CASES:

LIM VS LAZARO GR 185734

FACTS:
 Lim filed a complaint for the sum of money with prayer for the issuance of writ of
preliminary attachment before the RTC seeking to recover P2,160,000, which later on
become a bond
 3 lands in Bulacan registered in Lazaro’s name was levied upon
 Sps Lazaro claimed that the complaint has no cause of action since
(a) Colim Merchandise (Colim), and not Lim, Jr., was the payee of the fifteen (15)
Metrobank checks; and
(b) the PNB and Real Bank checks were not drawn by them, but by Virgilio Arcinas and
Elizabeth Ramos, respectively.
 Omnibus motion –
 “declawed and toothless tiger”
 The lien or security obtained by an attachment even before judgment, is a fixed and
positive security, a specific lien, and, although whether it will ever be made available to
the creditor depends on contingencies, its existence is in no way contingent, conditioned
or inchoate.
MANGILA VS CA GR 125027
 Mangila is an exporter of sea food and owned the business “Seafood Products” while
Guina is the manager of Air Swift International
 Proprietorship - A form of business organization with only one proprietary owner. It is
when a person personally or a single individual conducts business under his own name or
under a business name.
 Mangila contracted Guina to transport seafood like crabs to Guam and Guina agreed to be
paid COD
 3 shipments were never paid by Mangila and Guina filed a case for the collection of sum
of money
 Summon was never served because Mangila left the Philippines going to Guam. Guina on
the belief that Mangila left the Philippines with the intention to defraud her, file a motion
for Preliminary Attachment and was granted
 So the sheriff went to the household of Mangila with the notice of levy with the order,
affidavit and bond, but then Manguila filed an urgent motion to discharge attachment for
the reason that she did not received a copy of the complaint and the summons arguing
that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person
 Alias summon (Rule 14 sec 4) – In case of loss or destruction of summons, the court may,
upon motion, issue an alias summons.
 Counter-bond –
 Motion to sell attached properties –
  Substituted service (Rule 14 sec 6)
a. by leaving a copy of the summon to the defendant’s residence to a person at least 18
years of age with sufficient discretion
b. by leaving a copy of the summon to the defendant’s office or frequent place of business
with some competent person in charge
c. by leaving a copy, if refused entry, to the officer of the home association of condo
corporation or its chief of security officer in charge of the building
d. by sending an e-mail to the defendant’s email address, if allowed by the court
 In the case at hand Guina never showed that she effected substituted service on petitioner
after her personal service failed. Because if personal and substituted service fail and she
believed that Mangila was indeed in Guam she may resort to Rule 14 sec 16 service may,
by leave of court, be effected upon him or her by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation
 The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service
of summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by
publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case.
 Declare as default –

 GRANT OF PROVISIONAL REMEDY

1. the court issues the order granting the application
2. the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ
3. the writ is implemented
NORTHERN ISLAND, CO VS SPS. GARCIA GR 203240
 Motion for discharge of excess attachment – if you know that the levied property
exceeded the estimated value you owed
 Northern Island made a shipment of appliances to Ecolamp, was delivered properly and
received by Ecolamp’s representative. They had an agreement to pay the deliveries within
120 days but Ecolamp failed to pay despite receiving multiple demand from Northern
Island. But Ecolamp argued that Northern Island has no proof that they had indeed
received the goods.
 Rule 27 –
 Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that in appeals by notice of appeal, the
court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time
and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
 
TORRES VS SATSATIN GR 166759
FACTS:
 The 3 torres’ each owned a 20,000 sq/m land in Cavite
 Nicanor asked Agripina, the mother of the 3, to sell the land and agreed. So the 3
authorized Nicanor thru SPA to sell the property
 Nicanor offered it to Solar Resources, and agreed to purchase the 3 lands but Nicanor
failed to remit the money to the siblings
 They filed a case of collection of sum of money and damages but after learning that
Nicanor is about to depart the Philippines, they filed a motion for Preliminary
Attachment.
 Nicanor filed a Motion to Discharge Writ of Attachment anchored on the following
grounds: the bond was issued before the issuance of the writ of attachment; the writ of
attachment was issued before the summons was received by the respondents; the sheriff
did not serve copies of the application for attachment, order of attachment, plaintiffs’
affidavit, and attachment bond, to the respondents; the sheriff did not submit a sheriff’s
return in violation of the Rules; and the grounds cited for the issuance of the writ are
baseless and devoid of merit. In the alternative, respondents offered to post a counter-
bond for the lifting of the writ of attachment.
 WAYS OF DISCHARGING THE ATTACHMENT:
A. First, to file a counter-bond in accordance with Section 12 of Rule 57
B. To quash the attachment on the ground that it was irregularly or improvidently issued,
as provided for in Section 13 of the same rule.

