WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT:

     Where there is wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant may recover actual damages even without proof that the attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in obtaining the attachment. However, if it is alleged and established that the attachment was not merely wrongful but also malicious, the attachment defendant may recover moral damages and exemplary damages as well. Either way, the wrongfulness of the attachment does not warrant the automatic award of damages to the attachment defendant; the latter must first discharge the burden of proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason of the wrongful attachment.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

     The Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its rules in order to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The rules can be suspended on the following grounds: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (3) the merits of the case, (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

PARTITION:

     Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

EJECTMENT:

     An ejectment case is designed to restore, through summary proceedings, the physical possession of any land or building to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.  Any ruling on the question of ownership is only provisional and made for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto. Certainly, a judgment in an ejectment case could only resolve the question as to who has a better right to possess the subject property but definitely, it could not conclusively determine whether petitioners are entitled to the award under the ZIP or ascertain if respondents are disqualified beneficiaries.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JURISDICTION OVER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES:

     The Court which grants or issues a provisional remedy is the court which has jurisdiction over the main action. This includes an inferior court which may grant a provisional remedy in an action pending within its jurisdiction. The provisional remedy is applied for and granted by the court which has jurisdiction over the principal action.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

DYING DECLARATION:

          As an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a dying declaration or ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.

          In order for a dying declaration to be held admissible, four requisites must concur: first, the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; second, at the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending death; third, the declarant is competent as a witness; and fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the victim.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OR ESTOPPEL BY LACHES:

       In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (131 Phil. 556 (1968), the party-litigant actively participated in the proceedings before the lower court and filed pleadings therein. Only 15 years thereafter, and after receiving an adverse Decision on the merits from the appellate court, did the party-litigant question the lower court’s jurisdiction. Considering the unique facts in that case, the Supreme Court held that estoppel by laches had already precluded the party-litigant from raising the question of lack of jurisdiction on appeal. In Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, 14 July 2008, 558 SCRA 63, the Supreme Court cautioned that Tijam must be construed as an exception to the general rule and applied only in the most exceptional cases whose factual milieu is similar to that in the latter case.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST:

     Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

DENIALS:

     Denial is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. Like alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who, as in this case, were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against petitioner.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

SWEETHEART DEFENSE:

     The sweetheart defense is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court. Being an affirmative defense, the invocation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof.  In this case, apart from his self-serving assertions, Cabanilla offered no sufficient and convincing evidence to substantiate his claim that they were lovers.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

INTERPLEADER:

Interpleader is a remedy whereby a person, who has property in his possession or an obligation to perform, either wholly or partially, but who claims no interest in the subject, or whose interest, in whole or in part, is not disputed by others, goes to court and asks that conflicting claimants to the property or obligation be reduced to litigate themselves in order to determine finally who’s entitled to the same.

      Otherwise stated, a person against whom conflicting claims are asserted by several claimants over the same subject matter, but who claims no interest whatever therein, may bring an action for interpleader against the several claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. (Section 1, Rule 62)

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

PROBATE PROCEEDING:

     The authority of the probate court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. Thus, petitioner’s claim of title to the properties forming part of her husband’s estate should be settled in an ordinary action before the regular courts.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES: THE FOLLOWING ARE THE WELL-RECOGNIZED INSTANCES WHERE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ARE ALLOWED EVEN WITHOUT A VALID WARRANT:

     (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest: (2) [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; (3) Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and Frisk; (7) Exigent and emergency circumstances; (8) Search of vessels and aircraft; [and] (9) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations. x x x x In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured (VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, [2009]).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

GUARDIANSHIP:

     A guardianship is a trust relation of the most sacred character, in which one person, called a "guardian" acts for another called the "ward" whom the law regards as incapable of managing his own affairs. A guardianship is designed to further the ward’s well-being, not that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward’s property, as well as to render any assistance that the ward may personally require. It has been stated that while custody involves immediate care and control, guardianship indicates not only those responsibilities, but those of one in loco parentis as well. In a guardianship proceeding, a court may appoint a qualified guardian if the prospective ward is proven to be a minor or an incompetent. A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us that persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes, are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. (Oropesa vs. Oropesa [2012]).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

PERSONAL ACTION AND REAL ACTIONS:

     In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of damages. Real actions, on the other hand, are those affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein (MARCOS-ARANETA VS. CA [2008]).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl