Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

Header Ads Widget

ACTIONS

ACTIONS

Accion reivindicatoria –– An action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession; it is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership; the judgment in such a case determines the ownership of the property and awards the possession of the property to the lawful owner. (Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018)

––      Is different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title. (Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018)

Action for reconveyance –– An action for reconveyance and an action for declaration of nullity of the free patent cannot be pursued simultaneously; the former recognizes the certificate of title issued pursuant to the free patent as indefeasible while the latter does not; they may, however, be pursued alternatively pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court on alternative causes of action or defenses. (Mayuga vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      An action for reconveyance involving land that is titled pursuant to a free patent is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner or to one with a better title; as such, two facts must be alleged in the complaint and proved during the trial, namely: (1) the plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed it in the concept of owner; and (2) the defendant illegally divested him of ownership and dispossessed him of the land. (Mayuga vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      Differences among an action for declaration of nullity of free patents and the corresponding certificates of titles issued, an action for reversion and an action for reconveyance, viz.: an ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion; the difference between them lies in the allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified; in an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land; on the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff’s ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant’s fraud or mistake. (Mayuga vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, Jan. 10, 2018)

Action for specific performance –– The crux of the controversy would have been the existence or non-existence of the alleged oral contract from which would flow respondent’s alleged right to compel petitioners to execute deeds of conveyance, the action is a personal action for specific performance. (Specified Contractors & Dev’t., Inc. vs. Pobocan, G.R. No. 212472, Jan. 11, 2018)

Action in personam –– A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam; it is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. (Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018)

––      An action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court; purpose; examples of actions in personam, enumerated. (Frias vs. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, Feb. 28, 2018)

––      An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing; any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard; however, this rule admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit  where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant. (Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018)

––      In actions in personam, such as collection for a sum of money and damages, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. (Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 203298, Jan. 17, 2018)

Action in rem –– Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself; they are binding upon the whole world; the phrase, “against the thing,” to describe in rem actions is a metaphor; only legal or natural persons may be parties even in rem actions; examples of actions in rem: petitions directed against the “thing” itself or the res which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, correction of entries in the birth certificate; or annulment of marriage; nullity of marriage; petition to establish illegitimate filiation; registration of land under the Torrens system; and forfeiture proceeding. (Frias vs. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, Feb. 28, 2018)

––      Rehabilitation proceedings are considered in remin rem actions are against the thing itself and they are binding upon the whole world, unlike in personam actions, which are against a person on the basis of his personal liability; “against the thing” means that the resolution of the case affects the direct or indirect interests of others and assumes that those interests attach to the thing which is the subject matter of the litigation. (Allied Banking Corp. vs. In the Matter of the Petition to Have Steel Corp. of the Phils. Placed Under Corporate Rehabilitation with Prayer for the Approval of the Proposed Rehabilitation Plan, Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 191939, March 14, 2018)

Action quasi in rem –– A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed; in an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property; unlike suits in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only between the parties; examples of actions quasi in rem: suits to quiet title; actions for foreclosure; and attachment proceedings. (Frias vs. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, Feb. 28, 2018)

Action to recover possession of registered land –– An action to recover possession of a registered land never prescribes in view of the provision of Sec. 44 of Act No. 496 to the effect that no title to registered land in derogation of that of a registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession; it follows that a registered owner’s action to recover a real property registered under the Torrens System does not prescribe. (Heirs of Jose Mariano vs. City of Naga, G.R. No. 197743, March 12, 2018)

Cause of action –– A cause  of action “is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another”; for a cause of action to exist, there must be, first, a plaintiff’s legal right; second, defendant’s correlative obligation; and third, an injury to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s violation of plaintiff’s right. (Mla. Electric Co. vs. Nordec Phils., G.R. No. 196020, April 18, 2018)

––      In order for cause of action to arise, the following elements must be present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff. (Mercene vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 192971, Jan. 10, 2018)

