Module 1: 2.

Constitutional and statutory courts

I. Preliminaries/ General Principles 3. Courts of law and equity

A. Remedial Law distinguished from substantive law 4. Distinguish court and judge

1. Prospective Effect of the Rules of Court/ 5. Doctrines of hierarchy of courts

Retroactive Application of Rules of Court;
• Gios-Samar, Inc. v. DOTC, G.R. No.
Applicability to pending actions
217158, 12 March 2019
• In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of
6. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction;
Court Hon. Simeon Datumanong, G.R. No.
Exceptions
150274, 4 August 2006
• Commission on Audit v. Ferrer,
• Colmenar v. Colmenar, G.R. No. 252467,
G.R. No. 218870, November 24, 2020
21 June 2021
7. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
2. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
Remedies
• Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 30
• The Roman Catholic Bishop of
• Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) Malolos, Inc. v. Heirs of Marcos,
G.R. No. 225971,June 17, 2020
3. Power of the Supreme Court to suspend the
Rules of Court 8. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine
of judicial stability
• Labao v. Flores, G.R. No. 187984, 15
November 2010 • Tan v. Cinco, G.R. No. 213054, 15 June
2016
B. Nature and Classification of Philippine Courts
• Erice v. Sison, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2407,
1. Classification of jurisdiction
November 22, 201
a. Original vs. Appellate
9. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction,
b. General vs. Special continuity of jurisdiction

c. Exclusive vs. Concurrent

 • Vda. de Ballesteros v. Rural Bank of • Dayrit v. Norquillas, G.R. No.
Canaman, Inc., G.R. No. 176260, November 201631, December 7, 2021
24, 2010
3. Docket and Filing Fees

• Manchester Development Corporation v.

C. Jurisdiction Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75919, 7 May
1987
1. Statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action • Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. V. Asuncion,
G.R Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989
i. Cang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
105308, 25 September 1998 • Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. (IBC-
13) v. Alonzo Legasto, G.R. No. 169108,
2. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts, BP 129,
April 18, 2006
as amended by RA 11576
• Foronda-Crystal v. Son, G.R. No. 221815,
a. Supreme Court
November 29, 2017
b. Court of Appeals

c. Court of Tax Appeals

4. Aspects of jurisdiction
d. Regional Trial Courts
i. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
1. SRC – RA 8799
1. Conferred by law; determined by
2. Sec. 2, PD 1529 the allegations in the complaint

• Heirs of Dolleton v. Fil-Estate • Radio Communications of

Management, Inc., G.R. No. the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of
170750, April 7, 2009 Appeals, G.R. No. 136109, August
1, 2002
e. Family Courts – RA 8639
• Sps. Erorita v. Sps.
• Thornton v. Thornton, G.R. No. Dumlao G.R. No. 195477, 25
154598, 16 August 2004 January 2016
f. MTC, MeTC, MCTC, MTCC
 Heirs of Alfredo Bautista v. • Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,
Lindo, G.R. No. 208232, 10 G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April
March 2014 1968

• Heirs of Julao v. De Jesus, • Spouses Erorita v.

G.R. No. 176020, 29 Spouses Dumlao, G.R. No.
September 2014 – Note the 195477, January 25, 2016
jurisdictional amounts as
D. Katarungang Pambarangay (Sec. 399-422, Local
amended by RA 11576
Government Code)
ii. Jurisdiction over the Parties
1. Civil Code, Art. 2041
• Palmiano-Salvador v.
• Lansangan v. Caisip, G.R. No.
Angeles, G.R. No. 171219, 3
212987, 6 August 2018
September 2012
• Abagatnan v. Spouses Clarito,
iii. Jurisdiction over the Issues
G.R. No. 211966, 7 August 2017
• Denila v. Republic, G.R.
• Chavez v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 206077, July 15, 2020
No. 159411, 18 March 2005
iv. Jurisdiction over the Res

• De Joya v. Marquez, G.R.

