RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THE FRESH PERIOD OF 15 DAYS:

     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 thei 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 (ELENA JANE DUARTE VS. MIGUEL SAMUEL, A.E. DURAN, G.R. NO. 173038, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.).

JURISDICTION: THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH COURT EXERCISES JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS OF PROBATE DEPENDS UPON THE GROSS VALUE OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT.

     Rule 73, Sec. 1 is deemed amended by BP 129, as amended by RA 7691. (Rufina Luy Lim vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124715 , January 24, 2000, BUENA, J.).

ARTICLE 777 OF THE CIVIL CODE DECLARES THAT THE SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS ARE TRANSMITTED FROM THE MOMENT OF DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.

     This status as co-owners, however, does not immediately and necessarily make them stockholders of the corporation. Unless and until there is compliance with Section 63 of the Corporation Code on the manner of transferring shares, the heirs do not become registered stockholders of the corporation. (Reyes vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati, G.R. No. 165744, August 11, 2008, Brion, J.)

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. (Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas vs. Rey Salac, G.R. No. 152642, November 13, 2012, Abad, J.)

VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES:

     Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.  It can neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation.  The right venue must exist as a matter of law. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or province where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took place (PEOPLE VS. ALEJO TAROY, G.R. NO. 192466, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011, ABAD, J.).