You are on page 1of 63

ATTY. SALVADOR N.

MOYA II
BSC, LL.B., LL.M.
Managing Partner, Moya Ablola Ebarle Law Firm
Lifetime Member, IBP, Bulacan Chapter
Member, Board of Directors, Philippine Trial Lawyers, Inc.
Member, Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution Inc.
Advance, Pre-Bar and Mock Bar Examiner in Remedial Law, UP Law Center
Pre-Bar Reviewer in Chair’s Cases (Criminal Law), Legal EDGE Review Center
Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law, Powerhaus Review Center
Special Lecturer in Remedial Law, Villasis Law Center
Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law, Recoletos Law Center
MCLE Lecturer on Trial Advocacy
Author, The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases
Bar Notes and Cases in Criminal Law
The Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases in Relation to
The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
Bar Notes and Cases in Remedial Law
The Revised Rules of Evidence, Notes and Cases
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure As Amended, Notes and Cases (Vol. 1)
Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions, Notes and Cases (Vol. 2)
The Rules of Special Proceedings, Notes and Cases
Cross-Examination as a Science and Not an Art (The Contrarian System)
Professor, Tarlac State University College of Law, in Remedial Law Review, Evidence,
Criminal Procedure, Election Law, Environmental Law, and Conflict of Laws
Professor, New Era University, College of Law, in Civil Procedure,
Criminal Procedure and Remedial Law Review
Professor, San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Institute of Law, in Criminal Law Review
and Remedial Law Review
Professor, University of the East, College of Law, in Remedial Law Review
Professor, Bulacan State University, College of Law, in Remedial Law Review and Criminal Procedure
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 19)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. WHAT IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE RTCS IN CIVIL ACTIONS INVOLVING


TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY OR ANY INTEREST
THEREIN?

A. BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT BY SECTION 1 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.


7691 (AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "JUDICIARY
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980”), SECTION 19 OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.
129 NOW PROVIDES THAT:
SECTION 19. JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES.— REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS SHALL EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
X-X-X

(2) IN ALL CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVE THE TITLE TO, OR


POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN, WHERE THE
ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED EXCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (₱20,000.00) OR, FOR CIVIL ACTIONS IN METRO MANILA, WHERE
SUCH VALUE EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱50,000.00) EXCEPT
ACTIONS FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY INTO AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER OF LANDS
OR BUILDINGS, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER WHICH IS CONFERRED UPON
THEMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS; (Penta Pacific Realty Corporation vs. Ley
Construction and Development Corporation, 741 SCRA 426, 24 November 2014.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (pp. 19-20)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. WHAT MTCS
IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE IN CIVIL ACTIONS
INVOLVING TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY
OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN?

A. SECTION 3 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691 SIMILARLY REVISED


SECTION 33 OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 (THE PROVISION
DEFINING THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC OVER CIVIL
ACTIONS) TO MAKE THE LATTER PROVISION STATE,
PERTINENTLY, THUS:
(Penta Pacific Realty Corporation vs. Ley Construction and
Development Corporation, 741 SCRA 426, 24 November 2014.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 20)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.
Q. WHAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION IN CASE THE ISSUE IS POSSESSION OR OWNERSHIP OF
REAL PROPERTY?