E. Rules on Expedited Procedures in First Level Courts, OCA
No. 162416, 31 January 2006
Circular No. 69-2022
v. Jurisdiction over the Remedy
1. Small Claims
• Philippine Long Distance
2. Summary Procedure, Civil Cases
Telephone Company v. Citi
Appliance M.C.
Corporation, G.R. No.
214546, October 9, 2019

vi. Estoppel Jurisdiction

Module 2

I. Rule 1 General Provisions; Actions

a. Ordinary Civil Actions, Special Civil Actions, c. Actions in rem, in personam, and quasi in rem
Criminal Actions, Special Proceedings
RECAP:

ACTIONS IN PERSONAM – those actions brought

against a person on the basis of his personal

liability;

ACTIONS IN REM – those actions against the thing

itself instead of against the person;

ACTIONS QUASI IN REM – where an individual is

named as defendant and the purpose of the

proceeding is to subject his or her interest in a

property to the obligation or loan burdening the

property.

• Macasaet v. Co, Jr., G.R. No. 156759, June

b. Personal actions and Real Actions 5, 2013
II. Rule 2 - Cause of Action Failure to state a cause of action or a judgment may
be rendered against the plaintiff for lack of cause of
A. Cause of action defined
action.
A cause of action is the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of
another Lack of cause of action a situation where the
evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged
ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION
in the pleading.
o When there is a right in favor of the plaintiff
• Colmenar v. Colmenar, et al., G.R. No.
o An obligation for the defendant to respect such 252467, 21 June 2021
right
• Sanico v. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969,
o An act or omission violating such right September 27, 2017

• Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate b. Test of sufficiency of cause of action

Management, Inc., G.R. No. 170750, 7 April
“A complaint is sufficient if it contains
2009
sufficient notice of the cause of action even
• Right of Action – Multi-Realty though the allegations may be vague and in-
Development Corp., G.R. No. 146726, 16 definite. To sustain a motion to dismiss for
June 2006 lack of cause of action, the complaint must
show that the claim for relief does not exist
• Consular Area Residents Association, Inc. rather than that a claim has been defec-
v. Casanova, G.R. No. 202618, April 12, tively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or
2016 uncertain.”
• Danfoss Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp., • Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. v.
G.R. No. 143788, September 9, 2005 David, G.R. No. 129928, 25 August 2005
B. Failure to state cause of action distinguished c. Splitting of a single cause of action and
from lack of cause of action its effects

If two or more suits are instituted on the

basis of the same cause of action, the filing
of one or a judgment upon the merits in any d. Where the claims in all the causes of
one is available as a ground for the dismissal action are principally for recovery of money,
of the others. the aggregate amount claimed shall be the
test of jurisdiction.
• Marilag v. Martinez G.R. No. 201892, 22
July 2015 Misjoinder of Causes of Action

• Yap v. First E-Bank Corporation, G.R. No. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a
169889, 29 September 2009 ground for dismissal of an action. A
misjoined cause of action may, on motion of
• Umale v. Canoga Park Development
a party or on the initiative of the court, be
Corp., G.R. No. 167246, 20 July 2011
severed and proceeded with separately
d. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of
• Perez v. Hernano, G.R. No. 147417, 8 July
action
2005
Joinder of Causes of Action
• Pantranco North Express Inc. v. Standard
A party may in one pleading assert, in the Insurance Co. Inc. , G.R. No. 140746, March
alternative or otherwise, as many causes of 16, 2005
action as he may have against an opposing
• Danilo v. Pedro, G.R. No. 155736, 31
party, subject to the following conditions:
March 2005
a. The party joining the causes of action
• Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc.
shall comply with the rules on joinder of
v. Mabalacat Institute, Inc., G.R. No.
parties;
211563, September 29, 2021
b. The joinder shall not include special civil
• Rule 3, Sec. 6 Permissive Joinder of
actions or actions governed by special rules;
Parties
c. Where the causes of action are between
Permissive Joinder of Parties
the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be All persons in whom or against whom any
allowed in the RTC provided one of the right to relief in respect to or arising out of
causes of action falls within the jurisdiction the same transaction or series of
of said court and the venue lies therein; and transactions is alleged to exist, whether
jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may,
except as otherwise provided in these Rules,
join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants
in one complaint, where any question of law
or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all
such defendants may arise in the action; but
the court may make such orders as may be
just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant
from being embarrassed or put to expense
in connection with any proceedings in which
he may have no interest.

