January 5 Lecture Notes on Rem Law

Supervening event –

-may result in the modification of the judgment if legitimate supervening event

-may also be used to stop execution

Republic v. Antonio et al GR 166866 Mar 27, 2008

F: Case for expropriation for parcels of land in Cebu. Amount was pegged at P1,500/sqm. Republic, represented by PEZA, appealed before CA, questioning the amount of the lots. While the case was pending before CA, parties entered into a compromise agreement waiving the interest of the agreement. However, they did not inform CA about the compromise agreement. CA rendered decision pegging amount of the lot at P1k per sqm. Respondents moved for execution of CA judgment. WON compromise agreement precluded the effectivity of the judgment. Compromise agreement has effect of res judicata over the case between the parties. In effect, it novated or superseded the CA judgment, even if they did not inform the court.

Cf ROMAN CATHOLIC v. ABELLA: not execution – possession vs. ownership case

Cf. Law in operation, but considered unconstitutional. Does it undo all the acts already done in accordance with that law. Doctrine of operative facts: left untouched.

Appeals

-appeals happen before execution. But they talk about execution first in the ROC! Because usually appealed first before executed.

-we only have one court that is called CA, but all other courts, except MTC, have appellate jurisdiction

-ONLY EXCEPTION when RTC Decision straight to SC: on pure questions of LAW

-from CA to SC: always Petition for Review on Certiorari!

*Things you should remember:

1. procedural requirements

2. Consider where to appeal

3. the Pleadings required to be filed to successfully appeal; If the main pleading for the appeal is a huge mistake, you should not consider all the other requirements, since you’ll be dead from the beginning

4. Period to appeal w/n w/c to file a pleading

-when to file appellants brief: when required by notice (max of 90 days total period to file before CA - usually for OSG!) 

From MTC > RTC [Notice of appeal filed w/n 15 days from receipt of final judgment of the MTC; no MR because not allowed in Summary proceedings! Pay docket fees w/ MTC; then MTC would wait for appeal to be perfected, transmit records, during residual jurisdiction, to the appellate court; then file an Appellant Memorandum; other party files an Appellees Memorandum; Is there a hearing? It would depend.]

*take not whether the judgment is stayed or not upon appeal

From RTC > CA [Petition for review (If RTC judgment in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction); Notice of appeal if decision of the RTC in its original jurisdiction]

-what if you thought you’re supposed to file a notice of appeal, so you took your time to appeal, taking up the 15 days. On the 14th day, you found out that you were supposed to file a petition for review. What to do? File a motion for extension of time before the appellate court! Better not wait for the last day!

From CA > SC [If you lose at CA, file PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI, but you cannot just repeat the arguments and the form of the Petition for Review (though more or less same substance); R45 is not a matter of right: upon discretion of SC: State (1) timeliness; (2) justifiable reason why the SC should take note of the petition]

*If from a QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY: Also petition for review - but subject to another rule

-note When judgment is stayed

-always look at the internal rules to see first:

1. WON There is an appeal
2. What is the mode of appeal required by the Charter (e.g. COMELEC & COA requires Special Civil Action for Certiorari - R65)

-take note also of Family Code proceedings where no appeal (subject to R65 Petition for Certiorari which is not a mode of appeal)
*BUT ALWAYS from CA to SC: Petition for review on Certiorari

*note that CA and SC are collegial bodies, and cases are heard by Divisions

-in CA, unamimous decision of the division, or else would form a division of 5

*when record of appeal required:

1. Special proceedings
2. Separate appeals (e.g. Expropriation - first case: propriety of expropriation; second stage: determination of just compensation)

-note that in collection of attorney's fees...see later case ROVIA v. Heirs of DELESTE

-record on appeal not a single page: contains pleadings required to be filed; like constituting your own records of the case - would be given 30 days to file it. Before, required to be filed like a booklet, but now allows to be just fastened.

-why required in Separate appeals and special proceedings: you may want to appeal a part of the case while the case is still pending, and they are still using the records of the case so you would need to file your own records of appeal

-the appellate court may require the records of the case to be transmitted instead

-most of the time, especially in estate cases, there are many matters taken up...

-note that because of the clogging of court dockets, the courts would usually just wait for the entire case to end than to proceed on a matter subject of separate appeal

In General 

Payment of docket fee – Camposagrado v. Camposagrado GR 143195 Sept 13, 2005

F: Paid based on the assessment of the Court of Court. However, later found out that the docket fee was not fully paid - dismissed because of P5!