A. THE AMENDMENTS HAVE MADE THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHOSE
POSSESSION OR OWNERSHIP IS IN ISSUE, OR THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE ADJACENT LOTS
IF THE DISPUTED LAND IS NOT DECLARED FOR TAXATION PURPOSES DETERMINATIVE OF
JURISDICTION. THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE REALTY MUST BE FOUND
IN THE COMPLAINT, IF THE ACTION (OTHER THAN FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL DETAINER)
INVOLVES TITLE TO OR POSSESSION OF THE REALTY, INCLUDING QUIETING OF TITLE OF THE
REALTY. IF THE ASSESSED VALUE IS NOT FOUND IN THE COMPLAINT, THE ACTION SHOULD BE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT THEREBY
AFFORDED THE MEANS OF DETERMINING FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BASIC PLEADING
WHETHER JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION PERTAINS TO IT OR TO
ANOTHER COURT. COURTS CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ASSESSED OR MARKET
VALUE OF THE REALTY. (Penta Pacific Realty Corporation vs. Ley Construction and Development Corporation,
741 SCRA 426, 24 November 2014.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 21)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.
Q. WHAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN CIVIL CASES?
A. THE SETTLED RULE IS THAT THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AS APPEARING FROM THE
AVERMENTS IN THE COMPLAINT OR OTHER INITIATORY PLEADING DETERMINES THE
JURISDICTION OF A COURT; HENCE, SUCH AVERMENTS AND THE CHARACTER OF THE
RELIEF SOUGHT ARE TO BE CONSULTED. THE COURT MUST INTERPRET AND APPLY
THE LAW ON JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO THE AVERMENTS OF ULTIMATE FACTS IN
THE COMPLAINT OR OTHER INITIATORY PLEADING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT
THE PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER UPON ALL OR SOME OF THE
CLAIMS ASSERTED THEREIN. THE RELIEFS TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER
IS ENTITLED BASED ON THE FACTS AVERRED, ALTHOUGH NOT THE RELIEFS
DEMANDED, DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE ACTION. THE DEFENSE CONTAINED IN
THE ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT IS GENERALLY NOT DETERMINANT. (Penta Pacific
Realty Corporation vs. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, supra; SEE ALSO JUSAYAN VS.
SOMBILLA, 746 SCRA, 21 JANUARY 2015.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 79)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. EXPLAIN LACK OF JURISDICTION AS A GROUND FOR ANNULMENT OF


JUDGMENT.

A. LACK OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT IN


RENDERING THE JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER IS EITHER LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OR NATURE OF THE
ACTION, OR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
PETITIONER. THE FORMER IS A MATTER OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW
BECAUSE STATUTORY LAW DEFINES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OR NATURE OF THE ACTION. THE LATTER
IS A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL LAW, FOR IT INVOLVES THE SERVICE OF
SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCESS ON THE PETITIONER.
A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OR NATURE OF
THE ACTION IS ALWAYS VOID, AND, IN THE WORDS OF JUSTICE
STREET IN BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO V. PALANCA, "IN THIS SENSE IT
MAY BE SAID TO BE A LAWLESS THING, WHICH CAN BE TREATED AS
AN OUTLAW AND SLAIN AT SIGHT, OR IGNORED WHEREVER AND
WHENEVER IT EXHIBITS ITS HEAD.” BUT THE DEFECT OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON, BEING A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL
LAW, MAY BE WAIVED BY THE PARTY CONCERNED EITHER EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY. (Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, Inc. vs. Far East
Bank & trust Company, now Bank of the Philippine Islands, 714 SCRA 226, 20 January
2014.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 154)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. WHEN DO YOU CONSIDER THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS


SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION? EXPLAIN.

A. IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION IF:


(A) THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CIRCUMSTANCE;

(B) THE FACTS FROM WHICH THE INFERENCES WERE DERIVED HAVE
BEEN ESTABLISHED; AND

(C) THE COMBINATION OF ALL CIRCUMSTANCES IS SUCH AS TO


WARRANT A FINDING OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
(PEOPLE VS. VILLAFLORES, 669 SCRA 365, 11 APRIL 2012; PEOPLE VS. BELGAR, 734 SCRA
347, 08 SEPTEMBER 2014; PEOPLE VS. LUPAC, 681 SCRA 390, 19 SEPTEMBER 2012.)
ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EACH
OTHER, CONSISTENT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE
ACCUSED IS GUILTY AND AT THE SAME TIME INCONSISTENT
WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT HE IS INNOCENT, AND WITH
EVERY OTHER RATIONAL HYPOTHESIS EXCEPT THAT OF
GUILT. IN OTHER WORDS, A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE SUSTAINED
WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES PROVED FORM AN UNBROKEN
CHAIN THAT RESULTS IN A FAIR AND REASONABLE
CONCLUSION POINTING TO THE ACCUSED, TO THE EXCLUSION
OF ALL OTHERS, AS THE PERPETRATOR. (People vs. Nuyok, 757
SCRA 480, 15 June 2015 [A Rape Case].)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (pp. 120-121)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. WHEN IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT AND WHEN IS IT A


MATTER OF DISCRETION?