• Totality Rule (BP 129, Sec. 33, as

amended)

III. Rule 3 Parties to Civil Actions

A. Who may be parties

• Gaffney v. Butler, G.R. No. 219408,

November 8, 2017

Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of

Court unequivocally states that "[o]nly
natural or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil
action."
B. Parties in Interest • Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30
July 1993
Party in interest
• Resident Marine Mammals of Tanon
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
Strait v. Reyes G.R. No. 180771, 21 April
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
2015
the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
authorized by the law or Rules, every action must be D. Indispensable Parties
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
An indispensable party is a real party in interest
party in interest.
without whom no final determination can be had of
• Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, an action. A joinder of an indispensable party is
29 April 2005 mandatory. The presence of all indispensable
parties is a condition sine qua non for the exercise
• PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco, G.R.
of judicial power.
No. 196323, February 8, 2021
• In the Matter of the Heirship of the Late
C. Representatives as parties
Hermogenes Rodriguez, G.R. No. 182645,
A representative may be a trustee of an express of 15 December 2010 (Resolution)
an express trust, guardian, an executor or
• Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, 23
administrator or a party authorized by law or the
March 2004
Rules of Court. Where the action is allowed to be
prosecuted or defended by a representative or • Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, G.R.
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the No. 130228, July 27, 2004
beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case
E. Necessary Parties
and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest.
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit A necessary party is one who is not indispensable
of an undisclosed principal, may sue or be sued but who ought to be joined as a party if complete
without joining the principal except when the relief is to be accorded for a complete
contract involves things belonging to the principal. determination or settlement of the claim subject of
the action.
• V-Gent, Inc. v. Morning Star Travel &
Tours, Inc., G.R. No. 186305, 22 July 2015 A necessary party is not required to be included
because their interests are so far separable that a
final decree can be made in their absence without party is not joined when he is supposed to be joined
affecting them. but is not impleaded in the action.

• Caravan Travel and Tours International, 2. Under the Rules neither misjoinder nor non-
Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631, February joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an
10, 2016 action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of
the court on motion of any party or on its own
F. Indigent Party
initiative at any stage of the action and on such
A party may be authorized to litigate his action, terms as are just. If there is any claim against a party
claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an misjoined, the same may be severed and proceeded
exparte application and hearing, is satisfied that the
• Divinagracia v. Parilla G.R. No. 196750, 11
party is one who has no money or property
March 2015
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family. I. Effect of death of party litigant

• Spouses Algura v. City of Naga G.R. No. Death of Party; Duty of Counsel
150135, 30 October 2006
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
G. Nominal, Pro Forma Party claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the
duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty
a nominal or pro forma party is one who is joined
days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give
as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party
the name and address of his legal representative or
has any real interest in the subject matter or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with
because any relief is demanded, but merely because
this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
the technical rules of pleadings require the presence
of such party on the record. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
appointment of an executor or administrator and
232724-27, February 15, 2021
the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
H. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties minor heirs.

1. A party is misjoined when he is made a party to The court shall forthwith order said legal
the action although he should not be impleaded. A representative/s to appear and be substituted
within a period of thirty days from notice.
 1. Rule 3, Sec. 20

When the action is for recovery of money arising

from contract, express or implied, and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the
court in which the action was pending at the time of
such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the
plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting
claims against the estate of a deceased person.

• Spouses De la Cruz v. Joaquin, G.R. No.

162788, July 28, 2005

• San Juan v. Cruz G.R. No.167321, 31 July

2006

• Gaffney v. Butler G.R. No. 219408, 8

November 2017

• Uy v. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 223610, July

• Nocum v. Lucio Tan G.R. No. 145022, 23
24, 2017
September 2005
IV. Rule 4 - Venue
B. Venue in civil cases vs. Criminal cases
A. Venue vs. Jurisdiction
 • Nocum v. Lucio Tan G.R. No. 145022, 23
September 2005

C. Venue of real actions, personal actions, actions D. When the rules on venue do not apply
against non-residents
 Module 3:

I. Rule 6 Kinds of Pleadings

• Radiowealth Finance Co., Inc. v. Pineda,

Jr., G.R. No. 227147, July 30, 2018

• Waiver on Improper Venue

• Stipulation on Venue

E. Remedy against improper venue Rule 8, Sec. 12

A. Pleadings Defined and Allowed

Pleadings defined Pleadings are the written statements of

the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted
to the court for appropriate judgment.
1. Distinguish Pleading, Rule 6, Sec. 1 from Motion, Rule original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading
15, Sec. 1 as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the
pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the
pleading.

Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an

action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted
unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies
them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or
when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused.

