Civil Procedure

I. General Principles A. Concept of Remedial Law B. Substantive Law as distinguished from Remedial Law C. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court 1. Limitations on the Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court 2. Power of the SC to amend & suspend procedural rules D. Nature of Philippine Courts 1. Meaning of a Court 2. Court as distinguished from a judge 3. Classification of Phil. Courts 4. Constitutional & Statutory Courts 5. Courts of Law & Equity 6. Principles of Judicial Hierarchy 7. Doctrine of non-impairment or doctrine of judicial stability II. Katarungang Pamabarangay Law (Sec. 399-422 & 515, LGC of 1991, SC Circular No. 14-93) E. Cases covered 1. Morata vs. Go (125 SCRA 444) 2. Pang-et vs. Manacnes-Dao-as (517 SCRA 292) F. Subject Matter of Amicable Settlement G. Venue 1. Pascual vs. Pascual (475 SCRA 268) 2. Magno vs. Velasco-Jacoba (475 SCRA 584) H. When parties may directly go to court 3. Vda. De Borromeo vs. Pogoy (126 SCRA 216) 4. Gregare vs. CA (177 SCRA 471) 5. Tribiana vs. Tribiana (438 SCRA 216) I. Execution 6. Berba vs. Pablo (474 SCRA 666) J. Repudiation

Estela Berba vs. Josephine Pablo & Heirs of Carlos Palanca

1. Berba resident of 978 Maligay Street, Malate, Manila --- owner of a land located at Roxas St., Sta. Ana, Manila w/ a house erected therein w/c was leased to respondent Pablo & heirs of Palanca since 1976 covered by a Contract of Lease w/c continued to a month-tomonth basis after the expiration of the COL 2. 1999 Rental = Php 3,450 w/c Pablo failed to pay & by May 1999arrears = Php 81,818 w/c caused Berba to file a complaint for eviction & collection of unpaid rentals but only against Pablo in the office of the Punong Brgy. 3. June 5, 1999 --- Berba & Pablo executed an agreement approved by the Pangkat: a. Pablo promised to pay 3k monthly to Berba for the arrears on top of the 3,450 monthly rentals 4. May 2000 --- Pablo & other lessees still had the balance of Php 71,716.00 5. May 2001 --- Php 135,115.63 6. May 2, 2001 --- Berba through counsel, wrote lessees demanding payment & vacate w/in 30 days 7. June 21, 2001 --- Berba filed a complaint against Pablo & Heirs of Palanca in the MTC of Manila for unlawful detainer but she failed to append to her complaint a certification from the Lupon ng tagapamayapa that no conciliation or settlement had been reached 8. Pablo had the ff. contentions: a. Non-payment due to financial distress b. Not sure if the owner of the property was really Berba c. Plaintiff has no cause of action as she failed to secure a Cert. to file an action from the Lupon Issue: W/N Berba violated the KPL for not going through the Lupong tagapamayapa prior to filing the Complaint to the MTC? Held: YES! 1. The Brgy. Conciliation that happened was not for unlawful detainer but for merely collection of rentals. 2. The contention of Berba that Sec. 417 of the LGC w/c provides for the 6 month-period for the enforcement of an action in the proper court is not applicable as there was no really a confrontation before the Lupon w/ respect to the unlawful detainer case 3. Contention of Berba: they lived on different brgys & cant be covered by the KPL --- not correct --- since although they lived on diff brgys, they lived on the same city w/c is Manila --- w/c conciliation at the Brgy. Level is mandatory before filing the case to the proper court