A. ALL CRIMINAL CASES WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, OR MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT ARE BAILABLE AS MATTER OF RIGHT BECAUSE
THESE COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO TRY CAPITAL
OFFENSES, OR OFFENSES PUNISHABLE WITH RECLUSION
PERPETUA OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
LIKEWISE, BAIL IS A MATTER OF RIGHT PRIOR TO CONVICTION BY THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) FOR ANY OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY
DEATH, RECLUSION PERPETUA, OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT, OR EVEN PRIOR
TO CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH, RECLUSION
PERPETUA, OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS NOT
STRONG.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GRANTING OF BAIL IS DISCRETIONARY:

(1) UPON CONVICTION BY THE RTC OF AN OFFENSE NOT


PUNISHABLE BY DEATH, RECLUSION PERPETUA OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT; OR

(2) IF THE RTC HAS IMPOSED A PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT


EXCEEDING SIX YEARS, PROVIDED NONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ENUMERATED UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 OF SECTION 5, RULE 114 IS PRESENT,
AS FOLLOWS:
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (pp. 12-13)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. Explain the doctrine of Adherence to Hierarchy of Courts.


A. The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of
courts, and affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious
consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the
Court from having to deal with causes that are also well within the
competence of the lower courts, and thus leave time to the Court to
deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the
Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for
the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important
reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy. (Banez vs. Concepcion,
679 SCRA 237, 29 August 2012; Dacudao vs. Gonzales, 688 SCRA 109, 8 January 2013.)
This was why the Court stressed in Vergara, Sr. v. Suelto (156 SCRA 753,
21 December 1987): x-x-x The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and
must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it
by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should
not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance.
Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs should be
exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important
reasons exist therefor. Hence, that jurisdiction should generally be
exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or
before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for
some reason or another are not controllable by the Court of Appeals.
Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence
of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these
courts that the specific action for the writ’s procurement must be
presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a
policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 20, Last Minute)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. WHAT IS THE “HARMLESS ERROR” RULE?

A. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT TO


POINT OUT ERRORS TO THE APPELLATE COURT, FOR THERE
MUST BE A PERSUASIVE DEMONSTRATION THAT THE ERRORS
WERE REVERSIBLE. AN ERROR IS CONSIDERED REVERSIBLE
ONLY IF IT IS SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS OR GRAVE THAT THE
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE PREJUDICED.
THUS, RULE 51, RULES OF COURT, PROVIDES:
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (pp. 28-29)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. VS. SPS. YUJUICO


(763 SCRA 486, 22 JULY 2015)
ACTION TO RECOVER THE DEFICIENCY AFTER
EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF A REAL PROPERTY
MORTGAGED IS A PERSONAL ACTION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
AFFECT TITLE TO OR POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY
INTEREST THEREIN.

THE EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE WAS DONE IN THE RTC


OF MANILA. THE DEFICIENCY CLAIM WAS FILED IN MAKATI RTC.
REMEDIAL LAW PRINCIPLES:

Q. DISTINGUISH REAL FROM PERSONAL ACTIONS.

A. ACCORDING TO SECTION 1, RULE 4 OF THE RULES OF


COURT, A REAL ACTION IS ONE THAT AFFECTS TITLE TO OR
POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY, OR AN INTEREST
THEREIN. THE REAL ACTION IS TO BE COMMENCED AND
TRIED IN THE PROPER COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER
THE AREA WHEREIN THE REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED, OR A
PORTION THEREOF, IS SITUATED, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY
THE ACTION IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS A LOCAL ACTION.
Q. Is the case of deficiency claim after the
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of a real property
still a real action?