• Memita v. Masongsong, G.R. No. 150912, 28 May

B. Complaint 2007

The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiffs or C. Answer

claiming party's cause or causes of action. The names and 1. Actionable Document, Rule 8, Sec. 7
residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in
the complaint. Section 7. Action or defense based on document. —
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
1. Actionable Document, Rule 8, Sec. 7; How to contest, instrument or document, the substance of such instrument
Rule 8, Sec. 8 or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the
Section 7. Action or defense based on document. — original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the
or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the pleading.
 • Ridao v. Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc., G.R. provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due
No. 236920, February 3, 2021 execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted
unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies
2. Defenses
them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the
a. Negative Defenses requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or
A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to original instrument is refused.
his or her cause or causes of action.
Section 10. Reply. — A reply is a pleading, the office or
i. Specific Denial Rule 8, Sec. 10 function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or
Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must specify avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the
each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new
not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the new
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted.
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of
averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in
material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a an amended or supplemental complaint.
defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to REJOINDER
the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the
xxx "In the event of an actionable document attached to the
effect of a denial.
reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based
solely on an actionable document.” xxx

• Go Tong Electrical Supply Co., Inc. v. BPI Family In common-law pleading. The second pleading on the part
Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 187487, June 29, 2015 of the defendant, being his answer to the plaintiff's
replication. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
ii. Specific Denial Actionable Documents, Rule 8, Sec. 8;
Reply, Rule 6, Sec. 10; Rejoinder, Rule 6, Sec. 10 • |||Trans Industrial Utilities, Inc. v. Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 227095, January 18,
Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an 2021
action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
 • Ridao v. Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc., G.R. release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel,
No. 236920, February 3, 2021 former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
• Casent Realty Development Corp. v. Philbanking
Corporation, G.R. No. 150731, 14 September 2007 i. When there may be summary hearing: Rule 6, Sec. 5(b)
par. 1; Rule 8, Sec. 12(c) and (d); Rule 15, Sec. 12(b)
iii. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted,
Rule 8, Sec. 11 Rule 6, Sec. 5(b) par. 1

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than which, while hypothetically admitting the material
those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would
deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The affirmative
of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release,
deemed admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9) payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former
recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by
way of confession and avoidance.
iv. Negative Pregnant
Rule 8, Sec. 12(c)
It is a denial of a fact alleged with some qualifying or
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above
modifying circumstance which denial is ambiguous or
affirmative defenses within 30 calendar days from the filing
conjunctive, that is, it cannot be ascertained whether it is
of the answer.
the fact or only the qualification or modification which is
denied (d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first
paragraph of Section 5(b) Rule 6, the court may conduct a
• Serrano Mahilum v. Spouses Ilano, G.R. No.
summary hearing within 15 calendar days from the filing of
197923, June 22, 2015
the answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by
b. Affirmative Defenses the court within 30 calendar days from the termination of
the summary hearing.
An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
which, while hypothetically admitting the material Rule 15, Sec. 12(b)
allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would
(b) Motion to hear affirmative defenses
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her. The
affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations,
 (c) The Court shall motu proprio resolve the above
affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar days from
ii. No summary hearing: Rule 6, Sec. 5(b), Par. 2; Rule 8,
the filing of the answer.
Sec. 12 (a); Rule 15, Sec. 12(b)
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first
Rule 6, Sec. 5(b), Par. 2
paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule 6, the court may conduct a
(b) …The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the
of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of filing of the answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be
frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in resolved by the court within (30) calendar days from the
bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of termination of the summary hearing.
confession and avoidance.
iv. Remedies – Rule 8, Sec. 12(e); Rule 15, Sec. 12(c)
Rule 8, Sec. 12 (a)
Rule 8, Sec. 12(e)
(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following
Affirmative defenses if denied, shall not be the subject of a
grounds:
motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari,
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over prohibition or mandamus, but may be among the matters to
the subject matter of the claim; be raised on appeal after a judgement on the merits.