Napoleon Gegare vs, CA & Armie Elma

Facts: 1. Controversy = Lot 5989 w/ an area of 270 sq. m. situated at Dadiangas, GenSan City registered under the name of Paulino Elma 2. Reversion Case filed by the RP against Elma in the CFI of South Cotabato w/c was decided for the nullification of the title of Elma & the lot reverted to the mass of public domain subject to disposition & giving preferential right to its actual occupant, Napoleon Gegare 3. P & R filed an application for the said lot to the Board of Liquidators in 1975 4. 1976 Board passed a resolution disposing the lot in favor of petitioner Gegare by way of negotiated sale w/c respondent protested but another resolution was passed denying such protest 5. Request for Reconsideration = filed by Elma w/c was referred to Mr. Garlit (liquidator-designee) for verification & investigation of the lot a. After the hearing Mr. Garlit recommended the division of the lot to the parties 6. Aug 14, 1981 --- Board Resolution approved the recommendation & divided the lot equally between Gegare & Elma at 135.5 sq. m. each disposed to them by negotiated sale 7. Elma paid the of the lot & have it registered under his name while Gagere wanted the whole lot to be given to him 8. Nov. 27, 1985 Gegare filed an action for Annulment & Cancellation of the Partition of the Lot against respondent & the Board at the RTC of GENSAN 9. Respondent Elma asked for it to be dismissed on the ff. grounds: a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter b. Petitioner has no capacity to sue c. Petitioner is not a real-party-in-interest d. Action is barred by prior judgment e. Lack of Conciliation pursuant to PD 1508 (KPL)

1. Even if the board is a govt instrumentality, petitioner & respondent are also contending parties in the case who are residents of the same brgy so Sec. 6 of PD 1508 should apply --- confrontation at the Brgy. Level is mandatory to enable the parties to settle their differences amicably. --- if the other only contending party id the govt or its instrumentality or subdivision, the case falls w/in the exception but when only one of the contending parties, a confrontation should still be undertaken among the other parties. 2. Other assignment of errors: a. Not served w/ summons petitioner === they are actually sent notices at the address of the petitioner appearing in the petition at Liwayway Disco Restaurant & Disco Pub at GenSan & one of the resolutions sent where even contested by the petitioner w/c proved that petitioner received such summons, pleadings & resolutions b. The appellate court erred in giving due course to the petition w/c are interlocutory in character === when the board passed its resolution in 1981, petitioner appealed to the OP but was denied & he did not file any petition for review w/c made said decision final & duly implemented c. Real party-in-interest === not the petitioner since he was not a party in the grant of the land by the govt to Elma w/c will not give him the right to ask for its nullification

Issue: W/N the case at bar is covered by the KPL? Held: YES!

Atty. Evelyn Magno vs. Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba

1. Atty. Magno charged Atty. Jacoba w/ willful violation of the Sec. 415 of the LGC of 1991 & Canon 4 of the CPR as the latter allegedly acted as the Lawyer of Lorenzo Inos for land dispute 2. Atty. Magno was the niece of Lorenzo Inos & they had a disagreement over landscaping contract they entered into w/c was brought before the Brgy. Captain of San Pascual, Talavera, Nueva Ecija a. At the Brgy. Conciliation: Atty. Jacoba clothed w/ SPA from Inos appeared for the latter accompanied by his son, Lorenzito w/c was objected by Atty. Magno b. Respondents Contention: Inos is entitled to be represented by a lawyer since Atty. Magno herself is also a lawyer w/c was rebutted that it was just incidental c. Atty. Jacoba later responded that she is appearing as an atty-in-fact and not as a counsel of Inos 3. Evidence against Atty. Jacoba: a. Atty. J asked for an ocular inspection of the land and an oral argument between Magno, Jr & Lorenzito arose w/c made Atty. J to have the incident recorded in the brgy. Blotter b. Inos appeared before the court on Jan 2003 w/ the assistance of Atty. J & she also signed as a witness during the said appearance c. Sumbong sent to the Punong Brgy --- she signed representing herself as the Family Legal Counsel of Inos Family Issue: W/N respondent can validly represent the Inos in a Brgy. Conciliation? Held: NO! 1. Sec. 415 of the LGC KPL - appearance of parties in person is mandatory w/o the assistance of counsel except for minors incompetent who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers 2. Prohibition applies to all KB proceedings === Sec. 412 (a) of the LGC clearly provides that as a precondition to the filing of a complaint in court, the parties shall go through the conciliation process either before the lupon chairman or the lupon/pangkat tagapamayapa

Sps. Maria Luisa & Julius Morata vs. Sps. Victor & Flora Go & Judge Tomol Facts: 1. Aug 5, 1982 respondents Go filed in the defunct CFI of Cebu presided by Judge Tomol a complaint against petitioners Morata for recovery of a sum of money plus damages amounting to Php 49,400 2. All parties are residents of Cebu w/c made petitioner file a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to comply w/ KPL & that no conciliation or settlement had been reached by the parties 3. Judge Tomol ordered denying the motion on the ground that KPL is only applicable to cases to be tried by the inferior courts 4.