A. No. An action to recover the deficiency after the


extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property
mortgage is a personal action, for it does not
affect title to or possession of real property, or any
interest therein.
Q.
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (pp. 26-27)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. Who is real party in interest?


A. A real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or one who is entitled to
the avails of the suit. Accordingly, a person, to be a real party
in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted,
should appear to be the present real owner of the right
sought to be enforced, that is, his interest must be a present
substantial interest, not a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. (Stronghold
Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Cuenca, 692 SCRA 473, 6 March 2013.)
Q. What are the purposes of the requirement for the real
party in interest prosecuting or defending an action at
law?

A. The purposes of the requirement are as follows:


(a) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any
right, title or interest in the case;

(b) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one
to prosecute the action;

(c) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and

(d) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds,


pursuant to sound public policy.
Indeed, considering that all civil actions must be based
on a cause of action, defined as the act or omission by
which a party violates the right of another, the former as
the defendant must be allowed to insist upon being
opposed by the real party in interest so that he is
protected from further suits regarding the same
claim. Under this rationale, the requirement benefits the
defendant because "the defendant can insist upon a
plaintiff who will afford him a setup providing good res
judicata protection if the struggle is carried through on
the merits to the end.“ (STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
VS. CUENCA, SUPRA.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 26)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. What is Splitting a Single Cause of Action? Explain.

A. Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing


a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts
or claims and instituting two or more actions upon
them. A single cause of action or entire claim or
demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be
made the subject of two or more different actions. (Chu
vs. Cunanan, 657 SCRA 379, 12 September 2011.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 40)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. What are the exceptions if, for justifiable reasons, the


defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable
time?
A. The service of the summons may then be effected either (a) by
leaving a copy of the summons at his residence with some person
of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by
leaving the copy at his office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof. The latter mode of
service is known as substituted service because the service
of the summons on the defendant is made through his
substitute. (Macasaet vs. Co, Jr., 697 SCRA 187, 5 June 2013.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 93)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. What is the remedy of the party after an adverse decision of


the NLRC?

A. The ruling in National Federation of Labor v.


Laguesma reiterates St. Martin’s Funeral Home v. National Labor
Relations Commission (295 SCRA 494, 16 September 1998)
where the Court has pronounced that the special civil action
of certiorari is the appropriate remedy from the decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in view of
the lack of any appellate remedy provided by the Labor
Code to a party aggrieved by the decision of the NLRC.
Accordingly, any decision, resolution or ruling of
the DOLE Secretary from which the Labor
Code affords no remedy to the aggrieved party
may be reviewed through a petition
for certiorari initiated only in the CA in deference
to the principle of the hierarchy of courts. (Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company vs. Lepanto Capataz
Union, 691 SCRA 11, 18 February 2013.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 60)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

NURSERY CARE CORP. VS. ACEVEDO


(731 SCRA 280, 30 July 2014)

REMEDIAL LAW PRINCIPLES:

Q. What are the three (3) modes of appeal from the


decision of the RTC?
A. The Rules of Court provides three modes of appeal from the
decisions and final orders of the RTC, namely:
(1) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error under Rule 41,
where the decisions and final orders were rendered in civil or
criminal actions by the RTC in the exercise of original
jurisdiction;
(2) petition for review under Rule 42, where the decisions and
final orders were rendered by the RTC in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction; and

(3) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under


Rule 45.
The first mode of appeal is taken to the CA on questions of fact, or
mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal is
brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of
fact and law. The third mode of appeal is elevated to the Supreme
Court only on questions of law.
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 103)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. How can the defendant in ejectment suit stay its


immediate execution? Explain.