2. That there is another action pending Rule 15, Sec. 12(c)

between the same parties for the same
(c) Motion for reconsideration of the court’s action on the
cause; and
affirmative defenses.
3. That the cause of action is barred by a
• Colmenar v. Colmenar, et al., G.R. No. 252467, 21
prior judgment or by the statute of
June 2021
limitations;
c. Rule 9, Sec. 1 Defenses and objections not pleaded
Rule 15, Sec. 12(b)
deemed waived; exceptions
(b) Motion to hear affirmative defenses;
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses
iii. Action of Court – Rule 8, Sec. 12(c) and (d) and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or
in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it
appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that
there is another action pending between the same parties 1. Rule 6, Sec. 12 Bringing New Parties
for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
2. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim, Rule 11, Sec. 8
judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss
the claim. (2a) a. Rule 9, Sec. 2 Compulsory counterclaims or cross-claims
not set up, barred

3. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer, Rule

D. Compulsory and Permissive Counterclaim
11, Sec. 9
1. Rule 6, Sec. 12 Bringing New Parties
4. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim, Rule 11, Sec. 10
2. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim, Rule 11, Sec. 8
F. Counter-Counterclaim and Counter-Cross Claim
a. Rule 9, Sec. 2 Compulsory counterclaims or cross-claims
G. Reply, Rejoinder
not set up, barred
• Casent Realty Development Corp. v. Philbanking
3. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer, Rule
Corporation, G.R. No. 150731, 14 September 2007
11, Sec. 9
H. Third-Party Complaint
4. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim, Rule 11, Sec. 10
I. Answer to Third-Party Complaint
• Metropolitan Bank v. CPR Promotions, G.R. No.
200567, 22 June 2015 II. Rule 7 Parts and Contents of a Pleading
• Tiongson v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. A. Caption, Body, Signature and Address
166964, October 11, 2005
B. Verification
• Alday v. FGU Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 138822,
January 23, 2001 • Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. BF Homes, Inc.,
G.R. No. 228239, June 10, 2019
• Carpio v. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas (Batangas),
Inc., G.R. No. 153171, 4 May 2006 • Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corp. v. Thick &
Thin Agri-Products, Inc., G.R. Nos. 201044 &
• Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Ogsos, G.R. No. 221062, 222691, May 5, 2021
October 5, 2016
• Victory Liner, Inc. v. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170,
E. Cross-Claim May 29, 2007
C. Certification Against Forum Shopping 1. Katarungang Pambarangay

• Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. BF Homes, Inc., • Ngo v. Gabelo, G.R. No. 207707, August 24, 2020
G.R. No. 228239, June 10, 2019
2. Art. 151, Family Code
• Tanyag v. Tanyag, G.R. No. 231319, November 10,
• Ty v. Chua, G.R. No. 212598, September 29, 2021
2021
D. Capacity
• Victory Liner, Inc. v. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170,
May 29, 2007 E. Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind
• Heirs of Gabriel v. Cebrero, G.R. No. 222737, • Reyes v. RTC of Mataki, G.R. No. 165744, 11
November 12, 2018 August 2008
• Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper F. Judgment
Insurance Co., G.R. No. 179488, April 23, 2012
G. Official Document or Act
D. Names of Witnesses, Summary of Testimonies, Judicial
Affidavits, Documentary and object evidence H. Striking Out of Pleading or matter contained therein

1. Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC IV. Rule 9 Effect of Failure to Plead

• Lara’s Gifts and Decors, Inc. v. PNB General A. Defenses and objections not pleaded deemed waived;
Insurers, Co., G.R. No. 230429, 24 January 2018 exceptions

E. A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, Efficient Use of Paper Rule B. Compulsory counterclaims or cross-claims not set up,
barred

C. Declaration of Default
III. Rule 8 Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
1. Rule 11, Sec. 11 Extension of Time to File Answer
A. Distinguish Ultimate from Evidentiary Facts
• Momarco Import Co., Inc. v. Villamena, G.R. No.
• Lazaro v. Brewmaster Intl, Inc., G.R. No. 182779, 192477, July 27, 2016
23 August 2010
• Crisologo-Jose v. Land Bank of the Phils., G.R. No.
B. Alternative causes of action or defenses 167399, June 22, 2006
C. Conditions precedent
 • Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Third • Limbauan v. Acosta, G.R. No. 148606, June 30,
Division of the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 2008
238093, January 26, 2021
• Sante v. Claravall, G.R. No. 173915, February 22,
• Rodriguez v. Government of the United States of 2010
America, G.R. No. 251830, June 28, 2021
C. Amendment by leave of court
• Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 151098,
D. No amendment necessary to conform to or authorize
21 March 2006
presentation of evidence
E. Where no defaults allowed
E. Supplemental Pleadings
V. Rule 10 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
• Spouses Lambino v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 172,
A. Amendments in General Valenzuela City, G.R. No. 169551, January 24, 2007

1. Formal Amendment • Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, 13 August 2012

2. Filing of Amended Pleadings VI. Rule 11 When to File Responsive Pleadings

3. Effect of Amended Pleadings VII. Rule 12 Bill of Particulars

• Alpha Plus International Enterprises Corp. v. • Roa v. Spouses Sy, G.R. No. 221586, September
Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 14, 2021
203756, February 10, 2021

B. Amendment as a matter of right

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

154096, August 22, 2008

• Biglang-awa v. Philippine Trust Company, G.R.

