Rule 45
-Appeal on certioari; but pleading filed is "Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45" (but you could put "Petition"
-coverage: questions of law
Rule 45 Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court
Question of law - Agote v. Lorenzo, 464 SCRA 60, Jul 22, 2005;
F: Agote was charged with 2 violations: basta violation of firearms...
H: remedy availed of was erroneous because he sought to have resolved the retroactivity of the amendatory law - pure question of law. Question of fact would involve the review of the probative value of the evidence available
-so example of pure question of law, but appeal through R45
BPI v. CA, GR 160890, Nov. 10, 2004;
F: NPC filed eminent domain case vs. BPI. Clerk of courts who were appointed as commissioners to determine the amount of the land did not provide basis for the values. RTC upheld the amount provided by the Commissioners, but the CA reversed it, modified to lessen the amount of the land. BPI filed case
Under R45.
H: GR is that only questions of law. But there are exceptions, one of these are when the ruling of RTC is different from that of CA
CGP Transportation v. PCI Leasing Mar 28, 2007
F: filed P under R45 based on the issue that CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition when it was the wrong mode of appeal chosen
H: Even if the chosen mode was under R65, to serve substantial interest, it could take cognizance of the petition for certiorari, provided:
- As long as filed w/n reglementary period (15 days) [cf: R65: 60 days]
- Should not have lost the right to appeal (to be able to treat the case as P4C under R65)
- Sufficient reason to apply the liberality of rules
Discretion showed in the use of the word "MAY" - application of the rules should be applied to serve interest of substantial justice
*conversely, it was supposed to be R45 but instead passed through CA when only pure questions of law: CA cannot recommend it to SC. But it is true the other way around
Cf R45.6: should show that either or both should be complied with - should include as part of the petition for review on certiorari, either in the preliminary statement or as part of the pleading, as reasons for allowing the petition
Limited review –
Local Superior of the Servants of Charity v. Jody King Construction GR 141715 Oct 12, 2005;
Perez – Rosario, et al. v. CA, GR No. 140796, June 30, 2006;
F: Original action for ejectment filed by Heirs of Perez. Vda de Perez sold parcel of land to a person who was tilling and cultivating the land, 50% of the proceeds of which was given to Vda de Perez. However, after death, the lessee did not deliver the shares. Heirs bought back the parcel of land. Lessee entered a sublease, w/o knowledge of owner. Action brought against lessee. PARA ruled ifo heirs, eject lessee. DARAB reversed it. Heirs appealed to CA. CA affirmed DARAB decision. Heirs filed P4C under R65.
H: Petition would not prosper. Upon receipt of denial, should have filed R45 petition. Failed to show that there was no adequate plain speedy remedy + if administrative decisions are substantiated by evidence, should uphold it.
*NOTE: only situation where R45 not availed of: criminal cases where penalty is life imprisonment - but should now pass through CA
Republic v. Sta Ana- Burgos, 523 SCRA 309, GR 163254 , 1 June 2007
CA not impleaded – Selegna v. UCPB GR 165662 May 3, 2006
Distinguished from Rule 65 – Tagle v. Equitable PCI GR 172299 Apr 22, 2008;
F: Tagle was assailing RTC order granting writ of possession ifo Equitable, alleging the property was a family home. Filed a petition for certiorari under R65...
H: A petition for certiorari under R65 was not the proper remedy. Should be under R45, in trying to assail the decision of the CA because
GR: R45 should be the rule resorted to, whatever the proceedings before the CA was, in going up to the SC
+ requisites for Certiorari should be complied...
HERE: there was still sufficient remedy that Tagle could have resorted to (R45) hence there was a plain, speedy remedy still available. (even if there was GADALEJ)
*Note: distinguished errors of judgment from errors of jurisdiction!
*can you avail of both?
GR: No. Mutually exclusive, not alternative, cumulative or successive
X: If comply with the period to file, and in other requirements, under both rules 45 and 65
*make a table of the differences!