H: GR: payment of docket fees is mandatory for perfection of appeal

X: When interest of justice applies

-here, the P5 was not paid merely based on the assessment of the court officers and not the fault of the losing party

*Docket fees - failure to file the proper docket fees - the dismissal of which is discretionary upon the appellate court

No appeal period - Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino, GR No. 160258, Jan 19, 2005

F: In this case,

Mode of appeal from special courts - Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon 399 SCRA 376

-should file petition for review

Appeal from “amended” judgment – De Grano v. Lacaba GR 158877 Jun 16, 2009

 F: in this case, there was really no amended judgment; just two judgments. The winning party manifested that the court should amend the judgment to change the designation from defendant to plaintiff. The losing party filed MR from the date of issuance of the second judgment

H: Appeal should have been taken from the original judgment (not from the "amended judgment"). However, if there is really a substantially amended judgment, the period to appeal would be counted from the date of the amended judgment

Rule 40

Appeal from Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts

Non-payment of appeal fee - Badillo v. Tayag GR 143976 Apr 3, 2003

-here, the nonpayment is held to be discretionary - docket fee is not mandatory in MTC to RTC! Only in RTC to CA.

-plus NHA, a GOCC, is exempted from filing docket fee

AM No. 07-7-12-SC Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 Dec 27, 2007

Filing of appeal memo – Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola GR 156809 Mar 4, 2009

-failure to file appellant's brief is a ground for dismissal of the case (since you're the one appealing)

Sec 7 (b) – Mejillano v. Lucillo GR 154717 Jun 19, 2009

F: From a succession dispute of the heirs, parties who were both purchasers of lots from different heirs. The appellant failed to meet the requirement of Section 7(b), failed to file appeal memorandum w/n 15 days (filed beyond 15 days). In his appeal to CA, he alleged that he was not able to meet the reglementary period because his previous counsel passed away.

H: Denied appeal. Although Rule 40.7 is a techinical rule, it should not be liberalized. When it comes to reglementary periods, those rules are strict!

*Failure to follow technical rules in the SC is a ground for dismissal! Lower courts more liberal!

 *Summary proceedings govern the procedings in MTC. But when it is brought before RTC, summary procedure rules does not apply anymore

Rule 41

Appeal from RTC

Sec 1 – MEMORIZE THE CORRECT SECTION 1 - CHANGED!

-should have come for the first section on all the provisions on appeal!

-always a problem to some lawyers when to determine when an order final or interlocutory

-when you have  a judgment and you file an MR, the order denying the MR is a FINAL order, that's why in Neypes, you have a fresh period of 15 days to file your notice of appeal

-an order denying a MFR of an interlocutory order, see previous discussion on this (no reglementary period since it cannot be appealed!)

-note ORDER OF EXECUTION: not ORDER DENYING EXECUTION; Order of execution is not appealable, can only be questioned by way of certiorari!

Simeon Valdez v. Financiera Manila, GR 183387, Sept 29, 2009;

F: Sps Valdez filed complaint for sum of money w/ preliminary attachment for failure to pay their money investment on time. RTC for SPS. CA modified award. Meanwhile, several compromise agreements were entered into. Now the compromise agreement provided that the notice of attachment would be lifted in exchange of pecuniary consideration. RTC issued an order enforcing the modified CA judgment.

-Discussion on P4C: where allowed

-note the enumeration when the court could entertain petition for certiorari; either case, the court has discretion to took cognizance of the case

-here, Financiera was assailing the order denying its urgent motion for the execution of the compromise agreement. It was proper for appeal, hence, certioari should not have been entertained (should have filed an appeal!); IF it is the denial of the order of execution of judgment, it is expressly not appealable (you cannot delay execution) so can only assail it based on GADALEJ - R65.

*Compromise agreement cannot yet be enforced at that time (not yet ripe) but the modified judgment could be enforced. No appeal from that judgment. The Order denying the enforcement of the compromise agreement is proper because it cannot be enforced yet! Can only be appealed based on Certiorari

Palma v Galvez GR 165273 Mar 10, 2010

F: Medical malpractice suit but the case was decided based on the issue of service on summons on persons temporarily outside the country. Here summons was served on the husband. MTD filed by nurse sued, based on lack of jurisdiction. RTC granted it. MR denied by RTC. P4C based on R65 filed by complainant, saying service was sufficient plus the fact that the lawyer of the respondent appeared before the court and asked affirmative relief.