KNIGHTS OF RIZAL VS DMCI HOMES GR 213948

-Bury me in the ground, place a stone and a cross over it. My name, the date of my
birth, and of my death. Nothing more. If you later wish to surround my grave with a
fence, you may do so. No anniversaries. I prefer Paang Bundok. - Jose Rizal
-Petition for Injunction, with Applications for Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, and Others filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) seeking, among
others, for an order to stop the construction of respondent DMCI Homes, Inc. 's
condominium development project known as the Torre de Manila.
-when they start the construction, DMCI received a reso suspending the building for the
reason that it will block the sight of the Rizal Shrine
-the National Historical Commission, in their letter, said that Torre de Manila project site
is outside the boundaries of the Rizal park and thus, cannot possibly obstruct the frontal
view of the National Monument.
-DMCI-PDI further argues that since the Rizal Monument has been declared a National
Treasure, the power to issue a cease and desist order is lodged with the "appropriate
cultural agency" under Section 25 of Republic Act No. li0066 or the National Cultural
Heritage Act of 2009.
-DMCI-PDI maintains that the KOR has no standing to institute this proceeding because
it is not a real party in interest in this case.
ISSUE:
-Can the Court issue a writ of mandamus against the officials of the City of Manila to
stop the construction of DMCI-PDI's Torre de Manila project?
HELD:
-There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila. The petition for
mandamus lacks merit and must be dismissed.
-what is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act
is contrary to morals, customs and I public order.
CAYABYAB VS DIMSON GR 223862
-Dimson is a poultry farm owner in Pampanga and applied for business permit.
-after the ocular visit of the farm, Chairman David (Barangay Chairman) refused to issue the
clearance
-after that Dimson received a Cease and Desist Order on the grounds of: (a) lack of a Barangay
Business Permit and a Mayor's Permit; (b) lack of a pollution control officer; (c) foul odor being
emitted by the subject poultry farm that offended passing motorists, and for which complaints
were filed by those affected; and (d) the said poultry farm being situated only five (5) meters
away from the national road, in violation of the 500-meter minimum distance requirement under
the Code of Sanitation of the Philippine
-Dimson filed a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition (With Application for Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction) and prayed for the issuance of a TRO against Mayor Cayabyab and
Chairman David before the RTC
*nuisance per se - nuisance under any and all circumstances, because it constitutes a direct
menace to public health or safety
*nuisance per accidens - depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence
being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized
to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.
-The CA likewise held that the issuance of a TRO cannot be denied on the ground of fait
accompli (accomplished and presumably irreversible) since the acts complained of is a
continuing prohibition on an otherwise legitimate business. Hence, Dimson could still resume his
operations in the meantime, or until a final decision on the merits of the main case is rendered by
the RTC, and the status quo ante may still be attained, and, thereafter, preserved.
ISSUE:
-whether or not the CA committed reversible error in directing the issuance of a TRO against the
implementation of the CDO and the Closure Order of Mayor Cayabyab.
HELD:
*To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must show that: (a) there exists a clear and
unmistakable right to be protected; (b) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be
enjoined; (c) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (d) there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.
REPUBLIC VS CORTEZ GR 172138
-An inalienable public land cannot be appropriated and thus may not be the proper object of
possession. Hence, injunction cannot be issued in order to protect ones alleged right of
possession over the same.
-Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr established an orphanage and school in Sta. Ana, Cagayan. He
claimed that since 1962, he has been in peaceful possession of about 50 hectares of land located
in the western portion of Palaui Island in Sitio Siwangag, Sta. Ana, Cagayan which he, with the
help of Aetas and other people under his care, cleared and developed for agricultural purposes in
order to support his charitable, humanitarian and missionary works.
-On May 22, 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201 reserving for
military purposes a parcel of the public domain situated in Palaui Island. on August 16, 1994,
President Fidel V. Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447 declaring Palaui Island and the
surrounding waters situated in the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as marine reserve.
-On June 13, 2000, Rev. Cortez filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction5 against Rogelio C. Biñas (Biñas) in his capacity as
Commanding Officer of the Philippine Naval Command in Port San Vicente, Sta. Ana,