*Certiorari is an original remedy, while petition for review under Rule 45 is an appellate remedy
*what are the two pleadings that should be filed if RTC to CA: Notice of Appeal plus appellant's brief
*if you lose in the CA, then would want to go to SC: file MR (but not required if ordinary appeal); but can go right away with R45 - in R65, assure that there was no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy
-note also that when you file a motion before CA, there is no need for hearing
International Corporate Bank v. CA & PNB, Sept 5, 2006;
F: ICB sued PNB. ICB already cleared the checks when PNB said that the checks have material alterations. RTC dismissed complaint and counterclaim by PNB. PNB was just exercising due diligence. CA reversed. So ICB filed Petition, citing both R45 & 65:
H: Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive
X: in the interest of justice, SC can exercise discretion to considered petition as having been filed under R45 (note: only provided in jurisprudence; what is provided in the ROC is when the SC can remand the case to the CA if you mistakenly went directly up to the SC, and passed through CA)
*even if you already indicated the reasons under Section 6, and availed of the correct mode, complied with each and every formal requirements required, SC can still decide to deny your petition if there is no reversible error!
San Miguel Bukid Homeowner v. City of Mandaluyong, GR 153653, Oct 2, 2009
Assignment of errors –
Phil Hawk Corp v. Vivian Tan Lee, GR 166869, Feb 16, 2010
F: Respondent filed a case for Damages based on QD arising from vehicular accident between motorcycle and bus of Phil Hawk. Husband died, respondent sustained injuries. Before answer, filed amended complaint, adding additional damages and reliefs. RTC ruled ifo respondent; CA added relief granted. Phil Hawk filed R45 Petition before SC, saying that respondent did not appeal to the ruling of the RTC and it was error on part of CA to grant damages
H: no error in awarding additional reliefs
-as to ruling on assignment of errors:
GR: only those assigned should be considered under R45
X:
- If errors affect jurisdiciton of the court as to subject matter
- Error affect validity of judgment
- So long as closely related to those assigned, properly argued in the brief
Rule 46 Original Cases
Rule 65 supplements Rule 46 -
Original cases: original petition for certiorari against rulings of Lower court or QJ bodies
Republic v. Carmel Dev 377 SCRA 459
F: Carmel dev't filed petition against DepEd w/ regard concession of certain parcels of land on which a school was located. MTD denied by RTC. MR denied. Deped brought before CA under R65 but was dismissed - not attached certified true copies of judgment and order of lower court. So question is WON R46 (certified true copies or duplicate originals) or R65 (certified true copies only) would be followed
H: Both should be read in conjunction with each other. R46 governs procedure for R65.
-Under Section 2 of R56, R46,....are applicable to SC unless expressly provided.
Original duplicate: a copy of a decision, judgment, etc. Intended to be furnished to the parties in the case; duly signed or initialed by the clerk of court or office of the issuing entity. Also allowable if there's a dry seal; same as the one received by parties from the court
-what is usually done is that you go to the court to have certified true copies - that is the way the court personnel have money
-in R65, can file either duplicate original or the certified true copy - substantial compliance
Sec. 3 – China Banking Corp v. Padilla Feb 2, 2007
F: Case vs. China Banking for irregular deductions; China banking filed TPC against its employee. Petition for certiorari before CA. CA Denied, failed to attach Certified true copies of important documents.
H: Section 3 is very clear, where it requires that Certified true copies should be attached with the petition. Liberal interpretation can only be made if there is a justifiable reason, or substantial interest would be served.
Rule 47 Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions
-exclusive w/ CA if RTC judgment; but if MTC judgment, can also file w/ RTC
-only if the grounds are:
- Extrinsic fraud + no other remedy w/o fault of the petitioner + did not avail of the same ground already + brought w/n 4 years from discovery of the fraud
- Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and the person: no period. But should not have been prescribed by laches or estoppel
-in both grounds, you have to explain why you resorted to R47, emphasis on no fault + other allegation stating the other requisites above...
Laches (example): You have been in the country all the time, but you moved to a new address. However, you did not notify the court. So you could be barred by laches.
Effects:
If lack of jurisdiction: dismissed w/o prejudice; can refile the case again with proper jurisdiction
If extrinsic fraud: can remand to the RTC as if a MNT was timely filed
Extrinsic fraud -
e.g. Party was not able to get the copy of the decision because his own counsel connived w/ the other counsel.
Lost case because other party paid the judge...
Alma Jose v. Intra Strata 464 SCRA 496, Jul 28, 2005;
F: RTC ifo Intra Strata. Alma Joses did not know because summons not properly served. Filed petition for annulment of judgment, CA denied because already availed of earlier
H: Only ground of extrinsic fraud should not be availed of in earlier remedies. But if based on lack of jurisdiction, can allege in earlier pleadings and pleadings not filed.