H: Court held that even if R41.1 says that an appeal may be made, the same rule also provides in Letter g, while the same case is pending, no appeal could be filed if separate claims...blah blah. Here, there were several respondents involved (doctors, other nurses) and the main case was dismissed only on the part of the nurse, there can be no appeal. So P4C could be allowed, though it would have been better if the case was just appealed.

-was the NURSE Correct in saying that the substituted service was improper? No. In serving summons to a person temporarily outside, 3 options even if personal action: (1) personal service; (2) substituted service; (3) service by publication. Here, the nurse herself admitted that she was merely temporarily outside of the country

*under the tax code, if stayed less than 180 days per year outside the country - is temporarily out

Period of time to appeal -

Neypes v. CA GR 141524 Sep 14, 2005;

-when a MFR is denied, a fresh period is given to file an appeal from the notice of Order dismissing it (RTC to CA)

First Aqua Sugar v. BPI Feb 5, 2007

-Applied Neypes ruling (Also RTC to CA)

Appeal from dismissal - Philexport v. Phil Infrastructures GR 120384 Jan 13, 2004;

F: Philexport filed complaint for collection of sum of money. Filed motion for amendment of complaint to comply with the evidence. Denied.

H: CA was technically right. Prior to 1997 rules of procedure, if an order issued has  dismissed w/o prejudice (letter h) the case, proper remedy is ordinary appeal. Now, not appealable. Just refile  the complaint.

Lullete S Ko v. PNB GR 169131-32 Jan 20, 2006

F: Petitioners want the annulment of the mortgage and extrajudicial foreclosure.

H: Wrong mode of appeal. The proper mode of appeal should have been under R41 - ordinary appeal. Order for dismissal is adjudication of the merits of the case.

Period to appeal - Eda v. CA, GR No. 155251, Dec 8, 2004

F: Before Neypes. No longer applicable. Important to know when to start counting the fresh period.

Here, the party lost case, filed MR 14 days. Denied MFR. Filed notice of appeal 10 days after the denial. Did not entertain the appeal because beyond the reglementary period.

H: As far as the appellant, the appeal is perfected upon his filing of the notice in time.

When is an appeal perfected as to the appellant: upon the filing of notice of appeal (plus payment of the docket fees)

Appeal is perfected as to the appellee: the appeal has been perfected after 15 days from notice of the judgment in his favor?

Presence of grave abuse – Benedicta Samson v. Hon. Judge Macaraig, GR 166356, Feb 2, 2010

F: Samson obtained a loan w/ REM. Failed to pay, REM foreclosed. Propertties sold in public auction. Complaint in RTC for annulment of sale for defective publication of the public sale + TRO. Hearing of TRO. Ex officio sheriff + clerk of court impleaded. The latter two failed to file answer. 6 months after TRO hearing, RTC dismissed complaint for failure to prosecute the case for unreasonable period of time. P4C under R65 filed.

H: P4C not proper. Should have been an ordinary appeal. Deci of RTC was a final disposition of the case. No GADALEJ. Judge just followed R18 just followed. It is the petitioner's duty to move for pretrial.

*Can you file both a R45 & 65 Petition for Certioari in one pleading? Saying that you are appealing the case plus there was GADALEJ! Say that you have complied with both requirements? Even if GADALEJ committed, you can actually assign it already as one of the errors of the original court. But don't say you're filing it under both rules. Just Rule 45 if you just want to say that there was GADALEJ. (see ABSCBN case vs. WINS where ABSCBN did that, since they filed it w/n 15 day period, not beyond it!)

*even if you made a mistake (not sure WON R45 or R65), make sure that you file it w/n 15 days so that the case would be still considered

Record on appeal – Rovia v Heirs of Deleste, et al GR 160825 Mar 26, 2010

F: A case for recovery of possession and ownership of land. Case decided ifo heirs of doctor deleste. Lawyers of the heirs filed motion to resolve attorney's fees. RTC ordered ifo lawyers. Notice of appeal filed by heirs. Lawyer argued that a record on appeal should have instead been filed, vs. Notice of appeal. CA granted ifo the heiirs.

H: Notice of appeal sufficient. What was involved was for the recovery of possession and ownership of land. Not one of those which requires records of appeal. ENUMERATES cases where record of appeal needed. See case! (expropriation, partition (first determine WON there is coownership, then determine how to partition)

-the lawyer was claiming that this is a multiple appeal so record of appeal. But court held that just because this is an incident of a case which requires multiple appeal, does not mean that it would require record of appeal!