No. 158998, March 28, 2008

• National Mines and Allied Workers Union v.

Calderon-Bargas, G.R. No. 157232, December 10,
2007
 c. Service on counsel

• Abutin v. San Juan, G.R. No. 247345, July

6, 2020

3. Presumptive Service

4. Proof of Service

C. A.M. No. No. 251-2020, Guidelines on the

Implementation in the Philippines of the Hague
Service Convention on the Service Abroad of
Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial
Module 4 Matters D. A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, Efficient Use of
I. Rule 13 Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Paper Rule
Other Papers E. Notice of Lis Pendens
A. Definition of Filing, Papers Required to be Filed • Spouses Gonzales v. Marmaine Realty
1. Conventional Filing Corp., G.R. No. 214241, January 13, 2016

2. Manner of Filing, When Date of Filing • Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. South Rich
Acres, Inc., G.R. Nos. 202384 & 202397,
3. Proof of Filing May 4, 2021
B. Definition of Service, Papers Required to be
Served
II. Rule 14 Summons
1. Conventional Service
A. Nature and purpose of summons
2. Different modes of service
• Sabado v. Sabado, G.R. No. 214270, May
a. Distinguish Substituted Service under 12, 2021
Rule 13 from Substituted service of
summons under Rule 14 B. Dismissal Prior to issuance of summons

b. Completeness of Service 1. Rule 9, Sec. 1 in relation to Rule 14, Sec. 1

C. Contents 2. Exclusive list

D. Who may Serve • Integrated Micro Electronics, Inc. v.

Standard Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No.
1. When counsel for defendant may serve
210302, August 27, 2020
summons
J. Service on Public Corporations
E. Alias Summons
• Heirs of Manguiat v. Court of Appeals,
F. Service on Address indicated in the Complaint,
G.R. Nos. 150768 & 160176, August 20,
Sec. 4, Rule 14
2008 Service when identity or
• Sarol v. Spouses Diao, G.R. No. 244129, whereabouts of defendant is unknown
December 9, 2020
• Roxas v. Asiatrust Development Bank,
G. Personal Service Inc., G.R. No. 203506, January 6, 2020 –
Note, the present Sec. 16 was formerly Sec.
• Yap v. Lagtapon, G.R. No. 196347, 14 as discussed in this case
January 23, 2017
• Procianos-Cohen v. Heirs of Magdayao,
H. Substituted Service G.R. No. 241558, September 29, 2021 -
• Sarol v. Spouses Diao, G.R. No. 244129, Note, the present Sec. 16 was formerly Sec.
December 9, 2020 14as discussed in this case

• BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Spouses Chang, G.R. K. Extraterritorial Service of Summons

No. 250769, May 3, 2021 • Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila
• EUCDI United Construction and Trading Corp. G.R. No. 172242, August 14,
Development, Inc. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 2007
196836, September 16, 2020 • Sarol v. Spouses Diao, G.R. No. 244129,
I. Service Upon Private Domestic Juridical Entity December 9, 2020; Note, the present Sec.
17 was formerly Sec 15 as discussed in this
1. Wherever they may be found case
• CCC Insurance Corp. v. Kawasaki Steel L. Service on Residents Temporarily Out of the
Corp., G.R. No. 156162, June 22, 2015 Philippines
 • Sabado v. Sabado, G.R. No. 214270, May
12, 2021

• Barber v. Chua, G.R. No. 205630, January

12, 2021 M. Return and Proof of Service

• BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Spouses Chang, G.R.

No. 250769, May 3, 2021

N. Voluntary Appearance

• Belo v. Marcantonio, G.R. No. 243366,

September 8, 2020

• Roxas v. Asiatrust Development Bank,

Inc., G.R. No. 203506, January 6, 2020

• Uy v. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 223610, July

24, 2017