Dismissal of –– As good faith is always presumed, in the absence of proof of improper motive on the part of the petitioner, the Court cannot countenance the appellate court’s assumption that petitioner was solely intent on evading the requirements of the LGC in applying for a preliminary injunction; the Court cannot sustain a dismissal of an action on account of an unproven assertion of bad faith. (Racpan vs. Barroga-Haigh, G.R. No. 234499, June 06, 2018)

––      In the event that a complaint is dismissed by the court at the plaintiff’s instance, if a counterclaim has been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s motion for the dismissal, the rule is that the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint; if the defendant desires to prosecute his counterclaim in the same action, he is required to file a manifestation within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion; otherwise, his counterclaim may be prosecuted in a separate action; the passing of the fifteen (15)-day period triggers the finality of the court’s dismissal of the complaint and hence, bars the conduct of further proceedings, i.e., the prosecution of respondent’s counterclaim, in the same action. (Blay vs. BaƱa, G.R. No. 232189, March 07, 2018)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter –– Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action; the nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein; explained. (De Guzman-Fuerte vs. Sps. Estomo, G.R. No. 223399, April 23, 2018)

Moot and academic cases –– Considering the lapse of time since the filing of the petitioners’ Withdrawal of Petition and the lack of action on respondent’s part, it appears that the instant Petition has been rendered moot and academic, and is thus ripe for dismissal. (Castillo vs. Bank of the Phil. Islands, G.R. No. 214053, June 06, 2018)

––      The Court reiterated in King vs. CA, “an issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value”; as a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such actions, or dismiss them on the ground of mootness. (Lu vs. Lu Chiong, G.R. No. 222070, April 16, 2018)

Outright dismissal of the case –– The question of whether the particulars of the arrangement between petitioner and her siblings preponderate to an agricultural leasehold relationship or to a co-ownership should form part of an administrative inquiry, in order to properly address the larger question of whether an agricultural leasehold relationship among co-owners may co-exist in their civil co-ownership; the Court deems the dismissal under review to have been premature; it was held in Ingjug-Tiro v. Casals that a summary or outright dismissal of an action is not proper where there are factual matters in dispute that require presentation and appreciation of evidence. (Sps. Nolasco vs. Rural Bank of Pandi, Inc., G.R. No. 194455, June 27, 2018)

Personal action –– In Chua v. Total Office Products and Services, Inc., this Court ruled that where the action is not intended for the recovery of real property but solely for the annulment of a contract, it is a personal action that may be filed in the court where the plaintiff or the respondent resides; as the Complaint was not concerned with the title to or recovery of the real property, it was a personal action; thus, Davao City, where both the petitioner and the respondent reside is the proper venue for the complaint; the appellate court therefore committed a reversible error in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the case for improper venue. (Racpan vs. Barroga-Haigh, G.R. No. 234499, June 06, 2018)

Personal and real actions –– If the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages, his complaint is a personal action that may be filed in the place of residence of either party; on the other hand, if the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or if the action affects title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, then the complaint is a real action that must be brought before the court where the real property is located. (Racpan vs. Barroga-Haigh, G.R. No. 234499, June 06, 2018)

Recovery of possession –– When parties raised the issue of ownership, the Supreme Court may pass upon the issue of ownership, the same is limited to the determination of who between the parties has a better right to possess the property; this adjudication, however, is not a final and binding determination on the issue of ownership; since the determination of ownership is merely provisional, the same is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property. (Arbilon vs. Manlangit, G.R. No. 197920, Jan. 22, 2018)

Reversion –– Proper when the government officials concerned in the processing and approval of the free patent application erred in granting the free patent over unclassified public forest land which cannot be registered under the torrens system. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Saromo, G.R. No. 189803, March 14, 2018)

Venue –– By weight of jurisprudence, the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint; in turn, the nature of the action determines its proper venue; Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides the rules on the situs for bringing real and personal actions. (Racpan vs. Barroga-Haigh, G.R. No. 234499, June 06, 2018)

Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/case-index/2018/january-2018-june-2018/actions/

Post a Comment

0 Comments