*What about a partial summary judgment: is it subject to multiple appeals? Partial summary judgment is NOT APPEALABLE. It is discretion of the court to grant summary judgment. What should be done is to wait for the entire case to end! (See case of Monterey!!!). Note also that in the ROVIA case, the Supreme Court already enumerated the cases where record on appeal required!

Rule 42

Petition for Review from RTC to CA

-statement of material dates:

• Date of decision, as well as date of receipt
• If filed MR: state date when you filed MR (say that you filed it w/n period to file MR - w/n the reglementary period of 15 days - to determine WON appeal is timely), when it was decided, and when the notice of the decision was received.

-case originated from MTC. Appealed to RTC

Form & contents – Sps Lanaria v. Planta GR 172891 Nov 22, 2007;

F: in this case, no attachment of records. Filed another MR, attaching the records

H: Only decisions of the RTC and CA are required to be certified true copies or duplicate original (which should also be certified by clerk of court) - the judgment you are appealing from. All others may be plain copies

Perez v. Falcatan, GR 139536 Sept 26, 2005;

F: Forcible entry case filed by respondents. MTCC ruled ifo respondents. Perez appealed to RTC, ruled in his favor. Falcatan filed Petition for Review before CA. CA denied initially, CNFS signed by counsel, not by respondents + failure to submit affidavit of service before the court. Subsequently allowed corrected petition for review. Denied.

H: The recourse taken by the petitioner was erroneous. Should have filed an MR on the resolution of the CA admitting the amended Petition for Review. The timely filing of MR by respondents actually stayed the execution of the order which they sought reconsideration for. While it was indeed mandatory to attach the proper CNFS, there are cases where this requirement may be relaxed

*Ma'am: the CA now allows time for the appellants to correct technical errors; but always make sure that everything is in order when you file a petition (make a CHECKLIST)

Elsie Ang v. Dr. Grageda GR 166239 Jun 8, 2006

F: A woman died while going liposuction. Then ma'am warns us in undergoing operations. Doctors sued criminally for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. MTC acquitted doctors. Parents appealed civil aspect of case before RTC. Appeal memorandum not filed even after 15 motions for extension - all of which were granted. RTC dismissed. P4C filed.

H: CA Correct in dismissing the case. R42 Petition for Review is indeed the proper remedy since the order of the RTC in question was a final order which was exercised in RTC's appellate jurisdiction.  Certiorari is not a substitute for loss appeal

Period to appeal - Balgami v. CA, GR 131287, Dec 9, 2004

F: Petition for partition of land, accounting, nullification of title...Case went to trial, Meanwhile, counsel representing defendant in case was suspended on practice of law and did not tell the clients. Counsel of record officially was the firm itself. While suspended, the RTC rendered final decision ifo plaintiffs (somethime June 1993). July 1,notice of final order received by secretary of lawfirm. Notice not transmitted to Mr. Barrera (the counsel). So no notice of appeal was filed. Before the year ended, the client himself entered an ex parte motion for reconsideration because he only found out that his counsel was suspended from the practice of law. Opposition filed, granted. TC held that the circumstances of the case was beyond anyone's control. No proof that the secretary transmitted the notice personally to the counsel. RTC decision affirmed by CA

H: GR, when a rule of procedure that prescribes time and manner by which a time must be done is indispendable. Time for filing of appeal mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to follow such would result to forfeiture of privilege of the party to file an appeal.

*in this case, the party, after the lapse of the period to appeal, could have filed a petition for relief from judgment (but subject to the double prescription requirement)

Rule 43

Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals

-from CTA, no longer to CA BUT TO THE SC: RA 9289 (plus R45)

-other QJA enumerated, but check from time to time if removed from this rule!

-take note: different R42 and 43.

Formal requirements - Dalton-Reyes v. CA, et al, GR 149580, Mar 16, 2005

F: Here, Ombudsman dismissed the petitioner from service. Appeal filed 1 day late from the reglementary period. And during that time, alleged she had no lawyer assisting her. 

H: here, the reglementary period was not followed (but ang alam ko granted pa rin)...

*look at the provision that allows you to file an extension of time for petition for review (R44.12) to determine when to file motion for extension of time to file brief:

GR: Not allowed

X: before period sought to be extended expires. Does not say that Saturday blah included. So not the last day! File it before the last day!