De La Cruz v. Sison, GR 142464, Sept 26, 2005;
-Extrinsic fraud: mishanlding of case of previous counsels - not sufficient ground for extrinsic fraud. Only ruled otherwise in exceptional cases.
-same fraud talked about in MNT and Petition for Relief
Ramos v. Combong, Jr. GR 144273 Oct 20, 2005;
F: Respondents did not show in RTC that the previous sellers did not have property transferred in their name. Petitioner alleged that the ruling was procurred through fraud.
H: Extrinsic fraud should refer to the manner in which the judgment was procurred
Alaban v. CA GR 156021 Sept 23, 2005
F: Extrinsic fraud here is the lack of notice to the other parties.
H: If not entitled to notice, then walang notice, then walang fraud. But since there was a publication of the notice, lack of personal notice was cured!
Lack of jurisdiction –
Ancheta v. Ancheta GR 145370, Mar 4, 2004;
F: Over persons...marriage which turned soured...during trial, compromise agreement made between the spouses where most of the properties were adjudicated ifo wife and children. One of the properties was a resort. Husband sought the nullity of the marriage, but misrepresented that the wife resides in her former residence and not in the present address. So petitioner failed to file an answer. Husband filed motion for default. Son, btw, received summons for the wife.
H: Here, invalid service of summons: no explanation why summons not served personally; plus alleged wrong address in the petition; residence of the son was different from residence of petitioner; no actual service of summons because the father only showed the son the summons, but did not give a copy to the son. -so petition for annulment of RtC judgment granted. Original judgment void. But can refile case!
Republic thru APT v. “G” Holdings GR 141241, Nov. 22, 2005;
F: lack of jurisdiction here alleged was GADALEJ!
H: GADALEJ not included in lack of jurisdiction under R47: cannot expand the scope of lack of jurisdiction under R47 since R47 is an extraordinary remedy which should be construed strictly
-plus alleging GADALEJ means it is not questioning the jurisdiction of the lower court
Sps Benatiro et al v. Heirs of Evaristo Cuyo GR 161220 Jul 30, 2008;
F: Father of petitioners died. Supposedly there was a partition. 2 of the heirs asked the clerk of court to be the commissioner for the project of partition. But the project of partition was not signed by ALL the heirs. Not all of the heirs were present. CFI still approved the project of partition. So assailed by the rest of the heirs in this petition, alleging extrinsic fraud. But already beyond the 4 year prescription. CA annulled judgment of CFI, saying that there was indeed extrinsic fraud and that the CFI decision was based on a commissioner's report which was a falsity. On issue on the "ploy" to stop the partition: CA said that it was not a ploy since there is sufficient ground for it...
H: CA is correct in annulling judgment, but for lack of due process!
-lack of due process is included as ground under R47 (added!)
-the falsity of the commissioner's report alone denied the other heirs of their right to have their day in court, and this is lack of due process on their part and is therefore also a ground for petition for annulment
*so lack of jurisdiction would refer to summons; this is different because it would involve due process where you could have been properly summoned but there's a violation of due process later on
GAUF v. RTC GR 139672 Mar 14, 2009;
F: Gonzales estate was expropriated. But government instrumentality failed to conduct resale. Tenants filed action for specific performance. GAUF intervened saying that it was given right to purchase lots in the estate, by assignment of the tenants in a compromise agreement. RTC awarded to one Bahamonde and GAUF. Bahamonde filed action for annulment of the compromise agreement in another court, and that court annuled such compromise agreement. Said decision was annuled by the CA. Order ifo Bahamonde already executed. This is in lieu of the actions filed by GAUF. Now GAUF filed after 2 years a petition for annulment, saying no jurisdiction - collateral attack
H: Even if first action was action for specific performance, there is no collateral attack because the compromise agreement was the basis of the claim of GAUF and it was thus proper for the court to rule upon the compromise agreement's validity...
*MR prohibition only in RTC, CA...but not in SC!
DENR v. Technological Advocates, GR 165333, Feb 9, 2010
F: Tafpa (?) and DENR entered contract. Tampa delayed in submitting accomplishment report. DENR alleged that Tafpa would be liable for penalties (instead of Tampa collecting money from DENR). RTC decided ifo Tafpa. Writ of execution. Petition for Annulment based on lack of jurisdiction
H: Petition not proper. Action for annulment of judgment extraordinary remedy, allowed in exceptional cases.
