UNLAWFUL DETAINER:

     Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession. Firm is the rule that as long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter. The requirement that the complaint should aver, as jurisdictional facts, when and how entry into the property was made by the defendants applies only when the issue is the timeliness of the filing of the complaint before the MTC, and not when the jurisdiction of the MTC is assailed because the case is one for accion publiciana cognizable by the RTC. This is because, in forcible entry cases, the prescriptive period is counted from the date of defendants’ actual entry into the property; whereas, in unlawful detainer cases, it is counted from the date of the last demand to vacate. Hence, to determine whether the case was filed on time, there is a necessity to ascertain whether the complaint is one for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer; and since the main distinction between the two actions is when and how defendant entered the property, the determinative facts should be alleged in the complaint.

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

HABEAS CORPUS AS A POST-CONVICTION REMEDY:

    As a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;  (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or  (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.

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

PHOTOGRAPHS:

     According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject, which cannot itself be produced, and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence, however, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it must be authenticated or verified first.

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

ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PRESUPPOSES THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTUAL BREACH OF THE INSTRUMENTS INVOLVED OR OF RIGHTS ARISING THEREUNDER:

    An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to which it refers. Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed before the institution of the action.

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

CONFESSIONS TO THE MEDIA:

       The accused’s confessions to the media can be properly admitted. The confessions made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer are admissible. The Supreme Court has held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. Appellant argues, however, that the questions posed to him by the radio broadcaster were vague for the latter did not specify what crime was being referred to when he questioned appellant. But, as the appellate court posited, appellant should have qualified his answer during the interview if indeed there was a need. Besides, he had the opportunity to clarify his answer to the interview during the trial. But, as stated earlier, he opted not to take the witness stand. (People vs. Hipona [2010]).

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

ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS:

     The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.

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

INDISPENSABLE PARTIES:

     WHERE THE EJECTMENT SUIT IS BROUGHT BY A CO-OWNER, WITHOUT REPUDIATING THE CO-OWNERSHIP, THEN THE SUIT IS PRESUMED TO BE FILED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER CO-OWNERS AND MAY PROCEED WITHOUT IMPLEADING THE OTHER CO-OWNERS.  THE OTHER CO-OWNERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE THE CO-OWNER REPUDIATES THE CO-OWNERSHIP BY CLAIMING SOLE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY OR WHERE THE SUIT IS BROUGHT AGAINST A CO-OWNER, HIS CO-OWNERS ARE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES AND MUST BE IMPLEADED AS PARTY-DEFENDANTS, AS THE SUIT AFFECTS THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THESE OTHER CO-OWNERS.

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

STIPULATION ON VENUE:

    The exclusive venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, cannot be made to apply to the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by respondent bank because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of actions, which an extrajudicial foreclosure is not.

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

SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS:

     It is only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be made. Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement should be made in the proof of service. The requisites of a valid substituted service: (1) service of summons within a reasonable time is impossible; (2) the person serving the summons exerted efforts to locate the defendant; (3) the person to whom the summons is served is of sufficient age and discretion; (4) the person to whom the summons is served resides at the defendants place of residence; and (5) pertinent facts showing the enumerated circumstances are stated in the return of service.

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

REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST:

     every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest: A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.

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

VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES AS MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995:

     There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an alternative venue for violations of Section 6 of R.A. 8042 or otherwise known as Migrant workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (allowing the filing of criminal actions at the place of residence of the offended parties) that differs from the venue established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

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

PRE-TRIAL IS MANDATORY IN CHARACTER:

The mandatory character of pre-trial is embodied in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, and found its way in Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which imposes a duty upon the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.  

          To further show that the Court is serious in implementing the rules on pre-trial, in Alviola v. Avelino, A.M. No. MTJ-P-08-1697, February 29, 2008, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of suspension on a judge who merely failed to issue a pre-trial order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference as mandated by Paragraph 8, Title I (A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.  x x x  It is elementary and plain that the holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is inexcusable. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

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

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:

    THE RULE IS THAT QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY PLEADED IN THE INFORMATION IN ORDER NOT TO VIOLATE THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM.

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

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION:

    is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.

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

FRESH PERIOD RULE CAN BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT:

    To standardize the appeal periods and afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Supreme Court ruled in Neypes v. Court of Appeals that litigants must be given a fresh period of 15 days within which to appeal, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Rules of Court.  In Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia, the Supreme Court held that the principle retroactively applies even to cases pending prior to the promulgation of Neypes on September 14, 2005, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure.

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

PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL:

A case is provisionally dismissed if the following requirements concur: (1) the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused, or the accused, moves for a provisional dismissal (sin perjuicio) of his case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for its provisional dismissal; (2) the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; (3) the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; and (4) the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case”

There are sine quanon requirements in the application of the time-bar rule stated in the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117. The time-bar under the foregoing provision is a special procedural limitation qualifying the right of the State to prosecute, making the time-bar an essence of the given right or as an inherent part thereof, so that the lapse of the time-bar operates to extinguish the right of the State to prosecute the accused.

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