A. As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an


ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to
prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of
possession of the property in question. To stay the
immediate execution of the said judgment while the
appeal is pending the foregoing provision requires
that the following requisites must concur:
(1) the defendant perfects his appeal;
(2) he files a supersedeas bond; and

(3) he periodically deposits the rentals which become


due during the pendency of the appeal.

The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a


ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in
this respect being "ministerial and imperative." Hence, if the defendant-
appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the
immediate execution of the judgment would automatically follow.
Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas bond will not stay the execution
of the judgment if the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the
supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of
the appeal. (Acbang vs. Luczon, Jr., 713 SCRA 346, 15 January 2014.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 139)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. What does the Best Evidence Rule means?

A. The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving


the terms of a written document the original of the
document must be produced in court. The rule
excludes any evidence other than the original writing
to prove the contents thereof, unless the offeror
proves:
(a) the existence or due execution of the
original;

(b) the loss and destruction of the original, or


the reason for its non-production in court;
and

(c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the


offeror to which the unavailability of the
original can be attributed. (Heirs of Margarita
Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina
Clave, 704 SCRA 465, 2 September 2013.)
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (p. 140)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. What does the Best Evidence Rule means?

A. The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving


the terms of a written document the original of the
document must be produced in court. The rule
excludes any evidence other than the original writing
to prove the contents thereof, unless the offeror
proves:
Q. What is the primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule?

A. The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure


that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the
court, considering that (a) the precision in presenting to the court
the exact words of the writing is of more than average importance,
particularly as respects operative or dispositive instruments, such as
deeds, wills and contracts, because a slight variation in words may
mean a great difference in rights; (b) there is a substantial hazard of
inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by handwriting or
typewriting; and (c) as respects oral testimony purporting to give
from memory the terms of a writing, there is a special risk of error,
greater than in the case of attempts at describing other situations
generally.
The rule further acts as an insurance against fraud.
Verily, if a party is in the possession of the best
evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute
inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally
arises that the better evidence is withheld for
fraudulent purposes that its production would expose
and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against misleading
inferences resulting from the intentional or
unintentional introduction of selected portions of a
larger set of writings. (Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of
Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave, supra.)
Q.
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (pp. 143-144)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. What are the requisites of dying


declarations in order to be admitted as
evidence?

A. A dying declaration, although generally


inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay
character, may nonetheless be admitted when the
following requisites concur, namely:
(a) THAT THE DECLARATION MUST CONCERN THE CAUSE AND
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DECLARANT’S
DEATH;

(b) THAT AT THE TIME THE DECLARATION IS MADE, THE


DECLARANT IS UNDER A CONSCIOUSNESS OF AN IMPENDING
DEATH;

(C ) THAT THE DECLARANT IS COMPETENT AS A WITNESS; AND


(D ) THAT THE DECLARATION IS OFFERED IN A CRIMINAL
CASE FOR HOMICIDE, MURDER, OR PARRICIDE, IN WHICH
THE DECLARANT IS A VICTIM.
Q.
Q. What is res gestae? Explain.

A. The term res gestae has been defined as “those


circumstances which are the undesigned
incidents of a particular litigated act and which
are admissible when illustrative of such act.” In a
general way, res gestae refers to the
circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow
out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its
character and are so spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the main fact as to
exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
BAR NOTES AND CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN’S DECISIONS (pp. 114)
BY ATTY. S. N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q. Can a civil action for defamation, fraud and physical


injuries be independently instituted pursuant to
Article 33 of the Civil Code without posing as a
prejudicial question?
A. Yes. It is well settled that a civil action based on
defamation, fraud and physical injuries may be
independently instituted pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil
Code, and does not operate as a prejudicial question
that will justify the suspension of a criminal case.
(Consing, Jr. vs. People, 701 SCRA 122, 15 July 2013.)
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

HOPEFULLY YOU
LEARNED
SOMETHING....
BY

ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II


BSC, LL.B., LL.M.

You might also like