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a
particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless
the statute expressly so provides. In special proceedings, the remedy is granted generally
upon an application or motion.

iN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND
FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT
FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY UDK-15143
January 21, 2015

THE REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW


The power of judicial review, like all powers granted by the Constitution, is subject to certain
limitations. Petitioner must comply with allthe requisites for judicial review before this court may
take cognizance of the case. The requisites are:(1) there must be an actual case or controversy
calling for the exercise of judicial power;(2) the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwisestated, he must have
a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
injury asa result of its enforcement;(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity; and(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case

UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL INC. VS COSLAP G.R. 135945

COSLAP is not justified in assuming jurisdiction over the controversy. It may not assume
jurisdiction over cases which are already pending in the regular courts.
 Section 3(2) of Executive Order 561 speaks of any resolution, order or decision of the
COSLAP as having the "force and effect of a regular administrative resolution, order or
decision." The qualification places an unmistakable emphasis on the administrative character of
the COSLAP's determination, amplified by the statement that such resolutions, orders or
decisions "shall be binding upon the parties therein and upon the agency having jurisdiction
over the same." An agency is defined by statute as "any of the various units of the Government,
including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein."
 section 3(2) of Executive Order 561 patently indicates that the COSLAP's dispositions
are binding on administrative or executive agencies.
2. Private respondents, in filing multiple petitions, have mocked our attempts to eradicate forum
shopping and have thereby upset the orderly administration of justice. They sought recourse
from three (3) different tribunals in order to obtain the writ of injunction they so desperately
desired.

 A scrutiny of the pleadings filed before the trial courts and the COSLAP sufficiently
establishes private respondents' propensity for forum shopping. We lay the premise that the
certification against forum shopping must be executed by the plaintiff or principal party, and not
by his counsel. Hence, one can deduce that the certification is a peculiar personal
representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal
that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of
action. In the case at bar, private respondents' litany of omissions range from failing to submit
the required certification against forum shopping to filing a false certification, and then to forum
shopping itself. First, the petition filed before the COSLAP conspicuously lacked a certification
against forum shopping. Second, it does not appear from the record that the ASSOCIATION
informed Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City before which Civil Case No. 3316-
R was pending, that another action, Civil Case No. 3382-R, was filed before Branch 61 of the
same court. Another group of homeless residents of Dominican Hill, the LAND REFORM
BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION, INC. initiated the latter case.

HEIRS OF AUSTINO MESINA VS. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR G.R. NO. 201816 HEIRS
OF AUSTINO MESINA VS. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR G.R. NO. 201816

Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading. A


complaint states a cause ofaction if it avers the existence of the three essential
elements of a cause of action, namely:(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;(b) The
correlative obligation of the defendant; and(c) The act or omission of the defendant
in violation of said right
By a simple reading of the elements of a failure to state a cause of action, it can be
readily seen that the
inclusion of Theresa’s co
-heirs does not fall under any of the above elements. The infirmity is, in fact, nota
failure to state a cause of action but a non-joinder of an indispensable party.As
such, this is properly a non-joinder of indispensable party, the indispensable parties
who were notincluded in the complaint being the other heirs of Fian, and not a failure
of the complaint to state a causeof action.Thus, the dismissal of the case for failure
to state a cause of action is improper. What the trial courtshould have done is to
direct petitioner Norman Mesina to implead all the heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr.
asdefendants within a reasonable time from notice with a warning that his failure to
do so shall meandismissal of the complaint.2.

Verification, like in most cases required by the rules of procedure, is a formal


requirement,
not jurisdictional. It is mainly intended to secure an assurance that matters which ar
e alleged are done ingood faith or are true and correct and not of mere speculation.
Thus, when circumstances so warrant, asin the case at hand, "the court may simply
order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it andwaive strict compliance
with the rules in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.WHEREFORE,
the