-lack of jurisdiction is absolute lack of jurisdiction. Here, RTC has jurisdiction:
- RTC has original jurisdiction over mandamus cases
- Even if action for specific performance, RTC still has jurisdiction
- As to the notice to the consultant, and not to OSG: notice to the deputy is notice to the OSG, the principal counsel + summons properly served to DENR legal office.
SC resolution –
Grande v. UP, GR No. 148456, Sep 15, 2006
F: Original case w/ RTC involved recovery of ownership vs. UP. RTC dismissed case - lack of COA - 70 years passed. UP already acquired ownership. CA affirmed. Grande received decision of CA on Dec. 1998, and filed MR, deci on MR received March 2000. Afterwards, no action on Grande's part. So final on April 2000. June 2001, filed R47 before SC to annul decision of CA
H: R47 does not cover cases rendered by CA!
-R47 does not give SC jurisdiction to annul such cases. Original actions before SC only those enumerated in R46...
-if it wanted to appeal, should have filed R45 Certiorari.
-even if apply liberal application of rules, petition was filed out of time, even if there is negligence on part of the counsel
*so is there no remedy at all? No. R45, but if already prescribed, try R65. if already prescribed...
...if judgment is void, then it should have no effect. Ma'am said you could file a new case before RTC, questioning the void judgment...but at risk with forum shopping...
*tip on midterms: Ma'am would probably give R47 problem on Memorandum
Rule 48 Preliminary Conference
Rule 49 Oral Argument
Rule 50 Dismissal of Appeal
Discretionary - PNB v. Philippine Milling 26 SCRA 712
Direct appeal to SC- Atlas Consolidated Mining 201 SCRA 51
Non-payment of fee – Cu-Unjieng v. CA, GR No. 139596, Jan 24, 2006
Non-filing of brief – Gov’t v. CA et al GR 164150 Apr 14, 2008;
Bachrach v. PPA GR 159915 Mar12, 2009
Rule 51 Judgment
*harmless error rule: Section 6, Rule 51. Does not have to rule on every error if this would not go into the very substance of the case, or would not affect the merits of the case
*Section 8: assigned errors or not
Multiple proceedings - Crystal vs. CA, 160 SCRA 79
Rule 52 Motion for Reconsideration
Badiola v. Ca GR 170691 Apr 23, 2008
Rule 53 New Trial
Rule 54 Internal Business
Rule 55 Publication of Judgments and Final Resolutions
Rule 56 Procedure in the Supreme Court
Sec 5 – Ericsson v. City of Pasig GR 176667 Nov 22, 2007;
Law of the case/conflicting decisions – Collantes v. CA 517 SCRA 561 (2007)
Prospective effect – Land Bank v. De Leon GR 143275 Mar 20, 2003
A.M. No. 99-8-09 SC Amended Rules on Who Shall Resolve MRs
*the rest of the rules, even the cases, are not that significant
*in talking about the grounds for dismissal of an appeal (filed out of time, nonpayment of docket fees)...failure to comply if before CA & SC may cause dismissal of the case
*oral arguments: when set: if petition would affect a huge number of Filipinos! But it would really depend on the discretion of the SC.
*if court undecided: dismiss case if original action; if appeal, affirm earlier judgment; if motion: dismiss; if criminal case: acquit
*on MR: should be w/ leave if more than 1 MR before SC
*CA can hold trial
*Section 5 - grounds for dismissal of appeal before SC - more or less same w/ grounds in CA
*CA internal rules: IRCA
Provisional Remedies
-there are 5
-support pendente lite should not be confused w/ support in connection with petition for nullity of marriages? Same actually. As long as there is no final order of court.
-what is the most effective provisional remedy: replevin, then attachment; replevin, however, is the most expensive! Attachment is also difficult to get because there should be some fraud involved.
-as to Injunction, it is one of the most complex to get
-receivership: very rare. More in intracorporate disputes than in ordinary civil actions
Rule 57 Preliminary Attachment
Grounds –
-before: fraud in incurring the debt; now fraud in performing the obligation
PCL Industries v. CA GR 147970 March 31, 2006;
H: Preliminary attachment not properly issued!
-under Section 1, b: fraud referred to must be one which was present when debt incurred. Other party gave consent because of the said fraud.