WHAT ARE NOT EXTENDIBLE

-Motion for Reconsideration

-Notice of Appeal

Quasi judicial bodies - Jose Luis Angelo Orosa v. Alberto Roa, GR No. 140423, July 14, 2006;

Villorente et al v. Aplaya Laiya GR 145013 Mar 13, 2005;

Ruvivar v. Ombudsman GR 165012 Sept 16, 2008;

Phillips Seafood v BOI GR 175787 Feb 4, 2009

*do you implead the lower court? NO. Just the parties involved.

Impleading the lower court or agency - Basmayor v. Atencio GR 160573 Oct 19, 2005

F: Basmayor received memorandum from TESDA director, informing her that she has accumulated absences, required her to appear before office to explain the absences incurred, or else deemed as resignation. Basmayor tried to contact regional office, but was always informed that the director was in Australia. She later received a letter that she was fired. So filed complaint for falsification...

H: Decisions of QJA are immediately executory so you need to file injunction

[spaced out]

Attaching copy of judgment – CocaCola v. Cabalo, GR 144180 Jan 30, 2006

No substantial distinction between a photocopy and a true copy, as long as certified by the proper court officer concerned + faithful reproduction of the original

H: The attached certified copy of the decision in compliance. But still denied because no explanation!

-when you ask for a certification from the clerk of court that it is the true copy, you bring the duplicate original that you have received. Or they have their own rule that you give the money and they just give you a duplicate original certified already.

Supporting papers – BE San Diego Inc. v. Alzul 524 SCRA 402

The failure to attache the required documents does not warrant the automatic dismissal of the petition. Just discretionary power to the CA to determine WON omission is sufficient ground for dismissal.

*What should be certified true correct: awards, judgments, final orders (both in R42 and 43)

Not the entire records of the case! Because it is burdensome. Now the court would require the QJA to transmit the records.

*keep complete copies of all the pleadings filed and received because in this country, Courts burn down, and some pages are taken out of the pleadings. 

Appeal from CSC – DECS v Cuanan GR 169013 Dec 16, 2008

Rule 44 Ordinary Appealed Cases

-connect it to Rule 41

-Appellant's Brief filed. SHOULD BE SHORT BOND?

-do you find attachment to the Appellant's Brief? You only attach the Judgment or Ordered apealed from

- note that you  have to furnish not also the opposing parties, but also the court which rendered the judgment or order being appealed

Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA)

Grounds for dismissal of appeal - De Leon v. CA 383 SCRA 217

F: De Leon filed collection suit vs. Sps B. Wife admitted the liability, partial judgment rendered but appealed jointly by the spouses. Petitioner assailed the granting of the appeal to the spouses because there were several insufficiency in the appeal (lack of reference numbers, proof of service, copies of the appealed decision...)

H: With regards the ground for dismissal of appeal - merely directory upon the CA - not mandatory. Power, not a duty.When there is substantial compliance, due course may be given to the same.

*How to cite SCRA citations: (Vol number) SCRA (first page of the decision); (page where you're quoting from)

-as to proof of service, Court said that there was sufficient proof to the party. Appeal could not be dismissed on this ground

-reminded petitioner that he proper remedy is to file appellee's brief and proceed w/ appeal and not an MR

Contents of appellant’s brief - De Liano v. CA 370 SCRA 349 - MUST READ!

Statement of the case vs. Statement of facts

Statement of facts: provide the basis of the legal arguments; constitute reason why the appelant is seeking the appel in the first place.keep complete copies of all the pleadings filed and received because in this country, Courts burn down.

Statement of the case: summary of the judicial proceedings

Statement of issues: should denote each question of fact and law which should be resolved (in question form)

Assignment of errors: enumeration of errors, what the appellant perceives as erroneous findings of fact

-if you forget one error, the court would not consider said error

*although the court is not that quite strict but the court would consider only errors that are expressly assinged in your brief.

Subject index: table of contents containing the pertinent reports, documents...

General assignment of errors: cannot be sufficient basis of appeal (usu. In all caps)

Arguments: Discussion

Relief prayed for

Appellee's Brief: would contain arguments, counterarguments - refuting each assignment of error

-have own statement of facts (own viewpoint). But if you agree with the facts as stated in the appellant's brief, say so.

Change of theory – Mon v CA GR 118292 Apr 14, 2004

*the problem with court of appeals is that the records are collated, and then when all the briefs are collated, appellant is the only one allowed to have the last say. Once complete, raffled to another division again and then would only find out about the decision on appeal.