Cagayan.1âwphi1 According to him, some members of the Philippine Navy, upon orders of
Biñas, disturbed his peaceful and lawful possession of the said 50-hectare portion of Palaui
Island when on March 15, 2000, they commanded him and his men, through the use of force and
intimidation, to vacate the area. When he sought assistance from the Office of the Philippine
Naval Command, he was met with sarcastic remarks and threatened with drastic military action
if they do not vacate. Thus, Rev. Cortez and his men were constrained to leave the area.
-The requisites necesary for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction are: (1) the existence
of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
-Section 9, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides that if after the trial of the action it appears
that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined, the court
shall grant a final injunction perpetually restraining the party or person enjoined from the
commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory
injunction.
ISSUE:
The ultimate issue to be resolved in this case is whether Rev. Cortez is entitled to a final writ of
mandatory injunction.
HELD:
*Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is directed either to do a
particular act, in which case it is called a mandatory injunction, [as in this case,] or to refrain
from doing a particular act, in which case it is called a prohibitory injunction." "It may be the
main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action.
JENOSA VS. DELARIARTE
-Students were caught engaging in hazing and the Iloilo Police handled the case
-instead of being charged with the crime, they made an agreement, signed, to transfer
schools while the neophytes will be suspended for 1 month
-but later on, the parents urge the President not to implement the agreement made
-petitioners filed a complaint for injuction and damages with RTC
TANTANO VS ESPINA-CABOVERDE
HITEROZA VS CRUZADA
SMART VS ASTORGA
HAO VS ANDRES
DE ASIS VS CA
FACTS:
-on 1988, Vircel Andres, the legal guardian of Glen de Asis, filed an action for maintenance and
support against Manuel de Asis, the father of Glen, before the RTC
-Manuel claimed that he is not the father of Glen and therefore not entitled to give support.
Manuel also suggested to dismiss the complaint for it is more practical not to pursue his
counterclaim
-RTC dismissed the case with prejudice for the reason that Vircel Andres has no objection that
the case be withdrawn but on 1995, another complaint was filed by Manuel de Asis represented
by Vircel Andres at RTC Kalookan
-the said Complaint prayed, thus:
1. To pay plaintiff the sum of not less than P2,000.00 per month for every month since June 1,
1987 as support in arrears which defendant failed to provide plaintiff shortly after her birth in
June 1987 up to present;
2. To give plaintiff a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 to be paid in advance on or before the 5th
of each and every month.
3. To give plaintiff by way of support pendente lite a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 per month,
the first monthly allowance to start retroactively from the first day of this month and the
subsequent ones to be paid in advance on or before the 5th of each succeeding month.
4. To pay the costs of suit.
-Manuel Asis moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of res judicata
-RTC ruled that res judicata is inapplicable in an action for support for the reason that
renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by law.
-Manuel file an appeal at the CA but was dismissed
-Manuel admitted the lack of filiation between him and the minor child, which admission binds
the complainant, and since the obligation to give support is based on the existence of paternity
and filiation between the child and the putative parent, the lack thereof negates the right to claim
for support.
-“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 renounce; hence, support which is the means to
attain the former, cannot be renounced.”
ISSUE:
HELD:
LIM VS LIM
-Cheryl and Edward Lim were married and has three children namely: Lester, Candice, and
Mariano
-Cheryl abandoned their residence after a violent confrontation with Edward whom she caught
with the in-house midwife of Chua Giak
RTC:
-rendered judgment ordering Edward and petitioners to "jointly" provide ₱40,000 monthly
support to respondents and Edward to provide monthly support of ₱6,000 pendente lite.
-held petitioners and Chua jointly liable because of inability to give or provide support
CA:
-The law on support under Article 195 of the Family Code is clear on this matter. Parents and
their legitimate children are obliged to mutually support one another and this obligation extends
down to the legitimate grandchildren and great grandchildren.
ISSUE:
petitioners are concurrently liable with Edward to provide support to respondents.
HELD:
Petitioners Liable to Provide Support but only to their Grandchildren. Professor Pineda is of the
view that grandchildren cannot demand support directly from their grandparents if they have
parents (ascendants of nearest degree) who are capable of supporting them. This is so because we
have to follow the order of support under Art. 199.
REPUCLIC VS YAHON
GOTARDO VS BULING
ABELLA VS CABANERO
DE VERA VS SANTIAGO
NEYPES VS. CA
HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA VS MUN. OF IBA