*you could also allege fraud in nonperformance. But here, the fraud in nonperformance is not the case. Mere inability to pay does not mean there was fraud
Magaling v. Peter Ong GR 173333 Aug 13, 2008;
F: Loan extended by Ong to Magaling, but loan was not paid. Ong filed complaint for payment for sum of money. Complaint included prayer for writ of preliminary attachment on the ground of fraud in procurring the contract? RTC granted. Sps Magaling, who at that time were the majority stock holders of the company, filed motion to discharge writ of preliminary attachment, saying the loan was incurred ifo of the company, and not their personal use. Thus, attachment on their personal property improper.
H: The discharge was not proper because under the rules, discharge maybe obtained if:
- Party files counterbond
- Other grounds: irregular or improper attachment
-here, no counterbond because alleged improper attachment. But SC said that the rules provide that there must be a notice and hearing, which was absent in this case.
*when you say improper issuance/irregularity: also go into the grounds for asking for attachment
Professional Video V Tesda GR 155504 Jun 26, 2009;
Metro Inc. et al v. Lara’s Gifts, GR 171741, Nov 27, 2009
F: Writ of attachment based on fraud in incurring the obligation. Respondents and petitioners had agreement...initially petitioners agreed. But after sales volume went up, stop payment. Complaint for sum of money, alleging that the petitioners were engaged infraudulent activities by representing that they could give respondents commission when they in fact was planning on stealing hte clients of the respondent. Initial attachment allowed. Lifting on ground of lack of evidence of fraud.
H: RTC acted in GADALEJ. Main action revolves around fraud. Fraud cannot be used in motion for dissolution of writ of attachment + did not file counterbond.
*discretionary on part of trial court to discharge attachment! But if there is a counterbond, usually discharged
Ex Parte issuance -
Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. CA, 204 SCRA 343; - still good in terms of attachment, but not in injunction
H: One may ask for ex parte issuance of writ of attachment
-if the court would apprise the other party of the pending writ, he may hide the properties already to deprive the other party of the chance to attach the property pending the litigation
-here, attachment order and copy of complaint and summons served. Defendant now filed motion for discharge of attachment because he assailed the jurisdiction of the court.
H: sheriff must serve not only the copy of the attachment writ but also the summons!
Onate v. Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659
Provisional/ancillary –
Silangan Textile v. Judge Mar 12, 2007
F: In this case, the STMC bought yarns from Luzon Spinning Mills and issued checks for it. However, the checks bounced for insufficiency of funds.
-Luzon Spinning Mills earlier filed a BP 22 Case in MTC against the officers of the corporation, which they also sued in a civil action for collection of money arising from the same facts. Writ of attachment already filed and granted by RTC, even with opposition by the STMC
-Both RTC and CA held that there was no litis pendencia and that the attachment was proper
HELD: there was litis pendentia
(1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions; - same interest
(2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and - same relief - recovery of money based on the checks
(3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.15
-also based ruling on Hyatt v. Dynamix...
-plus it is expressly provided in Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 & Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that the civil cases arising from BP 22 are deemed included, and no reservation to file a separate case is allowed
-the court, thus, ruled for the dismissal of the main action
-as to the propriety of the writ of attachment, the court held that since it is an ancilliary and provisional remedy, the dismissal of the main case brings about the lifting of the writ of attachment.
-Attachment is an ancillary remedy. It is not sought for its own sake but rather to enable the attaching party to realize upon relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action.20 Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy, it is available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional because they constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main action.21
-A writ of preliminary attachment is a species of provisional remedy. As such, it is a collateral proceeding, permitted only in connection with a regular action, and as one of its incidents; one of which is provided for present need, or for the occasion; that is, one adapted to meet a particular exigency. On the basis of the preceding discussion and the fact that we find the dismissal of Civil Case No. 00-00420 to be in order, the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the trial court in the said case must perforce be lifted.
Discharge of an attachment –
Security Pacific Assurance v. Hon. Judge Tria-Infante GR 144740 Aug 31, 2005; -under old law
-has something to do with notice of the surety...
Insular Savings v. CA 460 SCRA 122;
Sofia Torres v. Nicanor Satsatin, GR 166759, Nov 25, 2009
*ways of attaching property: if property registered in register of deeds: serve w/ register of deeds...
If personal property: serve on person who possesses the property
If credits: go to the obligor
Garnishment of bank accounts: banks given notice of garnishment.
*does it have to be a property involved in the litigation: note that one of the grounds is embezzlement - thing embezzled could be attached. But if for sum of money, can attach other properties
Rule 58 Preliminary Injunction-
-GR: Cannot be ex parte
X: extreme urgency + convince executive judge/judge if one sala court, to issue you a 72-hour TRO
Or file complaint w/ prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction, schedule it for raffle, then ask clerk of court to call up the other party to come... Conduct summary hearing
*on 20th day, still no writ of preliminary injunction, what to do: move for the urgent resolution of the motion for writ of preliminary injunction...if gusto talaga i-delay ng judge, petition for certiorari under rule 65 + injunction
*what if one of the parties would suffer more damage than the other
-should allege irreparable damage, but should not estimate amount! IRREPARABLE nga eh so supposed to be not quantifiable!
Clear legal right –
Filipino Metals v. Secretary of Trade and Industry GR 157498 Jul 15, 2005;
H: Available when show clear legal right to injunction; in preliminary injunction, it is not necessary that the law first be declared unconstitutional - if that is the main relief sought.
Levi Strauss v. Clinton Apparelle, GR No 138900 Sept 20, 2005;
H: Dockers was not granted injunction. Not clear WON there was trademark infringement because allegedly there was only 1 item infringed, when the registration has two items.
Duvaz Corp v. Export & Industry Bank 523 SCRA 405, Jun 7, 2007; Equitable PCIB v. Hon. Apurillo, GR 168746; Nov 5, 2009
Injunction should maintain status quo -
-should not improve the status you're in
Rualo v. Pitargue GR 140284 Jan 21, 2005;
University v Ang Wong GR 150280 Apr 26, 2006
-not entitled because subject matter of the injunction already lapsed
Injunction not proper - Tayag v. Lacson GR 134971 25 Mar 2004
Irreparable injury – G.G. Sportswear v. BDO, GR 184434, Feb 8, 2010
-injury being alleged was quantifiable
Summary hearing necessary/Procedure -
Borja v. Salcedo 412 SCRA 110; - explanation of the period
National Electrification Adm v Val Villanueva GR 168203 Mar 9, 2010
RA 8975 act to ensure the expeditious implementation and completion of government infrastructure projects - Phil Ports Authority v. Pier 8 Arrastre GR No. 147861, Nov. 18, 2005;
-what kinds of projects should be enjoined:
DFA v Falcon GR 176657 Sep 1, 2010
-law involved was the e-passport project
-all courts could not enjoin, except SC + extreme urgency for grant of injunction + constitutional issue at hand + suffer great irreparable injury
-here, not a national interest project
Grave abuse of discretion in grant – Overseas Workers v. Chavez 524 SCRA 451; Power Sites v United Neon GR 163406 Nov 24, 2009
*if application for attachment/injunction not granted, what is the remedy: MR then certiorari
Rule 59 Receivership
No receivership of property in custodia legis - Dolar v. Sundiam 38 SCRA 616
Vivares v. Jose Reyes GR 155408 Feb 13, 2008
F: Action for partition, not specpro.
-if it is, then it is in custodia legis. Not subject of receivership, but should ask for the appointment of an administrator
-functions of receiver and requisites, are similar to that of an administrator
Rule 60 Replevin- -
-deliver personal property to you - the property subject of the action usually
-usually in labor cases because more or less brought for recovery of property...?
Applicant must be owner of property - Servicewide Specialists v. CA 318 SCRA 493
No replevin of property in custodia legis -
Vda de Danao v. Ginete 395 SCRA 542
Distinguished from labor case – Smart v. Astorga GR 148132 Jan 28 2008 542 SCRA 434
-if you were the employee unjustly dismissed. It turns out you were given use of a company car (here, it is a Honda civic)...
H: the relationship between the owner of the car and the employee with respect to the possession of the property is as debtor creditor...
...sorry, spacing out...
Improperly served – Rivera v. Vargas GR 165895 Jun 5, 2009
Can the title itself be subject of replevin?
Rule 61 Support “Pendente Lite”- -
Judgment for support never final - Lam v. Chua GR 131286 18 Mar 2004
Future support cannot be subject of compromise - De Asis vs. CA, 303 SCRA 176 (1999)
spacing out after rule 57...
